Re-thinking Door Supervision – Eulogy to Kaleem

 

Re-thinking Door Supervision – Eulogy to Kaleem

In the early hours of the morning of Sunday 29th March 2009, 21-year-old Mohamed Kaleem Rafeek affectionately known to friends as ‘Kaleem’ was brutally murdered in what Police described as a frenzied stabbing in Rusholme Manchester. Indications are that he may have refused entry to an individual or group at the establishment that he was working that night. 

Kaleem’s death yet again outlines the dangers that door supervisors are facing whilst working on the door. Despite the introduction of the licensing regulation, the public perception of door supervisors still remains that of thugs and brutes. We have to ask ourselves a number of questions: why does the public hold this perception of door supervisors and what can be done to change this perception of our industry?

What is the role of a door supervisor? A door supervisor is responsible for ensuring compliance with the four licensing objectives:

the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm

 

In addition to these legal statutes, we are also tasked with implementing Health and Safety regulations of preventing overcrowding and ensuring fire exits are free of obstructions. Bearing these points in mind and our importance in providing the city with a safe nighttime culture, why does the public still perceive us as thugs & brutes? 

The man in the mirror

Before the introduction of the Private Security Industry Act 2001, pubs/clubs were indeed serviced by dubious characters who believed that aggression and brute force was part and parcel of their job description. The introduction of the SIA license has in general been a positive step in removing these rogue elements from our industry but it has also denied us the experience and leadership of ‘good’ professional door supervisors with unspent criminal convictions. Therefore, instead of professionalizing the industry as was the primary objective of the licensing acts, pubs/clubs are now policed by young and inexperienced door supervisors, whose main qualification is their lack of a criminal record. The emphasis on a clean criminal record as the main criteria for obtaining a license has diverted attention from the other personal attributes that are essential to ensuring door safety. The majority of door supervisors through no fault of their own have no understanding of the licensing acts and their legal duties to the general public. Training providers are continually providing mediocre training that in my opinion, as a security professional, is not fit for purpose.

 

Unlike many reputable security companies that have in place internal training mechanism, the majority of door supervision companies have no accredited training programs in place that ensures new recruits receive adequate training before being deployed. As long as someone has a license they are recruited and deployed, sometimes even without site specific training. Consequently, many door supervisors are not fully aware of the law, the licensing objectives, Health and Safety regulations, which ID card is acceptable or whether or not someone is allowed to take water or sealed drinks off  the premises.

On the 4th of April, many door supervisors withheld their services to attend a candle light vigil in a mark of respect for Kaleem. Understandably many of us within the industry are angry at the lack of respect that we receive from the Police, pub/club owners and public. We are an essential element in every cities nighttime culture and without our services the numerous pubs and clubs that we supervise could not operate safely. However, should we be looking externally for respect and recognition without demanding it from ourselves first. Let’s be honest, this can be a dangerous industry in which we work especially when companies employ inexperienced staff without providing any additional in-house training. It’s the bosses who negotiate ridiculous rates with the pub/club owners which they then justify by paying below the industry standard to these inexperienced door supervisors that are undermining the sustainability of reputable door supervision companies. We as door supervisors should be calling first and foremost for internal reform. We need to prevail upon our bosses to ensure that we are properly trained before being deployed, paid an industry standard wage for our services and not put in harm’s way  through the under manning of sites to lower costs.   

Made in China

A year ago whilst I was supervising a venue in Fallowfield Manchester, an apparently underage youngster, about the age of fifteen, showed up with a lady who I later discovered was his mother. When he approached the door I requested a form of ID to establish his date of birth. He informed me that he did not have one, I said I was not going to grant him entry until I had seen some form of valid ID card to verify his age, as I suspected that he was underage .He stated that he was 18 to which I stated that I still wanted to see his ID card to verify his age.  His mother became upset, she fled past me to the manager who requested that I let the boy in even though he could see himself that the boy was under age. Before starting work at the pub, we conducted a risk assessment. During the risk assessment, we asked the owner the capacity of the venue, he told us seventy-five. Based upon that information, we quoted him for two door supervisors. However, during the night we noticed that he had opened a lower level which he had not shown us when we conducted the risk assessment. When I went down to the lower level, I noticed there was no fire exit. I informed him that because there was no fire exit downstairs it was too risky to let people down there if there was an incident, it could be fatal. He ignored my advice and continued to allow people down into the basement. We had over three hundred people crammed into a venue that was only licensed for seventy-five. Furthermore, we were gravely outnumbered by the pressing crowd making it impossible for us to be able to effectively deal with any issue that might have arisen. At the end of that night, we decided we were no longer prepared to work under such conditions. He later found another company.

