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.

Kings Security appoints former Mitie MD Bob Forsyth as CEO

News Bob Forsyth has been appointed CEO of security and fire services provider Kings Security. Anthony King, the current incumbent, is stepping down after three decades at the company. Forsyth was managing director for Mitie Total Security & Document Management between April 2015 and February 2017.

Since then he has been MD of 4sight Investments. Geoff Zeidler, Chairman of Kings, said: The board would like to pay tribute to Anthony for all he has achieved in building the business and wish him well for the future. Bob has a broad market knowledge and fantastic track record of delivering profitable growth. The board look forward to working with him and the Executive team to take Kings forward to becoming the most respected, innovative and successful company in the industry. Passionate people Bob Forsyth said Kings has a tremendous market position and a reputation for passionate people who deliver great service to loyal customers. This, together with the financial support of PrimeKings, creates a tremendous opportunity and I am really excited to join the team to ensure that Kings achieves its full potential. In 2014 Forsyth was named the most influential person in security in 2014 a decade after joining Mitie. He was promoted to MD of MITIE in April 2010 after a string of achievements, not least the prestigious MITIE new business award and his pivotal role in the company s 2006 merger with Initial Security. One of those who endorsed his candidature praised his efforts in creating an all-round better security industry in terms of what the industry can achieve, what it looks like from the outside and overall contributing towards making the industry a more professional sector to work within.

Kings Security, which is majority owned by Kirsh Group-backed PrimeKings, provides security and fire services to homes and businesses across the UK. Kings Security is well known for its commitment to training apprentice installers in an industry beset by a skills crisis. It has a state-of-the-art training academy and regularly sends candidates many of whom have emerged as victors to the Engineers of Tomorrow apprentice installer competition at IFSEC International. Visit Europe s leading security event in June 2017 Visit IFSEC International for exclusive access to every security product on the market, live product demonstrations and networking with thousands of security professionals. From access control and video surveillance to smart buildings, cyber, border control and so much more. It is the perfect way to keep up to date, protect your business and enhance your career in the security industry. Click here to register your place now to join us at London Excel on 20 22 June 2017.

The seven security firms that made it onto the FT1000

Fast-growing firms Seven security firms have made it into the FT1000, the Financial Times listing of Europe s highest growth companies. All but two the others were based in Germany and Ireland were based in the UK. Integration firm Hadrian Technology ranked the highest at number 252 in the list.

Established 18 years ago in Seaham, north-east England the company advises clients, in retail, hospitality and leisure industries as well as the public sector, on the design, installation and maintenance of bespoke CCTV, operating software and digital cloud-based storage. The FT1000, which compiled the rankings with the help of Statista, measures growth, in terms of profitability and other factors, between 2012 and 2015. Over this period Hadrian Technology saw its revenue grow by 486%, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 80.3%. Cybersecurity firms Next, at number 305, is Defenx, a cybersecurity company founded in 2009. The firm saw a 404% growth in revenue between 2012 and 2015, and a CAGR of 71%. Defenx provides extensive security and cloud backup services for desktops, mobiles and business networks. Established in 2003, MWR InfoSecurity is a consultancy providing targeted security expertise and solutions for industries including finance, insurance and energy. The firm also provides training in proactive web, network and mobile defence. The company saw a 119% growth in revenues and a CAGR of 29.9% between 2012 and 2015.

London-based Ward Security saw a 66% revenue growth and a CAGR of 18.3% Hornet Security, based in Germany, is another cyber security firm, which offers cloud based security services to business customers. Services include spam filters, advanced web protection, email encryption, archiving and continuity, encrypted online security and hosted exchanges. The firm saw a 93% growth in revenues between 2012 and 2015, with a CAGR of 24.6% over the same period. Synergy Security Solutions in Ireland saw a 92% revenue growth and a CAGR of 24.3% between 2012 and 2015. The company provides bespoke security offerings and services to corporates, as well as to the retail, shopping centre, manufacturing, IT and industrial sectors. Services include manned security, switchboard personnel, to security scanning and CCTV operation and monitoring. London-based Ward Security saw a 66% revenue growth and a CAGR of 18.3%. The company provides security services spanning CCTV operation and monitoring, property management, guard dog security, keyholding services, security guard patrol services and response alarm systems. At 997 on the list Paxton, based in Brighton, is primarily a producer of security products including access control systems and security panels.

The company has been in business since 1985. Paxton saw a 57% growth in revenue between 2012 and 2015 and a CAGR of 16.2%. Can you afford not to attend?

Driven by rising concerns over public and private sector safety, the access control market is set to be worth a substantial $8.6 billion by 2018. Register for IFSEC International 2017 to discover the latest products designed to protect your buildings, your assets, and your people. Meet with leading access control suppliers, quiz them first hand on their latest products and see new technology in action.

Be part of this growing market register today

Why electronic access control is seen as an expensive luxury by many small firms

Many small businesses see electronic access control as an exorbitant expense that offers little in the way of benefits. However, this couldn t be further from the truth. Investing in access control provides many benefits for any business not to mention, it s not nearly as expensive as many people who are uninformed on the truth of the industry would have you believe.

To understand why so many small firms think access control is an overpriced asset that is not worth their time, effort, and money, it is important to first understand the reason for this misconception. Why access control is viewed as expensive When many organisations think of security and in particular access control, they think of an over-the-top security system that is (A) unnecessary, as they are unlikely to ever encounter a security breach, and (B) has a hefty price tag. In short, they are thinking of access control measures that have failed to consider risk assessment. The purpose of carrying out regular risk assessments is to determine exactly which types of breaches your business is most likely to be vulnerable to, and consequently safeguard your business against those risks through use of the proper measures. Otherwise, by protecting against vastly unlikely or nonexistent risks, you will be investing in equipment that is unnecessary, ineffective and expensive. By analysing what you are at risk of and protecting against those scenarios, you are ensuring that your business is well-secured, staff and assets are protected and making sure that any investment is spent in the right areas. Does access control have to be expensive? No, not at all. Access control is a reasonably-priced and wise investment as it gives the user full flexibility and with on-going technologies in place, the security levels associated with this are only going to get better.

