Security to be tightened at Christmas markets amid fears of Berlin-style attack

COUNTER TERROR Security will be bolstered at forthcoming Christmas markets around the UK as councils aim to prevent a repeat of the Berlin attack that left 12 dead and 56 injured last year. Concrete bollards, armed police and random bag searches are among the measures being considered by police and local councils. The Local Government Association is reported to have urged councils to adhere to government guidance on protecting crowded places from attack.

Some Christmas market organisers are working with police to provide anti-terror training to staff as part of Project Griffin, a counter-terrorism initiative aimed at businesses. Depending on the terror threat level currently severe (an attack is highly likely) at the time, armed officers could be stationed around markets perimeter. Councils are stressing, however, that an armed police presence does not necessarily mean that an attack is imminent. Demand for concrete bollards has surged in the last two years following a series of attacks including incidents in Nice, Berlin and London Bridge where terrorists have weaponised vehicles in order to inflict mass casualties. Physical barriers were installed on three of London s bridges in the wake of June s terror attack at London Bridge and Borough Market. A Southampton city council spokesman has confirmed that concrete bollards will be installed ahead of 11 November when the city s own Christmas market opens. However, temporary outdoor events like Christmas markets and street festivals also require temporary solutions and the market is responding. ATG Access, for instance, has launched a lightweight road block system that can be deployed quickly and withstand the force of a 2,500kg vehicle traveling at 30 miles per hour. Avon Barrier Corporation, another UK firm, is even considering how to provide protection from gunfire.

Speaking to Arab News in August, Paul Jeffrey, the company s managing director, said: We are also looking at advertising boarding, so you incorporate some kind of ballistic protection within an advertising boarding so people run and hide. I am working on some very big projects that include that sort of thing. In London, the Metropolitan Police Service has said that additional safety measures around Christmas markets like Hyde Park s Winter Wonderland are likely. The public may see additional protective security measures and barriers at events this year, in response to a number of vehicle-based terrorist attacks we have sadly seen both here in the UK and abroad, said a force spokesman. There could also be increased security checks at some events and venues so we advise the public to arrive in plenty of time to allow for this. Guidance for mitigating security vulnerabilities around major public transport hubs, recently issued by the Department for Transport to local authorities, also incorporated recommendations about deterring attackers using vehicles as a weapon . German Christmas markets have proliferated in the UK in the last two decades and are regularly packed with people, day and night. 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 Related Topics At least 50 reported dead and 400 injured in Las Vegas shooting Finalists announced for the Security & Fire Excellence Awards 2017 How evolving terror tactics have driven advances in perimeter security

The 10 musts of museum access control and one technology that does them all

When Munch s The Scream was stolen from an Oslo museum in 1994, the thieves left a handwritten postcard. It read: Thanks for the poor security. As that famous heist and others show, every exhibit risks theft, damage, vandalism or terrorism both carefully planned and opportunistic.

In 2008, a gallery in Z rich lost artworks by Monet, C zanne, Degas and van Gogh in under five minutes. According to the FBI, less than five percent of stolen masterpieces are ever recovered. Evidence suggests most thefts occur where security systems are inadequate. Within a multi-layered system, effective access control can play a key role in ensuring the worst does not happen whether in a heritage property with historic architecture to maintain, or in a modern building where contemporary security blends in easily. The basic principles of access control are well established: only authorised people should have access to display or storage areas, only at times that can be defined in advance, and only within a system that can identify exactly who went where, and when. Traditional mechanical lock-and-key systems cannot accomplish this at least, not without a huge admin burden on security staff. But modern, electronic wireless access control has the functionality and flexibility to achieve it, if a simple checklist of 10 musts is covered: Is your system comprehensive, covering all doors and other openings, including basements, storage areas and the roof? Are locks certified for resistance to physical attack (e.g. anti-picking technology)?

Can any compromised lock be re-keyed and/or replaced instantly? Is key tracking straightforward so you always know who exactly has keys or access permissions, and can amend those permissions quickly? Are full audit trails easy to generate, detailing who has gone where, and when? Have you minimised the number of keys in circulation, and only issue them based on need, not convenience or seniority? Can you offer fine-grained levels of access to different site users as required? Are your physical keys protected against unauthorised copying? Is remote unlocking or locking of the main door enabled if there s an emergency? Are locks and other devices discreet enough to maintain a property s appearance (castle treasury, country house, historic theatre, church sacristy, and so on)? CLIQ has the credentials for national heritage CLIQ is a locking system which combines high-end mechanical and electronic protection.

