Nathan Emmerich, comms expert and integral member of the Martyn’s Law campaign team, discusses the recent support and subsequent arrests for proscribed group Palestine Action.

The right to protest is at the heart of our democracy. It is rightly protected under Human Rights legislation and gives people from all backgrounds the opportunity to have their voices heard.

In recent weeks, there have been nearly 600 people arrested for showing support for the proscribed group, Palestine Action. Notably, of the 532 people arrested on Saturday 9 August, almost half were aged 60 and above, including more than 100 in their 70s. The optics of their arrest and the ensuing reaction is concerning. While they turned up knowing that they would be arrested, they responded as if this was something being done to them.

I don’t think anyone in Parliament Square on that Saturday was a terrorist, but it does bring into question the seriousness of the actions from people who wilfully ignore the law to promote a terrorist organisation, all under the banner of the right to protest.

Since the brutal terror attack carried out by Hamas in Israel on 7 October 2023, and the ensuing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, hundreds of thousands of people have peacefully taken to the streets of London and cities across the UK, almost weekly, to protest their concerns about the brutality of the war.

While the ripple effects of the conflict have been acutely felt by Jews and Muslims here in the UK, including increasing rates of hate crimes, the majority of those protesting do not seek to cause harm or to isolate communities based on their cultural backgrounds or religious beliefs.

Currently there are 84 terrorist organisations proscribed under the UK’s Terrorism Act 2000, with 14 organisations in Northern Ireland proscribed under previous legislation. Following the 7 October 2023, the Government has proscribed four groups – Hamas, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Terrogram, and most recently Palestine Action.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the UK Home Secretary has the powers to proscribe an organisation if they believe it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do so. Under the Act, “terrorism” is defined as the use or threat of action which involves serious violence against a person; involves serious damage to property; endangers a person’s life; creates a serious risk to the health and safety of the public or section of the public.

The use or threat of such action must be designed to influence the Government or an international governmental organisation, or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and must be undertaken for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

If we consider the actions taken by Palestine Action who damaged two military aircraft at RAF Brize Norton in an attempt to protest against the UK’s weapons sales to Israel, then this clearly fits under the definition of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Home Secretary has also set out factors that contributed to the group’s proscription, including intimidation, serious violence and information that cannot be disclosed due to national security reasons.

Whatever your opinion of the reasons for, and the proposed outcome regarding the conflict in Gaza, the scenes and testimonies coming from the people living it daily are harrowing to witness. But the scenes in recent weeks raise a question around the willingness of individuals to ignore the seriousness of supporting a proscribed terrorist group.

It appears that those showing support for Palestine Action are deliberately or unknowingly conflating the proscription of Palestine Action with the conflict itself and view their actions as a legitimate means to protest.

We also know that terrorists seek to disrupt and divide by sharing extremist narratives, as well as misinformation and disinformation. Social media has become a central tool for terrorist groups who deliberately share graphic content to stoke emotive responses. And the influence on those vulnerable to extremism is clear across the spectrum, from far-right to Islamist extremism.

It is difficult not to perceive these protests as a publicity stunt that would be celebrated by those groups who wish to undermine our democratic values and who wish to disrupt societal cohesion in the UK – there’s a risk that these protests embolden extremists and groups on the far right. The operational resource used to arrest 532 people cannot be understated – this ‘protest’ was designed to disrupt and stretch our police forces.

The focus in recent days has been on the possible consequences for those arrested, but we need to go further than dealing with this as an isolated incident. We need a national conversation about how we deal with these issues and how we reduce the influence of extremist groups, whilst allowing people to respectfully discuss matters of concern. We also need UK authorities to firmly grip these matters and to strengthen their response – violence, intimidation and support for a proscribed terrorist group can never be accepted.

Nathan Emmerich

SW-One Communications

The post Why violence, intimidation and support for a proscribed terrorist group can never be accepted appeared first on City Security Magazine.

Nathan Emmerich, comms expert and integral member of the Martyn’s Law campaign team, reflects on the impact of 7/7 and how we must never forget the strength in our diversity, culture and beliefs to ensure that extremists do not weaken the ties that make our society vibrant and strong. 

20 years on from the horrific terror attacks in London, which took the lives of 52 innocent people and resulted in life changing injuries for more than 700 people, the tragedy of 7/7 is a constant reminder of the need for vigilance and the importance for working collaboratively across society to build a safer future for everyone.

The four bombings which were carried out across London’s transport network were an attempt by home-grown terrorists to fracture the fabric of our society. They did not and they cannot succeed.

Instead, the British public and our emergency services showed resilience and unity, underscoring the enduring truth that despite attempts to divide us, our shared humanity will always prevail.

The ideologies that led to the 7/7 attacks should serve as a constant reminder of the dangers lurking beneath the surface of extremism. Terrorism is indiscriminate, brutal and those who carry out terror attacks do not care who they kill.

It is important to contextualise the terrorism threat picture in the UK – the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) has set the current national threat level as ‘substantial’, meaning a terror attack is likely.

