One of the pleasures of the Security TWENTY events is to see people, and to see how the events work for people – renewing old contacts and making new ones. People gain from attending ST, but it’s also fair to say that people put themselves out, to make each ST event a success.
It’s always a risk to single out someone – because plenty of people deserve mention – but I want to single out Rick Mounfield, the new (since May) chief executive of the Security Institute, for speaking at short notice (page 41). It turned out for the best because having begun there in May he has had time to get to know the Institute as its chief, rather than as a member, and at ST he spelled out one of the things he wants to achieve. It’s ambitious, actually, because it’s about more than the Institute; it’s for bringing on industry talent, across sectors. To his credit he did air something that has become apparent for a few years; that the number of Chartered Security Professionals (CSyPs), the gold standard for security manager, if you like, has stalled rather, at just over 100. People are still joining the register (see mention page 10), but there is a feeling that the total should be higher, although it’s understandable that others have not raised that concern in public, as it might be seen as talking down private security. But the fact is that the only prospect of making progress on something is if you face up to it.
I want to make a connection between Rick’s talk to ST and the article over the page, on adding value. It strikes me that the big question of our time is not even about the internet, or going digital, world-changing though that is; but it’s the difference between what’s quantifiable, and what’s qualitiative, and not. That number of CSyPs is a quantity; you can count it; you can judge if it’s too few or not. The quality of a security service, or other services, and Britain for some time has been largely an economy of services, is harder to measure. The concern of security managers, that I have heard in different places year apart, is that if they do a good job, and report little crime, is that not a sign that they are doing a cracking job, but there is no need for them?! I come back to my point about the need to face up to things, even if they might not reflect well; that’s the only way towards a solution. Is body worn video (BWV) going to be worth the spend, by police and guard forces?
As Mike Gillespie sets out on page 56, only if BWV is used according to a standard. One of the attractions for me of the work of the Surveillance Camera Commissioner Tony Porter – who always has something on the boil, so he’ll be worth hearing at the last ST event of the year, at Heathrow next month – is that he insists on CCTV showing its value. If you cannot show the point of a camera on a pole, why have it there?! And turn over the page to the photo I took in suburban Worcester last month, of a local government camera on a column, only just poking above some enormous shrubbery – can that camera do its job?! The battle for doing a good job with the right kit is a personal battle, against staleness, as Rick Mounfield said in Glasgow last month. ST events are evolving to keep fresh – Glasgow was a new venue, Dublin was last year. I trust that these pages remain fresh for you.