A range of key-operated cylinders maximise physical security. CLIQ technology then adds an extra layer of encrypted, user-friendly electronic security on top. Security managers at Berlin s Deutsches Theater chose CLIQ to protect their historic premises, an icon of 19 th -century Neoclassical architecture. The theatre s new system integrates CLIQ s cutting-edge microelectronics with a high-quality mechanical cylinder system. Security staff simply program each CLIQ key with the exact access rights its user needs. Fine-grained permission schedules, right down to the individual door, can be set for every employee and contractor. Using straightforward system software, any CLIQ key can be scheduled to permit entry only at pre-set times during public opening times, for example, or after hours for cleaning staff. Permission updates are communicated from system to door via CLIQ programming keys. Because CLIQ locks are wireless, no major alterations were needed to existing door hardware or building aesthetics a critical feature when refitting an historic property like the Deutsches Theater.

In Sweden, Stockholm s Vasamuseet also upgraded an old mechanical system to CLIQ . Staff used to carry heavy keychains with 10 or more keys. Now facility managers can amend the access rights of everyone s single CLIQ key at any time, even remotely. Previously, the biggest problem was lost keys, says Michael Andr sen, Operations and Security Officer at the State Maritime Museums, Sweden. Then the lock had to be replaced, which was expensive. With CLIQ , a lost key s access rights are simply removed, instantly, and it no longer opens any doors. With CLIQ , it s clear where our keys are. Making museums more cost-efficient CLIQ can be installed from scratch or retro-fitted to existing mechanical locks. Once CLIQ has been installed, administrators can immediately de-authorise a lost key or change a key s permissions, at any time and from anywhere.

Only genuine CLIQ keys with a valid software authorization will open a CLIQ lock, eliminating any potential risks from stolen or copied keys. Returns on security investment for museums are often measured in what doesn t happen. CLIQ , however, also has a positive impact on workflows, saving time and money. By eliminating the need for physical key handover, CLIQ removes delays caused by logistical bottlenecks. When facility needs change, site users simply update their key with programming devices or via an encrypted Bluetooth connection to their CLIQ Connect mobile phone app. It s enough to make an art thief scream. ASSA ABLOY sells and supports CLIQ technology under several locking brands, including IKON, ABLOY, Mul-T-Lock, ASSA, Vachette, FAB and KESO. About ASSA ABLOY ASSA ABLOY is the global leader in door opening solutions, dedicated to satisfying end-user needs for security, safety and convenience. Since its formation in 1994, ASSA ABLOY has grown from a regional company into an international group with about 47,000 employees, operations in more than 70 countries and sales close to SEK 71 billion.

In the fast-growing electromechanical security segment, the Group has a leading position in areas such as access control, identification technology, entrance automation and hotel security.

Related Topics Deliveries on your doormat even if you re out thanks to a smart new service from ASSA ABLOY and PostNord For connected home and residential service providers, smart locks open doors to new opportunities The pioneer behind the world s first unpickable lock: Abloy celebrates 110th birthday

Private investigator fees, how much is it going to cost me

How much will hiring a private investigator cost me?

Below you ll find our typical rates per investigator. You might already know what you need but please do call 0141 548 8055 because based on our experience we re often able to offer a more cost effective solution than you may realise.

Private Investigator Fees, How Much Is It Going To Cost Me

The cost per investigator depends on the time of day

The cost of every investigation is different and will depend upon a number of factors including:

  • The number of investigators required
  • When the investigation takes place (daytime, evening or through the night)
  • The need for any special equipment

Charges for a typical investigation

To help you decide if a private investigation is an option you want to pursue we have put together some costing for three common scenarios. For a more detailed discussion of you own situation and the likely cost of solving your problem or putting your mind at ease please call 0141 548 8055 (Glasgow), or 07525 047007.

Matrimonial surveillance

A client called us because she believed her husband to be having an affair and that the extra marital activity was taking place while our client worked night shift. We discussed various options with our client and decided it best to surveil her property (the marital home) over a period of three nights, the following Wednesday, Thursday and Friday evening when our client would be at work. The surveillance included a two man team and was arranged for 8pm midnight on each evening. If the client s husband left their home our investigators were instructed to follow the husband and to continue surveillance through the night until the husband returned home. On the first evening the husband stayed at home.

On the second evening the husband was surveilled leaving the marital property and followed to an address 30mins away where he entered a domestic residence and where the door to the residence was opened by a female. At 2.25am the husband left the residence. He was accompanied to the door by a female in nightwear. We reported our findings including video evidence to our client and the third night of surveillance was cancelled because although deeply distressed our client was now sure of her husband s indiscretions. In this instance the charge for the private investigation was 625 +VAT plus mileage.

