Drawing A Line Between Fans & Hooligans

Posted

Recent incidents of fan misbehaviour before, during, and after Western Sydney Wanderers games spotlight the role security plays at sporting fixtures … particularly fixtures where it is known the passions will be high.

Everyone wants to see and feel the passion at events – it is often the ingredient that turns a good event into a great one, with a memorable atmosphere.

But, the other side of this coin can be ugly. The side that shows up when passionate support erupts into anti-social behaviour or, worse, criminality and violence.

When passions erupt ...

When passions erupt …

It needs to be managed.

And it is no walk in the park … but there are a number of actions that can significantly reduce the risk of that line being crossed – the line that separates passionate fan from anti-social hooligan.

Naturally, security is one of the key elements that can make a big difference.

But even getting the right security can be a challenge.

Your chances of success are determined BEFORE you hire a security provider …

The starting point is in the procurement of security services by venues or clubs. Clubs or venues have a duty to themselves, their players, fans, and the community at large to ensure a safe and secure environment is achieved. There is an obligation to ensure the security they engage are able to mitigate foreseeable risks.

So, step one for clubs: Know the risks. Have a security risk assessment completed.

This will enable you to clearly define requirements that need to be met by security providers tendering for your business.

Once you have the responses from requests for tender, they need to be carefully examined and compared … and credentials and references checked.

A common practice is to load up proposals with lucrative sponsorship deals, sometimes these deals are completely unrealistic. They can mean that you’re “paying for the sponsorship” through either inflated rates or reduced quality of operatives.

What do you need in security operatives at events?

As a general rule, security guards at sporting events need to be proactive in deterring anti-social and criminal behaviour.

Basically this means getting in first. Security needs to be alert and on the lookout for outward signs that indicate and identify spectators who may be “high risk”. As you can imagine, “profiling” spectators requires both training and intelligence. It is best done by security operatives at entry points and continued during the event.

Profiling is a proactive measure that protects the event from minority, high-risk spectators. It allows the majority of well-behaved spectators to enjoy an event that is both safe yet with the atmosphere they want to experience.

As well as profiling, it may be that your risk analysis identifies even stronger measures are needed. For some event events it may be necessary to use man and dog teams with scent detection training for accelerants (like gunpowder, flares etc). As well as preventing entry of dangerous materials these teams also provide a high level visual deterrent for anti-social behaviour.

In general, security operatives need to have a presence and provide a deterrent value to would-be troublemakers. Spectators need to have the confidence in security operatives’ abilities to ensure compliance with behaviour standards.

This “presence” can only come from security operatives who are confident and not intimidated by the challenges they face. Poor quality guards neither deter the troublemakers nor provide confidence to the rest of us.

In fact, poor quality guards can unwittingly encourage poor behaviour – they are often intimidated and will look the other way in many challenging circumstances. The troublemakers quickly discern this, their respect for security drops and the limitations on their behaviour are quickly broken.

Unfortunately, we currently face a situation where many security providers provide poorly trained and low quality security operatives to sporting events. At best, these operatives are reactive. Sometimes they are not even reactive and offer no reaction or response when early intervention is required.

All too often they have not been provided with any additional training in crowd dynamics or crowd psychology. They are probably not even aware of the exponentially increased potential risks of aggression due to anonymity in a crowd.

Stepping up the standards …

There are a number of reasons why poor quality security operatives end up working at sporting events, rest assured though it is the venue (or the club) that needs to set and maintain the standard of service they get. As mentioned above it starts with – even before – the procurement process.

To re-iterate:

  1. Know the risks. If you don’t know the risks how can you adequately define the quality and standards you need from your security provider.
  2. Ensure you security provider has a management team with the appropriate qualifications and experience.
  3. Be cautious of lucrative “sponsorship” deals. There is no such thing as a “free lunch” – you will pay for it in one way or another, usually in lower quality security operatives and service standards.
  4. Remember that quality, in any field, is rarely the cheapest solution.
  5. THE TRUE COST OF SECURITY OF SECURITY IS THE COST OF SECURITY FAILURE.

It is imperative that sporting clubs, venues, Police, and security work hand in hand to remove undesirable elements from sporting events and and provide a safe, secure and ejoyable environment.

The surprising thing is that many sporting entities are paying rates for security that should ensure they obtain quality security operatives.

All in all, Australians love to attend events where the atmosphere is palpable and engaging. Our responsibility is to ensure the atmosphere of an event doesn’t disintegrate into anti-social behaviour or violence. By “our responsibility” I mean the responsibility of all of us – fans, clubs, venues, police, security, communities.

