ICAC and Kings Security

**itscrowtime** · 29-06-12, 09:41 PM

I also know of a company who had all of their operators get 2F Licences, however they did this as Operators were partially selling Electronic Security so they had their staff get the Licences to comply with Legislation.
To my knowledge none of their operators are changing batteries etc

**downunderdan** · 30-06-12, 02:58 PM

That sounds eminently sensible. If you're getting your 1E licence and there's no extra effort to get a few other classes, then why not? Tick the box, win a prize!

Indeed every person in a company is responsible for sales even if it's not in their job title. So they should have the relevant class (even though I believe it's superfluous).

I always found the 2F NSW licence class: "Electronic Equipment Specialist" rather meaningless. It will be consigned to the dustbin of history shortly anyway. Once the recently passed amendments become law, former classes 2E (Barrier Equipment Specialist) and 2F will be combined with the existing 2C class.

**fastwrx** · 01-07-12, 02:11 PM

Whilst this thread is going off topic, I wanna know why oh why do we expect the Security Licensing System to be able to regulate against the type of behaviour that we are seeing at ICAC?

If Kings have committed an offence (and if they have it wont be up to ICAC to prosecute, that's the DPP's job) then all the licensing in the world wouldn't have stopped it.

Their behaviour is unethical, immoral etc, but except when public officials are involved most likely not illegal. There would be nothing the Police could do.

**bss904** · 01-07-12, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by fastwrx

Whilst this thread is going off topic, I wanna know why oh why do we expect the Security Licensing System to be able to regulate against the type of behaviour that we are seeing at ICAC?

If Kings have committed an offence (and if they have it wont be up to ICAC to prosecute, that's the DPP's job) then all the licensing in the world wouldn't have stopped it.

Their behaviour is unethical, immoral etc, but except when public officials are involved most likely not illegal. There would be nothing the Police could do.

Putting all of the corruption aside, I would hope the Taxation dept might show some interest in their accounting practises as well as some of the named people that have been on the recieving side of the so called "gifts". Time for some full desk audits to be carried out. I bet there is some FBT owing as well.

**downunderdan** · 01-07-12, 09:26 PM

Plus they'll have to argue with the ATO over whether alleged bribes are deductible.

**TheAlarmGuy** · 02-07-12, 01:25 PM

We're all reading the transcripts and we can see that some people are going to be in some serious trouble and it's great that this sort of behaviour is being weeded out.

BUT......

May I remind you all of what it says about republishing on the bottom of the first page on every transcript you're downloading.... don't want to see anyone getting in trouble and advise at least 1 of you to go back and edit some of your posts

**downunderdan** · 02-07-12, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by TheAlarmGuy

May I remind you all of what it says about republishing on the bottom of the first page on every transcript you're downloading....

It says: "Any person who publishes any part of this transcript in any way and to any person contrary to a Commission direction against publication commits an offence against section 112(2) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988."

It was a public hearing and I have not seen any Commission direction against publication of anything except some personal details which didn't make the transcripts anyway.

Relax guy.

**internotech** · 21-08-12, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by fastwrx

Whilst this thread is going off topic, I wanna know why oh why do we expect the Security Licensing System to be able to regulate against the type of behaviour that we are seeing at ICAC?

If Kings have committed an offence (and if they have it wont be up to ICAC to prosecute, that's the DPP's job) then all the licensing in the world wouldn't have stopped it.

Their behaviour is unethical, immoral etc, but except when public officials are involved most likely not illegal. There would be nothing the Police could do.

At the very least these people should loose the privlidge of retaining a security licence, if they dont i will seriously be asking the regulators why i should have to pay for a licence that is meaningless and does nothing.

**downunderdan** · 21-08-12, 05:52 PM

First ICAC has to rule that the alleged scumbags are in breach. They would then make a recommendation to the DPP who would have to prosecute. Then they would need to be found guilty of a sufficient crime and THEN they could have their licence revoked. Merely being a grub isn't sufficient grounds on its own.

It continues to be an embarrassment that to my knowledge nobody associated with Roger Training Academy has yet gone through the above process post-ICAC.

**fastwrx** · 01-09-12, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by internotech

At the very least these people should loose the privlidge of retaining a security licence, if they dont i will seriously be asking the regulators why i should have to pay for a licence that is meaningless and does nothing.

The Industry Association (Asial etc) could revoke their membership on the grounds that the member has acted unethically, but there most likely would need a finding from the ICAC that they had in-fact acted unethically.

**fastwrx** · 01-09-12, 10:42 AM

Interestingly, the SNP manager named may face charges....

**Tastech** · 01-09-12, 02:49 PM

Good throw the book at the lot of them

But Asial will probably let them off the hook like they did with Chubb I think by letting them set up some stupid trainig facility