I have been working down in the big city in Canary Wharf (no I am not a banker ) recently and at Canary Wharf there are loads of security staff wandering around in pseudo looking Police uniforms complete with bat utility belt .
Now I know CW is a bit of a weird place as apprently its all under a private Landlord so I heard so here are a few questions...
1) Anyone know if they are private security staff or attached to the Police, i.e. some sort of PCSO?
2) They have no SIA ID but Police type numbers on their shoulders. How come they do not show it?
3) They seem to go round enforcing parking, are they allowed to?
4) There is a recent edict from CW management that no smoking with so many metres of office or you will be fine. Can they enforce this?
the cannot use the word FINE anywhere nor can they issue a fine and it is public roads etc , they are not an official body
I know a few black cab drivers that had a run in with them, mate ran over one of the idiots foot when he tried to stop his cab, mate called the police , cant actually say here what the copper told the plastic idiot ( well not on here anyway , somthing like go forth and multiply ) and something about the next time he jumps in front of a car and tries to stop it he will arrested for impersonating a real policeman
This ad relates to a security guard fr a shop, I am pretty sure I know the one in question as well as still boarded up but has Tiffanys plastered all over the outside.
The guards I am talking about are the external ones which 'patrol' the streets around Canary Wharf. They are done up like policeman even down to the caps and chequered log around there security badge, however as I said they do not have any SIA ID anywhere, something I thought they were not allowed to do.
I think they are private and operating above their remit, especially with trying to fine people, etc,
Dx - Am I missing something, I thought all guards, clampers, door staff, etc had to registered with the SIA and display their ID, except plain clothes store security who have to produce when requested. So more than just a trade body.
LordC - That would be thoughts exactly, for the most part they dont hassle anyone but if they did try to 'fine' me for anything I wouldnt take it lieing down.
If their uniform &/or their behaviour can be mistaken (by anyone) as being that of a police officer they are committing a serious offence. If I were you I would complain to a senior police officer, super or above
correct they should have an sia badge showing and there uniforms should not be like police uniform and they cant fine anyone as they have no powers but welcome to great britain where sia where brought in by the goveremnt to charge people to work as a security guard for 3 years as low pay long hours jobs plus a lot of the companies do employ non sia people because they can if they get caught they just get slap on wrist fine and get telled dnt do it again hahahaha
A so called security guard at the Forest Holidays development near Sherwood Pines Centre, near Clipstone in Notts. was reported to police on Friday 18th March 2011 for verbally abusing and assaulting a member of the public who had simply walked past the fenced compound containing materials and plant for the construction of holiday cabins. The man had stopped when requested to do so by the security guards who came out of the compound and followed him when he had gone some 50 - 70 yards past the compound but when asked to say who he was, refused and asked why they were asking and requested to see their id and authority. He was grabbed forcibly by the arm whilst being called offensive names and when he, quite naturally, struggled to free himself without striking the security guards was himself struck in the face by one of them and dragged to the ground whereupon two "guards" (more like thugs) manhandled him in a different direction to where he had been going claiming to be escorting him "off the site". If he had simply been allowed to continue as he had been doing no harm would have been done and there would have been no incident.
They look like police, act like police but do not have policing powers other than those of a private citizen. You should google 'love police' and 'canary wharf' you will see these clowns in action or should we say inaction.
hmm, this is a rarity,a member of the site team getting it wrong? sorry dx100k but youre completely wrong here. The SIA is not a trade body. It is the licensing authority charged by the home office with vetting and licensing all sectors of the security industry.
As foe the displaying of the licences, yes security staff MUST display their licences. 'any person undertaking licensable activities must hold and display a valid SIA licence.'
To not do so is an offence and is in breach of the conditions under which the license was issued and can be punished by withdrawal of the licence, fines, and in extreme cases imprisonment.
The only exceptions to this are the security staff that are not required to be 'immediately identifiable' Ie, plain clothes store detectives, close protection officers.
But even they must carry their licence and have it available for insepction by an authorised person.
Now dont get me worng, Im a dual license holder my self, door supervision and cctv, and I dont particularly like the SIA, buts as shown in the prosecution cases V Sabrewatch and Advance (then securiplan) they are the regulatory body and have the power to prosecute and police the industry. Hope this helps.
that will be the case in most outfits, but there is exceptions. for instance, when I was working in a leading retail supermarket all of the security were 'in house' except for me. I was brought in specifically to make the actual arrests or detentions.
Only reason for that set up is for the the client to be able to claim plausible deniability in the case of it being done wrong. Which it never did with me I hasten to add.
Its a little daft that the SIA have brought in compulsory licensing but left such a huge gaping loophole in the legislation. Not big enough for sabrewatch or securiplan to get through tho lol.
Simple really. Company A brings in company B to provide frontline security. Company A has security staff there but they deal with CCTV, radio comms, etc that sort of stuff. those staff work directly for company A. Company B sends down Joe Bloggs to work with the staff from company A, but has to actually make arrests, detain alleged offenders etc. Joe Bloggs cocks up one day, or it turns out they dont have have the evidence needed to back up their actions.
Company A hangs Joe Bloggs out to dry, whether company A staff had worked with him on that case or not and just say 'Joe Bloggs doesnt work for us he works for Company B there fore any mistake, misconduct, yadda yadda is the responsibilty of comapny B. Company A wouldnt knowingly let this happen, were squeaky clean your honour'