We know that extremists and terrorists look to exploit and recruit individuals who are vulnerable to their ideologies. We’ve seen this repeatedly by groups such as ISIS and groups on the extreme far right who have utilised social media to spread hateful ideologies and misinformation.

The ripple effects of geopolitical conflicts have also been felt acutely in communities across the UK, with a 25% increase in hate crimes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2024. The vast majority of the 140,561 hate crime offences recorded were linked to race, with incidents against Jews doubling and incidents against Muslims increasing by 13%.

In the last year alone we’ve seen the consequence of intolerance in the aftermath of the horrific murders of young girls in Southport, when extreme far right groups targeted asylum seekers in temporary accommodation. More recently at Glastonbury, the rapper Bob Vylan was joined by thousands of people as he led chants of “death to the IDF”. These are reminders that hatred and intolerance, once unleashed, can rapidly permeate our society with significant consequences for communities.

This anniversary reaffirms the UK’s commitment to countering terrorism and in the years following 7/7, multiple governments have strengthened our approach to preventing further attacks through the Prevent programme and through counter terrorism legislation known as Martyn’s Law.

7/7 irrevocably shook the United Kingdom at its core but it was also a defining moment which affirmed that in the face of terrorism, we are resilient and will respond united. This anniversary reminds us that our shared humanity is our greatest shield against hatred and extremism.

Nathan Emmerich

SW-One Communications

The post Twentieth anniversary of 7/7 terror attacks appeared first on City Security Magazine.

 As the Risk and Intelligence Director for CIS Security, I am acutely aware of the evolving landscape of counter terrorism. To make our cities more resilient to terrorism will require a combination of security measures, design strategies, engagement across communities and intelligence sharing.

The future of our efforts in this domain will be shaped by several key trends and challenges.

1. Technological advancements and cyber threats

The rapid pace of technological innovation presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, advancements in artificial intelligence, machine learning, and big data analytics will enhance our ability to predict and prevent terrorist activities.

These technologies will enable us to analyse vast amounts of data to identify patterns and potential threats more efficiently. On the other hand, terrorists are increasingly exploiting these same technologies for their purposes, including cyber-attacks on critical infrastructure and the use of encrypted communications to evade detection.

2. Decentralisation of terrorist networks

Terrorist organisations are becoming more decentralised, with small, autonomous cells and lone actors posing significant threats. This shift complicates our efforts to track and disrupt their activities.

We must adapt by enhancing our intelligence-sharing mechanisms and fostering closer collaboration with international partners. The use of community policing and local intelligence will be crucial in identifying and mitigating threats at the grassroots level.

3. The role of social media and online radicalisation

The internet and social media platforms have become powerful tools for radicalisation and recruitment. Countering this requires a multi-faceted approach that includes monitoring online activities, working with tech companies to remove extremist content, and promoting counter narratives to dissuade individuals from radicalising. Public awareness campaigns and education will also play a vital role in preventing online radicalisation.

4. Addressing root causes and socioeconomic factors

To effectively combat terrorism, we must address the underlying causes that drive individuals towards extremism. This includes tackling issues such as social inequality, discrimination, and lack of economic opportunities. By improving social cohesion and providing support to vulnerable communities, we can reduce the appeal of extremist ideologies.

5. Enhancing preparedness and response capabilities

Despite our best efforts, it is impossible to prevent every terrorist attack. Therefore, we must ensure that our response capabilities are robust and well-coordinated. This includes regular training exercises, improving emergency response protocols, and ensuring that our first responders have the necessary resources and equipment. Public resilience and preparedness are also critical, and we must engage with communities to build their capacity to respond to and recover from terrorist incidents.

6. Collaboration and intelligence sharing

Terrorism is a global threat that requires a coordinated and collaborative approach, specific to the geographical area and cityscape. Strengthening our partnerships with intelligence agencies will be essential.

By sharing intelligence and best practices, we can enhance our collective ability to detect and disrupt terrorist activities.

In conclusion, the future of counterterrorism in the City of London will be shaped by our ability to adapt to new technologies, address the root causes of extremism, and foster collaboration across both the public and private sector. By staying vigilant and proactive, we can continue to protect our communities from the ever-evolving threat of terrorism.

Ray Marskell

Director of Risk and Intelligence

CIS Security Ltd

www.cis-security.co.uk

The post Counter Terrorism Key Trends & Challenges appeared first on City Security Magazine.

For the UK security industry, Martyn’s Law represents not just a challenge but a significant opportunity to reinforce the importance of well-trained personnel and professional security planning.

Public safety has always been a paramount concern, particularly in an era where threats to crowded spaces are an ever-present reality. Martyn’s Law, a landmark piece of legislation currently making its way through Parliament, seeks to mandate more stringent security measures at public venues.

The Origins and Purpose of Martyn’s Law

Martyn’s Law is named after Martyn Hett, one of the 22 victims of the Manchester Arena terrorist attack in 2017. His mother, Figen Murray, has been the driving force behind the campaign to introduce stronger security obligations for venues and event organisers. The primary aim of the legislation is to ensure that venues, regardless of size, have appropriate counter-terrorism plans in place to protect the public.