The story recounted above is the typical relationship between door supervisors and many pub/club owners or managers. In their attempt to save money, many managers demonstrate rampant disregard for the law and safety of both the door supervisors and their customers. Furthermore, pub/club owners, while expecting expert services from the door supervisors, are prepared to pay as little as possible for their services. While this might serve them well in the short-term, it always turns out to be false economy. Door supervisors are representatives of their business, we are always the first point of contact to the public therefore if a customer’s experience at the entrance isn’t positive and welcoming, pubs/clubs will lose patronage. As the adage goes “you get what you pay for”.

Police Security relationship

The private security industry has grown in status and numbers undertaking many duties that were once carried out by the Police. Private security officers ferry millions of pounds from banks to cash machine and businesses all around the country daily. We also transport prisoners, manage detention centres, protect businesses and even invent security devices that are used by the Police. Yet the relationship between the Police and private security industry can best be characterized as that between Henry the 8th and his wives.  Private security officers outnumber Police almost 3-1 and we are on the frontline of fighting crime just the same as the Police.

Each year more cash-in-transit officers then Police are attacked and door supervisors deal with more drunken people than the Police. Privet security officers play very crucial rolls in protecting businesses around the country. There are many businesses that will literally shut down if they did not have security officers.  Despite these facts research reveals that the Police perceive private security officers as unprofessional and unequal partners in crime prevention. In some states in the United States, private security officers carry arms, handcuffs and are allowed to make arrest and search. This is because US Police understands the important role private security officers play in crime prevention. Europe especially UK is yet to realize the value of private security officers to law and order. Except a pub/club owners had a friends in the local Police station or a door company is ran by an ex-Police officer, the possibility of receiving Police cooperation on many issues is almost nil. The Police will only show up after an incident has become combustible. Nine out of ten of the times, serious incidents at night clubs could be stopped at the entrance easily with the help of Police. A typical example of this is gang-related violence at many night clubs that could be reduced if the Police work hand in hand with the door staff at those clubs.

 

Conclusion

At around 3 am on Saturday 29th March, Kaleem died from multiple stab wounds inflicted on him for doing his job. He was a student and a young ambitious man who never had the chance to achieve his full potential. His death was a tragedy that should never have happened. I cannot imagine the pain his parent will be going through. We should use his death as a catalyst that will sway us into action to ensure that it never happens again. What is required is a complete overall of the entire security industry. The current SIA framework, while laudable still leaves a lot to be desired. There is a design fault that goes to the very heart of the system and until we redesign the current framework, there is no telling that this might happen again. Every profession has certain amount of standardized measures, assessment, performance and qualification framework to be considered a professional body. Three days training and a badge around our neck does not make door supervisors professionals.  

Security companies have to ensure that before they deploy door supervisors we are properly trained. We need to know the law, the licensing objectives and customer service skills. On numerous occasions the door supervisors themselves are responsible for the escalation of conflict at their place of work. We need the skills to defuse volatile situations that we are dealing with on a daily basis. If door supervisors want respect we should first give respect. The SIA needs to share some responsibility for this short-fall in the quality of training. It created the rules without building the requisite infrastructure with which  to support its main aims. We have many door supervisors whose’ first language is not English. One wonders how they were able to pass the assessment for the license if they were unable to speak or read English to a standard that allows them to carry out their duties. Communication is essential in our industry, talking and listening are the two most important tools that we have at our disposal. Employing door supervisors without these skills makes a complete mockery of the basic tenet of the licensing acts. The SIA needs to monitor the training regimes to ensure compliance with its stated objectives. It should be made mandatory that all door supervision companies have an in-house training programme that will guarantee continuous training and development   Pub/club owners must realize that door supervisors represent their business. We add value to their business, therefore, if they require the best out of us, they will have to start treating us in a professional manner, we are not cheap goods made in China. We have to be properly deployed, too often managers and pub/club owners request inadequate manning levels just to minimize their costs This not only limits the ability of the door supervisors to perform their duties effectively,  it also places us at serious risk. Finally, the Police need to understand that door supervisors play an important part in upholding the licensing objectives. We are the ones who usually have to handle the difficult situations before they are called in, which is normally as a last resort. The SIA must play their role by highlighting to the police and general public the value of all private security personnel in assisting the Police in crime prevention. Surely more cooperation would be beneficial to both parties.

If we are to prevent another tragedy like that of Kaleem, we will need to take steps to overhaul the training and license system so that never again will any parent have to live with the pain of their 21 years old son losing his life needlessly. If we do, we would have paid a great tribute to Kaleem and given his parents the encouragement that their son did not die in vain.