There is no doubt that the quality of security provider – and security operatives – retained by venues or clubs can have a huge impact on delivering a better, more enjoyable environment for everyone.

 

Great Customer Service OR Great Security … go for BOTH!!

Posted

Imagine this:

Club A, has employees in security who believe they are in customer relations. And whose Managers & employees are engaged in servicing customers, but who also feel they are part of the security operation.

Club B’s security employees believe that they are there to look after behaviour problems. Management believes security is an expensive, necessary evil and other employees think they are muscle heads who get in the way of great customer service.

Neither of these are unique – there are clubs populating both categories.

Which is likely to have the best customer relations? Which is most likely to have better security, at a lower cost? Which club is likely to have the best image in the community?

Where does your club fit? Closer to Club A or Club B … or somewhere in between?

How does Club A achieve this?

Firstly, there is a recognition and acceptance that customer service and security are not mutually exclusive. They are dependent on each other.

From that point, it is pretty simple really – although not necessarily easy. Like anything worthwhile, some effort and investment is required. Especially in:

- Education & Training
- Policy Documentation & Implementation
- Building stronger links between operational teams & security.

 Education & Training

Have key customer service personnel – team leaders, section leaders, duty managers – undertake security training. This gives an extra dimension to the customer service relationship. It can lead to many potential escalations being “nipped in the bud” before  developing into a problem.

Importantly, the type of training likely to produce the best results are those that engage the trainee at the level of their own ambition. For example: How security enhances their leadership potential.

Documented Policies

For many, the policies of the company are its Rule Book. Without doubt, some aspects of business require a hard & fast maintenance of the rules.

But one of the hallmarks of great customer service can be how to break rules, to enhance customer perceptions without damaging the company.

Whilever there is interaction between humans, rule books will not be sufficient to cover the myriad of permutations and combinations that are possible to emerge.

This fact doesn’t render policies useless … in fact it makes them more important. Not so much from a “Thou shalt not … “ perspective. Documented policies give the company, and its staff, direction and support.

Understanding the direction and culture of the organisation is vital in making decisions at moments of truth.

Build Stronger Relationships between security & other teams.

Whether your security team is in-house or from an external provider, your customer doesn’t care.

For all intents and purposes they represent you, your business, how you run your business, and what you think of them (your customers).

It makes no sense at all to keep security “out of the loop” and every sense to keep them close to the action when it comes to planning and discussion on anything at all that effects your customer.

What are the returns?

Staff confidence is a vital ingredient for great customer service. This is especially true when the pressure is on …

And when the pressure is on, is when great customer service can turn your customers into raving fans.

It is also when you are the most vulnerable to risk.

If your staff are:

- conscious and observant of signposts for potential risks
- are able to respond confidently and appropriately to those signposts
- and are working cooperatively & collaboratively across functions

you are well on the way to having dynamic customer service.

And now …  a 30 sec ad break!

The Advanced Conflict Resolution & Leadership program run by Exact Security aims at exactly this space. Fore more information go to Exact Security – Training.

 

 

Lessons From The Orcher Case

Posted

In November 2012, The Daily Telegraph ran the headline:

Bouncers’ duty to anticipate violence, court rules.

Then followed a short story based on the 62 page judgment from Judge Ian Harrison. Harrison was deciding the case of John Orcher in the NSW Supreme Court. (For full Daily Telegraph story click here)

Mr Orcher had taken action against multiple parties after he’d been seriously injured in an incident near Rozelle’s Bridge Hotel. The incident involved an employee of the hotel and took place across the road from the hotel.

The judge awarded Mr Orcher $1.4m. The judgement was made against:

* Bowcliff Pty Ltd – the owners of The Bridge Hotel
* QBE Insurance – insurers of DSSS Cousins Pty Ltd employers of the security guard on duty on the night of the incident.

The judge deemed that 70% of the award was payable by Bowcliff, and 30% by QBE.

Add the legal costs (their own plus Mr Orcher’s) and this is an extremely expensive outcome for the venue. But that still may not reflect the real cost of the incident in terms of the financial and emotional impact on all the parties involved.

While the case is subject to appeal it still contains lessons for many … and especially for operators and licensees of hospitality venues.

Lesson 1 – Be Specific About Your Undertakings.

Lesson 2 – Ensure Your Agreements With Providers Are Documented And Clear.

Lesson 3 – Quality In Security Is Paramount.

Lesson 4 – Conduct Regular Security Risk Assessments.