Tracing birth mother

A lady who was adopted at birth had failed in several prior attempts in locating her birth mother before contacting us. With the details provided we were able to conduct desk based research to establish the current location of the mother and this was followed up by physical surveillance to establish without doubt that the birth mother was residing at the address we had uncovered. In this instance and with a great deal of sensitivity we approached the birth mother (at her daughter s request) and left with her a letter, some photographs and the telephone number of her birth daughter. A few days later mother and daughter met for the first time since their separation and was welcomed with open arms into a new part of her family. In this case the cost to hire a private investigator was 270 + Vat plus mileage.

Suspected sickness fraud

We were approached by a local business where the owner believed one of his employees was fraudulently claiming sickness benefit. The employee was an electrician and over the course of a two week surveillance (at different times each the day) was observed entering and leaving a number of domestic premises and on each occasion with a works bag in hand. Video evidence was provided to the employer and the employee dismissed. We charged 1440 + VAT and mileage to complete this investigation. The exact charge for a private investigator will vary from case to case and you must also be prepared to cover incidental expenses for example entry fees or the purchase of food or drink if the surveillance is being conducted on licensed premises or restaurant.

In some cases your fears may be unfounded and in other cases we ll provide a written report that confirms your suspicions. In each and every case you can be assured of our utmost professionalism, sensitivity and discretion. Do you have more questions on the cost to hire a private investigatior?

Call us 0141 548 8055.

Or click here1 to enquire online. If you haven t used a private investigation service before you ll find more info on our website answering frequently asked questions2 and to help you choose the best investigator for you. We offer a professional investigation service across the UK backed up by our experience of ex-police officers, military personnel and professional memberships3.


  1. ^ Contact (
  2. ^ Private detective service FAQs (
  3. ^ Private detective investigator Glasgow (

IP CCTV: What does pixel density mean exactly?

IN DEPTH An IP surveillance system may be used to observe and protect people, objects and people s activity inside and outside the objects, traffic and vehicles, money handling in banks, or games in casino environment. All of these objects of interest may have different clarity when displayed on a workstation screen. The image clarity depends primarily on the camera used, the imaging sensor, its lens and the distance from the object.

There is one parameter in IP CCTV that expresses the image clarity in a simple way with just one parameter: pixel density. The pixel density is usually expressed in pixels per metre (Pix/m), at the object plane, although it can be expressed in pixels per foot. Pixel density in IP CCTV sense should not be confused with the display pixel density quoted by various LCD display manufacturers which defines the screen density, in pixels per inch (PPI). The advantage of expressing object clarity with its pixel density is that it combines the sensor size, pixel count, focal length and distance to the object in just one parameter . When using pixel density metrics all variables are included and makes it universally understandable what details you will get on an operator s workstation screen. When designing a system, or a tender for a system, one can request pixel density for a particular image quality. So, instead of asking for a 6 mm lens for your camera in a particular location, for example (which means nothing without knowing the camera sensor it is used on), it would be much more useful if a particular pixel density is defined for the view. This will then be used to calculate the required lens for the particular camera used and the distance from the object. This will guarantee the clarity of the image (assuming the lens is focused optimally and there is sufficient light, of course).

Pixel density can be used for any object that IP CCTV user might be interested in: face, licence plate, playing card, money and similar. Let us now explore how many pixels per metre are attributed to various objects. One of the most commonly referred pixel densities is for Face Identification. Face Identification in CCTV means sufficient clarity of the image so that one can positively identify who the person on the screen is. According to Australian Standards AS4806.2, for Face Identification in analogue CCTV, we require 100% person s height to fit on the monitor screen display. The details of 100% person s height on a screen have been tested many times and it s been verified that they are sufficient for such a person to be identified. We know that PAL signal is composed of 576 active TV lines, so, according to AS4806.2, a person s height would occupy all of the active lines to make it 100%. Head occupies around 15% of a person s height, which is equivalent to around 86 lines (576 x 0.15 = 86.4), which is the same when converted to pixels (assuming recording is made full TV frame mode, which is equal to two TV fields). If we agree that an average person height is 170 cm, the head would occupy around 25 cm of that.

