Swallow's Lone Worker Blog

Worrying data from the BRC on Retail crime and staff abuse

2012-01-17T20:06:00.002Z

Despite a reduction in offences the cost of retail crime has significantly risen, according to a new study from the British Retail Consortium. The overall cost of retail crime has increased by 31 per cent to £1.4 billion. This is equivalent to 130,000 retail jobs.

A worrying trend this year is the increase in threats and verbal abuse to retail staff which has increased by 83 per cent when compared to last year. Robberies have also increased by 20 per cent with retailers reporting an increase in the use of weapons and violence.

At Connexion2 we have seen a marked increase in retailers adopting Identicom as part of their war on staff abuse, the ability to capture evidence of verbal abuse such as racial aggression and threats being of prime importance.

For the full BRC study, see http://www.brc.org.uk/brc_show_document.asp?id=4324&moid=7614

Want to know more about Conflict Management in the Housing sector?

2012-01-17T20:04:00.003Z

Hot off the press, a low cost educative day on how best to manage conflict management. This day has been set up as a result of customer demand and would suit any manager or lone worker in the housing sector.

For details and a booking form please see http://www.connexion2.com/Conflict-Resolution-for-Housing-Associations.asp

RCN ‘appalled’ at attacks on lone working nursing staff

2012-01-05T07:59:00.001Z

The Royal College of Nursing has said that assaults on nursing staff are completely unacceptable, as new survey findings show that over 60 per cent of nurses working in the community have been subjected to abuse in the past two years.

RCN Chief Executive & General Secretary Dr Peter Carter said he was "utterly appalled" that nurses continue to face violence. “Nurses working alone in the community are vulnerable and are often without back up or immediate help close by - out of sight should not mean out of mind. During these dark, winter nights I expect that many nurses may feel even more at risk and this must be addressed as a matter of urgency,” he said.

Nearly half of nurses who responded to the RCN survey did not feel that their employer would take action over verbal abuse, while over a quarter were not convinced they would take action over physical assault. “While it is not surprising that respondents felt their employer would be more likely to take action as a result of physical rather than verbal abuse, it is still completely unacceptable that it should have to come to a nurse suffering physical violence before something is done,” added Dr Carter.

Nearly four in ten survey respondents felt that the risks to lone workers have increased over the past two years but the RCN has said that a lack of funding is not an excuse for ignoring the risks faced by lone working nurses. The RCN also argues that a well-implemented policy, assessment of risks and prevention strategy, including the use of specialist lone worker alarm systems, are sensible investments.

The RCN is calling on employers to do all they can to protect their nursing staff and is urging all lone working nurses to consider the risks and act with caution at all times.

Link to full report

Great statistics impress ACPO

2011-12-02T09:06:00.002Z

Those suppliers in the UK lone worker industry who appreciate the value in a quality and speedy Police response to incidents have welcomed the publishing of statistics on the number of subscribers and incidents.

Collated by the BSIA, the latest statistics show that in September 2011 there were 94143 subscribers in the UK of BS8484 compliant lone worker solutions. There were 17549 activations (alarms) of which only 70 needed to be passed to the Police representing just 0.3% of total alarms.

When compared to intruder and hold up alarms where false alarm rates of alarms passed through to the Police often sit at 15% of alarms or more, this reflects very well on those providing quality solutions. For end clients, this means less likelihood of the Police not responding quickly and where lone worker alarms are deployed instead of hold-up alarms (in retail for example), less likelihood of client URN's being removed.

News for Scottish lone workers..

2011-09-09T07:42:00.002Z

I learnt yesterday that ACPOS (the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland) plan to update their guidelines on alarm handling this coming January to include an appendix on lone worker alarms.

In summary, ACPOS plan to go the same route as ACPO, with guidelines that have been operating in England & Wales for the past 12months. That is they will allocate a specific lone worker URN only to alarm receiving centres (ARCs) who meet BS5979 Cat II. They will also call for all suppliers of lone worker solutions to be audited and approved against BS8484. Without these standards a supplier wont be able to guarentee a Police response.

So in summary, if you are an employer of lone workers in Scotland then you should start to think now about whether or not your lone worker solution provider meets the criteria.

ACPO Policy revised and republished

2011-07-12T18:29:00.004Z

As I reported back in October last year, ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) have finally updated their security systems policy to Police Forces in England & Wales in respect of lone worker security systems.

Appendix V now specifies that the supplier of a lone worker solution should be compliant and audited by a UK ACAS accredited auditor against all sections of BS8484. Previously, the policy only called for the lone worker device to be accreditied to BS8484.

So what does this mean...well, if getting a Police response, quickly is important to you in the event of an incident then you should ensure your supplier (like Connexion2) is fully compliant and acccredited to BS8484. The policy makes it clear that if a supplier meets ACPO's requirements then a level 1 response from the Police can be expected.

Check your contract with your supplier or ask them for certification as proof!

For a copy of the ACPO security systems policy please email me at craig.swallow@connexion2.com

www.mysafety.net is now live!

2011-07-11T20:21:00.004Z

Following early stage beta trials, I'm pleased to say that www.mysafety.net is now up and running and ready for you to login! As previously detailed, www.mysafety.net provides a web based 'buddy system' and a way for you and your colleagues to log and share your risks. Login at www.mysafety.net for more details..

Sharing risks amongst lone workers just became easier..

2011-05-19T12:06:00.003Z

All too often I have heard from companies and organisations who say its difficult to share the knowledge of risks between lone workers, whether they are in the same department, across the organisation or with other agencies or companies. Data protection is often given as a reason but the reality of it is often down to having a credible and simple method for sharing risk.

Enter www.mysafety.net, a new web based buddy system which also allows its members to 'tag and flag' known risks by location and proactively share this with like minded colleagues. mysafety.net takes the idea of having communities which can then be linked thus helping share risk knowledge across different organisations without it causing issues from a data protection perspective.

To read more about mysafety.net and to register your details for when it launches, please visit www.mysafety.net

Best of all, the service is free of charge! Tell your colleagues and lone working friends to register also.

An independant source for BS8484 information

2011-03-14T20:31:00.003Z

Some enterprising person has spotted an opportunity to provide a fully independant website as a source for all things to do with BS8484. Until ACPO (Association of Cheif Police Officers) and the security industry audit bodies, NSI and SSAIB provide greater clarity on who is certified and why its important, this website (www.bs8484.com) will act as a welcome resource for any client seeking to demystify the requirements of this important standard.

