emergency

Global public safety and security market forecast to grow to $537 billion by 2024

In its latest Global Public Safety and Security Market report, NK Wood Research projects the market to grow from $234.57 billion in 2016 to $537.20 billion by 2024. The growth will occur at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.91% between 2016 and 2024. According to the report s findings people and enterprises face continuous threats from cyber criminals, natural disasters, and terrorist attacks, which has boosted demand for public safety and security products and services globally.

Governments are contributing to the growth in demand for these goods and services. The global public safety and security market is segmented by products/solutions, services, verticals, and geographical regions. The solutions market is sub-segmented into critical communication networks, surveillance systems, biometric security, authentication systems, scanning and screening systems, C2/C4isr systems, emergency and disaster management, backup and recovery systems, public address and general alarms, and cyber security. Critical communication networks holds largest market share in the global public safety and security market and is expected to continue to be the biggest market over the forecast period. However the emergency and disaster management market is anticipated to grow at the fastest CAGR to 2024. The report splits the market regionally into North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, and rest of world (ROW). North America was the highest revenue-generating region in 2016, due to spending on defence, compared with other countries. The report anticipates that the riot control equipment market will grow in the US, following the rise in the number of cases of violent related crimes in North America, especially US. This is partly due to availability of guns and rise in violence among street gangs.

Asia Pacific is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. Japan has been the site of some of the worst natural disasters of the 21st century, a phenomenon that has led to the growth of the public safety and security market in the region. Free Download: The key to mitigating cybersecurity risks Exploiting IoT technology without creating cybersecurity vulnerabilities is one of the defining challenges in today s security landscape.

This report will help you to see why third parties should adhere to secure by design principles and why the necessary convergence of IT and security departments demands a holistic approach .

Download now

Security Guard Companies in London

Our team have supplied security guards in London to the Science Museum, Premier Inn, Selfridges, Audi, Wandsworth Council, the Chinese Embassy, Harpo Productions (Oprah Winfrey’s) production company and many other leading organisations. Call us now on 0844 499 0607

We supply security guards, guard dogs, mobile patrols and close protection (body guards) for your business or residence.

We have security guards in London who can speak several languages, some are ex forces, and many of them are unarmed combat specialists. This means we can offer you a bespoke service to fit your specific needs.

Ensuring the staff we supply you are actually fit for purpose and can effectively deal with any situation, you, your family or staff are facing.

You may need one security professional for an overnight emergency or you could need a team to secure your entire family on a round the clock basis.

Emergency cover is a speciality of ours; we can get a security professional to your site in a couple of hours.

No matter what your need is for security guards in London we can help you. Even if you think you have an unusual request please don’t hesitate to contact us, it may sound strange to you but with our over 30 years of security experience, we will more than likely have come across your type of situation before.

Raymond offers a complete package. After an initial telephone conversation I received a prompt visit to discuss my company’s requirements and business standards. A four-week cover turned into 12 months mainly due to his ability to supply trained smart and committed staff. As a security manager I was impressed with security guards in London supplier that kept in regular contact with me and continually strived to fine-tune its service. Darren Heath Debenhams Security Manager Dear Raymond Just a note to thank you for expediting our requirements for guards this past month. All my managers reported an entirely satisfactory service from your security guards who performed during a period of high business pressure. Dave Willock, Austin Reed, Group Security Manager. Raymond’s company covered our Purley store during a period of sustained threat; their service was very reassuring and proficient, from their security guard on site, even to the area manager’s liaison with us. I would be more than happy to use them again should the need arise. Lorraine Minler, Laura Ashley. Dear Raymond, thank you for your excellent service, we really appreciate your professionalism and hands on customer service. Not only did you supply brilliant security staff but your area manager visiting our store manager to brief him on how to use your services was outstanding.
On the very first day of using your company your security staff put a stop to the ongoing mass shoplifting, which was plaguing our Portobello Road store for a number of weeks. Thanks again for taking charge of what was a potentially volatile situation in an outstanding manner. Lisa Moore, Pe Pe Jeans London We had to call Raymond at very short notice to get security over to our Knightsbridge Store.

He had security cover in place for us in one and a half hours; they sure are quick and efficient and helped us out when we really needed help.
Thanks Raymond! Claire Greenwood, UGG Australia Hello Raymond, I want to express my gratitude for the emergency security cover that you recently supplied to us. Not having a pre-existing relationship did worry me somewhat however I need not have concerned myself because you provided an excellent service.
Please pass on my thanks to your security guards who were all very professional.
I will recommend your business without hesitation.
Kind Regards Kenneth Clinton – Manager, Croydon Showroom, Oakland Furniture We had just arrived back from holiday and noticed that our home had been burgled. To make matters even worse I was leaving that evening for a business trip where I was going to be away from home for several nights.
So after doing an internet search for professional security guards in London. I called every company on the search engines 1st page, to my astonishment I could only get through to one company, Centurion Guards. They not only answered their phone swiftly but they ensured I had security in place to protect my wife and kids within a couple of hours.
If you are in need of a professional, customer focused easily contactable security supplier? You need not look any further than Centurion Guards. Frank van den Bosch London, England

Case Study:

We were having regular problems on our large private estate in London, anti social behaviour, small groups of youngsters playing loud music from their cars often whilst taking class B drugs at ungodly hours, a few break ins of our gardeners sheds etc. We didn’t want to create a Fort Knox type of environment, especially as some of our residents were very unhappy at the mere mention of security overseeing our estate.

