WA Radio Scanner Users' Group

Hi Folks,

A lot of the larger Perth Local Governments now have in-house security patrols in addition to Rangers which is paid for as part of your rates.

From a value for money, and usefulness point of view, wouldn't it be better to have a joint Security/Ranger Service such as Canning and Bayswater now have set up?

I would rather be able to have a one stop shop, if there is a dog attack at 3am or a major local government problem I would rather my Local Government Service be able to provide both Security and Law Enforcement when required.

From an Emergency Services point of view, they would be a lot more useful if they had Ranger Authority. Do you how hard it is to get a Ranger out of bed at 3am to shoot a Kangaroo or to catch a dog going nuts?

Just my two cents....

The training between security people and Rangers is *VASTLY* different..

I'm not sure I understand the place of 'security' staff at all at a Local Govt level.. unless they are authorised as appropriate under the relevant acts, they really have no powers at all... I guess it all comes down to money..

Having said that, they really cant go from being security to ranger without alot of additional training...

Most local governments provide their security staff with training, City of Canning Patrol Officers have full Ranger powers.

All you need is the Municipal Law course (4 days) and a dog handling course (2 days) and there you go.

If we go out on callouts for SES because our cars are in the open we have Stirling Security drive past regularly. We're on pretty good terms with them so they drive past quite regularly. Also when we've done callouts in pairs if there isn't much to it, such as we are standing around manning generators and lighting banks, then we can get them to drive past every hour or two. As for putting the two together probably would make life easier, but doesn't phase me.

But that said, I do agree with Fastlane - Security Officers wield absolutely NO more power than any Joe Blow on the street, hence people don't have to listen to a single word they say. You are under no obligation to do anything they request, for instance, if they ask you for your name or any details, or if they ask what you are doing parked in street, you don't even need to acknowledge their existance, just carry on what you are doing. The only thing they are able to do is call the police if they see something suspicious (same as anyone else). They are just there for perception to make rate payers feel safe in their area.

Ahhh but does the 13 yo kid that's about to graffiti something know that?? Not everyone knows this. Thus local security is still usefull as a deterrant.

celestial_insight wrote:But that said, I do agree with Fastlane - Security Officers wield absolutely NO more power than any Joe Blow on the street, hence people don't have to listen to a single word they say. You are under no obligation to do anything they request, for instance, if they ask you for your name or any details, or if they ask what you are doing parked in street, you don't even need to acknowledge their existance, just carry on what you are doing. The only thing they are able to do is call the police if they see something suspicious (same as anyone else). They are just there for perception to make rate payers feel safe in their area.

How very very negetive.

obviously they have no powers that's common knowledge but if i have 10-15 youths walking around the neighbourhood im much more likely to call melville CSS than the police because CSS will actually rock up within a reasonable time frame because they are not attending the serious incidents that the police do.

If a security officer asks me any questions im going to answer truthfully as i have nothing to hide and appreciate the job they are doing, which i hope most people would do as opposed to playing the "you have no powers im not going to listen to you" card which is just obnoxious.

As for the rangers/security role i think its not a bad idea maybe not all of the security staff but definately the duty supervisors or the roaming officer.

jmmw wrote:

celestial_insight wrote:But that said, I do agree with Fastlane - Security Officers wield absolutely NO more power than any Joe Blow on the street, hence people don't have to listen to a single word they say. You are under no obligation to do anything they request, for instance, if they ask you for your name or any details, or if they ask what you are doing parked in street, you don't even need to acknowledge their existance, just carry on what you are doing. The only thing they are able to do is call the police if they see something suspicious (same as anyone else). They are just there for perception to make rate payers feel safe in their area.

How very very negetive.

Very odd thing to say there jmmw. There was NOTHING there that was negative. It was all factual. People don't have to do anything a security officer says - I should know - I am still a licensed Security Agent and Security Officer from a "previous life". It is not about being positive or negative (whatever it is you mean by that).

I think its a negative way of thinking, first mention of a security officer

don't even acknowledge their existance... just carry on what you are doing.

Most of the time if they are talking to you they are seeking information to help the community not have a go at you.

EDIT: Sorry, on reflection I am pretty douchey. (07/2012)

jmmw wrote:I think its a negative way of thinking, first mention of a security officer

don't even acknowledge their existance, just carry on what you are doing.

Most of the time if they are talking to you they are seeking information to help the community not have a go at you.

You quoted me - but edited it to suit yourself. That is VERY POOR FORM.

I DIDN'T say don't even acknowledge their existance, I said YOU don't even NEED TO acknowledge their existence.

What I said was factual. What you manipulated it into was a suggestion.
Your credibilty goes further down the toilet.

No doubt your posts could be edited to sound like something quite different to what it really is. Don't ever quote someone then purposely remove words to suit yourself.

i edited it so it would make sense in the very same context it was used.

My credibility? dont make me laugh! coming from the guy that films dead bodies and then spits the dummy and has a cry in a bunch of other unrelated topics once he gets some criticism? compared to you my credibility is fine.

[quote="jmmw"]i edited it so it would make sense in the very same context it was used.

[quote]

Nice attempt at back pedalling, but unfortunately everyone can see right through you.

That's enough of the personal attacks, please.

Jmmw, celestial_insight is right. You can't quote people and change the quote, it's dishonest.

oh please if i wanted to change it in a way to make you look bad i would have attached you name to it, i put it there for clarity.

"Quote" v quoted, quoting, quotes

1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof.
3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from: The saxophonist quoted a Duke Ellington melody in his solo.
4. To state (a price) for securities, goods, or services.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com