I don’t quite understand what a ’private employee’ is.

However, I consider the risks associated with ‘violence at work’ to be one of the most complex risks that I have to deal with.

But I wonder whether the question of defending the claim (why does this always seem to boil down to defending a claim rather than a prosecution?) significantly different when applied to the provision of other items of PPE, where people are similarly being placed into an environment where there is I assume an obvious need to protect them from a hazard by the use of PPE?

They are not something that we routinely use but we do have and occasionally use stab vests for certain work, including some planning enforcement, when our licensing teams carry out taxi licensing checks. It seems to be a prudent measure to me.

Be interesting to hear others thoughts

I seems pretty straight forward to me Max, I imagine that the activity of private security cannot be avoided, as the heirarchy of control would want us to do, or should they allow the council offices to go unprotected? Thus we follow the heirarchy to it's inevitable conclusion of PPE and stab vests.

As to knowingly being deployed into an area that they might face such a threat, that's the security business for you, if the risk assessment put an end to that then there wouldn't be a security industry, or come to that matter any jobs in any hazardous industry

As I said, I think 'violence' is quite a complex risk and it is very difficult in many situations to predict what is going to happen. I have dealt with a number of public meetings on a number of contentious issues and we have put in place some quite robust measures because we were concerned about the potential for 'disorder', although we didn't on those occasions have or wear stab vests. As it happens very little trouble transpired, but does that mean that we were wrong to put in place the precautions? I don't think so, I believe that what we did was entirely sensible and prudent (although the DM may disagree). It is possible that the precautions that we did put in place MAY have helped to prevent the problems rather than being the case of dealing with them should they have arisen.

But I sat there this morning and codjitated the point that Max is making i.e. being knowingly placed in a situation where they may be exposed to a such a (life threatening) hazard. I wonder if entry into a confined space on a sewage treatment plant might be a similar example? You can put in place a number of precautions including gas monitoring, but because the situation can change due to circumstances that are essentially beyond our control, then we provide the worker with either full BA or an escape set depending on the situation? It would be interesting to hear the defence in civil or criminal proceedings, for NOT doing so!

Does that help?

There are contractors working in countries such as Iraq who wear combat body armour etc. Reputable companies employing UK citizens on UK contracts at risk to UK civil litigation working in war zones.

There was a civil case a year or so ago where by an employee took a case out against his employer (Mott MacDonald I believe) challenging the suitability of the risk assessment when his vehicle was blown up in Iraq. My understanding was his case was unsuccessful.

I would be interested to know why a security firm felt it necessary to issue such PPE to its staff, there are very few that do. A protest against council cuts is not a likely scenario for knife wielding criminals to make an appearance.
Without commenting on this company - as I know nothing about them, I do know that some do become 'Kit Monsters' and do try to be as close to either police or worse special police units as they can.
Use of OTT PPE could also be used as a pretext to push up the price?? (again I am not saying this is the case here - just in case their lawyers are watching!)