After contacting several professional looking companies, the committee chose a security guards in London supplier with a great emphasis on pricing. The company we chose seemed professional as well as giving us a very “competitive” price.

My favourite company was more expensive, but I had a gut feeling they were the company we needed, especially after reading their customer testimonials and a bit about the founder of the company. But hey ho such is life; we don’t always get what we want.

However the proof of the pudding was in the eating….

The “competitively priced” company proved to be difficult to get hold of and were generally unprofessional when I did get hold of them. They never did a site visit and I soon began to realise that they were not going to be the ones for us. I then contacted Raymond Mason from the company I originally preferred. He came down at very short notice, and after being shown around our sprawling estate we agreed to go forward with him.

What a revelation, a few key residents have his number in case incidents happen, but we rarely have to contact him as his security team normally spot things and deal with them with no drama and no fuss, before residents are aware of them. When we do have to call them, they are at the scene in literally a minute or two and deal with the situation in a calm and professional manner.

If you need professional honest security in place that are easy to do business with you need not look any further than Raymond Mason and his excellent team at Centurion Guards.

Barbara
Estate Committee Manager

The average security company ensures their staff have a valid SIA (Security industry Authority) licence and then they vet them and send them out on site. We start with the SIA licence, but also make sure they have a bare minimum of 1 year’s security experience and do some form of regular unarmed combat or gym type of classes. There’s no point in us providing security staff that can’t even protect their own wallets.

If you need professional security guards in London call us Centurion Guards now on 0844 499 0607.

The growing menace of cyber-attacks targeting critical national infrastructure

infographic The number of cyber-attacks targeting critical infrastructure grew by 20% between 2014 (245 incidents) and 2015 (295 incidents), according to a 2015 report by the Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT). The infographic below, which was designed by Norwich University s online Master of Science in Information Security & Assurance degree programme, provides some insights into the growing problem. It explores how attacks breach computer networks in the energy sector, transport and other critical infrastructure, as well as the economic impact and efforts to mitigate risk.

Free Download: Securing the UK s borders. Getting national security and Brexit right first time is crucial , we do not want to get this wrong. This report considers the implications of leaving the EU for the management of the UK s borders and making it as easy as possible for international business to thrive and legitimate movement to occur in a post-Brexit UK.

Click here to download now

Fire-door safety campaigners renew calls for public register of responsible persons

Fire news The organisations behind Fire Door Safety Week have again called for a publicly available national register of responsible persons for fire safety in rented accommodation. The British Woodworking Federation (BWF), BWF-Certifire and the Fire Door Inspection Scheme also called for such a register, which would require individuals with legal responsibility for a building s fire safety to be registered on a national database, in October 2016. Their name and contact details would be prominently displayed in the building so tenants had a point of contact for reporting any concerns or problems.

The organisations also want the responsible person to sign a formal acknowledgement of duty of care and meet a mandatory minimum level of competence. The notion of a responsible person was introduced by the Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order (2005). Defined as the person with ultimate responsibility for fire safety in a specific building, the responsible person, the act stated, should be the the employer, occupier or owner of the building. The responsible person must: Ensure that a fire safety risk assessment is carried out and reviewed regularly Identify and record fire hazards Identify and record people at risk Evaluate, remove or mitigate fire safety risks Prepare an emergency plan and provide training Regularly review and update the fire risk assessment Mystery identity However, the organisers of Fire Door Safety Week believe that the effectiveness of the responsible person framework is compromised by the fact that their identity is often not clear to the building occupants. When we start digging, the identity of the responsible person is often a mystery, says Hannah Mansell, spokesperson for Fire Door Safety Week. It can become very complex trying to identify who it is, especially in organisations that own or manage vast housing stock. Although the Fire Safety Order took effect over 10 years ago, our research shows that tenants don t know who to report fire safety concerns to. Even worse, when we surveyed those who are responsible for fire safety, half of them didn t even know or were unclear about their role. Mansell, who is also BWF technical manager, chair of the Passive Fire Protection Forum and a trustee of the Children s Burns Trust, continues: Under the Fire Safety Order, Responsible Persons have to ensure that a regular fire risk assessment (FRA) is carried out by a competent person and is documented.

By identifying the responsible person and providing their contact details, occupants become empowered to report any concerns they have about the fire doors in their buildings. Hannah Mansell, technical manager, BWF The FRA should examine all aspects of fire safety management, including active and passive fire protection measures, signage, means of escape and the specific fire plan procedures. Their responsibilities also include acting on improvement advice and creating the emergency fire plan for the building, the key to this is arming the occupants with the knowledge of what to do in an emergency. Where in-depth and expert knowledge is lacking, the responsible person has a duty to engage someone with the relevant expertise to be able to implement or advise on key areas. There needs to be crystal clarity about the Responsible Person and a total transformation of attitude towards fire safety of tenants in rented accommodation. By identifying the responsible person and providing their contact details, occupants become empowered to report any concerns they have about the fire doors in their buildings. This would also ensure that those responsible for keeping tenants safe from fire know their duty and are made aware of issues directly. The call for a register of responsible persons was first made following the inquest into the death of Sophie Rosser, 23, who died in 2012 following a fire in her block of flats in London. At her inquest, the coroner was unable to pin the blame on any specific person or organisation.