To make sure that you are not overspending or purchasing the wrong system there are a few things to keep in mind during the implementation process. You need to review the physical, personnel and information security aspects and the risks associated to each element. Despite what you might see or read about the sky-high costs of investing into access control, you will be happy to know that the financial commitment is not actually out of the realm of possibility for most businesses. When starting out your research it is always advisable to speak to a reputable provider of systems and equipment (such as Digital ID) who can fully assess the project and advise on the best approach. Is access control worth it? It is but only when done correctly. This includes everything from researching the right products, installing the system and daily usage. Don t put safety on the backburner; the benefits of having proper security measures in place go on and on, even aside from simply preventing tragedy from striking. Consider some of these unexpected benefits that many businesses experience from implementing access control on their premises that go far beyond simple security.

Enhanced productivity Believe it or not, having higher security measures in place makes employees feel safer in a business and allows them to get much more done in an average day. In short, your business environment can become more productive overall by the simple act of investing in access control. Higher employee loyalty If you have a system in place that is intended to protect both your business and the people who work in it, your employees will take notice that you are concerned about their wellbeing and ensure that their place of work is a safe and protected one. Take our word for it they will appreciate your gesture, and the overall effect will make the office a much happier place to work. Establishes credibility Let s face it, access control being executed in a business just looks downright professional. Anyone who visits your location and sees these security measures will trust that the space is one that is worthy of their trust. Consider investing in access control today As you can see, there are many reasons to give access control a try despite security alone although that is a huge benefit as well. Don t waste any more time not having these measures in place in your business, and start the process of deciding the type of access control that is right for your company today. Visit Europe s leading security event in June 2017 Register here to attend IFSEC International where you will be able to take advantage of our meetings service, allowing you to select and meet with the manufacturers you want to see and with 600 companies exhibiting you are not short on choice.

There are also discounts of up to 20% across a large range of products at the show, helping you to get the best value for your money.

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

Hadrian Technology shortlisted in prestigious FT 1000

Security installers British CCTV design, supply and installation company Hadrian Technology has been shortlisted in the Financial Times 1000, which charts Europe s fastest growing businesses. The league table, published online and compiled in cooperation with Statista, will feature in a Financial Times special report at the end of April. It ranks Europe s 1000 fastest growing companies between 2012 and 2015.

The company was ranked 252. The news comes just months after Hadrian Technology was named as a Sunday Times Virgin Fast Track 100 company. The firm, established in 1999 in Seaham, in north-east England, advises clients on the design and installation of bespoke high-quality CCTV solutions, operating software and digital cloud-based storage through to ongoing maintenance. Clients include retail, leisure, hospitality and public sector companies and organisations across the UK and Ireland. Hadrian Technology partners with CCTV manufacturers, including Videcon, Dell, Hikvision, Vista and Genie, to offer the latest in video surveillance systems as well as advanced digital analytics, people counting and heat mapping. The company has developed specialist knowledge and expertise in detecting the so-called slips and trips claims culture that currently costs UK businesses nearly 1bn a year. Hadrian Technology co-founder Gary Trotter, said: Being named in both the FT 1000 and the Sunday Times Virgin Fast Track 100 is testament to the outstanding sales growth we have achieved in recent years and the hard work and dedication of our highly-skilled team. The company plans to continue to grow its business, in the UK and overseas to meet growing demand for video surveillance as a tool for business intelligence and is on the lookout for new technologies to offer cloud-based storage software and hardware that will enable clients to more effectively identify and defend fraudulent slips, trips and falls claims. Visit Europe s leading security event in June 2017 Register to attend IFSEC International where you will be able to network with over 30,000 of your industry peers, meeting new suppliers and gaining access to the latest and best security products to hit the market, helping you gain a competitive advantage over your competitors.

You will also be able to get hands on to test and trial the latest technology at the Installer World Zone, which is sponsored by Risco Group , so that you can select not only the best priced products but you will be confident that it works for you.

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

Avigilon video surveillance solutions: A brand profile

The first and only CCTV hardware developer to take resolution into the 7K realm, Avigilon is a highly respected video surveillance company headquartered in Canada. History Avigilon is a Canadian company that specialises in the development, design and sale of video surveillance and management, access control and video analytics solutions. Founded in 2004 it posted its first EBITDA profit in the financial year ending 31st December 2009 (FY9) and floated on the Toronto stock exchange in 2011.

Avigilon has since invested heavily in its domestic and international expansion. It acquired access control company RedCloud Security for US$17m in 2013, followed by video analytics specialist VideoIQ for US$32m in 2014, and the patent portfolio of video analytics firm ObjectVideo for US$80m in 2014. Market position An aggressive business strategy has delivered considerable financial return and Avigilon remains one the largest players in a global security and surveillance market within which no one supplier is estimated to hold more than 6% share. Avigilon s turnover has grown at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 71% over the last 9 years to reach US$354m in FY16, yielding adjusted EBITDA of US54m. Target verticals include retail, banking, education, casinos, critical national infrastructure (CNI) and transportation, with high profile customers including Miami Dolphins Hard Rock Stadium, the Universities of Tennessee and Sydney, King Abdulaziz International Airport in Saudi Arabia, the City of Pittsboro and the Old Bailey in London. embedded content Latest technologies Avigilon s flagship Control Center network video management software is now in version 6.6 having been regularly updated to support emerging security and surveillance hardware. The company also delivers a range of HD cameras, recorders and edge solutions with a particular emphasis on providing big megapixel IP cameras with embedded video analytics solutions. Its latest hardware includes cameras with multiple sensors and individually configurable camera heads that provide several viewpoints from a single platform to minimise blind spots. Avigilon also introduced 6K 24MP and 7K 30 megapixel HD cameras as well as 4k (8mp) and 5K (16pm) cameras in 2015.