If you are seeking details of what is required of a lone worker solution or a source for independant consulting on the matter then its worth a look.

Check your facts! BS8484

2011-02-03T16:59:00.002Z

Most organisations seeking a lone worker solution in the UK are aware of BS8484, the British Standard for a lone worker device service. If you aren't aware then in simple terms, BS8484 covers off not just the lone worker device requirements, monitoring and response requirements but it also covers the financial standing of a supplier and the insurances they must keep.

However, some unscrupulous companies are claiming 'compliance' with the standard without being any more specific about their solutions and whether or not they as a company have been audited against the whole of the standard.

I guess its like everything in life...you shouldn't necessarily believe what someone tells you!

To prove compliance, ask for a copy of an audit certificate and check that the company has been audited against the whole of the standard. The risk is that if you dont, then the supplier may not be able to provide as thorough solution as you had hoped and worst still, may not be able to escalate an incident through to the police when required.

Budget cuts likely to increase lone working..

2011-02-03T16:47:00.002Z

Whilst the dust cloud of uncertainty remains, I'm starting to pick up evidence that budget cuts are likely to introduce more lone working practices and risk. Many organisations, public and private sector (in different countries too) are looking at how services which used to be carried out by two staff can now be carried out by one. Clients in the retail sector are reducing store staff at non-peak times, the Forestry Commission announced job cuts this week which will lead to more lone working and NHS staff are being asked to lone work during hours and in locations where previously two staff would operate.

Its quite obvious for employers to think this way so I'm not surprised. however, only the savvy employers are immediately understanding (or considering) health & safety risk factors that might arise when practices are changed. We have been delighted these past few months to work with a number of clients to help not only train staff on lone worker risk but also to help employers implement technology solutions that help provide the peace of mind a lone worker may need.

Expected change in ACPO Policy regarding lone worker systems

2010-10-14T10:36:00.004Z

Currently, ACPO policy (published January 2010) regarding how and when they will respond to a lone worker incident is set out in Appendix V. It calls for the alarm receiving centre involved to meet both BS5979 Cat II and BS8484. It further calls for the loe worker device used to comply with BS8484 (All Identicom's do by the way!).

It is anticipated that ACPO will shortly announce a change to this and call for the supplier of the solution delivered to a client to also conform and be audited to BS8484. This move is seen as a further (and welcome) strengthening of Police policy and recognises the need for the supplier to meet a wider range of corporate metrics (e.g. financial standing, appropriate insurance, data protection policy etc).

The announcement is expected in November 2010 but will come into force from April 2011.

Appendix V is also expected to reference Appendix S and that suppliers must comply with its requirements. These again are to ensure the supplier company and its staff meet criteria appropriate for the provision of lone worker security systems.

For further details or a copy of ACPO policy please contact me at craig.swallow@connexion2.com

The rising recognition of risk impact on corporate brands

2010-10-14T09:37:00.002Z

Whenever we engage with a client seeking to improve the safety of its staff one of the key things we seek to understand is the principle reasons why. More specifically, what has driven them to the point where they need to implement technology solutions or training.

In the past year we have seen a notable increase from some (specifically large corporate clients) who are recognising the risk of reputational brand damage that an incident may enable. In the light of major incidents like those effecting BP and Toyota, it seems that more and more clients are casting their net wider in terms of understanding and scenario playing incident types that would really impact on their brand. As Warren Buffet once said, it can take 20years to build a reputation and only five minutes to ruin it.

Reputational risk is therefore one of the most potent dangers that any company faces. It is also, unfortunately, one of the most elusive. While it is relatively easy to talk about reputation risk in the abstract, it is far harder to protect against it in practice. A recent survey conducted by Airmic, the association for insurance and risk managers, frames the conundrum well. Of those who took part in the poll, 80% claimed that reputational risk is their top concern. However, only 43% believed that they have formal and well managed plans in place to tackle it.*

Our customers have carried out business risk assesments and found that the safety of their lone workers (and specifically the types of possible incidents they face) place these risks in their top ten. Mitigating the business risk by getting lone working staff to carry out a dynamic risk assesment is proven to work. Capturing audio evidence from an incident provides the back-up required to respond effectively and to keep staff positive and productive.

*Blog post adapted from an article in the Wall Street Journal, for full details follow these links:
Corporate Risk: Brand Values
Corporate Risk: Cinderella Moment

50k runners and still there are lone workers!

2010-09-29T07:23:00.003Z

For the past eight years I have been lucky (unlucky some would say) to run the Great North Run. Trekking up to the North East each autumn has become a ritual made stronger this year because my daughter also ran in the Junior Great North Run.

This year was also interesting because Connexion2 was asked by Nova International, the organisers of the GNR (and other great runs) to help them make sure some of their lone workers were protected and that race day management could see the location of these key staff.

So how come the world's largest half marathon with 50k runners and well over 100k spectators still has lone workers at risk?

The main lone workers we were tasked to assist were the drivers of the baggage buses. At the start of the race, any luggage required by the 50k runners is packed into dozens of double decker buses to be driven to the finish area. These drivers are therefore carrying a large amount of valuables over an extended route (so they avoid the closed off race route and surrounding areas).

Race day management were also keen to use Connexion2's web based tracking platform to be able to see their locations in real time as well as receive email alerts when the buses had arrived at the finish.

For more details of the job we did, please follow this link or call Connexion2.

Lone workers in retail

2010-09-28T20:45:00.002Z

Over the past year I have seen an increase in the deployment of lone worker solutions to retail clients. Historically, retail have spent heavily on improving site security but with the exception of fixed panic alarms (normally a button under the desk at the point of sale) they haven't focused on worker security.

So what has changed?

Talking to clients some or all of the following factors often seem to be in play:

1. Risk assessment reviews carried out by the retailer have identified the growing risk of attack to workers, particularly those involved in keyholding. Attacks often occur to workers when opening/closing the store or when on route to or from the store.

2. A growing appreciation that verbally communicated abuse is damaging to workers and can often be a precursor to physical abuse. Frequent verbal abuse (such as racial abuse, sexual harrassment or threats) can be a principle reason for staff turnover.

3. A desire to capture better evidence of incidents in order to improve the likelyhood of police involvement in a robbery related incident. Audio evidence can also help identify the severity level of the incident.

4. Technology limitations of existing fixed panic alarms (PA's) can lead to high false alarm rates and withdrawl of Police URNs. Range limitations of local radio systems also fail to protect workers outside of the store (e.g. when on route to/from the store).

