The following email was sent to a local resident who left a comment on the Metpro Rapid Response website following the ill fated recent council meeting. I'd suggest that Mr Jeff Lustig, Borough Soliciitor and Mr Nick Walkley, CEO read it - as well as the Councillors who are meant to oversee the executive.
Dear Mr Clayman, I am writing in response to your enquiry posted on our website regarding the events in Hendon Town Hall last Tuesday.We have provided our services to Barnet Council since March 2006; we have worked extensively for all areas of the council including public offices and receptions, Children’s Service, Council Hostels, and Libraries across the borough, contact centres and the Town Hall. In this time we have successfully provided a flawless 100% safety record to both staff and public with no allegations of misconduct against any of our Officers.As a matter of course we normally provide 4 officers to the Town Hall, however due to recent events in other Boroughs of London where town halls were over run and damaged by protesters it was decided to supplement our officers with a further 3 from our emergency response section of our company.I believe these are the ones you refer to in your complaint?Firstly I would like to point out that the Officers in question were wearing approved personal protective equipment which is required as part of their job role and is an insurance requirement. Not to mention that as with the nature of their job their physical fitness is a requirement. The Response Officers dealing with the events in the Town Hall were equipped with state of the art body worn surveillance equipment recording both video and audio. At all times the Officers were supervised by the Police to ensure that they operated within the Law and guidelines laid out by the Council.After revue of the recordings it is clear the members of the public were requested to comply with instructions politely and using the correct address such as Sir or Madam, There is an abundance of footage to show the Officers being shouted at sworn at and one was even hit repeatedly with a rolled up newspaper and was ignored when he requested that the gentleman stop.My finding is this, I feel there is resentment by certain members of the public that they were not permitted to do as they wanted and enter the main gallery despite the reason for this being explained many times. As a result they have taken to blaming Staff of this company even though we were acting according to the rules laid out by the client and Police prior to the event. The only complaint I can see is that you don’t agree with the issued uniform that we provide to our staff or that you are judging the character of the officers based on their physical appearance which in today’s day and age I must frown upon this type of prejudice. If you have a specific complaint of the Law being broken in any way I would be more than happy to investigate further, alternatively I would urge you to report it to your local Police station, however I’m sure that in the presence of so many Police Officers if the Law had been broken I trust they would have acted accordingly and arrested the staff member in question.I Hope you find this satisfactory to your complaint and please feel free to contact me if it is not.Kind Regards,SO K Sharkey
Has he any comment on the sudden rush of security companies in the world with rather similar names?
ReplyDeleteAnd what are his views on the payment of taxes to HM Revenue and Customs?
When it comes to money and non payment of taxes there is always a SHARK'EY about. "Children's Services?". I'd worry if a company in the legitimised thugs business was involved with children
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIve removed the comment by Sam pending verification of the information. Once I've checked it out I'll determine what action to take
ReplyDeleteNone of the directors of MetPro Rapid Response, which is now in liquidation owing £250,000 to the taxpayer, or the director of newly formed MetPro Emergency Response which took over the contract until it was terminated by Barnet this month, held the appropriate SIA licences for a company which provides security guarding – which is a criminal offence.
ReplyDeleteDirectors of security companies are required to have one of three SIA licences depending on the role they play within the company. If they work on the frontline doing activities such as security guarding then they need a frontline licence for that activity.
Even if directors have no role on the frontline they still need a “non-frontline” licence to employ security guards if their employees are undertaking licensable activities.
Alternatively, if the director has a non-active role in the company and is simply a key holder they must still have a “key holder’s licence.”
One of MetPro Rapid Response’s directors, Luigi Mansi, holds a key holding licence but not a non-frontline licence.
Kevin Sharkey who was registered as a secretary of MetPro Rapid Response and claims he is owed £60,000 by the now defunct company, was working for MetPro Emergency Response at the Hendon Town Hall meeting on March 1 guarding the overflow room and telling attendees where they could and could not go. He also filmed the proceedings with a body-worn CCTV camera. Mr Sharkey has no licence whatsoever from the SIA.