The law will impose a tiered approach, with requirements scaled according to venue capacity. Smaller venues will need to conduct basic risk assessments and staff training, while larger venues will be subject to more rigorous obligations, including detailed security plans and emergency response measures.

As Mike Reddington, Chief Executive of the British Security Industry Association (BSIA), states: “The primary objective of Martyn’s Law is to improve the security and safety of the public who attend venues and events, and the BSIA and its members support this positive step.”

The Current Status in Parliament

Martyn’s Law is progressing through the legislative process, with broad cross-party support reflecting its critical importance.

With the draft bill now under consultation, industry stakeholders are closely monitoring developments. Venue operators, security companies, and technology providers alike are preparing for the law’s imminent arrival by evaluating their security strategies and exploring new ways to ensure compliance.

Implications for Venue Operators

For venue operators, Martyn’s Law introduces new responsibilities that will require careful planning and investment.

Key obligations will include:

• Conducting risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities.
• Training staff to recognise and respond to security threats.
• Implementing proportionate security measures, from bag checks to surveillance systems.
• Preparing detailed response plans for emergencies.

This shift means that security will no longer be an afterthought but a fundamental part of venue management. As Mario Garcia, Managing Director of Achilleus Security, warns: “Too often, security and stewarding personnel are seen as just ‘boots on the ground’, and far too often we see the marketplace driving the race to the bottom on the cheapest price — at what cost? It’s always going to be at the expense of safety and security, causing poor training, development, and screening – that is something we have always refused to cut corners on.

“Hopefully, [Martyn’s Law] will push security and stewarding to the forefront of event planning and event/venue safety and reinforce the value of highly trained personnel on site”.

Opportunities for the Security Industry

While compliance with Martyn’s Law may initially seem like an additional burden, for professional security companies it presents an unparalleled opportunity to demonstrate their value. Demand for highly trained personnel, strategic risk assessments, and consultancy services is set to rise, and companies that invest in expertise rather than just manpower will be in high demand.

As Dean Newman, Managing Director of Newman Events, points out: “Enhancing public safety is always a win. Martyn’s Law presents a key opportunity for companies such as mine to leverage their expertise in event security, crowd management and risk mitigation, providing consultancy to help venues meet the new legal standards.”

Security firms that position themselves as trusted advisors rather than just service providers will benefit the most. The law underscores the need for venues to work closely with professionals who can provide tailored security strategies rather than relying on the lowest bidder.

Jonathan Neal, Head of Risk & Counter Terrorism, SAFECROWDS, says: “We strongly support and welcome the arrival of Martyn’s Law and firmly believe it will not only enhance public safety across many venues, but it will bring security and safety awareness to the forefront of those who might previously not have thought to consider it. Ensuring that publicly accessible locations up and down the country now have a duty of care towards protecting their staff, visitors and the public from the threat of terrorism is a positive legacy to emerge from the tragedy of the Manchester Arena attack.”

Technology and Workforce Management in the new security landscape

For security providers, managing a well-trained workforce will become even more critical. Compliance with Martyn’s Law will require detailed documentation of training, qualifications, and on-the-ground deployment, all of which can be streamlined through workforce management technology.

Workforce management software for the security industry can support companies in adapting to regulatory changes. Leigh Charles, Partnerships Director at Guardhouse, says: “ We are continually adapting our software to meet the changing requirements of our customers; this includes responding to regulatory changes. We’ll be keeping a close eye on Martyn’s Law to see how we can best support the industry in meeting any new obligations.”

Conclusion: A defining moment for the Industry

Martyn’s Law is set to reshape the security landscape in the UK, moving security from a secondary concern to an integral part of venue operations. While the new regulations will require investment and adaptation, they also highlight the need for a well-trained, highly professional security workforce.

For security companies, this is a moment to step forward – not just as service providers, but as experts in risk assessment, planning, and implementation. Those that prioritise training, strategic consultancy, and technology-driven workforce management will find themselves at the forefront of a safer, more security-conscious industry.

Rather than being seen as a compliance challenge, Martyn’s Law should be embraced as a catalyst for raising standards, improving public safety, and ensuring that security professionals are valued for their expertise – not just their presence. The future of the industry depends on it.

Sam de Lange

General Manager UK

www.guardhousehq.co.uk

The post Martyn’s Law: A turning point for UK Venue Security and the Security Industry appeared first on City Security Magazine.

 Reflecting on the growing popularity of National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) free training, Chris Simpson believes there is real interest in Counter Terrorism awareness learning – highlighting the growing partnership between police and security professionals.

The latest statistics for taking the Counter Terrorism e-Learning are really encouraging. Last year over 250,000 people took ACT learning – and that’s not counting the numbers who did it as part of in-house training systems.

It seems that demand for good quality education is strong and rising.

The ACT tools from my organisation, the National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO), are just some of the available products out there getting a strong uptake. The See Check and Notify (SCaN) programme from the National Protective Security Authority goes from strength to strength as does specialist training such as the Security-Minded Communications from the Servator team based with the City of London Police.