The pixel density at the object, which is required to make a positive Face Identification according to AS 4806.2, can be calculated to be 86 pixels at 25 cm of head height. Since there are 4 times 25 cm in 1 m of height, this becomes 4 x 86 = 344 pix/m. So, one can say that with pixel density of 344 pix/m at the objects plane it should be possible to positively identify a face, according to AS4806.2. Face Identification as per AS4806.2 Some other standards may require different values, and one such (newer) standard is the IEC 62676-4, which defines 250 pix/m to be sufficient (i.e. suggests that with slightly lesser pixel density than the AS standards one should be able to identify a person). Clearly, this number is not fixed in concrete, and it will depend on the observing ability of the operator, as well as other parameters (lens quality, illumination, compression artefacts, etc ), but the key is to understand that such a pixel density can be calculated for any type of camera, irrespective if that is SD, HD, 4k or any other format. The next image quality down, as defined by the standards is for Face Recognition. The details of Face Recognition image should be sufficient to recognise the gender of a person, what he/she is wearing and possibly make an assertion of who that person might be, if picked from a bunch of people that have already been identified somewhere else (e.g. passport or drivers licence photo).

This is basically an image with half the pixel density to the face identification, which according to AS4806.2 should be around 172 pix/m, while IEC62676-4 suggests 125 pix/m. Similarly, pixel density can be defined for vehicle licence plates visual recognition (not software automatic LPR). In the AS 4806.2, this is defined as 5% characters height on a display screen, which is around 30 TV lines (pixels) (to be very accurate 576 x 0.05 = 28.8). If we assume that a typical Australian number plate has characters of around 90 mm in height, than this equates to 11 x 30 pixels = 330 pix/m. The number 11 is obtained from dividing 1000 mm (1 m) with 90 mm. One may say that for visual licence plates recognition similar pixel density is required as for face identification. Licence plate recognition as per AS4806.2 When money and playing cards are observed in banks or casinos, many practical tests have shown that at least 50 pixels are required across the notes or cards longer side in order to positively identify the values. Standard playing cards dimensions are B8 according to ISO216 standard, which is 62 mm x 88 mm. So, we need the 88 mm card length to be covered with at least 50 pixels for proper identification.

This means around 550 pix/m (1000 mm / 88 mm = 11 => 50 pix x 11 = 550 pix/m) should be sufficient for playing cards. We may require slightly better pixel density for identifying money, since notes size is typically larger than playing cards, so if one takes the Face Inspection pixels density of 1000 pix/m, it should attain pretty good identification, although as it can be seen from the real life example below, even 770 pix/m might be sufficient. Playing cards and money shown above with 770 pix/m As it can be concluded from the above examples, the pixel density can be defined for any object and any camera, large or small. The beauty of the pixel density parameter is, as said at the very beginning, that includes all parameters influencing the clarity of the observed objects. For this reason, ViDi Labs has developed the ViDiLabs iOS calc (search the iTunes App Store under ViDiLabs calc ), a unique tool for the surveillance industry, which can also be used in cinematography, photography and any other imaging application dealing with objects details. So the following table can be used as a rough guide for various pixel densities. 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 Jobs in Attleborough

A vital role has arisen to join our team and be an integral team member as Security Guard working a rolling 4 on 4 off shift pattern.

48 per week.*…. Previous security experience would be an advantage. PLEASE INDICATE IN YOUR APPLICATION, WHICH LOCATION YOU ARE APPLYING FOR **…. Requirements for Retail Security Guard :. What we offer for Retail Security Guard*.

5 year checkable work history…. Every year our teams deliver up to 150 million items through our network. You will maintain the high integrity of the site security by providing a high security Previous experience in Security is desired. Successful candidates need to be able to work as part of a team of officers and will be part of a 24/7 rota taking… We are currently seeking a full-time professional Corporate Security Officer starting immediately with 10.65 per hour…. Retail & Static Security GuardNationwide Security Services Ltd – Birmingham B9. .THE POSTIONS AVAILABLE ARE DOOR SUPERVISORS- EVENT SECURITY – RETAIL & STATIC… MAN Commercial Protection are looking for a number of experienced Full Time Security Officers for an exciting and fast paced Distribution Centre…. Looking for *retail security officers.*.

Looking to recruit officers that are flexible to work between Monday to Sunday…. Have a five year checkable history. Be an effective ambassador for Regent Samsic Security. Presenting at all times a smart, alert, visible and commanding… Static / Retail Security / Door Supervision Security:. Have a valid driving licence and access to own vehicle…. VSG are currently looking for professional Security officers to join one of our prestigious contracts in Warwick…. Requirements for Retail Security Guard :. What we offer for Retail Security Guard*.

5 year checkable work history…. We welcome applications from candidates irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, marital status, religious belief, sexual orientation disability, or age.You must… 5 year checkable work/career history. Security Officer Hinckley*.