5. Increases in store opening hours and lone working (to keep staff costs down) means greater risks.

For all of these reasons, retail employers are right to look to better protect their workers. Not only for safety and security reasons but also to help mitigate their business risks, improve relations with the Police, reduce insurance costs and to protect valuable business brands.

Connexion2 is helping retailers achieve all of these benefits and more...

Smartphones for lone workers - a smart idea?

2010-05-20T10:17:00.002Z

Last week was a busy one with both IFSEC and a specialist lone worker conference at Earls Court, London happening at the same time. Connexion2 used IFSEC for the launch of its new Identicom mobile product and to showcase its new web-based tracking application.

Identicom mobile is the company's first venture into the smartphone arena and I was interested to see how customers reacted. As you will know from previous postings, our belief has always been to deliver 'fit for purpose' solutions with BS8484 not defining what fit for purpose means. It was important to us therefore that Identicom mobile (initially for Blackberry but other platforms to follow) met this philosophy as well as being easy to implement, elegant and easy to use.

Reaction to our products was excellent and most pleasing of all was the fact that the majority of customers understood when it would be appropriate for a smartphone based solution to be deployed rather than a dedicated lone worker device such as Identicom. (the answer is when the worker doesn't suffer from a specific risk of attack/abuse/man-down or has only occassional risk such as driving or walking in at-risk areas).

It surprised me also (pleasantly) how many Health & Safety and Risk Managers knew about BS8484 as the standard for lone worker solutions. This is encouraging because all understood that this provides a credible benchmark not only to ensure a supplier is capable (i.e. if they have been audited) but also because without this, there is a heavy risk that a Police response in the event of an incident couldn't be guarenteed.

If you'd like more details of Identicom mobile or our tracking capabilities then let me know.

Connexion2 successfully audited against BS8484

2010-04-16T12:00:00.002Z

I'm pleased to report that I took a phone call on Thursday from NSI to confirm that Connexion2 had been approved as having passed a successful audit against BS8484, the standard for lone worker device services.

The audit conducted in March by NSI (National Security Inspectorate) gives Connexion2 full compliance against sections 4, 5 and 6:

Section 4 - covers the financial standing of a supplier, its quality procedures and its insurances.
Section 5 - covers the essential and desirable functionality of a lone worker device
Section 6 - relates to the standard and requirements of the alarm receiving centre (ARC)

Readers of my blog will have previously learnt that recent ACPO guidelines now calls for full BS8484 compliance as well as BS5979 Cat II compliance at the ARC. I'm very pleased that Connexion2 is amongst the very first to attain approval against all three sections.

The recent introduction of BS8484 has resulted in various suppliers of lone worker services claiming compliance with the standard.

If you are looking to deploy lone worker solutions to your workforce then I'd strongly advise you to check the credentials of the suppliers you are talking with. Don't accept on face value a statement of compliance with BS8484, ask for proof (certificate). If credible they should be able to clearly show that they have been audited against sections 4, 5 and 6 and not just one of these sections.

Connexion2 is able to provide all its customers and channel partners with the full BS8484 compliance that is required to ensure an effective solution is deployed and one that will ensure a Police response when required.

BS8484 - So why should it matter to an employer of lone workers?

2010-03-16T15:05:00.002Z

In the last week or so I have talked to a number of current and potential clients about their lone worker security strategy. I've found myself asking a number of new questions, one of which is "in the event of an incident, do you need the Police to respond?" Its been no surprise that everyone answers with a very positive "yes". Its a simple question but really drives home the importance of being able to access and manage a quick, emergency response in any serious incident scenario.

As previously noted, ACPO have now published their policy on how and when they will respond to lone worker alarms. In short, much of their focus is on an ARC monitoring function that is credible enough to filter false alarms and on 'fit for purpose' lone worker devcies (LWD) which work well for the lone worker. Their requirement is that the device meets the requirements of BS8484.

So in short...any employer looking to deploy a credible lone worker solution that can ensure them a Police response need to be looking for a supplier who use a credible ARC and compliant devices. Simple.....

But, how can an employer ensure that they are getting a credible solution from a trustworthy supplier. The answer is for the employer to ask any supplier for a copy of their certificated approval against BS8484. This should show that they have been audited against sections 4, 5 and 6 of the standard. Section 4 deals with the quality system, financial standing and appropriate insurance policies that the supplier should have. Section 5 deals with the device and any employer wanting to verify the compliance of devcies should ask to see a declaration of conformity or independant test certificate that details how the device meets the criteria of Section 5. Section 6 deals with the ARC and in short, calls for a minimum BS5979 standard but some specifics (such as quality ARC operator training).

Employers should therefore use BS8484 as a minimum benchmark against which to judge a potential supplier. Full audit against the whole standard is what you should be looking for.

Auditing against BS8484..the story so far

2010-02-09T20:23:00.004Z

I've spent much of the last couple of weeks or so getting a handle on how the two main audit bodies in the UK plan to audit a company against BS8484. This particular posting is probably of use to those in UK ARCs and not many others but I though it worth an update. Once the dust has settled a bit and more becomes clear I will post a entry that gives an update on BS8484 from an employer's perspective but until then..

The two main audit bodies in the UK security industry are the NSI and the SSAIB. Both have confirmed that they will audit a company against BS8484 and indeed some audits have already started. (Connexion2 has its booked for the 4th March).

SSAIB are happy to audit a company against the whole of BS8484 whilst NSI are expecting three different types of application:

1. Audit against the whole standard
2. Audit against section 6 only (likely to be from an ARC who isn't wanting to sell to a client)
3. Audit against section 7 only (likely to be from a private response company)

NSI are happy to audit to either their Silver or Gold standard with the difference really being the fact that to get Gold, NSI have to audit a company against ISO9001 at the same time.

Applications are being taken now and a number of ARCs are also starting to apply to Police forces for URNs as per the application published by ACPO recently.

What is already clear though is that a couple of companies are already claiming to be 'approved' against BS8484 when in fact they either haven't yet applied or have only been audited and approved against section 6 or 7. One to watch out for!

A couple of ARCs are telling me that for mobile phone based customers they are having to start the process of notifying them that its unlikely they will be able to guarentee a Police response once the process of using URNs kicks into gear.

More details to follow as the picture becomes more clear...