Research commissioned by Fire Door Safety Week last year suggested that the poorest in society are by far at the greatest risk of fire. The recent fire at Grenfell Tower has certainly vindicated this. Fire Door Safety Week will run from 25 September to 1 October. Now in its fifth year, it aims to raise awareness about the role of third-party certificated fire doors in preventing life changing injuries and the legal responsibilities of managing fire door safety. It will focus on promoting awareness of the critical role of fire doors in high rise buildings, houses of multiple occupancy and other types of shared accommodation. The campaign will be giving advice, hosting events and sharing useful resources. It will also be signposting tenants as to where they should be reporting their fire safety concerns.

The campaign has received backing from fire and rescue services, housing associations, charities, BWF members, fire safety professionals and a wide range of other organisations.

Grenfell fallout: The 10 questions that need answers

Grenfell fallout The Grenfell fire has vindicated many in the fire industry s worst fears about several longstanding problems. Not only that, a drip-drip of revelations is revealing a litany of other shortcomings of the council, firefighting equipment and the government s response, among others that have shocked even fire industry insiders. Here are 10 of the most pressing questions that need satisfactory answers if councils, the government, the construction industry and the fire sector can together prevent similar tragedies happening again.

1. Why is the testing of cladding limited to one type of cladding when several other varieties could be combustible too? More than 200 cladding samples taken from high-rise tower blocks in 54 local authorities since the Grenfell tragedy have failed tests, according to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).

However, testing has been limited to aluminium composite material panels those implicated in the Grenfell fire despite the fact that other varieties of cladding may be similarly combustible. Non-ACM cladding systems CEP and Carea are not made of aluminium, but have a near identical construction to the Reynobond ACM panels used on Grenfell Tower. Niall Rowan, COO of the Association for Specialist Fire Protection, told The Independent: If you put this cladding through government testing, it would fail, I would put money on it. They are different materials to the Reynobond but they would all have a similar reaction to fire under the fire test. The government s testing scheme has used a combustibility grade of A2 or higher, requiring that material must at most be of limited combustibility . And yet, noted Rowan, Approved Document B does not require cladding meet this standard. Instead, a lower threshold is set out: class 0 (Euroclass B). These products are all Euroclass B (also known as Class 0), they are not looking to be limited combustibility, and you re going to find them all over the place, on lots of buildings, said Rowan. The Government s gone chasing after cladding and missing the bigger picture they are saying: We want limited combustibility, but the construction industry has been reading building regulations as Euroclass B for years.

This is why we have been pushing for a review of the building regulations for years and why many in the fire sector are very 2. Why was there an apparent deficiency in firefighting equipment? While initial analysis in the wake of the fire focused on cladding, firefighting equipment has come under the spotlight in recent days. A BBC Newsnight investigation uncovered multiple deficiencies, including that a high ladder did not arrive for more than 30 minutes. Also known as an aerial , the ladder would have given firegighters a better chance of extinguishing the blaze had it arrived earlier, a fire expert told the BBC. Low water pressure was also said to hamper efforts to quell the flames, while firefighters reported radio problems. Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, said: I have spoken to aerial appliance operators in London who attended that incident, who think that having that on the first attendance might have made a difference, because it allows you to operate a very powerful water tower from outside the building onto the building. Are cuts to the fire service to blame for the deficiencies in firefighting equipment? Or was it organisational and procedural?

Perhaps the UK s comparatively and deceptively strong fire safety record had simply bred complacency in making sure enough equipment is available. Find out more on the BBC.

3. Is the privatisation of fire-safety research a problem? Stephen Mackenzie, a fire risk consultant who has spoken out on the Grenfell fire regularly in the media, appears to think so. We ve increasingly seen over the past decades, our fire research provision within the UK, which is internationally renowned, becoming increasingly privatised, he told IFSEC Global during a recent interview. Whether it s a research establishment which is now a charitable trust, whether it s a fire service college which is now under the major government support contracts, or the emergency planning college which is under another support service provider 4. Should COBRA have been convened in the wake of the fire as it is following terror attacks? Mackenzie also believes the UK s worst-ever tower block fire warranted the most serious government response. I think we ve seen a comparison between the Grenfell fire and Finsbury Park terrorist attack, he notes.

Immediately following the Finsbury Park attack, Theresa May convened COBRA. That should have been the case on Thursday the day after the fire, or the latter hours of Wednesday. Convene COBRA, get emergency personnel leads in, coordinate with local authority responders, and have a better response and management of media, and to the families and residents concerns. I feel it could have been sharper, more effective, and then the central government may not have received some of the criticism it has. He adds that there are a number of professional bodies in the UK that can facilitate the transition from the emergency services response into the softer response by local authorities and the government. So it might be another line of enquiry for the coroner report, and also the public inquiry.

5. Why do inquiries take so long in England compared to Scotland? The 2009 fire in Lakanal House, southeast London, that caused the deaths of six people has been oft-cited since the Grenfell fire. The inquiry that followed took four years, much to the anguish of grieving relatives. But even if the lengthy process was justified on the grounds of thoroughness and that is debatable the inaction on so many of its recommendations undermined the whole exercise anyway. The swift conclusion to an inquiry into Scotland s very own tower block tragedy the 1999 fire at Charnock Court certainly shows that such inquiries need not drag on interminably.

