Thanks for the post. But it did surprise me that Sweden is ranked #1 in this issue. Securitas do need protection.
Nah they just need to make sure the money will be rendered useless for anyone without proper authorisation... they have had problems finding a good system (probably cause of greed...) but they now seem to finally work on this due to union demands.
The money transports is the only logical point of attack, while they have happened alot there's only very few bank robberies (as they have a closed money system, silent alarms and cops have a known location they can direct forces to)
I have heard something about police escorts but i dont think that all deliveries have that kind of police protection.. They dont have any weapons but they should have. I mean, just look what is happening to them
Security companies don't need nor want guns.
Security personel can't start an arms race with criminals. They're safer without firearms (exceptions are bodyguards and places like nuclear power plants where there is more at stake than just cash).
If those Securitas guys would have had guns in Sweden and Britain the criminals wouldn't have bothered getting them out of their way alive before taking the money. They would have shot the car full of little holes or blown them up too before the security guards could wield their weapons. And even if they would have gone out with guns blazing the criminals would still have had the advantage because it's an ambush situation and criminals know exactly what they're facing.
But now no one was hurt seriously and the police caught the criminals and most of the stolen goods eventually.
Police escort is very expensive (compared to security guards like me with poor pay) and there is so much valuable stuff moving every day that you can't have cops escorting them all. Think of all the banks and companies moving their money every day. Hundreds of transfers.
Improved security protocols are the answer to this problem, not guns or police escorts.
That's just old BS doctrine from the 1980's. It's time to get updated. When there armed escorts around christmas there weren't even one single attempt. Go figure why: criminals respect only one thing.
Actually it's the other way around. This is the new way of doing things: a rational way.
The old 80's - early 90's way was "wildwest" as we like to call it. You see, security guards used to be more heavily armed and laws were vague. It was ridiculous with guards packing revolvers, riot guns and the works going after teenage vandals and shoplifters. And also because security business was/is very poorly paid and the training was/is very lacking (especially the gun training was a bad joke) you had a real timebomb on your hands.
These swedish Securitas guards have a couple of weeks of training at most and the turnover rate is fast because it really doesn't pay much for the risks involved. Luckily there are now better and more sensible laws concerning security equipment and the required training has improved (but only slighty).
It simply doesn't fit in private security business' job description to have gunbattles with criminals. That's a job for the police who have years of training, experience and laws that give them the necessary rights and duty to do so. Security professionals will tell you this too; the consensus has been that no one wants more guns, least the guards themselves. This is modern security thinking and it emphasizes safety and more brains less brawn. There are better ways of handling this than arming everyone and raising risks for unnecessary casualties.