The company has invested a lot of time in the development of innovative self-learning video analytics. It recently launched a deep learning AI search engine (Appearance Search) able to search hours of video footage to find specific persons of interest across multiple cameras, tracking their route and last know locations. Elsewhere a partnership with security firm G4S involves an 8 week trial of video analytics to prevent smuggling in UK prisons, tracking the movement of people at the prison s perimeter who often throw drugs and other contraband over prison walls. embedded content Avigilon and installers/integrators Avigilon s sales and distribution model is based on a business to business (B2B) rather than business to consumer (B2C) model that relies heavily on a large network of installers, resellers and systems integrators in Canada, US, UK, EMEA, Asia Pacific, and Latin America. UK installers include Contact Security, API, iFacility, Amax, Sonic Security Services, Eclipse (IP), Vuetek, AlertSystems, Advance Security and iC2. Rather than selling direct, Avigilon s own sales staff work with those partners to develop security and surveillance solutions which are tailored to individual customer requirements in its key industry verticals. The company runs an extensive global partnership programme that offers various incentives to its partners, including silver, gold and platinum certification; co-branded sales and marketing material; and access to market development funds and financial rebates. Visit Europe s leading security event in June 2017 Register to attend IFSEC International where you will be able to network with over 30,000 of your industry peers, meeting new suppliers and gaining access to the latest and best security products to hit the market, helping you gain a competitive advantage over your competitors. You will also be able to get hands on to test and trial the latest technology at the Installer World Zone, which is sponsored by Risco Group , so that you can select not only the best priced products but you will be confident that it works for you.

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

How to choose the right security tech for your small business

How To Choose The Right Security Tech For Your Small Business

UK businesses suffered more than 30,000 separate incidents of physical crime in 2015, according to the Commercial Victimisation Survey. From fraud and vandalism, to theft and assault, these industry-sector wide businesses lost profit, custom, loyal staff members and financial credit to these breaches of security. And it s increasingly likely these records might be surpassed when figures from 2016 are announced.

Choosing the right security technology is so important to help protect your business, your employees and yourself from the financial, physical and mental strain an incident of crime. And as many of the criminals tend to target small, family-run and independent businesses as soft targets, it s even more important to defend your small business against these threats. What do you need to protect? When choosing security technology, one of the first things to consider is what do I need to secure? Obviously, we would love to keep every aspect of our businesses safe, but when challenged with a limited budget, it s necessary to prioritise. If the property your business is based on is your key asset, invest in rolling shutters for privacy, electric locks, access controls and automation systems. You ll need to control who can enter and leave your company, and what they re leaving with. You can do this with an electronic card and lock systems which allow employees to register in and out of the building so you keep a complete audit trail of all staff movements. Be mindful with how many key-holders you entrust with the building alarm code.

It s also imperative that you update the code regularly, especially when employees or contractors such as cleaners leave. If you store cash on the premises overnight, use your tech to secure your profit. CCTV, alarm systems and thermal scanners can provide the extra level of security a simple locked door and rusty padlock just can t provide. Once you know exactly what you want to protect, whether it s your property, your products, your assets, or your employees, selecting the right security technology should come naturally. Choosing the right security company One of the biggest mistakes a business can make when securing their assets is choosing the wrong company. Allowing a security team into your building, your office or factory gives them intimate access to your business and an acknowledgement of its weakest points. You put both yourself and your business at risk when investing in security installation so how do you make sure the company you hire is trustworthy? If you re outsourcing online, it s important to look for high quality websites, genuine case studies with links to satisfied customers, industry approval logos, social media links, customer reviews and so on. A quick maps search for their listed headquarters should help you determine the legitimacy of their branding and where possible arrange your first meeting in their office, rather than yours.

A competent, trustworthy security company will have the best interests for your business at heart, and will be just as keen to protect your assets as you are. What works for your business? Another issue to consider when assessing your security solutions is your potential for expansion. If you re a business with an expected growth rate that requires relocation, staff recruitment or larger budgetary allowances, then this is the time to plan for that. Consider security technologies that work for both big businesses and small, or access systems with larger capacities for longer recorded events. If you want to be as involved in your security controls as possible, but know that your role requires you to be out of office , then opt for hands-free remote alarm and security systems. And if everything in your property shuts down at the same time each working day, automatic gates, lights and locks might just work better for you. Knowing your business inside out is a great way to protect it, and finding the right technology to do that is a job only you can do. Don t forget cyber security With the Commercial Victimisation Survey quoting more than 5,200 separate incidents of reported crime online, new technologies are making it easier for hackers to access your details.

Fraud, online theft, phishing emails, and hacking are just some of the threats facing any business online, and just as much time should be taken to protect your virtual business as your physical one. Bringing in a cyber security consultancy can help you identity weak spots in your existing security ways to strengthen them. Even if most of your profit comes from offline trade, your accounts, business details and personal details can still be accessed and abused if not properly secured. If online services are a major part of your business, then make the right moves to protect it. With so many new technologies available in security and protection, it s easier than ever to secure your business assets. So rather than becoming another figure in this year s Commercial Victimisation Survey poll, research what works for your business and protect yourself first. Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2016 This exclusive report covers the security needs of surveillance systems as shaped by the physical environment including: What do security professionals think about plug-and-play systems Challenges like low-light conditions or large spaces and the threats posed in various sectors Which cutting-edge features such as mobile access, PTZ smart controls or 4K resolution are most important to security professionals What are the most important factors driving upgrades and would end users consider an upgrade to HD analogue Download the full report here.

