Private security firms role ...

General Law Enforcement discussion which does not fit into other channels. Post your thoughts and feelings about anything you want (LE related), or just vent those fumes about whatever is on your chest.
DriveShaft123

Private security firms role ...

Postby DriveShaft123 » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:18 am

Campus Cop wrote:My questions to Blueliners are;

Do you agree that there are high risk locations that need to be treated more aggressively and should these sites even be serviced by private security guards if that's the case? Should or can police be onsite at places like hospitals, malls, housing projects, university campuses, where the real shit comes down? Or is your concern based on the individual security providers? If so will these new regulations make for a better situation?

I may regret asking but... I'm nothing if not a devil's advocate



I took it upon myself to revive this topic. I think its an excellent question to post on here to get some knowledgeable answers ideas from experienced people.

In Ontario the PISGA is coming into new regulations some time next year for private firms and in-house operations (excluding S/Cst’s obviously and government security)
That will change the industry in a huge way.

From MY experiences at high risk sites or public involvement work, in-house and private operations have both been successful and not so successful. It just all depends how the operation is ran by management , who you hire and the funding you have.

For example, I worked at Union Station as a security officer back in the day for CN Police.
The place was going to hell ,we weren’t doing our jobs our firearms were striped after numerous irresponsible situations and we were over paid and understaffed. Nothing got done.
To fix this problem the Chief in Montreal handed us our walking papers, disbanded the department and hired a private security firm to do the work.
Well today at Union there still is a private firm operating the security department and they are doing an awesome job! 10 times better then what we ever did. They run a tight ship and employ and screen only the best young men and women that are ready to take some heavy duty experience in public security and ready themselves for a career in policing.

A bad example is a company that will remain nameless that was involved in a lot of community housing projects in Toronto. Some of their contracts were replaced by in-house officers from the city due to vast amounts of questionable incidents that involved law suits, terminations and police charges against some officers that handled certain sites. I know them personally.

So private firms can be useful in my opinion for certain operations in the high risk sites and bad for others.
I’ll agree that their should be a governance on companies that can handle certain contracts.
Like G4S in my opinion is an “observe and report” blazer and flashlight company for office buildings and condos. Why they are involved in public security in a housing project is beyond me!
I think that in this particular line of work it should be completely in-house.

User avatar
Boxer Dogs
Rookie Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:27 am
Location: Everywhere
Contact:

Postby Boxer Dogs » Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:51 am

My opinion is that public things like housing, transit etc... should be in-house. Take transit for example. If we were to contract out our service with an "observe and report" company things would go downhill very fast. They wouldn't have the use of force training (bus extractions etc...) that we have, or the ability to safely arrest a violent subject (contract security in BC is prohibited from carrying restraint devices). I've noticed that since I moved to Transit, from contract security, we get taken alot more seriously by the public. The use of force training in contract is very minimal, keeping in mind that I am in BC. I will however say that contract security is a good place to start and get some experience in dealing with the public etc...

User avatar
BUDDHA7620
Seasoned Member
Posts: 347
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 1:01 am
Location: SARNIA,ONTARO
Contact:

Postby BUDDHA7620 » Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:17 pm

I believe there are several different topics in the FORUM about this subject or related to this subject.
;)
Do You Feel Lucky Today ......

User avatar
Campus Cop
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:57 pm
Location: Halifax, NS
Contact:

TAPPS

Postby Campus Cop » Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:38 pm

This is an interesting concept. Is it window dressing or a real effort to cooperate. If it is a it could and should be a model for the rest of the nation.

http://www.tapps.org/portal/SmartDefault.aspx
For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13:4

User avatar
NightHunter
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:02 pm
Location: My lair
Contact:

Postby NightHunter » Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:57 am

A well trained, well paid, experienced in-house security team is a must in a setting like public housing. And it also has far reaching effects on the surrounding private sector areas of the city too. As the TCHC head honchos clearly illustrated a couple of years ago, when alleging budget cuts, they elected to dismantle the security branch and permanantly laid off their entire static officer staff in favour of a handful of mobile CPOS and S/Cs, only to have the "summer of the gun" prove they'd made a grave mistake! Once the on-site security was removed from these trouble prone sites, it was as if they had opened Pandora's box!

To attempt to rectify this error, they have been forced to bring back on-site security to restore order and police their properties. And with their previous in-house staff long since gone, consequently to employ cheaper private security agencies, who send out less experienced and inadequately trained contract security guards to staff their problem plagued communities.

TCHC has a number of different agencies that supply static guards to them, and they also still have a small core of in-house CPOs and S/Cs. All of these different, forced agency affiliations naturally produce a breeding ground for distrust amongst the field officers, and an "us against them" mentality which inevitably occurred amongst the security staff of the various different security companies they employ. This is counter-productive to efficient, community based policing.

