Cronysim, nepotism, protectionsim, lack of lateral thinking, cartel style ethics...

The industry requires an independent body made of experienced industry professionals. This body, which would not be affected by any outside influencing factors, either personal or business, would remain far more transparent than what the SIA was (is). Only in this way will standards ever have the chance of dictating the levels of service.

A few of these exact points above are also surprisingly rife in government protection led units; both military and police. Standards are very much affected by 'who is in the chair at the time'. They are also affected by an indoctrinated, one could say 'in-bred', thought process insofar as 'things have always been done this way and so why change?' They believe inherently that the way things have always been done simply cannot be improved and as a direct result, fail to make observations of the current system, its shortfalls and the required level headed approach to raising standards where required.

It doesn't help of course that the Close Protection, a form of security, remains a form of 'insurance'. Only when situations are 'tested', often fatally, will standards, TTP's and equipment be re-visited for 're-assessment of doctrine. It requires a mindset of those in authority and power that hold the key to change that is not affected by in-house party politics or fear of 'rocking the boat'. Standards are what makes that individual, team, unit, body. They are the very foundation that produces the results on the ground. Until such lateral thought processes are made then the same standard will be churned out, even if that standard, for the most part, is relatively good.



Rich H

Good post Rich cheers.