41 years. $3 billion.

Inside the Clinton donor network …

LITTLE ROCK Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.

The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family s charitable foundation reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation. Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974 congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton s 2016 White House run, which has already drawn $110 million in support. The Post identified donations from roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions and foreign governments in support of their political or philanthropic endeavors a list that includes top patrons such as Steven Spielberg and George Soros, as well as lesser-known backers who have given smaller amounts dozens of times. Not included in the count are an untold number of small donors whose names are not identified in campaign finance reports but together have given millions to the Clintons over the years.

The majority of the money $2 billion1 has gone to the Clinton Foundation2, one of the world s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe. A handful of elite givers have contributed more than $25 million to the foundation, including Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra, who is among the wealthy foreign donors 3who have given tens of millions. Separately, donors have given $1 billion to support the Clintons political races and legal defense fund, making capped contributions to their campaigns and writing six-figure checks to the Democratic National Committee and allied super PACs. The Post investigation found that many top Clinton patrons supported them in multiple ways, helping finance their political causes, their legal needs, their philanthropy and their personal bank accounts.

In some cases, companies connected to their donors hired the Clintons as paid speakers4, helping them collect more than $150 million on the lecture circuit5 in the past 15 years. The couple s biggest individual political benefactors are Univision chairman Haim Saban and his wife, Cheryl, who have made 39 contributions totaling $2.4 million to support the Clintons races since 1992. The Sabans have also donated at least $10 million to the foundation. The Clintons kept big contributors in their orbit for decades by methodically wooing competing interest groups toggling between their liberal base and powerful constituencies, according to donors, friends and aides who have known the couple since their Arkansas days.

They made historic inroads on Wall Street, pulling in at least $69 million in political contributions from the employees and PACs of banks, insurance companies, and securities and investment firms. Wealthy hedge fund managers S. Donald Sussman and David E. Shaw are among their top campaign supporters, having given more than $1 million each. The Clintons ties to the financial sector strained their bonds with the left, particularly organized labor. But unions repeatedly shook off their disappointment, giving at least $21 million to support their races.

The public employees union AFSCME has been their top labor backer, giving nearly $1.7 million for their campaigns. The Clintons fundraising operation $3 billion amassed by one couple, working in tandem for more than four decades has no equal. By comparison, three generations of the Bush family, America s other contemporaneous political dynasty, have raised about $2.4 billion for their state and federal campaigns and half a dozen charitable foundations, according to a Post tally of their fundraising from 1988 through 2015 even though the family has collectively held the presidency longer than the Clintons.


The Clintons have raised $3 billion in support of their political and philanthropic efforts over four decades. Nearly all the funds went to support six federal campaigns and their family foundation. NOTE: Bill Clinton s totals include donations to the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton s totals include donations to allied PACs.


Both Clintons declined to be interviewed or comment for this article. Josh Schwerin, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, said campaign officials could not re-create The Post s work to verify its findings.

However, it should be noted that it would be misleading, at best, to conflate donations to a philanthropy with political giving, Schwerin said in a statement. And regarding the campaign contributions, the breadth and depth of their support is a testament to the fact that they have both dedicated their lives to public service and fighting to make this country stronger.

The Clinton donor network is now serving as both a prime asset and liability for the former first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state as she seeks the Democratic presidential nomination. Her imposing resources helped scare off would-be Democratic rivals, such as Vice President Biden, and have positioned her well against her main challenger for the party nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.). By the end of September, Clinton had raised $35 million more than Sanders, and she had pulled in more than double the total collected so far by the top campaign fundraiser in the GOP field, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

But in an election shaped by a mounting distaste for the influence of big money, Clinton s long-standing ties to a cadre of wealthy patrons cuts against her efforts to cast herself as a champion of the middle class and a leader who will challenge the influence of large donors. After Bill Clinton s unsuccessful, labor-backed race for Congress, the couple hewed toward monied interests, courting banks and corporate leaders in Arkansas. It was a pattern that would repeat itself throughout their careers as they drew support from groups often in opposition: union leaders and corporate chiefs, trial lawyers and tech titans, top industrialists and liberal activists.

They have also been quick to seize on new sources of funds: Cuban Americans in Florida, Chinese immigrant communities in New York6 and wealthy figures around the world. And they have embraced bold new forms of fundraising, finding ways to inject corporate donations into political causes through nonprofit organizations in Arkansas and unregulated national party accounts. Most of all, the Clintons have excelled at leveraging access to their power and celebrity. Following the advice7 of a young Democratic Party finance chair named Terry McAuliffe, who is now governor of Virginia, the Clintons stepped up private meetings with major donors. Among the perks that President Clinton ultimately offered were overnights in the Lincoln Bedroom. After leaving office, Bill Clinton headlined high-wattage gatherings for foundation donors around the globe. And supporters this year are jockeying to host intimate receptions at their homes during which they get a chance to mingle with Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons steady cultivation of financial benefactors many of whom had interests before the government has led to charges of conflicts of interest and impropriety, such as Bill Clinton s end-of-term presidential pardons sought by donors. Among them was fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, gave heavily to Democratic causes, including $450,000 for the Clinton Presidential Center in Little Rock8. The Post found that 2,700 loyal supporters those who have given to both Clintons have donated more than $129 million for their political races and legal needs. That is a fifth of the $600 million contributed by donors who gave more than $200.