As for the S/Cs, remember that the special constables originally began only as a pilot program, and can still be dismantled at the request of TPS at any time. If the TCHC can't justify a need for S/Cs, then they will no longer be authorized to have them. And how can they justify having them now, when low paid, contract security staff are doing the same job description, and more effectively?

TCHC should return to the 3 tiered in-house system they once used. S/Os, CPO's and PEOs. This effectively served all the issues and problems that occurred in their many communities, and was totally cost effective. Surely their residents are entitled to quality security delivery. After all, they had it in the past, and they can have it again! It makes perfect sense.

Their present system will ultimately prove the old addage that "too many cooks spoil the broth!"

Gage
Rookie Member
Posts: 0
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 10:10 am
Contact:

Postby Gage » Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:20 am

How about getting rid all the guards and hiring more S/CSTS. I think having a fully staffed S/cst service much like TTC or UofT would be the best method. No disrespect but I would take a peace officer over a civilian any day. (Authority?)

OR just contract the OPP, I would not mind giving the big city ago.

User avatar
Bald Man
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1238
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:12 am

Postby Bald Man » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:18 am

Gage wrote:How about getting rid all the guards and hiring more S/CSTS. I think having a fully staffed S/cst service much like TTC or UofT would be the best method. No disrespect but I would take a peace officer over a civilian any day. (Authority?)

OR just contract the OPP, I would not mind giving the big city ago.



I agree....I think they should hire more S/Cst's and get rid of private security all together. S/Cst's are more effective,better trained and have peace officer authority.....were as private security would have to call police everytime they deal with someone which is a waist of everyones time.

Fozy
Regular Member
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Postby Fozy » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:39 am

I think alot of it comes down to who you hire. I spent about 10 years working in different facits of private security and there are good and there are bad. Site A who has a good security infrastructure does well and takes care of business, Site B who has a poor infrastructure has all kinds of problems. Where do you draw the line?

I finished my security career as a director of security at a major mall. I saw, and now its happening, a real decline in the quality of service offered by even the biggest security companies becasue of the competition from nickle and dime security companies who are dragging the whole industry down.

To sum it all up I agree that some areas could be better policed by private agencies ie transit, housing etc but there needs to more oversight and it needs to be better regulated. The PISGA is a useless piece of legislation because no one enforces it.

S/Cst's are more effective,better trained and have peace officer authority


I don't know if I agree with that. I have dealt with some good S/Cst but I have also dealt with some real cement heads.....
Last edited by Fozy on Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
I don't racially profile
I hate everyone equally!

User avatar
mcdonaja
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Anywhere but here
Contact:

Postby mcdonaja » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:42 am

Private Security is great for office high rises, Industrial Buildings/Sites, Parking Lots etc.

S/Csts for Transit, Universities, Malls, Alarm Response etc. More training, more authority, more equipment = more respect.

Some of the people these firms hire...man ohh man. There's gotta be some standards or enforcement of current standards other than being able to walk and breathe.

I was at a mall a few weeks ago (off duty) and saw this 70 yr old woman....at least she looked 70 trying to tell a group of about a dozen little shit rats to "move along".

I stoodby along with about 1/2 dozen other "guys" who were afraid for this old girl, while she did her thing. I'm not sure if it was the tongue lashing she gave them or the six guys standing behind her, that influenced them into leaving.
"Cops solve problems. Don't be a problem and you won't get solved."
Freedom Friday - Jan 06 2012 - 32 years 1 month

User avatar
mcdonaja
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Anywhere but here
Contact:

Postby mcdonaja » Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:49 am

I forgot to mention something. On one hand the govt appears to be tightening the reins then on the other.......

...you don't have to look very far to see the govt actually in action. I'm sure in the London area there MUST be some sort of "Professional" Security firm, but look what they hired for security at OPC....holy shit...Ironhorse Security or something like that.....wow what a bang for your buck. I guess they still have the contract but they've changed their name...(not much wonder!!)

To think a facility like OPC contracts out to a rinky dink firm like this!!?? Friggin amazing!!! Just think, "THEY" are protecting US when we're on course...hmmm :shock:
"Cops solve problems. Don't be a problem and you won't get solved."
Freedom Friday - Jan 06 2012 - 32 years 1 month

User avatar
CourtOfficer
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby CourtOfficer » Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:05 am

mcdonaja wrote:I forgot to mention something. On one hand the govt appears to be tightening the reins then on the other.......

...you don't have to look very far to see the govt actually in action. I'm sure in the London area there MUST be some sort of "Professional" Security firm, but look what they hired for security at OPC....holy shit...Ironhorse Security or something like that.....wow what a bang for your buck. I guess they still have the contract but they've changed their name...(not much wonder!!)