ACPO Policy on lone worker published

2010-01-24T19:11:00.002Z

As previously suggested, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have finally published their requirements for lone worker solutions, specifically detailing what is needed in order to guarentee a police response. As I had hoped, ACPO call for any Alarm Receiving Centre (ARC) to meet BS5979 Cat II and the Lone Worker Device (LWD) to meet the demands of BS8484.

The new policy also confirms that in order to get a Police response, the ARC in question must hold Unique Reference Numbers (URNs) for the appropriate Police force(s) needed to respond. The modest cost structure for the URNs have been detailed and will be available for ARCs to request from February 2010.

The next important development from a policy perspective is to see how the auditing bodies (such as NSI and SSAIB) audit a supplier of lone worker solutions against BS8484 which they are now starting to do. The expectation is that finally, it will be recognised that mobile phones do not make great LWDs and fail to meet a number of aspects of BS8484. If you currently use mobile phones then you may want to start planning to upgrade to credible LWDs (and a credible ARC perhaps). Without this, you aren't likely to get a Police response when you most need it.

Helping the Health & Safety Managers

2009-11-01T11:55:00.002Z

I've attended a number of conferences and events over the past month, it seems to be that time of year. All of them, pleasingly have had a serious focus on lone working and the regular stuff about the risks that such workers face. The audience at a couple of these events were the usual mix of Health & Safety professionals and those responsible for business risks. What was interesting to me though was that there seemed to be a marked change in what they were all there to learn.

In the past, the audience would have been content to learn about risks, the definition of lone working and the types of techniques and technologies that can be deployed to assist. This time though they seemed quite disinterested in this material and there was a definate 'we know all that' type feeling in the air. Talking to people, it seemed to me that the main thing that they wanted to now know about was 'how do I effect change in my organisation'. It was if they felt frustration that they knew what they need to do to improve their lone worker safety but that they were hampered by disinterested departmental and line managers around them.

Some benefitted from having a board member or members who appreciated the importance (often driven by a fear of corporate manslaughter) but even with this, in today's complex and multi-tiered organisations, gripped with a desire to improve revenues and save costs it is often extremely difficult to gain traction and to communicate the benefits effectively.

Those clients we work with know the benefits not just of the solutions we deliver but also of having a consistant and cohesive message that runs throughout their business. The simple fact is that better lone worker safety can lead to improved revenue streams and reduced costs. It also leads to a more productive work force.

I've always maintained that in what Connexion2 does, we should look at things from three perspectives, that of the lone worker, the employer and the Police. I think that in 2010, there is a fourth perspective that we will add that is equally as important and that's the perspective of the manager.

UPDATE: So what's new with ACPO and BS8484?

2009-09-10T15:01:00.002Z

I've talked previously about the very specific perspective that the Police have in respect of lone worker security solutions and the potential changes that may be coming along. As the UK market for lone worker solutions starts to accelerate, so does the need for the Police to have agreed parameters for when (or if) they will respond to a genuine lone worker alarm.

I thought it worth updating the picture as a number of key factors that will impact this important matter are just around the corner...

BS8484: The long awaited standard (although it will operate as a code of practice for the first 12months) is due for publication at the end of this month (September 2009). This important step forward will outline the basic requirements for any credible lone worker solution and specifically the device that a worker uses and the alarm receiving centre (ARC) that is connects to. It remains to be seen what the final draft details but it will call for credible devices (i.e. not mobile phones) and credible ARC providers.

ACPO Policy: I've talked before about the inevitable step towards a more formalised process of URN (unique reference number) allocation for lone worker alarms. This process is already in widespread use by all 43 Police forces in England & Wales (and by forces in Scotland and N. Ireland) for many other types of alarms such as those for buildings and vehicles. Their application to lone worker alarms is, in my view, long overdue as its important that an employer of lone workers knows if the Police will involve themselves or not.

ACPO are looking to implement a process for URN allocation by Q1 2010 and generally this is being supported by credible industry ARC providers. One thing that is clear already is that ACPO policy will advise foreces to only provide URNs to ARC operators who meet BS5979 Cat II and who plan to conform with BS8484.

So what does this mean? Well in short, unless your lone worker alarms utilise credible, fit for purpose devices such as Identicom and are filtered by a BS5979 Cat II ARC you wont be gurenteed a Police response!

Thats all for now, its a moving picture at the moment but I will update as we get more details.

NHS lone workers to finally benefit

2009-05-20T08:19:00.002Z

As the saying goes, 'the devil is always in the detail'. This can certainly be said for the NHS in the UK who have fianlly completed a year long tender process in choosing a supplier of a solution for their lone working staff. On the 27th April 2009 a deal was signed that will see Reliance Security and Connexion2 work with the NHS on rolling out over 30,000 Identicom lone worker devices to key staff at risk. The hope is that this marks the start of a wider implementation to all NHS staff in the community or other locations where specific risks are identified.

The NHS are often critisised for many things but on selecting to roll out in this fashion they have proven themselves to be sensitive to the issue, detailed in their selection and thorough. They have also ended up with an excellent solution at a price point that should benefit not only NHS workers but the wider UK public sector.

The market for lone worker solutions is clearly growing and the number of options available to employers is growing. This for some might make chosing a solutiuon confusing but you couldn't do better than the NHS for carrying out full due diligence. Keeping an eye on delivering a solution that is both simple, effective and discreet for the worker is key. The implementation of a solution shouldn't just be about the device the user carries but it is important that the device works and works well from the user's perspective. Selection of the right alarm receiving centre was equally important for the NHS and the need to ensure security of user data featured high on their list.

Using a BS5979 Cat II ARC has become a must rather than a luxury, especially if you want the Police to respond to a genuine alert.

For further information on how to learn more of the NHS roll out please follow this link. For more details from Reliance follow this link

The pro's and con's of GPS in lone worker applications

2008-12-17T16:58:00.002Z

For a long time, our company resisted the temptation to build GPS based devcies for lone worker applications. Our primary concerns were a mix of technical challenges and thinking about the impact on the user. For example:

Technical challenge 1 - How to introduce GPS technology without making the Identicom form factor less discreet? All of our users appreciate the discreet ID card form factor that is Identicom. They feel safe knowing that if they need to raise an alert because of an abusive client or intruder then they can do this without giving the game away. Introducing GPS would have been easy but would have introduced an unsightly antenna in the Identicom which in turn would make the unit more 'techie' and obvious. Not good.