That Holyrood seemingly took more decisive action than their English counterparts certainly buttresses this point. Stephen Mackenzie points to the conclusions of the 2000 report into Charnock Court inquiry. While this inquiry did not suggest that the majority of external cladding systems in the UK currently in use pose a serious threat to life safety or property in event of fire, they did go on to add, we do not believe it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the fire risk. They then go on to make commentary about the inclusion of standards through the British Standards Institute, revision of the Approved Document B, and the title of that report under the reference was The Potential Risk of Fire Spread in Buildings via External Cladding Systems. We have known about this problem and issue in the fire sector, the House of Commons are aware of it. the Prime Minister s office is now aware of it, I imagine, through the national press and their own technical advisors. Holyrood, it seems, took swift action. Let s look at legislation. We did it in Scotland.

When we reviewed our fire safety legislation we also brought in new building regulations, we brought in new technical handbooks. And I believe, if memory services me correct, the most recent release was either in June 2016 or June 2017. By contrast, Approved Document B the guidance framework for construction regulations in England has not been updated since 2006. I am aware that the building regulations are under constant review. But there seems to be a dichotomy in the turnaround time: four years for the Lakanal report, one year for the Scottish Garnock report. Fire legislation report in Scotland was reviewed in 2005 whereas we appear to be limping on with a very outdated and outmoded document.

6. Are green targets, red tape reduction or austerity to blame? Inevitably, the media s focus has varied depending on the political leanings of the publication in question. While the Daily Mail predictably highlighted the prioritisation of green targets as a potential factor, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn even more predictably blamed austerity. Back in 2015, when the FSF called for a review of Approved Document B, then Conservative MP for Canterbury and Whitstable Julian Brazier said: My concern is that, at a time when building regulations are more prescriptive than ever on issues like energy saving, the basic requirement to make the building resilient to fire appears to have been lost sight of. The fact that Grenfell had just undergone 10m worth of refurbishment to enhance the energy efficiency of the building lends credence to these fears.

A leftwing poet, however, asserted that they put panels, pretty panels on the outside so the rich people who lived opposite wouldn t have to look at a horrendous block. Whether you agree with this sentiment, that the fire alarms still didn t function properly following a 10m refurbishment is nothing short of scandalous. Another strand picked up in the Guardian was the Conservative Party s (and to some extent New Labour s) long-held policy of reducing red tape. George Monbiot wrote in the Guardian that: In 2014, the then housing minister (who is now the immigration minister), Brandon Lewis, rejected calls to force construction companies to fit sprinklers in the homes they built on the following grounds: In our commitment to be the first Government to reduce regulation, we have introduced the one in, two out rule for regulation Under that rule, when the Government introduce a regulation, we will identify two existing ones to be removed In other words, though he accepted that sprinklers are an effective way of controlling fires and of protecting lives and property , to oblige builders to introduce them would conflict with the government s deregulatory agenda. Instead, it would be left to the owners of buildings to decide how best to address the fire risk: Those with responsibility for ensuring fire safety in their businesses, in their homes or as landlords, should and must make informed decisions on how best to manage the risks in their own properties, Lewis said. This calls to mind the Financial Times journalist Willem Buiter s famous remark that self-regulation stands in relation to regulation the way self-importance stands in relation to importance . Case after case, across all sectors, demonstrates that self-regulation is no substitute for consistent rules laid down, monitored and enforced by government. Crucial public protections have long been derided in the billionaire press as elf n safety gone mad . It s not hard to see how ruthless businesses can cut costs by cutting corners, and how this gives them an advantage over their more scrupulous competitors.

7. Why were the lessons from Lakanal ignored? Emily Twinch, a housing policy journalist, recently wrote in the New Statesman: I remember sitting through the Lakanal House super inquest, as it was called, four years ago.

It was amazing how many mistakes by so many people were made. It reminded me of the film Sliding Doors. If only someone had done this, or not done that. Senior managers at Southwark Council were warned by staff that Lakanal House needed a fire risk assessment they were ignored. People carrying out fire risk assessments were given little or no training, and then expected to go out and decide if a tower block was fire safe or not Cladding is being bought up again As Ian Wingfield, ward councillor and cabinet member for housing of Southwark Council at the time said: If nothing was done about it in the intervening 10 years it might have moved from medium to high risk in that period. The inquest into that fire found that panels fitted to the outside of the block in 2006-07 burnt quicker than the original materials Another issue experts are likely to look at when investigating here is the fire compartmentalisation of the building. Regulations say buildings should be designed so that if a fire does break out, it doesn t spread to other flats for at least an hour. After the Lakanal House fire, I did a big freedom of information request investigation into what attention fire brigades and councils were placing on fire safety of tower blocks. The results revealed the answer very little.

It gradually improved in the intervening years But when MPs refused to support, for example, an amendment to the Housing and Planning Bill last year that would have made homes fit for habitation in the private sector, it was an indication of how little they prioritised tenants, whether private or social, in their homes.

8. Why was the advice to stay put given for the first two hours of the fire? Advice given by the fire service to stay put inside Grenfell Tower as the fire spread was only changed after nearly two hours, the BBC has reported. The policy was only changed at 2:47am, one hour and 53 minutes after the first emergency call. Based on the ill-founded assumption that the fire can be contained as it should be if suitable passive fire protection is in place the advice was fatal to any that followed it once the fire spread rapidly from the room of origin. With the death toll now still uncertain but estimated by police to stay at around 80, the policy has come under serious fire.

