Personal Safety Training

Workplace Violence.
Work place violence in all its forms is becoming more common place.
Are your staff properly prepared to deal with this ?
Why bother with Risk Assessments/Lone Working Policies ?
Is training really necessary?
Mental health charity fined after death of support worker
Date:
01 February 2010
Release No:
NE/032/10
Mental Health Matters Ltd, a North East-based registered charity has been fined £30,000 with costs of £20,000 after one of their employees was killed by a service user.
Ashleigh Ewing, a 22-year-old support worker employed by Mental Health Matters, was attacked and killed by service user Ronald Dixon.
Mental Health Matters provide support and housing services to people who suffer from mental health problems. They pleaded guilty to a charge brought by the Health and Safety Executive for a breach of Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for failing to do all that was reasonably practicable to ensure Ms Ewing’s safety.
Newcastle Crown Court heard that Ashleigh Ewing was visiting Ronald Dixon at his home in Heaton, Newcastle upon Tyne on 19 May 2006 when she was attacked and stabbed to death.
Ashleigh had started work with Mental Health Matters exactly six months prior to the date of her death. The attack occurred on the final day of her probation period.
The prosecution told Mr Justice Keith that Ashleigh’s employment by Mental Health Matters exposed her to certain obvious risks, particularly in the context of her dealings with Mr Dixon. His mental health was known to be deteriorating and Mental Health Matters failed to respond to a number of warning signs. The court also heard that they failed to afford Ashleigh the level of protection that the nature of her job warranted.
Mrs Pam Waldron, HSE’s Head of Operations said:
“This is an unusual case which shows the need for employers to assess risks to employees who visit individuals in their homes and for arrangements to be reviewed when changes occur.
“We believe that if Mental Health Matters had carried out a risk assessment, it would have resulted in the visiting arrangements being reviewed.”
Notes to Editors:
The service user, Ronald Dixon, who killed Ashleigh Ewing, pleaded guilty in October 2007 to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and is detained indefinitely at Rampton Secure Hospital.
Working alone is not in itself against the law, and it will often be safe to
do so. However, the law requires employers and others to think about and deal with any health and safety risks before people should be allowed to work alone. For more information about lone working http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg73.pdf [1]
Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 states: it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employee
Source Health & safety executive
Most employers should be capable of carrying out their own Risk Assessments & draft Lone working policies from this as they know their sector better than anyone else

There are however companies that will carry-out this work and prices start around £600

Personal safety/Lone Working training needs to be carried out by a specialist competent training company and again this can be relatively inexpensive with prices starting at £40 per person for a full days non accredited personal Safety/Lone working training course & £60 per head for a nationally recognised certificated training course

For more information about Personal Safety & workplace Violence training go to
www.brooksjordan.co.uk

How safe are we from gun crime?. Peter Hitchens excellent article below examines some of the issues after the latest rampage in Cumbria.
Perhaps Derrick Bird’s deadly rampages aren’t so ‘inexplicable’ after all
Yet another gun massacre is followed by yet another typhoon of psychobabble,
sentiment and bogus declarations that ‘this must never happen again’, when everyone knows that it will.
It’s difficult to argue for tighter gun laws, since they’re already so tight, though I’m sure the authorities will think of something suitably irrelevant and futile, as they did after Hungerford and Dunblane.
They are determined to make sure nobody in this country is armed, apart from criminals and terrorists, the invariable effect of ‘tough’ gun laws that trouble only the law-abiding and have no impact on illegally held weapons at all. read more »

Brooks Jordan chosen to work with Bluecoat School
Brooks Jordan is working with the Bluecoat School in Nottingham to provide extracurricular training in personal safety and self-defence to their pupils. When the school was awarded central government funding for the training last year, they contacted Nottinghamshire Police to ask them to help source a suitable supplier – and the force recommended Brooks Jordan.

Initially, we ran a six week course for a class of teenage girls which covered the basics of personal safety, self- defence and some mixed martial arts training. This received tremendous feedback from both teachers and pupils. As a result, we are returning in the summer term to teach a similar course to a group of boys and Bluecoat is also considering asking us to run some of the other courses we provide.

Brooks Jordan director Chris Jordan comments: ‘We’re delighted that Bluecoat School has chosen Brooks Jordan to deliver personal safety training to its pupils. The school is very pleased with our work so far and we hope that the relationship will continue into the next academic year, possibly to include a broader range of subject matter. It’s great that Bluecoat is recognising the dangers that are posed to teenagers in today’s society and is taking action to help protect its pupils and give them the skills to get out of difficult situations without being hurt. We hope that other schools and colleges will follow Bluecoat’s example and take advantage of the available funding to offer similar training to their own students.’

Conflict Resolution training for UK Door Supervisors is to be strengthened

Plans to raise standards by introducing additional training for UK door supervisors form part of a Home Office consultation launched recently.

The aim of the new proposals is to protect the public by raising standards of training across the industry.

Additional training will include physical intervention, first aid, special considerations when dealing with young people and awareness of the threat of terrorism.

The Security Industry Authority (SIA) has already included the additional training elements as part of the new qualifications being introduced from June 2010.

View the full article http://www.sourceuk.net/article/14/14087/higher_standards_for_uk_door_supervisors.html

Brooks Jordan comments.

These proposals have been welcomed by the industry as a whole.
Today more than ever door supervisors need specialist training, terrorism is not going to go away and our public houses, nightclubs and other events where large crowds gather are obvious targets.

Anyone who has worked in the licensed trade knows the problems that can be caused by young people who have had too much to drink or taken drugs so extra training in relation to dealing with young and venerable people can only be a good thing.