To think a facility like OPC contracts out to a rinky dink firm like this!!?? Friggin amazing!!! Just think, "THEY" are protecting US when we're on course...hmmm :shock:


Lyndon Security out of Sarnia has the contract at OPC now. How much protection do 400 COPS really need? That job is less about protection and more about watching for recruit stupidity.

CO

User avatar
mcdonaja
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Anywhere but here
Contact:

Postby mcdonaja » Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:06 pm

CourtOfficer wrote:
mcdonaja wrote:I forgot to mention something. On one hand the govt appears to be tightening the reins then on the other.......

...you don't have to look very far to see the govt actually in action. I'm sure in the London area there MUST be some sort of "Professional" Security firm, but look what they hired for security at OPC....holy shit...Ironhorse Security or something like that.....wow what a bang for your buck. I guess they still have the contract but they've changed their name...(not much wonder!!)

To think a facility like OPC contracts out to a rinky dink firm like this!!?? Friggin amazing!!! Just think, "THEY" are protecting US when we're on course...hmmm :shock:


Lyndon Security out of Sarnia has the contract at OPC now. How much protection do 400 COPS really need? That job is less about protection and more about watching for recruit stupidity.

CO


Anything has to be better than "Ironhorse".

The college also houses the offices for CISO, not to mention various assortment of weapons, regular members on course with hoards of surviellance vehicles, UC cars etc no doubt housing lots of "toys".

You in the parking lot..."FREEZE"...Lyndon Security.....I don't know, just not much of a deterent there. :ponder:
"Cops solve problems. Don't be a problem and you won't get solved."
Freedom Friday - Jan 06 2012 - 32 years 1 month

User avatar
Bitterman
Rookie Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:09 pm
Contact:

Postby Bitterman » Sun Mar 04, 2007 12:17 pm

In the end it's the bean counters who'll decide who polices what....
As a tax payer I'd object to public police being used to police any private interest...
Admit nothing.
Deny everything.
Make counter accusations...

User avatar
CourtOfficer
Site Admin
Posts: 6036
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Postby CourtOfficer » Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:14 pm

mcdonaja wrote:
CourtOfficer wrote:
mcdonaja wrote:I forgot to mention something. On one hand the govt appears to be tightening the reins then on the other.......

...you don't have to look very far to see the govt actually in action. I'm sure in the London area there MUST be some sort of "Professional" Security firm, but look what they hired for security at OPC....holy shit...Ironhorse Security or something like that.....wow what a bang for your buck. I guess they still have the contract but they've changed their name...(not much wonder!!)

To think a facility like OPC contracts out to a rinky dink firm like this!!?? Friggin amazing!!! Just think, "THEY" are protecting US when we're on course...hmmm :shock:


Lyndon Security out of Sarnia has the contract at OPC now. How much protection do 400 COPS really need? That job is less about protection and more about watching for recruit stupidity.

CO


Anything has to be better than "Ironhorse".

The college also houses the offices for CISO, not to mention various assortment of weapons, regular members on course with hoards of surviellance vehicles, UC cars etc no doubt housing lots of "toys".

You in the parking lot..."FREEZE"...Lyndon Security.....I don't know, just not much of a deterent there. :ponder:


I'm sure they wouldn't have any trouble finding a cop to assist though. Maybe just say, "Hey you!"

CO

User avatar
mcdonaja
Lord of the Poobahs
Posts: 1180
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: Anywhere but here
Contact:

Postby mcdonaja » Sun Mar 04, 2007 2:57 pm

CourtOfficer wrote:
mcdonaja wrote:
CourtOfficer wrote:
mcdonaja wrote:I forgot to mention something. On one hand the govt appears to be tightening the reins then on the other.......

...you don't have to look very far to see the govt actually in action. I'm sure in the London area there MUST be some sort of "Professional" Security firm, but look what they hired for security at OPC....holy shit...Ironhorse Security or something like that.....wow what a bang for your buck. I guess they still have the contract but they've changed their name...(not much wonder!!)

To think a facility like OPC contracts out to a rinky dink firm like this!!?? Friggin amazing!!! Just think, "THEY" are protecting US when we're on course...hmmm :shock:


Lyndon Security out of Sarnia has the contract at OPC now. How much protection do 400 COPS really need? That job is less about protection and more about watching for recruit stupidity.

CO


Anything has to be better than "Ironhorse".

The college also houses the offices for CISO, not to mention various assortment of weapons, regular members on course with hoards of surviellance vehicles, UC cars etc no doubt housing lots of "toys".

You in the parking lot..."FREEZE"...Lyndon Security.....I don't know, just not much of a deterent there. :ponder:


I'm sure they wouldn't have any trouble finding a cop to assist though. Maybe just say, "Hey you!"

CO


...if they could find a sober one..eheheh
"Cops solve problems. Don't be a problem and you won't get solved."
Freedom Friday - Jan 06 2012 - 32 years 1 month


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], SemrushBot and 1 guest