9. Why have calls to retrofit 4,000 tower blocks across the country gone unheeded? Coroners, fire safety professionals and organisations and fire and rescue services have repeatedly urged the government to legislate for the mandatory installation of sprinklers in social housing over many years. In February 2013, in his judgement on a 2010 blaze at a 15-storey block in Southampton, coroner Keith Wiseman recommended that sprinklers be fitted to all buildings higher than 30 metres (98 ft). In that fire, at Shirley Towers, firefighters Alan Bannon and James Shears lost their lives. In a letter to Eric Pickles, then communities and local government secretary, and to Sir Ken Knight, then the government s chief fire and rescue adviser, Wiseman said that obvious precautions to prevent the fire occurring were not taken and highlighted the need for sprinklers in high-rise blocks.

The following month, Lakanal coroner Judge Frances Kirkham submitted similar recommendation to Pickles. In a previous report into the Lakanal House fire, Ken Knight had said that the retrofitting of sprinklers in high-rise blocks was not considered practical or economically viable . However, the evidence she heard at the inquest had prompted Kirkham to say that doing so might now be possible at lower cost than had previously been thought to be the case, and with modest disruption to residents . This is apparently backed up by a successful retrofit at a Sheffield Tower block in 2012. A report on the installation demonstrated that it is possible to retrofit sprinklers into occupied, high-rise, social housing without evacuating residents and that these installations can be fast-tracked.

10. Why must it take mass casualties to trigger serious change? It is a fact of human nature that we do not intuit and respond emotionally to risk in an entirely rational way. So it is that 30% of us are, to some extent, nervous about flying, yet few of us worry about hurtling down the motorway at 80mph despite the fact that you are vastly more likely to die in the latter scenario. There was no shortage of plane crashes before 9/11, yet none of those crashes had been seared into people s nightmares.

The numbers of people avoiding flying duly soared in the wake of the disaster. This was despite the fact that security was tightened following 9/11, reducing the risk of further attacks. In his 2008 book Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear, Dan Garder reflected that the thousands of people who eschewed flights in favour of driving in the wake of 9/11 actually increased their risk of dying. By one estimate, it killed 1,500 people, he wrote. On their death certificates, it says they were killed by car crashes. But, really, the ultimate cause of death was misperceived risk. Fire disasters of the magnitude of Grenfell are mercifully rare. It had been eight years since Lakanal and few remembered it. People were still dying in fires but it rarely made the front pages.

Instead, the media was devoting much of its time to the spate of terror attacks and before that, the countless terror attacks that were foiled. Politicians, believe it or not, suffer from the same askew intuition over risk as ordinary people. Faced with an inbox full of warnings about myriad threats, the Prime Minister inevitably prioritised those that seemed most immediate, most viscerally terrifying and which the media and general public seemed most concerned about. Fuelled by the decades-long trend of falling fire deaths, fire safety had fallen down the list of priorities. That is certainly no longer the case. Undoubtedly, so horrific was the Grenfell fire that something will undoubtedly now be done. Whether enough is done, or whether the right things are done, is another matter. But why must it take a tragedy of such proportions before the problems which were flagged time and again by fire organisations are taken seriously? The risk was always there.

While such fires are rare events, any sober analysis would have revealed that Lakanal could readily happen again and that casualties could be far, far worse.

And yet it is only when the industry s worst fears are realised that the momentum for change can truly build.

Grenfell video: Scotland s decisive response to its own tower-block tragedy put England to shame

Stephen Mackenzie Q&A There are so many dimensions to the Grenfell fire that it s hard to know where to start. In the video below, fire-risk consultant Stephen Mackenzie examines everything from the privatisation of fire-safety research to the inadequate logistical response on the ground in the immediate aftermath and the glacial pace of regulatory change in England versus Scotland. Below you can also read the transcript of the interview, which was conducted at fire safety exhibition FIREX 2017.

embedded content I m aware that the building regulations are under constant review, but there s a dichotomy in the turnaround time: four years for the Lakanal report, one year for the Scottish Garnock report. Stephen Mackenzie on the privatisation of fire research provision We ve increasingly seen over the past decades, our fire research provision within the UK, which is internationally renowned, becoming increasingly privatised. Whether it s a research establishment which is now a charitable trust, whether it s a fire service college which is now under the major government support contracts, or the emergency planning college which is under another support service provider On funding challenges for academic fire research The other thing we ve seen is it s increasingly more challenging for fire research academic teams to give that true independence in UK regions to secure funding for more fashionable, thematic areas. We have very small programmes with research, very important given life safety issues, and property protection issues, but we re in competition with larger, more profitable business degrees, MBAs and suchlike. On the skills shortage in fire engineering We ve also seen an erosion of succession routes for younger engineers in a challenging environment to become industry captains. Where we re seeing a throughput, so young professional awards, we didn t have recipients. So we need to look at that through funding of the fire cadet programme nationally, fire service trainees, encourage others to support those endeavours, and also look to how we fund our research. Ten or 11 years ago the Department of Community at local government was trying to get a national fire research academy off the ground. Unfortunately the commentary that came back on a very comprehensive research proposal, sponsored and supported by the whole sector, was you ve already got many organisations, therefore we can t fund it.

but it needs that focal point, that independence, and we need that international recognition and response. On the government s immediate response and failure to convene COBRA I think we ve seen a comparison between the Grenfell fire and Finsbury Park terrorist attack. Immediately following the Finsbury Park attack, Theresa May convened COBRA. That should have been the case on Thursday the day after the fire, or the latter hours of Wednesday. Convene COBRA, get emergency personnel leads in, coordinate with local authority responders, and have a better response and management of media, and to the families and residents concerns. Not only for Grenfell Tower blocks, but for all tower blocks in the UK. I feel it could have been sharper, more effective, and then the central government may not have received some of the criticism it has. I fully recognise the multi-agency response by the emergency services was fantastic. Those individuals in all three emergency services put themselves at significant risk, with debris falling down from the building on top of them.