As for training in physical intervention the industry is somewhat divided over this, but I believe this will also improve the professional image of door supervisors.

Individuals who go in for this kind of profession are usually physically capable and have experience of dealing with violence.

Many have a military background or are skilled in some kind of fighting art and there are times when these skills are appropriate.

Brooks Jordan provided some training to door staff and licensed premises management staff in the West Midlands in 2009 commissioned by the Police and the Licensing Authority.

The training was mainly on Conflict Resolution/ Personal Safety but we included a short introductory session on both Breakaway Skills and Physical Interventions.

This training concentrated on “No Pain” mechanically sound techniques. Door staff in particular were amazed at how effective these technique were and could not understand why this was not part of their training.

Others that have to retrain individuals already get this training, e.g. the Police, the Medical Profession (Acute Psychiatric Units), the Prison Service and others within the security industry

Having been involved in the licensed trade in the seventies & eighties and having worked alongside door staff during this period I am able to say that the door staff today (SIA badged) are a totally different breed.

For information on current courses on door staff Conflict Resolution training please go to: www.brooksjordan.co.uk
Or email info@brooksjordan.co.uk

Talk of the Englishman defending his castle provokes such a rush of blood to the conservative head that judgment disappears. Last week Munir Hussain was sent to prison for inflicting violent vengeance on a particularly vicious burglar
Read full article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/22/munir-hussain-crime-law-defence#start-of-comments
This case is very similar to the Tony Martin case in that there is both a moral issue and a legal issue involved here.

Many people sympathise with Tony Martin & the Hussain brothers and belive these individuals should not have been convicted.
But under English law they are guilty as the force they all used was not reasonable.
In both cases the force they used went well beyond reasonable.
The simple fact is that at time Tony Martin pulled the trigger and the Hussins delived the blow that caused the brain injury to the robber any threat to personal safety had passed as in both cases the robbers were running away.
I expained in detail the critria that needs to be in place to establish self-defence in my October article.
In both cases it was perfectly legal and within the law to go after the robbers as we are all entitled to chase criminals in order to carry out an arrest and detain them until the Police arrive but that is all.
In theses two cases Martin and the Hussain brothers went that bit further and sought revenge and so could not rely on a self-defence plea.

Codes of Awareness

Jeff Cooper developed the Codes of Awareness concept back in the 1960’s and today we think nothing of describing someone as switched on (or switched off) without being aware of where the terms came from.

Jeff Cooper was looking for ways to help military personnel be prepared for and ready to take appropriate action whatever their circumstances. He developed the traffic light analogy to help explain this.

Switched Off – Code White

Someone who is switched off doesn’t even register on the traffic light scale – being switched off is only appropriate in your own home or in a secure environment where you know it is safe to let your guard down. Being oblivious to your surroundings when you are out in the street can put you at risk from an opportunist looking for an easy target.

Code Green – Attentive but relaxed

The next level of awareness is where most of us should be most of the time. This is the level of awareness needed for normal everyday living – for example knowing when and how to cross the road – being aware of your environment but not hyper-vigilant.

Code Amber – Attention raised for perceived threat.

You should be at a slightly higher level of awareness when you anticipate going in to a risky situation – for example working alone in an area you don’t know well or visiting the home of someone for the first time.
Code Red – There is a real threat.

At this point in the awareness scale you need to take evasive action. This is the point when you acknowledge that the person confronting you actually intends to do you some harm. For some it can be very difficult to acknowledge that physical assault is about to happen. This is fight or flight time.

If your attention was properly focussed when you went in to the unknown ‘code amber’ situation you would have spotted the potential danger before it became a real threat. If you are unfortunate enough to have to fight your way out of a situation – be prepared to make the pre-emptive strike.

Certain jobs or experiences will make some people more alert to their environment – being in the police, the military, a doorman or in the licensed trade is more likely to make you alert to the potential risks of your environment and thus more ready to respond if something happens.

The person most likely to be right at the top of the awareness scale is the criminal – being hyper-vigilant when they are about to carry out a criminal act means they are less likely to get caught. You may recognise this behaviour as unusual.

Having run thousands of personal safety courses throughout the UK I have met many individuals who have experienced extreme fear and yet others who claim they have never actually had a Fight or Flight reaction.

Fear is normal it can significantly enhance your chances of survival in a potentially dangerous situation.

The amigdala has developed over millions of years to aid our survival and once triggered it produces powerful performance enhancing chemicals to flood the bloodstream enabling us to become , Faster, Stronger, and in many cases we can become totally desensitised to pain.

The amigdala can be triggered by any of our senses e.g, smell, sound, vison, touch, etc. but for us humans most of the information we receive is through our eye sight.

Think about the example I gave in the previous issue about walking into a public house and just getting an uncomfortable feeling.

Through your eyes alone the brain is feed a vast amount of information most of which is filtered out but even the smallest micro pieces  of information that threatens your personal safety are high jacked by amigular before the logical brain gets an opportunity to analyse the situation.

So we walk into a bar, we scan our environment, read body bold language both verbally &  non verbally we are all experts at this, but some people excel at this by training in NLP for instance and we will look at this in later articles.

You may also notice there seems to be an  unpleasant atmosphere which you would have difficulty explaining to some-one but you just know something is not right.

Scientists have now established that this is why most of us do not become victims of violence we trust our instinct and remove ourselves from potential threats and that the small number of  individuals who become victims are just not tuned into their instincts or go into denial.

Two things to remember about instinct:

Firstly it is always a response to something.

Secondly: It only has your best interest at heart.

In the next issue we will be looking at awareness and the research that has been carried out into this.

You will learn how to increase your awareness significantly so that you can become your own personal bodyguard.