Operation "Forewarn"

Full Member Joined: May 27, 2003 Posts: 23 Location: Leeds

Anybody read this? Copied from the SIA website.

"As the private security industry prepares for the introduction of compulsory Security Industry Authority (SIA) licences for the contracted security guarding sector, twenty-seven security companies - considered by the SIA to be 'high-risk' - were yesterday visited by SIA Investigators (19 January 2006).

'Operation Forewarn' is one of a number of initiatives in a wider SIA operation that will ensure senior employees of private security companies understand their legal obligations under the Private Security Industry Act 2001 (PSIA 2001).

After 20 March 2006, anyone operating as, or supplying, unlicensed contracted security operatives in the designated sectors without an SIA licence commits an offence.

All twenty-seven companies visited by the Investigators are thought to be at risk of not being in a position to be able to supply their customers with enough licensed security staff after the 20 March offence date. Senior employees of the companies were asked to read and sign a compliance notice acknowledging that they understood the terms of the PSIA 2001, their obligations under the Act, and the consequences of not complying with the law."

Why don't they publish this informationm in the wider press? This is the sort of thing they should have been doing when they started and not as a last minute thing, how many of the 27 visited will cease trading before the 20th March now they've been "formally warned"? Why not publish a list of the company names, this would give their clients and staff time to make contingency plans.

I think I'll join the open competition for chairman of the sia when that comes about if the powers that be advertise it in time! Twisted Evil

Regards

Gazz

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:30 pm

Hi Gazz,
Thanks for that. I had not visited their website in a while so this is new news to me.

Personally, I'm suprised it is only 27 companies!! I wonder how those 27 were 'flagged' for attention?
May be they applied for a couple of licences and then gave up?

Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:19 pm

I actually knew of this a while back and found it to be highly amusing.

Why spend the money now 'enforcing' the act rather than have spent it early last year trying to head off the licensing bottle neck.

27 companies ??? ........Ha ha ha.......try adding at least one zero to the end of that number.