Significant injuries occurring with the fire personnel, they still went into that building. When their dynamic risk assessments have said this is too risky for even emergency services personnel, possibly. The other thing we need to see is the softer services where we move from coordinated triad of emergency services. We have London-based annual emergency services exercises. We had one last year, a unified exercise, it went very well. We re very experienced. But then we seem to see some local stress and shocks with the local authority response. But now see that they have now caught up to speed. So I think moving from the emergency services response into the softer response by local authorities and the government, and there are a number of professional bodies in the UK that can facilitate and exist with that.

So it might be another line of enquiry for the coroner report, and also the public inquiry. On the Lakanal House report There s actually about 30 case studies, both in the UK and internationally, that we can refer to. Some of the more contemporary ones and two of the more important ones I ll draw attention to: the Lakanal report in 2013 following the Lakanal Camberwell fire where ladies and children expired. There were a number of recommendations made in that coroner court enquiry, predominantly looking at emergency service response and also looking at the complexities in interpretation of our building legislation, and the need for reducing, streamlining it, and making it more practical in application. That s a longstanding issue. I believe some of the professional bodies in the fire service community are doing research, campaigning, and petitioning government on that. I ll let them report on their own positions. On the Garnock Court enquiry The other more significant one that I have been talking about in the international press is quite a well-known report done by one of the legal councillors in the UK. It makes reference, and I m making referencing to the source, a public enquiry report, for the Garnock Court fire in Scotland in 1999.

The public inquiry was published in 2000, to the House of Commons. So we ve heard with Grenfell, Theresa May saying we ll go to a full public inquiry, we ll have parallel coroner court inquiries, and parallel criminal, and possibly civil actions as well. But in 2000, there was a report, and I ll quote, while this inquiry did not suggest the majority of external cladding systems in the UK currently in use pose a serious threat to life safety or property in event of fire, they did go on to add, we do not believe it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimising the fire risk. They then go on to make commentary about the inclusion of standards through the British Standards Institute, revision of the Approved Document B, and the title of that report under the reference was The Potential Risk of Fire Spread in Buildings via External Cladding Systems. We have known about this problem and issue in the fire sector, the House of Commons are aware of it. the Prime Minister s office is now aware of it, I imagine, through the national press and their own technical advisors. On the glacial pace of regulatory change in England versus Scotland Let s look at legislation. We did it in Scotland. When we reviewed our fire safety legislation we also brought in new building regulations, we brought in new technical handbooks.

And I believe, if memory services me correct, the most recent release was either in June 2016 or June 2017. I am aware that the building regulations are under constant review. But there seems to be a dichotomy in the turnaround time: four years for the Lakanal report, one year for the Scottish Garnock report. Fire legislation report in Scotland was reviewed in 2005, and continued on the new basis, performance basis, whereas we appear to be limping on with a very outdated and outmoded document. Our colleagues at yesterday s expert panel FIREX International 2017 held a debate on the Grenfell fire were quite vocal about that position.

Watch: Honeywell s Mick Goodfellow on cybersecurity, connected solutions and critical national infrastructure

IFSEC 2017 Honeywell s Mick Goodfellow visited the offices of IFSEC International to preview the show s forthcoming 2017 edition. Just appointed GM EMEA of commercial security, Goodfellow discusses synergies between Honeywell and Xtralis products (the latter acquired in 2016 by the former), new products, integrations with other vendors, cybersecurity and critical national infrastructure. embedded content Honeywell is showcasing its latest tech in an integrated control room at IFSEC International between 20-22 June 2017 at London ExCeL.

You will find them on stands D250 and D300. Get your free badge now. Honeywell is unveiling a series of new products across its building technology and home security solutions portfolios at IFSEC and FIREX 2017. Honeywell s connected solutions are designed to help homeowners and business managers interpret and exploit the huge and growing volume of data generated by connected buildings. At IFSEC the building management systems giant will be showcasing integrated video solutions and advanced detection technologies. IP video Honeywell s new portfolio of IP video solutions empower site staff to be more productive by providing greater insight and control across the facility. With a connected Honeywell system, staff are informed 24/7 of the status of their system, and alerted immediately when an alarm is triggered so they can take appropriate action. With end-to-end solutions for different budgets, the range includes advanced features including recording failover, facial and audio detection, and EDGE analytics on ONVIF-compliant 4K Ultra HD and H.264 cameras. These products also feature enhanced forensic capabilities, supporting integration with Honeywell s Xtralis IntrusionTrace video content analytics and ADPRO iFT Series NVR+ solutions.