How a small core of donors supplied a large share of the Clintons’ political support


The Washington Post found a small but influential group at the core of the Clintons fundraising network, which brought in $1 billion to support them politically, including $600 million from 290,000 known donors. The Clintons raised the bulk of the $1 billion for six major campaigns: Bill s two presidential races, Hillary s two elections to the Senate and her two runs for president. The Post identified 1 percent of donors who gave to support at least three of their political races. Donors who gave $200 or less are not required to be reported to the Federal Election Commission.

But that small percentage of loyal supporters gave a disproportionate share of the money raised, accounting for 22 percent of $600 million contributed by known donors. Another way to see the impact of loyal contributors is to look at those who have donated to support both Bill and Hillary. The Post has identified around 1 percent of donors who have backed both of them.

That loyal group has provided an outsize share of their funds: more than $129 million, about 21 percent of the $600 million in itemized contributions.

Elaine and Gerald Schuster, who made his fortune operating nursing homes and public housing developments, tangling with union leaders, government regulators and housing activists in the process. Together, the Boston-based couple have given 53 separate donations to support the Clintons since 1992, including $276,100 for their races and more than $500,000 to their foundation.

When my father died, the first person I heard from was President Clinton, said Elaine Schuster. They have a following of people who would do absolutely anything for them. Building such a financial network and nurturing it over four decades is not easy, even with the perks of office. Bill Clinton used his charisma and intellect to captivate new supporters.

And Hillary applied her characteristic attentiveness sending handwritten notes to celebrate engagements and new babies, and poetry books to comfort those in mourning to win over lifelong allies.

She remembers everything we ever talked about, said Susie Tompkins Buell, a close friend and co-founder of Esprit, who, with her husband, Mark, has given $420,000 to the Clintons campaigns and $11.25 million to their foundation.

Hillary does not like to ask for money, Buell added. It s not natural for her. But she s got really good people who work for her who speak for her, and she s very, very appreciative when she knows someone has done something for her. And you know it s sincere. As she makes her second White House bid, Hillary Clinton is raising money in a dramatically different environment than her past campaigns. Since then, the Supreme Court has made it easier for wealthy individuals, corporations and unions to spend huge, unregulated sums on political activity.

She has shown a willingness to embrace the new fundraising techniques. This fall, her campaign set up a joint fundraising committee with the Democratic National Committee and 32 state committees that can accept up to $356,100 per year from an individual donor the first 2016 candidate to pursue such a tactic9. And, unlike Sanders, she has sanctioned big-money super PACs working on her behalf, including one coordinating directly10 with her campaign. That has given the senator from Vermont an opening.

I don t think it s good enough just to talk the talk on campaign finance reform. You ve got to walk the walk, he said to loud applause at a South Carolina forum hosted by MSNBC on Nov.

6, adding, I am not asking millionaires and billionaires for large campaign contributions.

Schwerin said that Clinton has fought for stricter campaign finance rules throughout her career and plans to make the issue a major part of her agenda as president.

In the meantime, however, she will not unilaterally disarm, especially given how Republicans are promising to spend record amounts to tear her down, he added. If she secures the Democratic nomination, she is expected to bring in $1 billion during this election cycle possibly matching what she and her husband collected for all their previous campaigns combined. To do so, the former secretary of state is leaning on longtime Clinton patrons. Among the 264 individuals or couples who have already raised large sums for her campaign or hosted fundraising events through October are a core of loyal backers who personally contributed at least $73 million to support the Clintons over the years.

But her top fundraisers this year have included two dozen donors who had never before given money to either Clinton, according to The Post s analysis. More than two decades ago, one of the nation s richest executives signed on early to support Bill Clinton s move to the national stage. In November 1991, Sam M.

Walton, the conservative founder of Wal-Mart, sent an unlikely missive to all his corporate managers: He asked them to donate to Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton s presidential bid. The billionaire retailer was a staunch Republican and fiercely anti-union. The young Democratic governor had entered state politics with the enthusiastic backing of organized labor. But Walton had come to respect Clinton and his wife, who had served on his company s board for five years.

Walton said he still planned to vote for President George H.W. Bush but would do everything he could to help Clinton secure the Democratic nomination.

I assure you the Walton family will join many others across the nation to provide Bill maximum financial assistance as well as other campaign support, Walton wrote in a two-page memo obtained by The Post. Walton s relationship with the Clintons illustrated how the young couple won over the state s business elite, often to the dismay of their union supporters. Walton first got to know Hillary Clinton in 1983, when her husband tapped her to chair a state educational standards commission. Her panel rolled out a major reform proposal, one that eventually called for required teacher competency testing an idea abhorrent to the teachers unions.

But the initiative was embraced by Arkansas corporate leaders, who hoped bolstering the state s long-flagging school system would spur investment and economic expansion. Walton led an elite group of Arkansas executives the Good Suits Club who helped the Clintons sell the program.

Thomas Mack McLarty, a close Clinton friend who was then chief executive of the leading gas utility in the state and one of the dozen business leaders who participated in the effort. In a little-known episode, the Clintons and their business allies used a then-novel political tactic to build support for the initiative, financing two nonprofit organizations that touted the need for the education overhaul. The measure was bitterly opposed by teachers unions. A leader of the Arkansas Education Association, Peggy Nabors, wrote in a November 1983 letter to teachers around the state that the Clintons proposal had done inestimable damage to the teaching profession, according to a copy obtained by The Post.

As Hillary Clinton toured Arkansas to promote the reform package, she encountered fierce opposition. It s hard. But someday they ll understand, her longtime friend Diane Blair recalled her saying, according to a Clinton biography by Carl Bernstein. The hotly contested measure passed, and the initiative, which included more money for public schools, eventually yielded improvements in Arkansas educational system.