Corps Security is currently recruiting for a SIA Licenced Security Officer in the Hinckley…

If only our prisons really were like hotels: How Crown immunity is hobbling efforts to improve fire safety in the HMS Prison Service

In June 2014 Peter Kimberley, the owner of the New Kimberley Hotel in Blackpool, was jailed for 18 months and ordered to pay 5,243 in costs after being found guilty of 15 breaches of fire safety regulations. His 90 room hotel, when inspected by Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service, was found to have fire exits blocked with combustible material, fire doors were locked shut, and there was insufficient water available to fight fires. The New Kimberley Hotel, described in court as a death trap , was shut down.

But Mr Kimberley wasn t a bad chap just an unlucky one in his choice of career. If instead of being a hotelier Mr Kimberley had been the Governor of a prison where exactly the same, and worse, fire safety failures had been discovered, he would not have even been arrested. Certainly he could never have been charged, tried, convicted and sent to his own jail because every prison in England and Wales is immune from prosecution when it comes to fire safety. All prisons are Crown property, and as all criminal charges in England and Wales are brought on behalf of the Crown, the Crown cannot prosecute itself. All that the relevant authorities can do is issue Non-Compliance notices and Crown Enforcement Notices. But they cannot prosecute them. Crown immunity is a nifty bit of legal footwork that allows the Crown to commit exactly the same type of offences with impunity, that see others like Mr Kimberley packed off to prison. If only our prisons really were the hotels many ill-informed people wrongly believe them to be. How did this start?

I have been the editor of The Prisons Handbook for England and Wales for over 20 years and yet the issue of fire safety in our prisons had never really crossed my mind until one awful day six weeks ago. Largely I think it was because fire safety is not mentioned in any inspection report from HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) despite the fact that one of its four Healthy Prisons tests specifically refers to Safety indeed the new Expectations document that comes out next month, on which all prison inspections are based, doesn t even mention the word fire once. There has never been a Parliamentary inquiry into fire safety in prisons I can find, and until 2006, after the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 came into force, there were no fire regulations covering prisons at all none. And then, on 14 June this year, for me Grenfell Tower changed everything. The horrific towering inferno that we all watched on our televisions as fire took hold of the cladding and destroyed the building in what seemed like seconds, is a scene I will never forget it was at that point the prison penny dropped: our prisons have cladding; what if ? Grenfell prisons I contacted Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, and asked him whether in light of Grenfell HMIP had taken any action to inspect fire safety in our prisons? The Chief Inspector replied saying simply that fire safety in prisons was not his bag. Inspecting prisons for fire safety he said was the remit of a little-known independent statutory Inspectorate: the Crown Properties Fire Inspection Group (CPFIG) a part of the Home Office. As an independent inspectorate I searched online for CPFIG prison fire inspection reports; there were none.

When I contacted CPFIG a spokesman told me: due to regulations we work within we are not allowed to publish our reports online. I submitted a Freedom of Information request to CPFIG and within 14 days the 19 prison Fire Safety reports on prisons produced by CPFIG in the year to June 2017 all arrived and I began to read. What I found was deeply troubling.

100% fire-safety failure rate Of the 19 CPFIG inspections in the year to June 2017, every single one had failed statutory fire safety tests and all were issued with legal notices: the full list is at the bottom of this page. CPFIG found failures such as: The fire risk assessment had not identified all the measures which are required to achieve an acceptable level of risk for prison staff, prisoners, contractors & visitors. The Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEPs) did not set out suitable and sufficient individual plans for the evacuation of people with disabilities and had not been reviewed when evacuation needs had changed. Ignition sources were found too close to combustible materials. The ventilation ductwork shared by cells does not provide the necessary protection against the spread of fire and fire gases from cell to cell. The existing smoke control arrangements for enclosed landing areas, corridor approaches are inadequate to prevent smoke spread to other cells in the event of a cell fire. The number of trained prison response staff members available was not always sufficient to implement the cell fire response plan effectively. There were insufficient contingency staff during night state to undertake the evacuation of other cells Corridor approach areas contained an excessive level of combustible material. Emergency doors were secured in a manner which prevents them from being easily and immediately opened by any person who may require to use them in an emergency.