For those looking to protect harsh environments, the new range also includes explosion and corrosion proof thermal cameras with temperature monitoring. Fire Honeywell will be showcasing enterprise class fire solutions including Xtralis VESDA-E VEP and VEA detectors. Yieldsing 1.5 times greater sensitivity and offering six times better dust rejection than the previous generation of products, VESDA-E VEP detector reduces the risk of nuisance alarms and attendant costs. VESDA-E VEA works by dividing a protected space into sampling locations, enabling the localization of possible causes of fire for faster incident response. Both detectors feature built-in Wi-Fi for remote detector access from smart devices to review and monitor status in real time. For smaller sites, FAAST XS aspirating smoke detectors deliver highly accurate very early warning fire detection. Connected home Honeywell is unveiling a professionally-installed, self-monitored wireless security system for the residential market. Called Total Connect Box, it is supported by Total Connect Pro Manager, a maintenance tool that allows installers to perform diagnostics and offer cost-effective maintenance services to homeowners remotely, so homeowners can get the best out of their Total Connect Box system. For those who prefer a monitored solution, the wireless Videofied Video Live Verification with Monitoring Systems will also be showcased.

The new MotionViewer PIR sensors are wireless and equipped with the Video Live function that allows the instant transmission of video to the alarm receiving centre in the event of an alarm, enabling swifter response to genuine alarms and eliminates unnecessary intervention and call outs to false alarms. It also provides homeowners greater peace of mind with the ability to view their homes live anytime day or night. Advanced technology solutions have the power to turn buildings and homes into responsive assets, linking disparate devices and management systems to create truly connected, intelligent buildings that span the most demanding applications, said Dino Koutrouki, vice president and general manager, Security and Fire EMEA, Honeywell Home and Building Technologies. But systems shouldn t be connected just to be connected. They should optimise a person s daily routine, whether at home or work, to improve safety, security and peace of mind. Honeywell is showcasing its latest tech in an integrated control room at IFSEC International between 20-22 June 2017 at London ExCeL. You will find them on stands D250 and D300. Get your free badge now. Join other high-end security professionals at the launch of Borders & Infrastructure Expo In conjunction with Europe s most renowned security event , IFSEC International, B&I is addressing your critical needs for large scale security projects affecting national security, integrated systems, border protection and much more.

You will have access to test the latest security innovations in; Physical & perimeter, Barriers & bollards, Command & control, Emergency response, Cyber solutions, Drones & UAVs, Transport security and much more.

Click here to register your place now to join us at London Excel on 20 22 June 2017.

London fire: Councils and social landlords have ignored our warnings for years

GRENFELL TOWER FIRE We have a right to be very angry at the news about Grenfell Tower. I regularly sit in meetings with fire safety professionals, and their fury and frustration at the inaction of local councils and social landlords is palpable. We have been warning about the risks of a fire like this for years.

What we need to get people to take notice is a huge fire in a tower block they say. Well, here it is. There is an endemic fire safety problem in this type of housing stock. I have walked around tower blocks documenting and filming the fire safety breaches. I ve seen flats without fire doors, no emergency lighting or signage on fire doors and escape routes, broken fire rated glass, wedged-open fire doors, poor fire stopping around service hatches that breach compartmentation, no smoke seals in fire doors, rubbish and combustible material left in the common areas, and no information displayed on the specific fire plan of the building. #Grenfell Tower floor plan. “Improved” high density layout means one set of stairs for 24 stories of 120 apartments. #LondonFire pic.twitter.com/MHV3adB5Q7 Mark Ashley (@themarkashley) June 14, 2017 Deaf ears But that information appears to fall on deaf ears. Action must be taken now to address these issues. Our hearts go out to the residents of Grenfell Tower, their neighbours, friends and families, and the extraordinarily brave fire fighters and medics who are continuing to deal with the emergency. And to every local council and housing association I say, you know what to do, take action today. The next one could be tomorrow.

More than half of all tenants (58%) and over 70% of lower income tenants have no idea who the Responsible Person is for the building where they live Research for Fire Door Safety Week last year underlines some of the problems, in particular showing that the poorest in society continue to be at greatest risk from fire, with lower income tenants more concerned about fire safety where they live, less informed about how to protect themselves, and less able to move away from perceived danger. Just a third (35%) of the lowest income households renting flats say they have been given information on the emergency fire plan for the building where they live, compared to 88% of tenants on incomes over 100,000 a year. Those on incomes of 25,000 or less are much less likely to feel completely safe from fire (27%) than those on incomes above 80,000 (44%). But two out of every nine (22%) households with incomes under 25,000 living in rented flats who have concerns over fire safety are unable to move because they can t afford to. More than half of all tenants (58%) and over 70% of lower income tenants have no idea who the Responsible Person is for the building where they live the person to whom they should usually report their fire safety concerns. And worryingly, 15% of all tenants living in blocks of flats who have got fire safety concerns have never reported those concerns to anyone at all. Visit FIREX International for cutting-edge solutions, essential knowledge and the ability to grow your business by getting direct access to the whole fire safety industry. It is the perfect place to get your product in front of thousands of buyers, across a multitude of featured areas. From the brand new Drone Zone, the ARC Village, ASFP Passive Protection Zone, the Engineers of Tomorrow competition and more, it s all under one roof so you ll never miss a beat.

Click here to register your place now to join us at London Excel on 20 22 June

Hung parliament: Have Cameron and May s calamitous gambles imperilled UK border security?