Doubtless, the pending Martyn’s Law legislation has raised awareness of the responsibility of venue owners for public safety. But I think there is a growing realisation that counter terrorism awareness also boosts wider crime prevention and security mindedness.

Staff who understand the power of ‘hello’ are deterring thieves or anti-social behaviour every bit as much as unnerving a potential terrorist doing hostile reconnaissance. And I think the quality of the freely available products is a factor in the uptake.

People seem happy to take the time to complete our ACT awareness e-learning probably because it has been carefully designed to address current issues by learning specialists.

The actual sessions are free but we’re acutely aware that staff time is valuable so we’ve worked with security professionals to make the experience as impactful as possible.

In the last few years we’ve deliberately strengthened our relationships with academics so we can get independent advice to complement the expertise of our partners in the intelligence services and the deep policing experience which makes up our network across the UK and internationally.

That’s because we know that changes in legislation and in the types of threat we’re seeing keep us on our toes. Research and development has to ensure that our training remains current along with the advice it is linked to on ProtectUK.

Our dedicated web platform is undergoing a progressive and significant makeover over the next couple of years and we’re working through the content and what users – particularly the private sector – will find useful.

The e-learning has long been a firm favourite, but the risk management toolkit has also been winning a lot of fans since it was launched last year. It provides a simple framework that is useful for veteran and novice security managers alike to identify potential vulnerabilities. And it sits alongside a range of tactical options, making it easier to plan risk mitigation.

Much of this work is the product of deepening partnerships at every level between police and security professionals. Although we have always worked closely on crime prevention and criminality, there’s an even stronger agreement that collaboration is key when it comes to protection against terrorism and preparation should the worst happen.

In my day-to-day work I see countless examples of close working, either through our national advisory body, the Counter Terrorism Business Information Exchange, or in local events where industry and commerce sit down with our dedicated advisors to share good practice. My sense is that there is a shared understanding of the threats we face, especially in spaces

open to the public and in venues.

Whilst pending legislation is mostly concerned with larger locations, security professionals are under no illusion that terrorists pose a threat anywhere people gather – regardless of numbers – and they are looking for ideas about how to protect people and property, and reassure the public that we’re working to keep everyone safe.

Detective Chief Inspector Chris Simpson

Head of Engagement

NaCTSO, Counter Terrorism Policing

www.counterterrorism.police.uk

The post ACT E-Learning: 250,000 Strong in Counter-Terrorism Awareness appeared first on City Security Magazine.

 Explosives detection dog (EDD) capability can be a valuable part of the security mix to protect a wide range of sites, premises and events. A specialist from the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA), the UK’s technical authority on protective security, outlines how this can be implemented.

As with all security measures, it is essential to ensure effective specification, implementation and assurance of EDD capability. Assuring detection dog capability is complicated, and to that end NPSA has worked with the Home Office and National Counter Terrorism Security Office (NaCTSO) to establish the National Canine Training and Accreditation Scheme – Private Security Industry (NCTAS-P).

If you use explosives detection dogs as part of the security mix at your site, premises or event, can you afford not to use teams that are NCTAS-P accredited?

Why dogs?

Not just a human’s best friend, but also a very useful one: dogs are renowned for having a phenomenal sense of smell and have long been recognised as offering a highly sensitive capability to detect odours across security applications and beyond.

Dogs can be very versatile. Not only can they be trained to detect a wide variety of odours of interest, but they can also be trained quickly on new ones. They can be trained to search effectively in different scenarios and environments as well. And unlike many security technologies, they can quickly and easily be transported from one deployment to another.

For many people, a security dog will be a reassuring presence, whilst also being a powerful deterrent to those with malign intent (a geared effect, as it may not be obvious what the dog is trained to detect).

Detractors may point to potential challenges with the effective use of detection dogs. In practice, comparable challenges typically apply to the use of detection and other security technologies, not least as deployment of both dogs and technologies involves humans as handlers or operators. The key here is to understand the limitations and challenges in each case and manage them accordingly.

The explosives threat involves a range of materials with very different odours and emitting very different levels of odour. Therefore, explosives detection dogs must be trained on a carefully curated selection of materials, quantities and concealments.

Given that many explosives have very low-level odours, there is a risk that needs carefully managing, i.e. dogs may inadvertently be trained on odours associated with packaging, storage or handling. There is guidance on this and many other aspects of optimising detection dog training and operational capability.

Not unlike humans, our canine friends can get tired, may be under the weather, or may feel like gaming the system. And like us, they are reward-motivated (typically, play with a tennis ball!). So how can they maximise play for minimum effort? Well, this is where the handler has a crucial part to play, from tasking and monitoring the dog as it searches, through to ensuring it has the right rest breaks when needed.

Key to this is the handler really understanding their dog and being able to spot, read and act on subtle cues in its behaviour. It is therefore important that a dog is always worked by the same handler.

But there are other more subtle considerations. With explosives threats fortunately a rare occurrence in the UK, an explosives detection dog will regularly find trained odours during training sessions but may never find one for real. Evidence from scientific studies shows that if the dog can distinguish between the training and operational environments (potential cues could include location, handler behaviours, or presence of an instructor), their search and detection effectiveness can decrease in the operational environment. With that in mind, there is a variety of effective mitigations.

