Police could offer security training to businessmen
A logical extension to Clairmont Featherstone’s argument in the last paragraph of “Security management must be improved” KN 08/15/2011 should be that security providers who fail to offer appropriate advice and fail to apply updated security guard management practices to ensure maximum coverage should be likened to parasites who prey on their hapless victims – in this instance the vulnerable business person who legitimately expects no less than the one hundred percent (and sometimes more) for which they are paying.
It is indeed heartening to see the several inputs from the various security experts including the likes of Messrs Clairmont Featherstone who – if my memory serves me right, attended my old school, Fountain A.M.E.; Rohan Singh, Head, Presidential Guard; Alan Gates; and columnist Alan Fenty who has done yeoman service with his Crime Watch contributions. It is to be hoped that these interventions receive the highest levels of attention they unquestionably deserve from citizens.
For my part I am often puzzled that some persons who on a daily basis conduct business in sums of millions allow themselves to lapse and consequently suffer tremendous losses at the hands of bandits.
I am sure that as much as I may not be able to add much to what the above named esteemed gentlemen have all contributed to informing citizens’ security, none of them would contradict my argument that what we need is a society that understands the need for situational awareness at all material times. With that thought in mind I wish to suggest that business persons should avail themselves of the opportunity to be trained in the prevention art of surveillance detection. My thinking is that the Guyana Police Force should be equipped with the necessary manpower to facilitate such an undertaking in the same way that it offers sessions in its provisional learner-driver programme.
If this is not possible because of GPF manpower constraints then it is only reasonable that such training should be made available by a suitably qualified individual or consortium.
Editor, we all bemoan the frequent reported losses (and can only speculate on those which are unreported for one reason or another), but it goes without saying that these bandits are becoming emboldened by business persons’ apparent careless use of information, complacency, and a seeming unwillingness to take the necessary steps to protect themselves.
Among the first things anyone who is serious about personal safety and security should do is construct a Personal Security Profile (PSP) which incorporates several factors aimed at identifying both current security measures and the gaps in personal security. The profile is also useful when creating route and building reviews which focus on routine behaviours and activities. The factors which are normally considered in a PSP are: travel from home to work; travel from work to home; routine appointments and social activities; security at the home; security at the workplace; and situational awareness. The first two items assess issues such as departure time; arrival time; method of transportation; available routes; random route variance; routine stops; self-driven etc.; presence of security detail; parking; secure parking area.
Editor, space does not permit me to elaborate on the other elements of the PSP except to say that these are only a few of the very important aspects of our personal security that are doable by all of us if we are to live in a relative degree of comfort and safety.
Briefly I would like to revisit my earlier comments to add that just as how there are remedies available to the client in proven cases of malpractice by medical practitioners or lawyers, I strongly feel that after a review some form of sanction should be imposed upon culpable security service providers who leave much to be desired.
Patrick E. Mentore