Security enforcement around major industrial and commercial
sites of national importance requires a major re-think,
according to the UK's leading High Court Enforcement Agency,
Shergroup.
As direct campaigners become more expert in mobilising
public opposition and taking aggressive direct protest,
the threat from a wide range of sources including eco
warriors, industrial squatting and disruption to national
utilities such as energy, water, and gas is escalating,
and Shergroup warns that the commercial costs to the nation
of such actions could be “astronomic.”
Alan Smith, Chief Operating Officer at Braintree, Essex-based
Shergroup, who has responsibility for security, says diverse
protest groups are now using Parliamentary campaigns,
the courts, the planning process, and the media to back
up their site-specific campaigns.
“Concerns about global warning and related direct
protests mean millions of pounds worth of property may
be at risk as increasingly sophisticated campaigners focus
on new targets.
“These may include coal power stations, the new
generation of proposed nuclear stations, the third runway
at Heathrow, or other vulnerable sites that are crucial
to the national economy, but which may be perceived as
causing environmental problems.”
Shergroup’s highly-skilled team was on the frontline
at a recent high-profile eviction triggered by the slump
in economic markets, leading to industrial squatting,
where redundant workers bedded down on site and refused
to leave.
A recent unforeseen sit-in at three factories across
the south of England when Visteon, a vehicle parts company’s
American owner, pulled the plug, plunging the company
into administration with the loss of many hundreds of
UK jobs, was an expensive example of how redundancies
can spiral into industrial action.
Angry Visteon staff held unscheduled rooftop protests
at the factory site in Enfield and the dispute spread
to the Basildon site - requiring the company to
call in Shercurity at the eleventh hour to help vacate
the site and restore calm.
“With the numbers of people being laid off showing
few signs of declining, we can expect many more of these
direct action campaigns,” says Alan, who is calling
for a more considered approach to high-profile site management.
“Security expertise should be brought in right
from the start, especially where the threat from disruption
to production or damage to property is high.
“We at Shergroup urge the management of these sites
to make the shift from a focus on physical evictions,
once the site has been occupied, to a more strategic undertaking
of mission analysis, gathering intelligence and using
the latest technology and equipment.
“Because of the specialist nature of many of these
targeted sites, huge costs are incurred if protestors
are allowed to get on to them. That is what happened at
Visteon in Enfield and Basildon and that is what is likely
to happen with increasing frequency in other areas of
the country.
“Companies bring management consultants on to sites
when they think there may have to be redundancies, but
we think that security experts also need to be at the
site at that same stage, to accompany management consultants
if necessary, so we can give a full risk assessment and
position ourselves as an integral part of the solution.”
Alan’s message is that too many high-risk sites
are still marked by a short-term lack of investment and
an unwillingness or inability to look at the larger security
picture.
Alan adds, “The risk of any disruption to our country’s
energy is very real, and we need to be planning for such
a scenario well in advance.
“These disruptions are not always caused by redundancies.
Energy and environmental issues may also trigger major
and expensive on-site confrontations.”
Shergroup faced that scenario at a Northamptonshire power
station, where eco protestors climbed up and locked on
to a 650-foot chimney to make their point.
Says Alan: “Our people had to spend two-and-a-half
hours climbing up the hot, dusty chimney to remove the
protestors from a dangerous situation.
“Of course, the turbine had to be shut down and
closing it stands to cost in excess of £250,000
for each day it is not in production.”
Alan’s concerns come as global warming and its
consequences for security, for jobs and the potential
for disrupting lives may mean millions of pounds worth
of property could be at risk.