Explosives detection dog teams have long been an important part of counter-terrorism policing and wider law enforcement capability in the UK. But there are also many potential private sector applications spanning protection of sites, premises and events.

An important part of NPSA’s remit as the national technical authority for protective security is to ensure that a palette of proportionate and effective protective security measures is available to those responsible for security of sites, premises and events.

London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics – a case study

NPSA (in its previous incarnation as Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure, or CPNI) was heavily involved in advising government and private sector stakeholders on protective security for the London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics.

Whilst the Games spanned a few weeks, the security effort spanned the many years over which planning, site construction and other preparations took place. A key risk that needed mitigating was the potential for a vehicle-borne improvised explosive device (VBIED) setting back Olympic Park construction.

This would have prevented the Games from opening on time. As part of the complex mix of security measures, there was a requirement for some sort of explosives detection capability to screen the vast number of complex and varied delivery vehicles entering the construction site.

This is where the concepts of ‘proportionate’ and ‘effective’ apply. Using technology or visual inspection to provide the necessary level of assurance wouldn’t have been proportionate – it would have been cost prohibitive, required much more space than was available, and would have imposed unacceptable delays to the just-in-time availability of construction materials.

Explosives detection dog (EDD) teams had the potential to offer a viable alternative, providing a rapid and flexible way of screening a wide variety of construction site vehicles. As with other aspects of site security, that was a private security matter falling clearly outside the remit of policing.

Whilst EDD teams were recognised as a good solution, there was a clear need to assure the effectiveness of the contracted EDD teams. In the absence of a government-recognised private sector assurance scheme, police specialists devised and implemented an internal process for assuring the contracted London 2012 EDD teams. This met the need as an expedient solution but was clearly not a scalable approach for the longer term and wider application.

There were a few instances during gaps between vehicle arrivals where these London 2012 EDD teams were deployed to screen the construction workers, and the dogs indicated the presence of explosives. No explosives, or explanation of possible explosives traces, were found on further investigation. Who knows what caused these indications, but one plausible explanation could be that the dogs involved might also have been trained at some point to detect other odours.

Clearly an indication by an explosives detection dog team must be taken seriously. So, whilst it’s obviously essential that an EDD team needs to be effective at detecting real threats, teams also need to be highly reliable at not indicating erroneously. It goes without saying that training needs to be effective, but a robust system of assurance is also essential.

Introducing NCTAS-P

Following several terrorist attacks in 2017, one of many options identified to enhance security at sites, premises and events was the possibility of a government-endorsed accreditation scheme for private sector EDD service providers.

The National Canine Training and Accreditation Scheme – Private Security Industry (NCTAS-P) was launched after detailed consideration by the Home Office, NaCTSO (as part of Counter Terrorism Policing), and NPSA, and engagement with a selection of private sector stakeholders. It was established in March 2021 in support of the government’s Counter Terrorism Strategy, CONTEST.

Its remit is to accredit private sector EDD teams. Crucially, it is the dog and handler that are accredited as a team. NCTAS-P does so by assuring explosives odour recognition and search capability (covering buildings, areas, routes and vehicles) to a comparable standard to that of police EDD teams. But it recognises that the role and remit of private sector teams is very different. In focusing on assuring odour recognition and search capability of EDD Teams, it complements the long-standing British Standard BS8517-2:2016 Security dogs – Code of practice for the use of detection dogs.

From an NPSA perspective, NCTAS-P offers multiple benefits. It enables providers of EDD services to differentiate their offer from suppliers of other security dog services and justify their investment in the required level of training. It enables users of EDD services to have confidence in the teams they hire – their odour recognition capability, search effectiveness, and an appropriate response to any indications.

And it provides reassurance to government and police stakeholders that a key tool in managing the threat of terrorist use of improvised explosive devices is effective. This includes the fact that at an operational level, an indication by a NCTAS-P EDD team should be taken seriously.

At the time of writing, 64 EDD Teams from ten suppliers, a mix of companies and individuals, hold NCTAS-P accreditation. The Department for Transport separately regulates private sector detection dog capability for specific transport security purposes.

Drugs, firearms and other detection dog disciplines

Aside from threats to national security, detection dog teams can also offer valuable capability for other applications within and beyond security. Whilst NCTAS-P is limited to accreditation of private sector explosives detection dog teams, many of the benefits and challenges of using detection dogs will be relevant to other applications, including the detection of drugs and firearms, and much of the guidance will also be applicable.

Guidance for users of Explosives Detection Dogs Services

Further information on the use of explosives detection dog capability is available on the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) website: www.npsa.gov.uk/canine-detection-0 which includes guidance to assist with specifying, procuring and implementing effective capability:

www.npsa.gov.uk/system/files/documents/key-points-to-consider-when-specifying-procuring-and-implementing-detection-dog-service-2023-npsa-template_0.pdf

NPSA strongly recommends that any organisation or site using, or considering using, explosives detection dog services should only use Explosives Detection Dog (EDD) teams holding a current NCTAS-P accreditation.