Lesson 5 – A Final Word

Orcher Case – Lesson 1: Be Specific About Your Undertakings.

Posted

The Orcher incident took place on the corner of Victoria Rd & Wellington St. Rozelle, approximately 15-20m from the entrance to the Bridge Hotel, on the opposite side of Wellingtion St.

What does “in the vicinity” mean for The Bridge Hotel

The judge made the following observation:

the obligations of the security personnel would have included patrolling the area in the vicinity of the hotel …

 He also made the following observation:

The instructions relating to control of the front door are relevant. The first is that security staff “maintains vigilance”. Part of the instructions was to patrol “in the vicinity of the premises” to ensure “patrons depart the hotel and the neighbourhood in a quiet and orderly manner and to ensure they do not disturb the neighbourhood”.

The looseness in the meaning of “patrolling the vicinity” allows for multiple interpretations by individuals.

Security guards need to interpret the meaning for the purpose of carrying out their duties. Would the security guard have intervened if “in the vicinity” was defined clearly to include the point where the incident took place?

Clearly the judge believed that the vicinity of the hotel did include the site of the incident.

In this case the court needed to make an interpretation in order to make a decision about liability. The interesting question is how would the court rule had the assault taken place another 50 metres away, or a couple of streets away. Would this have been regarded as “in the vicinity”?

And how would the court have ruled had the hotel’s definition excluded the other side of the Wellington Street?

Recommendation:

Review all your undertakings as a licensee or responsible person and ensure they are as specific and as definitive as possible, leaving little room individual interpretation.

This does not mean that personnel cannot take initiative beyond these responsibilities but these form a checklist of the minimum that needs to be known, understood, and performed.

Orcher Case – Lesson 2: Have Clear Documented Agreements.

Posted

The simplest of informal agreements between the most cordial of partners can lead to huge problems if things go wrong. When things go wrong the “shared understanding” of an informal agreement is put under pressure, cracks can appear and leave everyone vulnerable. No-one expects things to go wrong … but they often do.

In the Orcher Case damages were heavily weighed against Bowcliff (the owners of the hotel) – they were perceived to be in control of security because:

-       the venue had its own master security license
-       the security system was designed and implemeneted by the hotel’s licensee, Keough
-       an employee of Bowcliff supervised and instructed DSSS employees
-       there was no written agreement between Bowcliff and DSSS

Recommendation:

 Carefully examine your risks and seek options to eliminate those risks. The options range from:

* At one end, finding a competent provider of quality security and making the provider responsible for all outcomes required by the venue.
* At the other end, design strategies and systems for all security to be managed and controlled by the venue.

Between these two extremes is the space that enabled the judge to shift most of the liability to Bowcliff whilst heaping most of the blame onto DSSS.

 

Orcher Case – Lesson 3: Quality Is Important.

Posted

The comments made here are general comments. They do not reflect any opinion about the qualities of people or organisations involved in this case. I have no knowledge of the systems & practices of the parties involved in this incident.

The evidence in the case indicated the security guard was somewhat hazy as to the issues that were important – this “haziness” can be the result of multiple issues and pressures being played out leading up to the incident.

What cannot be disputed is the fact that the quality of individual guards or operatives is an important ingredient to minimising risk.

But even more important are the systems and structures that support
the individuals at the coal-face.

A quality individual can be hampered by inadequate support systems and structures. However, it is extremely difficult for a reasonable individual to cause quality systems to break down.

Higher quality systems from security providers undoubtedly result in lower risk to venues.

Those systems include comprehensive instructions, quality induction, training, regular site visits by security provider’s senior management, regular measurement and feedback on performance. These should be non-negotiable elements of any agreement to provide security services to your venue.

The role of your security provider is to make things as clear as possible for operatives working at your venue.

Recommendation:

Review the agreements with your security provider to make sure that the risks are minimised through excellent systems, training, leadership, and feedback.

Orcher Case – Lesson 4: Conduct Regular Risk Assessments

Posted

Regularly conducting a formal security risk assessment is important in clearly identifying and evaluating risk. It enables rational and evidenced-based decision-making about the level and cost of protection against the risk.

The best defense against successful litigation is to ensure that you have a security management program that is pervasive throughout  your organization. Your system must be able to withstand the scrutiny of an expert witness if the plan is tested in a court of law.

In simple terms, this means that the person responsible for the development of the security management program is a security professional who has the right credentials and can maintain credibility when challenged at Law.

