Interviews

Mike Lynskey handbook

by Mark Rowe

Mike Lynskey has written and is about to publish a ‘security systems installers manual’, to explain British Standards to installers who need to meet such standards to satisfy tenders – and customers!? Below for starters is an extract from chapter three, on screening and vetting to BS 7858.

First, some background about Mike, pictured: he’s been a locksmith, an alarm engineer; he’s run his own installation company; he’s been a self-employed inspector for the SSAIB inspectorate; and he’s worked for the National Security Inspectorate.

Here, then, is a taster from the chapter on screening and vetting to British Standard 7858.

The whole security industry has been set up to protect and defend the public and their property (at a reasonable cost). Therefore it does seem silly to put that security into the hands of people who themselves are of a disreputable nature or even have criminal records.

Therefore – the security industry should start by securing itself. It does this by screening and vetting all personnel to BS 7858, the accepted standard for screening and vetting in the security industry.

All persons (full time or part time) who have access to systems and records, this also includes sub-contractors not directly employed. Sleeping partners – even if this person lives abroad, has no knowledge of the industry, has no active part of managing the company and all they have done is put up money to get the company going, they still have to be screened. Reasoning – they can always say – “I put the money up, it is therefore my company, I now want to control it”. We now have a security company run by a non-screened person. That person could have a criminal record as long as your arm. It has happened!

Whilst the ex-offender has rights – so has the security company, it has the right to protect itself and its reputation. If an installation company sends an ex-offender into someone’s property to install security, and the customer finds out, then the installing company is quite likely to lose that job, any other jobs that may have come from it and their reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world, if that knowledge goes public.

The bottom line – It doesn’t make one iota of difference what the law says – the PUBLIC DO NOT WANT their security installed by ex-offenders – no matter how much that offender is “going straight”, it is human nature – nothing personal.

It is not the alarm company who will object – it is the alarm company’s customers.

Good screening should show that a person is who they say they are, they live where they say they live, have a good reputation (references), no criminal record, be financially stable and can account for their working history for the last 5 years.

Screening does NOT guarantee that a person is suitable to work in security, it does however filter out a great many that are not acceptable.

Related News

  • Interviews

    BCI resilience report

    by Mark Rowe

    After the covid pandemic, the business continuity and resilience landscape has now reset, the BCI (Business Continuity Institute) suggests in its latest…

  • Interviews

    Spear phishing attack?

    by Mark Rowe

    Is your company fair game for a spear phishing attack? Scott Greaux, Vice President, Product Management and Services at PhishMe, offers some…

Newsletter

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter to stay on top of security news and events.

© 2024 Professional Security Magazine. All rights reserved.

Website by MSEC Marketing