User challenge 1 - In reality, does GPS make much difference given that many users (certainly in the UK) spend large amounts of time indoors and therefore potentially out of range of satallites? How do we best manage the expectations of the user in this respect and also convince them that their lone worker devcie hasn't now become a covert tracking device?

After much hard development work and discussion with users and employers Connexion2 has now created versions of its award winning Identicom with imbedded GPS. Challenges like those above have been resolved and the devices maintain their original, slim ID card form factor and thus remain discreet to wear and to operate.

Interestingly enough, those customers who are now choosing the GPS variants are those where workers are more outdoor based or who face risk whilst moving. Those customers who have trialed GPS units for workers who are more 'indoor' tend to prefer the original models because no significnat benefit is added.

If you have questions about GPS in lone worker devcies or Identicom specifically then please drop me a line.

Update on BS8484

2008-12-17T16:51:00.002Z

I'm often being asked by customers questions about BS8484 and feedback indicates that there is a level of misinformation in the market.

BS8484 is an important and wide ranging draft code of practice that, until its ratification and introduction, provides an opportunity for a small number of companies or customers to misinterpret or misrepresent elements of its content.

These are the facts as they stand:
BS8484 is now a code of practice (COP) and is still in draft format, currently on its second version for public comment. BSI have issued a clear warning (as they do with all draft standards and COP's) that it is a draft and must not be regarded or used as a British Standard. The current draft calls for comments on its content to be received by 31st January 2009. The current draft is noted by BSI as not being current beyond this date.

Connexion2’s position:
It is Connexion2’s desire and intent to be compliant with any and all relative legislation and/or standards that apply to its business and customers and this will include BS8484. We do not however see any logic at this stage in being drawn on specific elements of this or any other standard until published. To do so would be folly as they are subject to comment and change before being published.

Please note:
Significant input into BS8484 is being made by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) and the NHS. The latter’s involvement is in part because they are the UK’s largest employer of lone workers but in part to ensure parity with their own expectations and requirements of a lone worker solution. Connexion2 works in partnership with all of these bodies, has been a BSIA member for more than 2 years and has achieved ACPO ‘Secured By Design’ status for its Identicom range of lone worker devices. We have worked with the NHS and other such interested stakeholders for more than 5 years and continue to meet their exacting requirements.

Connexion2 is committed to helping achieve a credible standard is set and will continue to contribute feedback on BS8484 to the BSI via the BSIA.

If you have a view on BS8484 or a question you'd like my view on then please drop me a line

A Police perspective

2007-09-13T14:36:00.000Z

In June I reported on the work we have done with ACPO (Association of Cheif Police Officers) and the subsequent commendation received. Three months on and I wanted to write an update, specifically following further discussions held.

The police are very keen to see credible alarms raised and persued but are clearly concerned by the risk of false alarms and their ability to assist an employer when it comes to taking action against those being agressive towards lone workers.

As well as focusing on the method and technology used to raise an alarm, ACPO are also looking at the need for credible, reliable and resiliant escalation paths to be defined, managed and maintained. In the same way as commercial and domestic building alarms are closely regulared and audited if a police response is required, the same will shortly apply to alarming systems for lone workers. The police will want to start to allocate a Unique Reference Number (URN) to such alarm systems.

So what should you be looking for when chosing a system. Well, you should ensure that alarms are routed and managed by a credible alarm receiving centre, ideally one that meets BS5979 Cat II. This standard will ensure that your alarms are managed in a closely controlled environment and that your data (e.g. audio recordings, user info etc..) is kept safely in in such as a way as it remain evidentially intact. It is highly likely that before too long the Police will only respond to alarms that are routed through a BS5979 receiving centre and that have been qualified as being genuine. This is the same model that exists for building and vehicle alarms today.

The alarm receiving centre should also be able to prove to you that it regularly handles alerts coming from people and is qualified to assess the severity of a situation before deciding upon a proportional and appropriate escalation. Any credible centre will also offer to provide you with regular reporting on activity so that users can be further trained or assessed when required.

If you need any assistance in selecting an alarm receiving centre then please let me know, I'd be very happy to help.

Corporate Manslaughter Act 2007

2007-07-31T12:36:00.000Z

By the skin of its teeth, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 was granted royal assent last Thursday having been accepted by the House of Lords. It has been a long, long time in coming as it was first suggested in 1987 after the P&O Zebrugge ferry disaster. Finally, though it becomes law...

...So what does it mean?

Many aspects of the bill will need to wait for actual case law to occur before we know how the finer points will be interpreted by courts, lawyers etc.. What we do know though is that it will require a gross breach in an organisations duty of care to apply. Wording in the act suggests:

‘a breach of a duty of care by an organisation is a gross breach if the conduct alleged to amount to a breach of that duty falls far below what can reasonably be expected of the organisation in the circumstances’

The law will also seek to single out 'senior managers' involved. The act defines senior management as the persons who play a significant role in making decisions about how the whole or a substantial part of its activities are organised. Or, the actual managing of the whole or substantial part of its activities. It can therefore be said that the Act applies not only to a company’s directors but also to departmental or sector managers.

The bill should also herald in new, higher levels of fines and provides the courts with the power to insist on any sucessful conviction being made publically known. Whilst the bill itself doesn't cover specific action against individuals involved it will identify any deliquent managers. All of the lawyers I have spoken to feel that this will in turn lead to more civil suits being pursued against named managers following a sucessful conviction.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the first few cases, expectations are that high fine levels will be levied to set the bar...

Download a copy of the full Act or a summary of FAQs relating to the bill here.

The importance of credible evidence..

2007-07-10T13:38:00.000Z

I was pleased to see the RCN's General Secretary on BBC Breakfast news yesterday morning talking about the need for better evidence to be captured whenever a verbal or physical assault occurs. He was talking in the main about a new survey conducted by the RCN which finds a simply staggering 35% of lone working nurses having been subjected to physical attack or abuse.

It is my experience also that the Police and the courts are powerless to act unless credible evidence exists. Writing a report on an incident, particular a verbal incident is not enough to enable action to be taken. The Police need hard evidence.

The NHS Counter Fraud & Security Management Service also talk about the need for more and better reporting of incidents and the evidence required to enable them to support an NHS Trust in taking action.

Connexion2 and its Identicom won the first ever ACPO sponsored award at the recent IFSEC 2007 event in Birmingham because of the work we have done to ensure Identicom meets and exceeds ACPO guidelines on mobile panic alarms. Part of this was the use of discreet audio from the Identicom which is captured by a monitoring centre specifically to provide credible evidence in support of the worker and their employer. NOW, with such credible evidence action can be taken against those being verbally or physically abusive.

