Do ALL Security guards need an SIA licence?

Or are some exempt?

Liverpool City Council Enforcement Officers acting as security guards at last night's Council meeting, seem to think they are exempt.



I thought that:

Anyone working in the security industry providing contract security services and in limited cases in-house security services would require a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence.

Difference between in-house and contract security

In-house refers to providing security services with company's own funds, staff and resources as opposed to services being out sourced or contracted out to another company.

Sectors requiring a Security Industry Authority (SIA) licence:

Key holders - under contract
Security Guarding - under contract
Security Consultants - under contract
Door Supervisors - under contract and in-house
Vehicle Immobilising - under contract and in-house

SIA.HOMEOFFICE.GOV.UK


Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council Meeting - 23rd March 2016

Knowsley Counci meeting on 23rd March 2016 in Huyton.

A speech from Council Leader Andy Moorehead, and questions from three members of the Public.



Follow @HuytonFreeman

'Guilty' of a 'crime' for feeding the homeless

Today, Amanda and Kim were found guilty of "breaching a dispersal order under s35 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014", after Kim had been giving food to the homeless outside the Old Bank, in Castle St, Liverpool and Amanda was seen by Police throwing a sandwich to people who she believed to be homeless, who were occupying the building in May 2015.

After a three day trial in Feb 2016, two others charged with Amanda and Kim, were acquitted. But Amanda and Kim's trial was adjourned until today, when they were both found guilty.

Judge Shaw sentenced Kim to 40 hours community work, £60 victim surcharge and £713 court costs, and Amanda recieved the same surcharge and costs, but was given a curfew (8am to 10pm) and ordered to wear a tag.

In authorising this power the inspector (or above) must have regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights that provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.

"An authorisation under s34 of the Act must -

(a) be in writing

(b) be signed by the officer giving it, and

(c) specify the grounds on which it is given.

Where an authorisation is in force under Sec 34, a constable in uniform may direct a person who is in a public place in the locality specified in the authorisation - according to Sec 35:

(a) to leave the locality (or part of the locality), and

(b) not to return to the locality (or part of the locality) for the period specified in the direction.

Two conditions need to be met for a direction to be given:

The officer must have reasonable grounds to suspect that the behaviour of the person in the locality has contributed or is likely to contribute to -

(a) members of the public in the locality being harassed, alarmed or distressed, or

(b) the occurrence in the locality of crime or disorder.

The officer considers that giving a direction to the person is necessary for the purpose of removing or reducing the likelihood of anti-social behaviour, crime or disorder."

Neither Amanda or Kim had harassed, alarmed or distressed members of the public in the locality, nor had they committed any crimes or behaved disorderly. Therefore, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that they had 'contributed' to the two conditions, and the two conditions had not been met. I'd be of the view that their arrests were quite unlawful.

In my view, the only way that Amanda and Kim are guilty of this offence is, if giving food to the homeless, or anyone for that matter is 'anti-social behaviour, then they are guilty.

If giving food to others is not 'anti-social behaviour', as most sensible and compassionate people would surely agree, then they should both have been acquitted.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

98% of Merseyside Police Officers are not injured whilst on duty every year.

Government statistics say 574 Merseyside Police officers were assaulted on duty between 2010 and 2015, with 124 attacks recorded in the 2014/15 financial year.

Top cops say the figures highlight the dangers faced by Merseyside Police everyday, while the Police Federation has called for changes to the law to offer all public servants better protection.

But, hang on a minute. If there are approximately 6000 Merseyside Police Officers, and the figures are over five years.



Then this works out as 120 per year. 120 out of 6000 is only 2%. So, 2% of Officers are injured every year whilst on duty.

Or in other words 98% of Merseyside Police Officers are NOT injured whilst on duty every year.

So, in reality, statistics show, that Merseyside is relatively a safe place for Police Officers to work.

Follow @HuytonFreeman

Knowsley Council's unacceptable, oppressive and intimidating behaviour.

It is 5.26pm. I am waiting, quite peacefully, in the Public foyer of the Council building in ‪Huyton‬ for the Council meeting that starts at 6pm.

These people are quite clearly dressed like Police Officers.

Together with ‪Knowsley‬ Council staff they surround and intimidate me, ordering me to leave the building as I am, they say, 'trespassing'.

They call the Police, yes, they call the Police because I refuse to wait outside in the cold for less than 30 minutes, and the Police turn up within 10 minutes to support them.

Where do I live again? Russia?, Korea? Iraq? Syria?

No, Knowsley 2016.

Unacceptable, oppresive and intimidating behaviour? yes I would say so.

How do I go about banning THEM?

Follow @HuytonFreeman