Just as Hillary Clinton predicted, the teachers unions came around. Although other Arkansas labor leaders remained deeply disappointed by the Clinton record, Nabors had become an avid supporter by the time Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992, joining the campaign to tout his education record.

We disagreed strongly on that one issue but were in agreement on so many others, she said in an interview. Nabors said she told the Clintons, Everyone has the opportunity to be wrong at least once, and this was yours. Today, the two major national teachers unions rank among the Clintons biggest supporters.

The National Education Association has contributed at least $1.3 million to bolster their races, while the American Federation of Teachers has given more than $756,000 to support them politically and at least $1 million to their foundation. In July, AFT endorsed11 Hillary Clinton s 2016 presidential bid the first national union to do so. The Clintons Arkansas experience would prove to be a template for their national approach. Time and again, they sided with business interests, infuriating their liberal allies. But the estrangement was rarely permanent.

They made a very conscious move toward the center, in part probably because of fundraising demands and in part because of ideology, said Andrew Stern, former president of the Service Employees International Union.

They believe as I do that the Democratic Party has to be pro-growth. By the time the Clintons left Arkansas, they had forged strong relationships with the state s power structure. Hillary Clinton was a corporate lawyer at the Rose Law Firm, the embodiment of the Little Rock establishment. She had become good friends with James B. Blair, an early donor to Bill Clinton and counsel to Tyson Foods, who encouraged her to join him in investing in commodity futures, where she parlayed a $1,000 initial investment into a $100,000 profit. And she had served on several company boards, including Wal-Mart, which gave her more than $100,000 in stock options.

Walton and his wife, Helen, who both wrote $1,000 checks to Bill Clinton in 1991, did not donate to Clinton campaigns after that race. But their daughter, Alice Walton, has remained an ally, contributing $25,000 to Ready for Hillary, a super PAC that laid the groundwork for her 2016 bid. And Wal-Mart itself has been a big supporter of the Clinton Foundation12, donating close to $1.2 million to finance student-run charitable projects and paying $370,000 in membership fees since 2008, according to a company spokesman. Other key alliances took root in Arkansas. It was in Little Rock that Bill Clinton met Charlie Trie, the owner of a small restaurant who would later plead guilty to a scheme13 to funnel illegal donations originating in China into Democratic Party coffers. Clinton s friendships with Arkansans such as producer Harry Thomason and actor Mary Steenburgen helped open doors in Hollywood, a key source of money for later campaigns.

And his connections to the state s banking families would later help him deftly navigate Wall Street. As a young Democratic finance staffer, Matt Gorman was one of the first to get a look at the national fundraising network that then-Gov. Bill Clinton had started building from his base in Arkansas. It was a box crammed with business cards, Georgetown University alumni newsletters and cocktail napkins scrawled with notes such as, Call me if you ever run for president.

I never saw anything like it, said Gorman, who was handed the box when he arrived in Little Rock in August 1991. Gorman sorted the motley collection into 50 manila envelopes one for each state other than Arkansas, as well as Puerto Rico and began appealing to skeptical party financiers to back the little-known governor in his bid for the White House.

From those humble origins, the Clintons constructed an unsurpassed fundraising operation that soon reached into every major industry from venerable Wall Street institutions to emerging powers in Silicon Valley. It began with the sheer force of Bill Clinton, up close.

Ken Brody, a Goldman Sachs executive who had gotten to know the young governor through the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, brought Clinton to a small dinner party in Manhattan in 1991. There, he bowled over the group of 15 influential bankers and media executives, including then-Goldman Sachs co-chairman Robert Rubin.

It was a remarkable evening, Rubin recounted in an oral history he gave for the William J. Clinton Presidential History Project. It was about three hours or thereabouts, and he engaged with people in a way that nobody else I had seen in political life had, that sort of give and take.

I left there thinking to myself, This is a very impressive guy. Rubin joined Clinton s campaign as an economic adviser, and other Goldman Sachs partners mobilized their networks to raise money for the upstart candidate. Across the country, Clinton had a similar impact on the conservative businessmen who then ran Silicon Valley.

At a brunch organized by Democratic fundraiser Gloria Rose Ott at the newly opened Fairmont Hotel in San Jose, the Arkansas governor dazzled the guests, including Apple chief executive John Sculley and Hewlett-Packard president John Young, both longtime Republicans.

He had a stunning conversance about what we were doing here and why people should be paying attention to Silicon Valley, said former California state controller Steve Westly, an early executive at eBay. Sculley and Young helped draft the campaign s high-tech policy. And in September 1992, they were among more than 20 top industry leaders many of them lifelong GOP backers who held a news conference14 endorsing Clinton. That night, venture capitalist Sanford Robertson hosted a $5,000-a-couple fundraiser for Clinton at his historic San Francisco mansion with other industry leaders, helping raise more than $300,000 for the campaign.

Once in office, Clinton brought many of his new friends from Wall Street and the tech sector to Washington. Sculley had a seat next to Hillary Clinton at her husband s first State of the Union address. Ott was appointed to the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. Brody was named the head of the Export-Import Bank. And Rubin was tapped to lead the National Economic Council, eventually becoming treasury secretary. Like-minded Wall Streeters such as investment banker Roger Altman joined him in the new administration, and early on they helped craft an economic policy known as Rubinomics that was applauded by Wall Street but viewed critically by many on the left.

When then-first lady Hillary Clinton decided to run for the Senate in New York in 2000, she turned to Rubin and Altman to introduce her to key players on Wall Street. Wall Street s influence prevailed during most of Bill Clinton s presidency but ran into an unexpected hurdle late in his second term thanks in part to his wife. At the time, big banks and allied businesses had formed a powerful lobbying coalition seeking more clout in recovering assets in the growing number of personal bankruptcies.