I would urge all employers reading this to consider the benefits of capturing credible audio evidence. Not only will it improve your lone worker's life but put you in a better position to take positive action and improve your relationship with the Police. Ultimately, this will all save you costs and reduce your lone worker risks.

Reporting Verbal Abuse

2007-06-26T19:09:00.000Z

All employers will know their legal duty of care and they should also understand their need to report all incidents (RIDDOR). Many have made vast strides forward over the past 5years in getting workers to report physical incidents and in developing a method and process for this data to be collated. However, ask an employer 'do you see reporting of verbal abuse?' Most will say that not much is reported and worryingly therefore may conclude that their lone workers don't receive any verbal abuse. Probably a wrong assumption.

Ask a lone worker if they receive verbal abuse and the answer is more often than not, yes. Ask them why they don't report it and the common answers are:

'I know nothing can be done because it's my word against their's..'
'If I report it then I risk opening myself up to counter-accusations from them..'
Reporting methods are paper based and I couldn't easily report the way it was said..'
My managers don't take verbal racial abuse/sexual abuse/threats of violence seriously

In short, written reporting doesn't provide a sensible mechanism for supporting these incidents. Capturing audio evidence of a verbal abuse case however addresses all of these issues and more. Captured audio evidence via Identicom is credible and admissable evidence in court and can enable an employer to credibly take action on behalf of their workforce...Result, workers who trust their employer to take these issues seriously which in turn leads to greater relations with the workforce.

It is also fair to say that the vast majority of physical attacks are preceeded by verbal abuse. Stands to reason therefore that if you capture verbal abuse early and act on it then you reduce the risk of physical abuse that could occur later.

One final point. The HSE estimate average absence from stress due to frequent abuse at 29days per annum. Just spend a moment to think about the cost of this to the organisation and how it could be reduced/removed if verbal abuse was better captured.

Helping the Police help us..

2007-06-05T13:41:00.000Z

Last week at IFSEC 2007, the largest European gathering for the security industry, Connexion2 won an award. Not just any award, the first ever ACPO sponsored award for our work in helping improve public safety.

Its always nice to gain such industry recognition but for me the exciting bit is how specific recognition was given to how we have worked to ensure our technology meets and exceeds published ACPO guidelines.

The Association of Chief Police Officers are strating to recognise the growing need to support lone workers and to provide an effective and proportional response to any major incident involving a lone worker. Robbery related attacks in particular are of significant concern to them but it can often be difficult to validate the severity of an incident and be certain of its whereabouts. Key elements if a fast response is required.

ACPO frown on mobile phones being used as 'panic alarms' by workers, specifically those at risk of being caught up in a robbery. Primarily because they acknowledge the increased risks to the worker in asking them to use such an obvious form of communication. Also though because of the higher risk of false alarms and the reduced opportunity to gather credible, audio evidence.

Identicom solves all of these usability issues and ensures effective dual verification of an incident is possible as well as being able to take a view on the incident severity. Thus, the Police are only effectively engaged if the incident warrants their involvement.

If you need to improve your relationship with the Police to acheive a better level of response to your lone worker needs then let me know, I'd be happy to help.

Out for the count?

2007-06-05T13:22:00.000Z

Over the past few years I've spoken to an increasing number of employers concerned about workers at risk from slips and falls, electrocution or any manner of other enviromental risks. Increasing focus from the Health & Safety Executive (in the UK) and the likely repercussions from an incoming bill on corporate manslaughter are ensuring that employers treat these risks seriously. Notably the construction, utilities and forestry/farming industries employ an enormous number of lone working staff, all at risk of 'man down' type risks.

During 2005/6 the HSE recorded 212 work related mortalities and an additional 29,000 incidents where workers suffered major injury whilst at work, resulting in the loss of six million working days. Many of these deaths and injuries could have been lessened if the worker had a quicker ability to raise an alert and help provided within the 'golden hour'.

In response to this, we recently announced our development of a new version of Identicom, the i770 which features technology that will specifically identify 'man down' type scenarios. As well as all the existing benefits that Identicom offers, the i770 will automatically sense rapid changes in acceleration which are followed by defined periods of non-movement.

For example, a vehicle based worker at risk late at night. Identicom i770 would help identify an impact followed by non-movement of the worker and would automatically call for help. Similarly, a worker falling or remaining stationary for a given period would see the i770 raise an automatic alert even though the user was knocked unconcious.

So if you have workers who could be out for the count then come and take a look at the new Identicom i770.

Corporate Manslaughter - Finally a reason for management to listen?

2007-04-11T07:32:00.000Z

When I talk to companies or organisations about their lone workers I'll typically be talking to a Health & Safety or Risk Manager. In the vast majority of cases, they fully appreciate the challenges and risks facing their lone workers, often because they themselves may have been a lone worker before moving into their current role. Equally, the majority of lone workers themselves fully appreciate their risks and often feel they are not supported as well as they need to be by their managers.

So why aren't they better supported?

The bottleneck is nearly always getting 'buy in' from senior managers and board members, with them needing to budget for costs associated with change management and implementation of technology to remove or reduce risks facing workers at the coal face.

Putting legal and moral oblibgations that an employer holds to one side, investing in a safer workforce can deliver numerous benefits to a business. However, to budget or to spend money requires a clear justification for doing so and quite rightly so. And here in lies the problem. Many H&S or Risk Managers may struggle to pull together a business justification. Either because they lack experience in doing this or because the benefits that can be delivered may be intangible and difficult to put a value on. For example, a lone worker who feels safer will prove to be more productive. As a statement, that isn't hard to believe. How do you place a financial value on this though?

Over recent months Connexion2 has seen the subject of corporate manslaughter raised a number of times. Seemingly, the risk of directors or senior managers facing criminal prosecution and their businesses facing serious fines has caused them to look at removing worker based risks throughout their organisation.

I for one welcome the corporate manslaughter bill and look forward to more and more business leaders appreciating what it means to them. For too long now it has been possible for managers to duck responsibility of looking after workers better..this bill will go a long way to addressing this.

Verbal abuse, part of the job?

2007-01-26T14:13:00.000Z

In a word, no! Any form of verbal abuse is capable of being equally as damaging to a worker's wellbeing as a physical attack and as such shouldn't be accepted. However, it isn't realistic for a single threashold of acceptability to be defined...the fact is we all have different levels of what is acceptable and what isn't.