The smoke control arrangements did not ensure that the conditions outside the cell door would remain tenable for prison staff to undertake the cell fire response plan. The arrangements did not ensure that lock-back doors would be released in the event of fire. Evacuation routes were not sufficiently protected against the ingress of fire and smoke. Oh and in case you think these are examples of failures CPFIG found across the prison estate in the last 12 months, let me tell you they re not. This is just a very limited list of failures (running to 18 pages) that they found in just ONE prison (Bristol) they found similar or greater failings in every single prison they inspected in the year to June 2017. Flipping into self-destruct Unlike Grenfell, where its Management Organisation were said to have treated fire safety concerns with contempt, I have not found any evidence to suggest that prison governors are doing the same. On the contrary CPFIG told me that that when serious defects in fire safety are pointed out to prisons they always find a positive response and a willingness to correct them it is the prison finding the resources to do so that is the problem, and a question of how things could ever have been allowed to reach the unlawful fire state they were found to be in, that often goes unanswered. Our prisons are in crisis, as the Prison Governors Association (PGA) made quite clear in a blistering attack on Government policy in 1st August 2017. This is all the more important because the PGA, unlike the Prison Officers Association (POA), is not known for its public attacks on government; usually they just get on with the job.

Make no mistake, the PGA and its critical assessment is absolutely spot on, and I have told them so too. Our prisons are now in real danger of flipping into self-destruct. We have lost 7000 frontline staff in the last five years, many of them the most experienced of all who left under the Voluntary Early Redundancy Scheme (VERS) and, as a result, we have seen a haemorrhaging of vital custodial skills from our prisons that I suspect will take well over a decade to replace. True, staff numbers are increasing, but only 75 officers have been added in the last year, and as the PGA make clear they are often the wrong sort of person to do the job a problem caused by the fact recruitment rests with the Ministry of Justice, while training rests with the Prison Service; that is completely irrational in my view and that of the PGA. As staff numbers have fallen, the prison population has increased, and budgets have been savaged. It is in this atmosphere, where Governors becomes locked each day in a desperate scramble to make the staff available pegs fit the operational holes , that fire safety becomes less of a priority than it should be. Enforcement notices All the prisons inspected by CPFIG in the year to June 2017 were issued with Non-Compliance Notices, followed by 28 day warning notices, and CPFIG even issued Crown Enforcement Notices so serious were the defects they found in four prisons (Featherstone, Rochester, Pentonville and Wealstun which was actually served with three of them). But what s the point, given every prison enjoys immunity from prosecution? Immunity that was not enjoyed, and rightly, by Mr Kimberley, nor by any other commercial buildings, non-domestic and multi-occupancy premises in England and Wales which are subject to inspection and susceptible to prosecution, fines and imprisonment.

The shocking reality is that fire safety in our prisons is just not taken seriously. Prison service instructions Section 4.44 of Prison Service Instruction 11/2015 on the subject of fire safety mandates that the Governing Governor must ensure that prisoners are provided with information on the local arrangements for dealing with fire and that this should normally be done during the prisoner induction process. However, Prison Service Instruction 07/2017, issued just eight weeks earlier, and which covers the induction process doesn t mention the word fire once; even today it has still not been revised to take account of PSI 11/2015. Inadequate monitoring What makes this worse, given that many failings identified by CPFIG in their statutory notices were due to inadequate monitoring , is that every prison has an Independent Monitoring Board (IMB), a statutory watchdog appointed by the Secretary of State for Justice (SOSJ) whose job it is to monitor what happens in our prisons and report to the SOSJ their concerns. Did the IMB report to the SOSJ the service by CPFIG of Non-Compliance Notices, 28-day warning letters or Crown Enforcement Notices about fire safety failings in their prisons? Did they monitor how, and if, the identified fire safety defects set out in the Notice were put right? When I compared the IMB Annual Reports of those prisons served with CPFIG Non-Compliance notices within the year in which CPFIG notices were issued, only one prison, Pentonville, made mention of it in its Annual Report (page 15) the others seemingly airbrushed these legal documents out of existence. Or did they? Were all IMBs even told at all?

Not made aware of the report At HMP Portland one IMB Member on its Board, who I asked in a public twitter exchange with me on 1st August 2017 if her Board had reported the CPFIG non-compliance notice to the SOSJ said: It s an extremely good question, and a good example of us sometimes not knowing what we don t know. Not made aware of Report How are IMBs expected to monitor what happens in our prisons if they are given a sanitized version of reality by the prison itself? Governors must be mandated by Prison Service Instruction to copy all such statutory notices to their IMB on the date on which they are received; come on, its pretty basic stuff. And what of HM Prisons Inspectorate why did they not pick up these dangerous fire safety failures when inspecting these prisons? The answer is sadly a simple one: they never looked and they should have done. Had they done so they would not have issued the completely misleading report on HMP Coldingley that they did after their inspection there on 3rd March 2017. In that report the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Peter Clarke, wrote that when Coldingley was judged against the test for safety: Outcomes for prisoners were reasonably good against this healthy prison test. But that simply wasn t true. Just 26 days after Peter Clarke s Inspection gave Coldingley a reasonably good safety rating, CPFIG came knocking on the prison s gate and they could not have disagreed more when it came to fire safety .