A full list of EDD teams holding NCTAS-P accreditation is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/find-an-accredited-explosives-detection-dog-team.

Providers of detection dog services wanting more information about NCTAS-P (including how to register interest) visit: www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-canine-training-and-accreditation-scheme-private-security-industry.

Working with the Home Office, Department for Transport and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, NPSA publishes a collection of guidance notes to help detection dog instructors and handlers understand how to optimise training and operational practice: www.npsa.gov.uk/canine-detection-guidance-notes

For further information visit:

www.npsa.gov.uk/canine-detection-0

The post Explosives Detection Dogs  – Capability or Liability? appeared first on City Security Magazine.

The NPSA has launched a new video to promote guidance on designing public spaces with consideration to Hostile Vehicle Mitigation.

It is important to be aware of the potential risks to public spaces. In recent years, there have been several attacks on the public using vehicles. Many towns and cities now deploy vehicle security barriers to help prevent such attacks. But introducing additional measures like street furniture, planters and trees can make it more difficult for vehicles to target sites and can boost public safety, while enhancing the overall experience of these areas.

To better protect people and property, the National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) has recently released a short video to promote its Public Realm Design Guide for Hostile Vehicle Mitigation. Note this film contains footage that some viewers may find distressing. Viewer discretion is advised.The video demonstrates some of the key messages in the guide, explains the techniques used by terrorists, and how to mitigate the threats posed by vehicle attacks.

Protecting people and places

Using a vehicle in an attack remains an attractive prospect due to their wide availability, low cost and ease of use.  Such attacks can result in injuries, loss of life and extensive damage to buildings, infrastructure, and services. Hostile Vehicle Mitigation (HVM) focuses on reducing the risks associated with vehicle- borne attacks by employing security risk assessments, strategic planning, design, and targeted measures.

The Public Realm Design Guide for Hostile Vehicle Mitigation includes essential tools and knowledge for integrating HVM into public spaces. Supported by thorough research and testing, the guide shows how safety and security can blend with attractive, multi-purpose designs. It was created for a wide range of professionals, including architects and designers, their clients, local authorities, and venue managers and operators.

The guide aims to provide clear and practical advice on how to recognise and manage the risks of vehicle attacks and provides urban design principles and advice on the detailed design of typical streetscape elements. It also includes advice on typical scenarios, the design process, and real-life examples. It is primarily a visual document with principles illustrated by graphics, and images of HVM measures and interventions.

When it comes to public space design, considering protective security requirements at the earliest planning stages is crucial. Integrating HVM into public spaces involves balancing multiple factors such as aesthetics, accessibility, traffic management, physical constraints, health and safety, cost, and maintenance.

But by reconfiguring a site layout, adapting existing features, and adding new mitigations, it could have the potential to slow down approaching vehicles, restrict potential attack routes, and help save lives. Protecting people, and not just physical assets, is at the heart of the guide.

Prioritising public safety

Following the second reading of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill (also known as Martyn’s Law) on 14 October, the Bill will place greater responsibility on venue owners and operators to ensure the safety of public spaces. The Public Realm Design Guide for Hostile Vehicle Mitigation supports the public space design process by encouraging a positive and creative approach to counterterrorism and protective security.

By bringing together design and security professionals to recognise and seize opportunities for creating safer spaces, surroundings can remain open and inclusive. And with the addition of physical security measures, these spaces will be protected from potential vehicle attacks. When mitigating vehicle threats, every metre counts.

Further information

A range of security measures is key to mitigating the impact of a terrorist attack or major incident. NPSA has guidance available to help small businesses, large organisations, popular events, and venues to protect their staff and customers.

About National Protective Security Authority

The National Protective Security Authority (NPSA) is the UK government’s national technical authority (NTA) for physical and personnel protective security. We are part of MI5, which means we use the latest intelligence as well as research to inform our advice.

To find out more, visit:

National Protective Security Authority NPSA:  www.npsa.gov.uk.

x

The post Latest NPSA advice on designing for public spaces – integrating Hostile Vehicle Mitigation appeared first on City Security Magazine.

The threat from terrorism remains high

ProtectUK (the UK policing counter terrorism website) says: “Since the start of 2017, agencies and law enforcement have disrupted 39 late-stage plots and there have been 15 domestic terror attacks. These terrorist attacks have sadly demonstrated that the public may be targeted at a broad range of public venues and spaces.”

In light of this ongoing threat, the aim of the new bill (Martyn’s Law – the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill) is to improve preparedness and security across a wide range of publicly accessible premises and events, such as nightclubs, libraries, museums, galleries, hotels, hospitals and railway stations.

ProtectUK hosts a series of leaflets (summarised below) that explain the premises in scope and the ‘reasonably practical procedures and measures’ that the new legislation will require.  However, the content of the Bill is not finalised. At a Terrorism update webinar in late 2024, Nick Aldworth, Director Counter-Terrorism, Intelligence and Risk at Carlisle Support Services, said: “It is now for Parliament to decide what Martyn’s Law should look like and because of that, there is still the prospect of more change to come.”