Recommendation:

Engage a security professional  who can provide a Security Risk Assessment based on a range of strategic enterprise issues &  specific security risk issues. An enterprise-wide system & approach is imperative.

Once risks have been identified and prioritised they can be eliminated or mitigated, usually at low cost, with the introduction of comprehensive security policies and detailed security procedures.

Orcher Case – A final word, a single point of advice.

Posted

The moment potential legal conflict arises you are faced with enormous risk and challenges. If you enter this world wearing blinkers or driven by emotion it could become a very, very expensive exercise.

One step that may help mitigate the risk with litigation is to engage an expert very early in the process to review the case and then to provide testimony if the case proceeds.

Conclusion

The executive team of your organisation needs to determine the risk appetite for your organisation.

Once the appetite has been determined an appropriate asset protection budget can be established. This will provide the level of protection deemed necessary to mitigate or eliminate security risk and to do so for your people, property, information and reputation.

If you can take one bit of advice from these notes it should be this:

Many, many executives have had very large risk appetites prior to a serious security or OH&S incident which has left them as an individual at risk. Most decided that they would run the gauntlet because they did not think that the worst could happen to them.

The true cost of security is the cost of security failure.

6 Questions About Your NYE Security – To Help Plan Australia Day Security

Posted

If you answer “No” to any of the following questions your venue was potentially subjected to unnecessary additional pressure or unnecessarily increased risk during the Christmas – NYE period.

1. For New Years Eve did 100% of your security operatives attending your venue arrive completely ready and prepared for work?

2. Was a representative of your security provider on site to facilitate an introduction & site specific induction for their staff to your property?

Answer “No”? Want to read more about this? Click here and a new window will open.

3. Were 100% of security operatives on your property carrying valid and current security licenses and appropriate RSA certification?

“No”? For more on this topic, click here?

4. Were you informed of, and given the opportunity to approve, the presence and the details of any sub-contractors working on your property?

Want to learn more on this? Click here.

5. Did your security company, and any sub-contractors, maintain their own separate incident registers onsite, in accordance with the Act?

6. Were the incident register(s) and sign-on sheets completed in accordance with the new regulations?

Click here to read more.

During busy periods when the pressure is on, you should be comfortable in the knowledge that all parts of your business will withstand the pressure … and make life a little less stressful on you and your team.

Once you have the confidence that your security provider has all these aspects under control you and your team can focus on managing your establishment as a whole … and achieving more than surviving the pressure but taking this opportunity to impress your customers and help secure their future patronage.

As the client, it is up to you to set the standard for the quality of service you get from your providers. As you prepare for the next hospitality “pressure tests” – Australia Day & Anzac Day – consider the questions raised above and it will be a good start.

 

Were your security operatives ready for New Year’s Eve?

Posted

Here is a quote from a senior industry person commenting on an event they witnessed on New Year’s Eve 2012 (in fact this comment prompted me to write this article):

I personally witnessed security operatives turn up to a licensed premise to complete an onsite induction half an hour prior to working on New Year’s Eve. They were wearing shorts & t-shirts and thought they would get their uniforms when they arrived on site. There was no-one there from their security company to meet them and facilitate an introduction to the client’s property … and when they were asked what company they worked for, they replied “I don’t know!”.

Now, is that exactly what you need to face as a venue manager preparing to confront the busiest, most pressurized night of the year?  I don’t think so!!

What pressure does this place on … well, on everybody! At a time when there is already plenty to keep venues, managers, and staff well and truly occupied. Did you have to deal with something like this? You should not need to.

How does it happen?

There is an exceptionally high demand for security operatives in this period and, frankly, some security companies accept amounts of work without having access to the right amount of resources.

Then, at the last minute, they make desperate calls to operatives in the hope they can meet their obligations to clients.

Is it any wonder security operatives can show up unprepared and, in some cases, not even knowing what company they are working for.

Security companies themselves are stretched to the point that they find it difficult to attend to the details that would ease your pressures … being over-committed can lead to corners being cut. Like not having a company representative onsite to facilitate introductions and inductions – especially for operatives new to the property.

What does this mean to you:

Well, apart from starting your NYE facing the unnecessary and annoying task of organizing things that should be already organised, your venue is likely to:

- be supplied with operatives that are a lower calibre,
- experience “no-shows”. Certainly the likelihood of “no-shows” is much higher,
- face problems with arrival times of operatives,
- have issues with uniform requirements and standards not being met.

As the client, it is you that fixes the standards that are required. I hope this helps you better prepare for the next big days for hospitality – Australia Day & Anzac Days.