I was present at some Identicom training last week at a train operating company. The management of the company had decided to implement Identicom because of genuine concerns over the risk of attack facing their many lone workers. What they hadn't been able to formally recognise though was the levels of verbal abuse that went on. When a room full of revenue inspectors were asked 'how often do you face verbal abuse' a unanimous show of hands signalling daily levels of abuse surprised those managers. Why? Because very few incidents were reported.

Reporting of verbal abuse has its challenges. Workers often know that their employer is powerless if it is a case of one person's word against another's. Workers also worry about repercussions if they report an issue, or they simply aren't able to indicate the severity of the incident when writing a report.

Discreet audio capture of verbal abuse can be very powerful. Identicom ensures a worker raises an alert in a discreet fashion thereby not increasing their level of risk. A clear audio recording is then captured, recorded and admissible as evidence.

In the week or so these train based revenue inspectors have been using the system a number of verbal assaults have been captured leading not only to action being taken but also leaving the workforce feeling empowered and fully supported.

SoloProtect goes live!

2007-01-11T14:28:00.000Z

After months of planning and preparation I'm pleased to say that Connexion2 has launched its all new SoloProtect lone worker solution.

SoloProtect deliberately combines best in class elements (five in all) in a simple to understand and implement solution. We have taken a very simple approach to pricing also with SoloProtect available for a simple £29.50ex VAT per month on a 24month contract.

What does it include? Well as well as an Identicom it also includes 24/7 manned monitoring to the highest UK standard (BS5979 Cat II), connection to a GSM network and inclusive voice & texts*, full user training (provided in conjuction with NHS CFSMS) and our unique TotalCare support package.

Assessing, implementing and managing a solution for your lone workers shouldn't be a hassle. But understanding that you are making an ongoing commitment to the safety of your staff is paramount as is ensuring you maximise any investment you make.

SoloProtect aims to help you assess and justify what you need and then support you fully during implementation and after.

For further details visit www.soloprotect.com or contact 01909 550387.

*Fair usage policy applies

Insurance companies wake up to costs of lone working.

2006-11-07T15:44:00.000Z

Connexion2 had an interesting call a few months ago. A service provider who employed staff who delivered their service out of normal office hours and in challenging urban locations. I can't name the company unfortunately but they had been pointed in our direction to help them to improve the safety of their lone working staff.

They hadn't suffered any serious incidents although they did recognise that their staff were at risk. What had caused them to call us was an indication from their insurance company that they were unwilling to provide insurance cover for the workers and the goods they were carrying during these hours and in specific urban areas...not without them improving the safety and ability to raise an alert.

AXA Group are one of the UK's leading business insurers. In a recent study published by AXA they estimate that 8% of all workplace injuries are caused by physical assaults. They also noted that employees in the professional servcies sector are almost twice as likely to be a victim of physical assault, in some sectors up to 15% of the workforce had reported being attacked.

Douglas Barnett, Risk Control Strategy Manager at AXA commented "These findings should make worrying reading for the business community. Injuries sustained in the workplace can be extremely costly for companies through employees having to take time off work to recover or because of compensation payouts. In light of this, we are advising businesses, of all shapes & sizes, to assess the potential risks and dangers that the working environment may pose to employees."

My guess is that more and more businesses will find that their existing insurance cover for workers or goods carried by workers operating in 'at risk' environments are not adequately covered. It is inevitable that more insurance companies will take the same line as AXA and will either increase their policy costs or simply refuse to provide elements of cover. Taking a proactive stance and protecting your lone workers may help you maintain cost effective premiums. That is aside from it simply being the right thing to do.

Attacks against NHS staff are down, but...

2006-11-02T14:02:00.000Z

Speaking at the first NHS Security Management Professionals conference yesterday, Health Minister Rosie Winterton revealed a reduction in the number of NHS staff physically assaulted in England.

The statistics, collected by the NHS Security Management Service (NHS SMS), show a fall of 1,690 last year to 58,695. This is a significant achievement particularly as violence and abuse showed a year-on-year increase until 2003 when the NHS SMS was set up. In addition, the number of people prosecuted for assaulting NHS staff in England also increased by 12% in the last year, from 759 to 850.

Whilst the drop in attacks is small these figures prove that the hard work that has been put in over the past three years, particularly by CFSMS and the local LSMS staff at NHS Trust level has been worthwhile. Furthermore it proves that training front line staff to be better prepared and to risk assess is also paying off.

The reporting of verbal assauts though are not yet collated and published and I know this is one of the next steps the NHS are keen to develop on. Anecdotally I have had many lone workers in all industry sectors tell me that verbal abuse tends to go unreported. This tends to be for one of two main reasons:

A belief that nothing will be done about it (as there is no evidence)
A concern that the worker will open themselves up to comments back, i.e. 'Well he started it, he said ....'

The reporting and alerting of verbal abuse is equally important to capture and measure. Talk to any lone worker who frequently receives verbal abuse and they will tell you that it is equally as damaging to their well being and mind as a physical attack. Just as important is to recognise that more often than not, a physical assulat is preceded by verbal abuse. It stands to reason therefore that if verbal incidents were acted upon then it is more likely that physical assaults will be prevented.

Capturing audio evidence of verbal abuse seems an obvious way of helping workers report an incident. It lessens the need for cumbersome form based reporting methods and clearly captures the actual incident. Often it can be the way in which something is said that effects the worker and not necessarily the words.

I'd like to congratulate the NHS and in particular CFSMS on their work to date. We at Connexion2 look forward to supporting you further to get physical AND verbal assults down to even lower levels.

Location, Location, Location

2006-10-30T20:52:00.000Z

Managing an effective escalation of a lone worker incident clearly requires a view on where that worker is in order to send a response. Put simply, without knowing where the worker is then it is impossible for the Police to get involved. But saying that, how many of us are comfortable about our employer knowing our whereabouts all of the time!?

Any specific lone worker device needs to appeal to the worker on a number of different levels. It needs to be very simple to use, especially under duress. It needs to be there for them, always and without them having to conciously remember to carry it. And it needs to reassure them that it will do its job when required. If your workers for one minute believe that they are being tracked or located without their knowledge then I'll guarentee you...they won't use it.

With those clients we have worked with and implemented Identicom all have understood the need to empower the worker and not to undermine them by tracking their whereabouts. With Identicom, it is the worker who defines the point at which they want someone to know where they are. This point is when they feel their personal safety is being compromised.