Labor leaders and Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Warren led opposition to the bill, arguing it would hurt debt-burdened families while enriching the banking sector. For help, Warren turned to the first lady, who came to her Harvard Law School office in 1998 and discussed the measure at length.

A Fighting Chance. 15

Hillary Clinton joined with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), writing letters and calling members of Congress to oppose the bank-sponsored legislation. But after a costly, intense lobbying campaign during which President Clinton stayed silent the bill passed Congress in 2000. Then, in the waning days of his administration, the president disappointed the bankers and left the bill unsigned, effectively vetoing it. He did so after having been urged on by his wife, Warren wrote.

A year later, however, Hillary Clinton played a decidedly different role when she was faced with a similar bankruptcy bill as a freshman senator. She had just been elected with the strong support of the financial sector, which contributed $2.1 million of the $30 million she raised in 2000, one of the largest industries to back her, The Post s analysis found. The measure her husband had vetoed was reintroduced in Congress, and Clinton switched sides supporting it, along with 36 other Democrats.

She argued that the legislation had been improved since her earlier opposition. At her insistence, she said, sections were removed that would have ended special protection for child support payments. Even so, the bill which failed was vigorously opposed by consumer groups and unions that said it would harm the poor and vulnerable while giving huge advantages to banks, credit card companies and car dealers. Warren, who declined to comment for this article, later recalled Clinton s switch with some bitterness.

The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not, Warren wrote in her 2003 book, The Two-Income Trap, 16 published nine years before she was elected to the Senate. Big banks were now part of Senator Clinton s constituency, she added.

Clinton has since said she regrets her 2001 stance and opposed a similar bankruptcy bill when it was passed in 2005. (She missed the vote because her husband was in surgery.)

Over her political career, she has maintained close relations with the financial sector, which tops the list of industries that have supported her, according to The Post s analysis. Other major sectors that have backed her include the entertainment industry, health care and real estate. Since 2000, Hillary Clinton has raised $29.2 million from the PACs and employees of banks, hedge funds, securities firms and insurance companies, according to The Post analysis. During his political career, Bill Clinton raised $39.7 million from the same sector. In her current campaign, Clinton has pledged to rein in Wall Street.

She has proposed higher taxes on high-frequency traders and an end to special tax breaks for hedge fund managers, and recently called for more aggressive enforcement of criminal statutes that govern the finance industry. But her rhetoric has not alarmed her backers in the financial sector. So far, donors in the banking and insurance industries have given $6.4 million to her campaign and allied super PACs, behind only those in communications and technology, The Post found. Hillary Clinton is drawing enthusiastic support from Silicon Valley, one of the first industries to rally around her husband nearly a quarter-century ago.

Marc Benioff, chief executive of the cloud computing company, gave $50,000 with his wife, Lynne, to the Ready for Hillary super PAC in 2013. The next year, paid Hillary Clinton $451,000 to deliver two speeches.

Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google, and one of the biggest players in the industry, has said he s a fan of Clinton.

And her campaign has hired a new start-up Schmidt helped bankroll called the Groundwork, which is developing cutting-edge technology to help engage supporters. Other top tech executives and entrepreneurs are jockeying to host events for her campaign. Among them: Michael and Xochi Birch, founders of the social networking company Bebo, who crammed 145 people into their San Francisco mansion in September for a breakfast reception with the candidate.

Hillary shows up with this great lineage and this incredible Rolodex she s cultivated over the years, Westly said. She has built a very, very strong base. The power of Hillary Clinton s donor base and its steady expansion was encapsulated by a 14-event cross-country fundraising sprint she did in late September, bringing in at least $4.4 million for her campaign in just six days.

Clinton started in New York, where John Zaccarro Jr., a real estate developer and son of the late Geraldine Ferraro, hosted 135 donors at his home. Zach Iscol, whose mother, Jill, is a close friend of Hillary Clinton, had another 100 contributors at his residence two days later. In New Jersey, Clinton headlined a fundraiser at the estate of public-relations executive Michael Kempner. Among the guests was New Jersey Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, who told the crowd about how she met the then-first lady two decades earlier to discuss legislation that would guarantee that new mothers could have an overnight hospital stay. A few days later, Clinton she was in California, mingling with Saban and other old Hollywood friends at the Brentwood home of studio chief Rob Friedman and his wife, Shari.

But she wasn t just feted by longtime family loyalists. The network now has new players such as Tracey Turner, a microfinance entrepreneur who held an event for Clinton at her home in Belvedere, Calif.

This is the first time I ve done anything remotely like this, Turner said. I have a daughter who is 6, and I thought, You know what, I want my daughter to be part of this moment in history. She pitched the campaign on an unusual idea a bring your child to meet the first woman president fundraiser.

And that s how 150 supporters and just as many kids gathered in Turner s yard on a Monday afternoon for a garden party that raised at least $400,000 for the campaign. Clinton ditched her stump speech and instead fielded questions from the kids.

Everyone went wild, recalled Turner, who said the former secretary of state fielded topics that ranged from the height of the Washington Monument to the plight of Syrian children. Later that evening, Clinton collected at least $310,000 more at the home of trial attorney Robert Shwarts and photographer-writer Joni Binder in Orinda, Calif. The couple have done little political fundraising, hosting just one previous reception for Clinton in 2007.

But they were eager to take part again this year.

It s intimate she s funny and she makes eye contact, and you feel like she s talking just to you, Binder said. When everyone walked out, no one s feet were touching the ground. You left hugging total strangers. Binder is now all in with the Clintons for the long haul.

I m at their beck and call, she said. I would do anything that they asked.