They declared that when it came to fire safety HMP Coldingley was so dangerous they served the prison with a Statutory Non-Compliance Notice, giving them 28 days to correct the fire safety defects or they would issue a Crown Enforcement Notice. CPFIG Inspection found failings, among other things, that included: The procedure is not always followed for removing cigarette lighters and matches from prisoners in Segregation who appear to be at increased risk of self-harming through fire. Normal and/or emergency lighting doesn t provide sufficient illumination to implement the Cell Fire Response plan including the removal of a prisoner from the cell. The measures to reduce the spread of fire and smoke were inadequate. There was insufficient evidence available to demonstrate the effectiveness of the smoke control arrangements for E wing after it was confirmed to have extraction only. The generic cell fire response plan was not suitable for the circumstances in which prisoners are not locked in their cells (night san). The training package delivered to staff does not provide sufficient practical instruction on the use of Inundation equipment. An insufficient number of prison staff members working in residential wings were in date with their training in Respiratory Protective Equipment (RPE) wearing. The number of trained prison response staff members available was not always sufficient to implement the cell fire response plan effectively.

The fire safety measures were not always being tested and maintained in good condition and effective working order. How on earth, less than a month earlier, could HMIP describe this as a safe prison a question I have asked the Chief Inspector? Enough is enough. Fundamental Inspectorate reform It is clear to me that the way we inspect and monitor our prisons is in need of fundamental reform. It currently consists of a series of ad hoc and separate statutory inspectorates, acting alone or scattered across government departments. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspects healthcare in prisons, Ofsted inspects training and skills, CPFIG inspects fire safety, IMBs report to the SoSJ, and HM Prisons Inspectorate itself which reports to parliament. We need is to bring them altogether, under one roof, and ensure the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Currently CPFIG is part of the Home Office, HMIP are part of the Ministry of Justice, as are the IMB, the CQC and Ofsted are stand-alone inspectorates. As a consequence there is inevitable confusion between them as to what is actually going on.

A joined-up inspectorate As Basil Fawlty would say to state the bleedin obvious , what we need is a joined up prisons inspectorate. We we only need one Prisons Inspectorate with experts across the disciplines. Grenfell changed everything and yet in our prisons it changed nothing. Yesterday, 4th August 2017, there were 86,353 people locked up in our prisons (leaving room for just about 750 more before full operational capacity is reached). On top of that we have (March 2017) 32,561 staff and hundreds of thousands of people who visit each year the prison workforce statistics for the quarter to June 2017 has been pulled, it is being revised and the new publication date is confirmed for 17th August 2017. According to a Parliamentary Written Answer in March 2017 there were 2,580 fires in our prisons last year, that s almost 50 blazes every week. True, many of these are minor but the fridge-fire in the 4 th floor flat that seemingly caused the Grenfell disaster was minor when it started, but it still took the lives of around 80 people, devastated the lives of countless others and destroyed the entire building. So what should we do? Firstly we must have a Justice Secretary in David Lidington MP who will jump on this and ensure every CPFIG notice is acted on immediately, also that all IMBs are told of these Notices and that his Prisons Minister is copied in to all such reports and advised in writing by the Governing Governor when the defects have been rectified we have nothing like that at the moment although I m delighted to say that Richard Burgon, the Shadow Justice Secretary, has written to the Justice Secretary demand this.

Secondly we must have a joined-up system of Independent Inspectorates the current system is demonstrably not working. Until we have that in place, HMIP must take with them on inspections CPFIG Inspectors to report on fire safety and its hardly a novel point. Lord Ramsbotham, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons between 1995 and 2001, told me that on prison inspections he conducted: We always took a civil engineer, who looked at fire precautions. He once prevented HMP Canterbury from blowing up, because he found that the boiler had been installed the wrong way round! Thirdly, CPFIG must publish all its fire safety reports online any independent Regulator worthy of the name Independent needs to be seen and heard. Finally, but of equal importance, we must ensure that no one is above the law. The Crown Immunity from Prosecution for breaches of fire safety legislation that currently applies to prison Governors must be removed, responsibility for it then shifted from Governors to HMPPS, and the offences for which the Crown prosecutes, fines and imprisons people like Mr Kimberley, should be made to apply equally to everyone.