A word on GPS. I'm often asked why we don't use GPS (satellite tracking) in Identicom. There are three main reasons but the primary one is simple. GPS doesn't work effectively indoors or in built up areas. This is because GPS relies on line of sight being achieved between the device and at least 3 satellites. Our research has shown that the majority of incidents effecting lone workers (verbal & physical abuse) occur when the worker is indoors. Therefore to rely on GPS would breed doubt with the worker which is not acceptable.

GPS may one day feature in our devices but not until this issue is better resolved and the other issues of power consumption and cost are reduced. Currently, all Identicom users feel very positively about how they use their device and what it does for them. Helping locate them in the event of an incident is part of that assurance.

For more detailed information on this subject click for the link

Alarming trends in retail

2006-10-27T08:51:00.000Z

2006 has been an interesting year for Connexion2 as we have noticed an interesting trend in the retail sector in their use of panic alarms. Historically many retails have acknowledged the need to protect workers and to give them an ability to raise an alarm. Most have satisfied themselves by fitting fixed 'under the desk' buttons which can be pressed in the event of a robbery or other situation.

This year however has seen a number of retailers review their risk assessment and realise that fixing a panic alarm to one location has its limitations. A number of retailers have suffered attempts to attack or hold hostage those staff who are keyholders. Known as 'tiger kidnap' this scenario is becoming more common with a keyholding member of staff being approached typically whilst opening or closing the store. Clearly a fixed panic alarm at the point of sale is of no use to the worker in such a scenario.

Retailers are also coming under pressure from the Police about the number of false alarms from fixed panic alarms. The challenge for the Police of course is knowing whether or not an alarm is real or false when raised? Most alarms simply deliver an alarm 'signal' and therefore there is no way of identifying whether this is real or false. More importantly, if real then how severe?

Identicom addresses both of these issues and in many cases is easier and more cost effective to install than having an engineer hardwire in a fixed button.

In the run up to Christmas more and more retailers will need to recognise the increasing risks their keyholding staff are facing. If tills are full and shelves stacked with highly desirable goods then these workers need to be better protected.

For more information on retail related issues visit USDAW and read about their freedom from fear campaign

But my lone workers will use their mobile won't they?

2006-10-25T16:52:00.000Z

As more and more employers start to recognise their legal obligations to protecting mobile and lone working employees many will look for ways of applying technology to the cause. It is inevitable therefore that many hundreds of thousands of lone working professionals will be asked to use a mobile phone, possibly one they already own, to raise an alert should they find themselves in trouble. In following this path, employers are failing to recognise two primary issues; in the process they are unwittingly creating new issues for themselves and their workers. The two primary issues not being addressed are:

1. Protecting lone working staff needs more than just a device. It needs a thorough look at lone working practices, on-going and dynamic risk assessment by both employer and employee and where appropriate the on-going training of those involved (workers and management).

2. A mobile phone is a communications tool; it is not necessarily an effective tool to use when faced with an aggressor or other form of danger. Arguably, by providing a worker with a mobile phone an employer increases the risks faced by the worker.

Forthcoming guidelines being considered by the Police and the security industry also suggests that any device used to raise an alert in the event of abuse or attack should be specifically designed for this purpose and not a phone with a speed-dial facility. Increasingly it is expected that the Police will only respond to credible alerts raised that are managed through recognised and approved alarm receiving centres.

What are the issues for the worker?

If risks are identified as potentially coming from those whom the worker interfaces with then consider the following:

If a worker faces an aggressive approach (verbal or physical) will they be able to get to a mobile phone all of the time? Most people will carry a mobile in a bag or in a pocket. If an attack occurs, how easy is it for that worker to access their phone. What if their bag is in a different part of the room or if the attack occurs whilst walking across a car park?

When faced with an aggressor how likely is it that a worker will be able to use a mobile phone without raising awareness of their actions? By default, using a phone is an overt action. The user may have to remove a keylock on the phone; they will certainly need to identify the correct keys to use to make a call. All of this assumes of course that the phone is switched on in the first place.

The simple fact is that a mobile is not a good tool to use in such circumstances. Furthermore, it can easily be seen that the workers are potentially increasing the risks to themselves if they try to use a mobile when faced with an aggressor. Add to that the risk of them being targeted for robbery and it is clear a better solution to the problem than simply handing out mobile phones is required.

What are the issues for the employer?

All mobile phones and their bills need to be managed and accounted for. An employer has a legal responsibility to all of its employees whether they be full-time, part-time or volunteers. The issues therefore are:

How do I manage the mobiles I give to all my workers and account for these?
How do I ensure business v private calls are identified and managed accordingly?
How do I help provide a safer working environment for my lone workers and help them against aggressors?

The final bullet point here is particularly interesting. With a mobile a worker is not likely to be able to raise an effective alert. Furthermore, it is unlikely that any evidence can be gathered from the mobile. Identicom however will enable the worker to raise a discreet alert but also allow their employer to listen to a situation, capture audio evidence and define an appropriate response/escalation all without increasing the risk to the worker.

The other, arguably larger issue facing those employers who provide mobile phones to their employees is how to manage the risks identified. If a phone can be proven as increasing the risks facing a lone worker, how does an employer account for this?

A good day out..

2006-10-25T14:48:00.000Z

Yesterday was a good day out for me. One of our company's sales staff was off with it being half term so I had to pick up one of his appointments. I always enjoy talking to customers and particularly those lone workers who have yet to appreciate that their job can be made so much more productive simply by addressing the fears they have of operating alone. The visit yesterday was to a London council who's team of benefits investigators have suffered issues of verbal and physical abuse too many times. What was pleaseing was to meet a management team keen to implement technology to better provide for the safety of their workers. All too often I talk to workers who know they are at risk but they feel that their employers don't listen to them or even worst don't care.

Capturing evidence of verbal abuse is seemingly becoming more and more beneficial to employers. Historically reliant on mobile phones that are difficult to use when faced with an agressor employers are turning to products like Identicom to help. Certainly the guys I saw yesterday recognised that capturing verbal abuse not only meant they could support the worker better but that early signs of agressive behavior can be acted upon before its too late.

We will move to trialling Identicom with the council over the coming weeks...I'll report back on how they get on in due course.

What was also pleasant about yesterday is the lack of traffic problems there and back. Ah you can always tell when its half term holidays..