Premises in Scope and Duties

The bill establishes two levels of duty of these publicly accessible premises based on the number of people likely to be on the premises at the same time:

1. Standard Duty: Premises expected to host 200-799 individuals at the same time.
2. Enhanced Duty: Premises expected to host 800 or more individuals at the same time.

Events in Scope within Enhanced Duty

Events meeting the following four criteria will also fall under the enhanced duty requirements:

• Take place in a defined premises (open land, land with a building, or a building not already captured)
• Host at least 800 attendees at the same time, including staff
• Meet “express permission” criteria
• Not take place in premises already in the enhanced duty

Special Considerations

• Places of Worship: All fall within the standard duty, regardless of capacity.
• Educational Institutions: Childcare, primary, secondary, and further education buildings are always in the standard duty.
• Higher Education: Subject to the same requirements as other premises types.

Excluded Premises

• Parliaments and devolved governments
• Most parks, gardens, and open-air recreational spaces (with exceptions)
• Transport premises already subject to existing security legislation

Key Requirements

Those premises in the Standard Duty must implement a set of simple procedures to reduce the risk of physical harm to individuals present. These are:

• Evacuation: The process of getting people safely out of the premises.
• Invacuation: The process of bringing people safely into, or to safe parts within, the premises.
• Lockdown: The process of securing the premises to ensure that the entry of any attacker is restricted or prevented, e.g. locking doors, closing shutters or using barriers.
• Communication: The process of alerting people on the premises to move them away from any danger.

Measures required for the enhanced duty

More comprehensive measures are required due to the potentially higher impact of an attack for those premises in the Enhanced Duty. They must implement the requirements for the Standard Duty and, in addition, the following:

• Provide physical safety and security of the premises
• Control the movement of individuals into, out of, or within premises or event
• Monitor the premises or event, and their immediate vicinity
• Document compliance
• Public protection procedures that they have in place, and/or will put in place

All requirements are subject to the concept of “reasonably practicable”, allowing for consideration of the nature of activities, operating environment, and available resources.

Regulation and Enforcement

A new function of the Security Industry Authority (SIA) will act as the regulator, focusing on:

• Supporting, advising, and guiding businesses
• Using powers and sanctions only for serious and persistent non-compliance
• Ability to fine non-compliant entities and shut down premises in extreme cases

The process of the Bill

The bill must make its way through the legislative process before becoming law. It has to be debated and then approved by each House of Parliament, and then receive Royal Assent to become a law and known as an act. It is currently hoped that Martyn’s Law – the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill will receive Royal Assent in spring 2025. You can track its progress here: UK Parliament: Parliamentary Bills.

Nick Aldworth adds: “Once the bill is passed and becomes an act of parliament, the important work of building an effective regulator will begin.  It is likely that this will take up to two years, which is why there has been talk of an implementation period.  This will also be the period during which premises can start to build their own capabilities to meet the law that they will be subject to.”

This legislation marks a significant shift in UK counter-terrorism strategy, placing greater responsibility on premises and event organisers to actively consider and mitigate terrorist threats.

For further information, visit the Martyn’s Law section on the Protect UK website:

www.protectuk.police.uk/martyns-law

The post Will 2025 finally see Martyn’s Law enacted? appeared first on City Security Magazine.

 Figen Murray has been campaigning for nearly six years for changes in the legislation on protective security against terrorist attacks for publicly accessible premises. Here she outlines the impact this has had on her life.

It is the end of yet another busy day doing an online presentation, a few teams calls, dozens of emails, posts for LinkedIn and Twitter (I refuse to call it X) and fitting life in between all this.

Martyn’s Law may have started as an online petition in my kitchen almost six years ago, but it is now full on. My leather desk chair pays testament to that as it is now peeling and it is no surprise, as I seem to be surgically attached to it!

When I don’t work from home, I can usually be found on a train travelling somewhere in the UK, sitting in hotel rooms eating a meal deal on the bed, tucking into yet another unhealthy conference spread before heading back on the train, usually late in the evening to catch the cheaper off-peak train, and yes, tucking into yet another meal deal. It is astonishing how one gets used to this lifestyle.

But is this kind of life worth it? Rushing here, there and literally everywhere?

Yes it is!

On 7 May 2024, we as a campaign team began walking from Manchester Arena to No. 10. It was a protest march, supported by hundreds of people.

We walked 16 days, 7 to 8 hours a day in all weathers. It damaged my already compromised hip to the point where I ended up having a hip replacement done.

Was it worth it?  Yes it was!

The walk certainly got the attention of the government as both Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer met with us on the final day! We were no longer ignored.  But the elections were looming, and a new government came with a new leader who gave me a promise to get Martyn’s Law done as a matter of urgency.  The first reading materialised on 12 September. These seven seconds were so important as they symbolised the beginning of the end of the campaign.