Clarification/correction: This story has been modified to clarify Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe s advice to Bill and Hillary Clinton on interacting with major donors. Another change corrects the figure for the amount that an individual can give to a joint committee raising funds for Hillary Clinton s campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state party committees.

Alice Crites, Rosalind S. Helderman and Dan Keating in Washington contributed to this report. Gold and Narayanswamy reported from Washington.

Hamburger reported from Little Rock and Fayetteville, Ark., and Washington.

How we did it

This project is an effort to identify every known donor who contributed to support Bill and Hillary Clinton over their four decades in public life. The findings come from Arkansas fundraising records; federal campaign finance data from the Federal Election Commission and the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics; legal defense fund contributions compiled by Political MoneyLine; and donor information disclosed by the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The findings were also drawn from interviews with more than 100 Clinton contributors, fundraisers and aides.

In all, The Post identified donations from roughly 336,000 individuals, corporations, unions and foreign governments who have supported the Clintons political or philanthropic endeavors.

Read more about our methodology.17


  1. ^ (
  2. ^ Clinton Foundation (
  3. ^ wealthy foreign donors (
  4. ^ (
  5. ^ lecture circuit (
  6. ^ (
  7. ^ (
  8. ^ (
  9. ^ (
  10. ^ (
  11. ^ (
  12. ^ Clinton Foundation (
  13. ^ (
  14. ^ (
  15. ^ (
  16. ^ (
  17. ^ Read more about our methodology. (

First Corporate Consulting to Add International Service to its Illinois …

First Corporate Consulting Inc. is pleased to announce that it will soon be adding international service to its Illinois Private Detective agency. The firm is run by Illinois private detective Arnold M.

Diamond, and it is a national provider for various types of consultative services which provides cutting-edge services to its clients. First Corporate Consulting Inc. is located in the suburbs of Chicago, and is well suited for conducting various investigations throughout the entire state of Illinois, the US, and overseas.

When it comes to hiring an Illinois private detective, or Private Detective Agency, individuals and companies want to work with experienced, reliable professionals.

They want access to a level of expertise that is not found in all private detective agencies. And they want quality results. This is what they get when they work with First Corporate Consulting Inc.

First Corporate Consulting Inc. offers a variety of high-quality services including: Court Records and Bank Accounts: This Illinois private investigator has experience with working with legal firms as well as financial institutions.

Can retrieve various types of court documents, is able to manage bulk data, and can also acquire bank account or asset information. This type of investigation can be very helpful in a variety of ways for those who need accurate and timely information concerning financial matters or court dispositions. High-Level Investigations: The firm offers private investigation services, as well as private detectives and investigators who can conduct professional level and confidential investigations.

These investigations can be performed on either a local or a national level, and in some cases on an international level. All investigations are conducted in an ethical, highly organized, and timely manner. In addition, all private detectives and investigators that work on a case or investigation are thoroughly debriefed by professional case managers.

Private detectives and investigators are supervised throughout the investigation, and all clients are kept informed throughout the process. Services include: Locate and Process, Video Surveillance, Undercover Investigations, Physical Protection Services, and Profiling Services. Forensic Investigations: This Illinois private detective agency is also able to conduct forensic investigations.

They can apply proven methodologies to all investigations which results in clients receiving the best possible results. Services include: Computer Forensics Investigations, Bug Sweeps and debugging, Wrongful Conviction Investigations, Recovery of Physical Evidence, and Cold Case Investigations. The above are only a few of the many services this Chicago private detective agency offers its clients.

There private investigation services are available in the local Chicago area, throughout the state of Illinois, nationwide within the US, and also available in many other countries through the First Corporate Consulting Inc.

network of professional private detectives and investigators.

For more information on the firm’s international capabilities, please visit the company website.

UKCMA calls for views on regulation roadmap

UKCMA calls for views on regulation roadmap The UK Crowd Management Association is meeting on 8 January to discuss its formal response to the Government’s proposed changes around private sector security regulation. The UK Crowd Management Association (UKCMA) has always supported the Security Industry Authority (SIA) in its aims to improve standards and public confidence in the private security sector. According to the UKCMA, the SIA “has been an overarching independent regulator, providing a central focus and licensing scheme for the industry”.

The Government’s proposals for the future of regulation, which are out for consultation, move to transfer responsibility to a new regulatory regime wherein the industry will play a greater role. The UKCMA will now meet on 8 January to agree on a formal response. While the organisation states that there are some good points to the proposals, it also points out that “there is still significant uncertainty in several areas” which it has duly highlighted.

The financial burden to businesses is being severely underestimated, with small businesses and individuals bearing a disproportionate cost Individuals entering the business may have an unclear, restrictive route to attain a license In the absence of an independent central body, who will own and manage all of the license data and could this create a data privacy problem?

There is an underlying assumption that the industry has matured sufficiently since the Private Security Industry Act 2001 came into being to take on self-regulatory responsibility – the industry faces a real danger of becoming fractured under an unelected regime A body run by unelected private heads of business is likely to favour commercial interests and biases rather than the needs of the wider industry The public confidence built over the last decade in the private security sector could soon be diminished in a sector awarding its own licenses The likely make-up of the new overarching authority will be dominated by the static guarding sector rather than event specialists, which would be a very regressive step for the live events sector On its website, the UKCMA comments: “It’s imperative that we respond as an association, and we encourage all companies and individuals to respond and raise any concerns you may have via the following links…”: The Future Regulatory Regime for the Private Security Sector Private Security Industry Future Regulatory Regime: Impact Assessment Respond to the Consultation Further information is also available on the SIA website Indeed, the Regulator has issued another Update encouraging industry responses ahead of the closing date All companies and security professionals are urged to read the consultation documents and formally respond by 15 January 2013