Brexit fallout Cameron gambled, lost. May gambled, lost. Tory party beginning to look like a casino.

Tweeted by Dutch MEP Sophie in t Veld this is a pithily apt description of the Conservatives two big calls over Brexit. If David Cameron s fateful decision to announce a referendum on January 2013 has achieved one of its primary goals to siphon off support from UKIP then it did so, quite unexpectedly, at the expense of his own premiership. Having embraced the referendum result despite being (an admittedly coy) Remainer his successor, Theresa May, then used Brexit as a pretext to strengthen her majority in the House of Commons against what the commentariat had deemed the least electable Labour leader since Michael Foot. Now we have a hung parliament with a minority Conservative government propped up by 10 DUP MPs. Whatever your political leanings, few would disagree that the prospect of concluding negotiations smoothly have now receded. Whatever your political leanings, few would disagree that the prospect of concluding negotiations smoothly have now receded. We re already nearly three months into the already narrow two-year negotiating window, the Article 50 having been triggered on 29 March. As the FT writes this morning: Theresa May s folly in calling a general election and then losing her overall majority means that the UK is now in an even weaker negotiating position than when it started There are few words to describe the sheer irresponsibility of the prime minister in triggering Article 50 only to follow it by calling a needless general election. A hung parliament, or even an overall defeat, was always a foreseeable (as opposed to predicted) potential outcome.

It was the last thing a prudent politician should have done: there is now considerable uncertainty at the very point the UK needed certainty, as the Brexit talks are about to commence. Nick Clegg, who lost his Sheffield Hallam seat, has said that MPs will either need to find a cross-party consensus on a more moderate workable approach to Brexit or we will have to go back to the country maybe once or twice until one party wins a majority, which would devour much of the two-year negotiating window. It is impossible to exaggerate this morning how self-absorbed and adrift the UK looks to the rest of Europe I can t think of any example of a modern mature democracy putting itself in such a vulnerable position. Confusion at UK borders And if negotiations do fail, what does that mean for national security? The UK s trade tariff levels with Europe and the rest of the world would default to World Trade Organisation terms, triggering a rise in the price of imports, with agricultural goods being an eye-watering 30-40%. But with the UK Lacking its own schedule at the WTO, there could be confusion at UK borders over customs declarations. This is an issue explored in depth in a white paper published on IFSEC Global this week. The cost of replicating the European Arrest Warrant outside the EU is expected to substantially exceed (by a factor of four) the cost of operating the EU measure. Norway and Iceland have been trying to negotiate a form of EAW with the EU but this has taken 15 years and is still to be ratified by every member state.

From the London First report on Brexit and border security Commissioned by London First s Security & Resilience Network, the report examines the implications of leaving the EU for the management of the UK s borders. From Europol membership to the Schengen Information System, the UK is at risk of losing access to a plethora of collaborative tools, the report reveals. Securing UK borders: An examination of the implications of leaving the EU for UK border management , which is written by several experts in immigration and border security, European law, and security and resilience, also warns of: Confusion at the UK border as customs declarations slow down traffic. The Road Haulage Association has said there is a real danger of everything grinding to a halt Complexities of new visa arrangements: Questions must arise about the ability of Border Force to deal with the increased workload as well as the physical capacity of receiving airports and other points of entry Brexit could represent an opportunity to modernise current practice and technology and adopt best practices from elsewhere in the world to improve both border security and customer experience ahead of, or at, the border. A decade after New Labour s attempts to introduce identity cards were shelved the concept could reemerge. The need to reframe collaboration with the EU over information sharing as Britain exits Europol and loses access to Eurojust, SIS II, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), the Pr m Decisions and the Passenger Name Records (PNR) The white paper follows an earlier report by the Security & Resilience Network that examined the Security and Resilience Implications of Brexit. The report was launched at a London First briefing on 7 June 2017 and distributed at the IFSEC International 2017 exhibition (20-22 June 2017), which includes for the first time the Borders and Infrastructure Expo. UBM, the organiser of IFSEC, sponsors this report. Get your free badge for IFSEC now.

Join other high-end security professionals at the launch of Borders & Infrastructure Expo In conjunction with Europe s most renowned security event , IFSEC International, B&I is addressing your critical needs for large scale security projects affecting national security, integrated systems, border protection and much more. You will have access to test the latest security innovations in; Physical & perimeter, Barriers & bollards, Command & control, Emergency response, Cyber solutions, Drones & UAVs, Transport security and much more. Click here to register your place now to join us at London Excel on 20 22 June 2017.

Eagles Security | Affordable Security Guard Company In …

Why choose us?

Eagles Security | Affordable Security Guard Company In ...

Eagles Security is an established, reliable and accredited security guard firm. We provide high calibre security services for clients with special area of interest being in Manned Guarding Security provision.

Find out more about us1

Our Rates

Free initial consultation and assessment. Contact us today.. click here>>2

Very low Introductory Security Guarding rates making our prices very competitive.. click here>>3

Download our brochure ..click here>>
4

Customised quote

So how much does it cost?

Call us on :

CUSTOMER SERVICE : 02086961871

MOBILE : 07930762642

References

  1. ^ Find out more about us (securityguarding.org.uk)
  2. ^ click here>> (securityguarding.org.uk)
  3. ^ click here>> (securityguarding.org.uk)
  4. ^ click here>> (eaglesec.co.uk)