The second reading was on 14 October and my husband and I, alongside Brendan Cox and Nathan Emmerich, sat in the gallery listening to Martyn’s Law being debated. It was emotional, heart-wrenching, heart-warming, exciting, very humbling and also incredibly embarrassing as my name was mentioned what felt like hundreds of times.

I felt embarrassed as this legislation would never have gone very far without Brendan Cox and Nick Aldworth. It would not have progressed without the loving support of particularly my husband, but also my children.  Whilst I was the person having started all this as a very broken-hearted mum, I certainly am not on my own any more. In fact, so many people stand alongside us now.

However, my days are constantly filled with dread and anxiety. The journey is far from over. The journey through the rest of its parliamentary journey has many hurdles to overcome yet. There is resistance in some quarters. There are objections from some corners. Despite the overwhelming unanimous cross-party support for the legislation, words such as “onerous”, “costly”, “financial burden” and “cost of living” bounced threateningly off the chamber walls.

Someone suggested the enhanced tier should be tried and tested first. A big No to that from me as this would mean rolling out a red carpet for terrorists to attack our softer targets. The resistance from small businesses is palpable, so we were led to believe. However, we provided evidence by hundreds of standard tier venues writing to their MPs saying that it is not onerous or costly or burdensome to implement the legislation.

The fact that we have had 43 near misses speaks for itself. The law of averages should inform us that sooner or later we will not prevent an attack in the future and more families will end up with urns in their homes or graves to tend to. More people will be injured, and dozens will be traumatised forever.

Brendan Cox and I are giving evidence during the next stage of the legislation and our hope is that, alongside Nick Aldworth’s very strong written evidence, we can get our point across, urging the government to make this legislation as watertight as possible, make it fit for purpose, close the loopholes, and give the SIA the legislative power and all the resources they need to carry out their regulatory role to the best effect. It is important that MPs now do their job and make the right decisions to get the legislation to a point where it is robust and where it does not compromise safety.

Martyn’s Law will save lives, but it is now up to the government to make the legislation fit for purpose and not allow the safety of its citizens to be compromised.

Figen Murray OBE

The post Figen Murray – Campaigner for Martyn’s Law asks ‘is it worth it?’ appeared first on City Security Magazine.

You may have heard of the police role of DOCO and wondered what it entails and how it could support you. Here PC Russ Pengelly of the City of London Police explains the scope and aims of this role.

A Design Out Crime Officer (DOCO) is what used to be the Architectural Liaison Officer. This is a role that straddles Neighbourhood Policing and the Counter Terrorism world of policing. Every force nationally has at least one DOCO, which is mandated by the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) and the College of Policing.

What is the job? Well simply, you are the force security expert and provide specialist advice and guidance to developers, architects and the local authority on how to design, develop and build their properties in a way that is most resistant to antisocial behaviour, crime and terrorism. You then work alongside security specialists and architects, looking to provide commensurate security mitigation to the potential threats that are still present.

In my role, I also provide specialist technical advice and support to the Counter Terrorism Security Advisors on physical security of sites that have identified vulnerabilities.

The DOCO role is a good role if you’re interested in history. You get to see places that very few people will be exposed to. Recently I was asked to review the plans for the proposed development of the underground nuclear tunnels in Chancery Lane. Inspecting the two-mile tunnel system, which is at the same depth as the Central Line, was fascinating.

The City of London is a unique environment for a DOCO to operate in; nowhere else in the country, even the Metropolitan Police District (MPD), has the same number of tall buildings, with such niche requirements. In the past few years of doing the role I have worked on several new tall towers which will be appearing on the City skyscape at some point in the future.

 One of the other roles of the DOCO is to provide specialist security advice on places of worship, which you conduct on behalf of the Home Office. Once complete, you can make recommendations that the place of worship is need of funding from central government to safely allow people to practise their faith in a safe and secure environment. Recently I was able to secure funding for St Paul’s Cathedral to upgrade their existing security.

Another specific role of the DOCO is to ensure that vulnerable victims of domestic abuse crime can feel safe within their homes. The Sanctuary Scheme is a national programme to provide a victim with effective security at home, to safeguard them from becoming a victim once more. This could be anything from window locks to a safe room. Cost is irrelevant and the works are conducted by the local authority based on the recommendations of the DOCO.

Training for becoming a DOCO is second to none within the policing world, resulting in you being registered with Secured by Design as a Suitably Qualified Security Specialist (SQSS). This  training included high-level NVQs in Crime Prevention and Designing Out Crime.

These courses cover understanding crime and its causes, crime theories, auditing the environment, problem-solving approaches to crime, and leading on partnership projects. The Level 5 Designing out Crime NVQ provides extensive training in building design, crime prevention through environmental design, defensive space theory and accreditation standards and their application.

In my 23+ years in policing I can honestly say that I have enjoyed this role the most. One of the best parts of this role is that you can really shape the way that buildings are designed and alongside the architect, you end up leaving your stamp on the physical landscape of the City of London, keeping the workers and residents safe.

PC Russ Pengelly

City of London Police

The post How does a Design Out Crime Officer (DOCO) support counter terrorism and crime prevention? appeared first on City Security Magazine.