Full list of non-compliance notices HMP Bristol Non-Compliant Notice HMP Coldingley Non-Compliant 28 day letter HMP Featherstone Non-Compliant 28 day letter HMP Featherstone Enforcement Notice HMP Garth Non-Compliant Audit Response HMP Gartree Non-Compliant 28 Day Letter HMP Hewell Non-Compliant Report HMP Kirkham Non-Compliant Report HMP Lewes Non-Compliant Notice HMP Lincoln Non-Compliant 28 DayLetter HMP Lindholme Non-Compliant Audit Response HMP Lowdham Grange Non-Compliant Notice HMP Moorland Non-Compliant Notice HMP Northumberland Non-Compliant Report HMP Pentonville Enforcement Notice HMP Portland Non-Compliant Notice HMP Risley Non-Compliant Notice HMP Rochester Enforcement Notice HMP Wealstun Non-Compliant 28 day letter HMP Wealstun Enforcement Notice1 HMP Wealstun Enforcement Notice2 HMP Wealstun Enforcement Notice3 HMP Woodhill Non-Compliant NON-28 day Notice Prison Service Instruction 11/2015 Fire Safety Prison Service Instruction 07/2015 Induction FOIA Response From CPFIG Parliamentary Answer March 2017 on Fires in Prisons Prison Fire Safety Inspections Summary (Compiled by Niamh McIntyre) CPFIG Fire Safety Expectations Prisons This article was originally published on You can follow Mark Leech on @PrisonsorgUK on Twitter.

Oncam pioneers 360-degree dewarping and visualisation tools to aid system design

CCTV system design Oncam has launched a 360-degree dewarping preview tool and a visualisation tool so users can test out the surveillance brand s signature innovations through its website. Anyone looking to procure 360-degree surveillance cameras can test out Oncam s dewarping capability through all browsers. The tool simulates a traditional video stream unfolding in real time.

Operators can use their mouse scroll wheel or trackpad to zoom in or out on, rotate or convert any area of the fisheye image. The online visualization tool, meanwhile, generate views from both the Evolution 05 and 12 cameras based on various heights and object distances. Users can also dewarp the image: ie reverse the effects of geometric distortions caused by the camera lens. The tool was designed as an alternative to the traditional pixel density calculators commonly used in CCTV system design, because the latter could not adequately showcase the dewarping function. Oncam says they are the first tools of their kind in the security industry. Design agencies Storm12 and 41,29 helped Oncam develop the tools, which allow CCTV buyers to road test the solutions before committing to seeing the product in person. Oncam is excited to release these tools to the public, allowing integrators, consultants and end users the ability to view our video technology as today s security leaders are able to in real-time and with exceptional functionality and picture quality, said Richard Morgans, chief marketing officer at Oncam. The tools integrated together show Oncam s adaptability in the security market and willingness to go beyond what is expected to showcase its components and capabilities. Founded in 2007, Oncam is part of Oncam Technologies Group and a pioneer in 360-degree video technologies.

Check out the tools yourself on the Oncam website. 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

AOS – Key Holding & Alarm Response Services in the UK

AOS provides as part of its potfolio of security services, key holding and alarm response, incorporating mobile patrols.

This service, in partnership with a number of select national key holding companies, provides 365 days a year monitoring to any client.

AOS - Key Holding & Alarm Response Services In The UK

Clients use our key holding services for a number of reasons:

  • AOS offers companies a safe alternative to putting their own staff at risk when answering alarm call-outs and gives an unrivaled alarm response service

  • AOS offers companies a lock and unlock service as an alternative to having their own staff taking responsibility for securing the building out of hours

  • AOS provides a rapid response to any security breach especially when the client does not live in the local vicinity

  • AOS provides the client with peace of mind that all security concerns are covered

All calls are routed through to our 24 hr communication centre, which is operational 365 days a year.

Our team are able to tailor services that suit your specific requirements at each of your premises, and with an unrivalled level of transparency and accountability, we provide swift reporting of incidents.

Please contact us1 for more information.



  1. ^ contact us (

IPSS Security for VIP Protection, Guarding, Alarm …

High End Alarm

Need an alarm system? We source local suppliers where appropriate to keep costs low and always install the highest quality, most reliable system. We are SAIDSA approved installers of security systems, CCTV cameras and Electric fencing.

Unlike other security firms, we do not make the use of sub-contractors, but have our own in-house security teams.

SIA courses – Local SIA training courses in London, UK …


Door Supervisor – Aylesbury

Location Address: Missenden Abbey Conference Centre, London Road, Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire, HP16 0BD

Training Provider: Sentinel Gate Training