Yet again I received a phone call stating that because someone conducting a review had not heard of a particular technique that was being used, the reviewing person was saying that what they (the person being reviewed) had done was wrong!
My question to the reviewing person, who as it turned out had no known physical intervention or conflict management qualifications, knowledge or experience, and to you is; with the plethora of training organisations across the UK, representing different sectors, which training systems is right and therefore are all the others wrong?
In the realm of security and law enforcement, discussions around physical intervention techniques often centre on the names assigned to specific methods.
However, it is crucial to shift the focus from nomenclature to core principles such as compliance, competence, and adherence to common law.
This shift is vital for attaining and maintaining a standard of excellence in the application of physical intervention techniques.
This article aims to underscore the significance of these principles, emphasising that the effectiveness of a technique is not solely determined by its name, but rather by the practitioner’s understanding, compliance, and alignment with legal standards.
One of the primary factors of effective physical intervention is compliance with established protocols, guidelines and the law.
Regardless of the technique’s name, practitioners must be well-versed in and adhere to standardised procedures.
This ensures that interventions are executed safely, minimising the risk of harm to both the practitioner and the person having the techniques applied to them.
Competence plays a pivotal role in the successful application of physical intervention techniques.
It is not merely about knowing the names of various manoeuvres but understanding the underlying principles and having the knowledge and skills to apply them appropriately.
Competent practitioners can adapt their techniques to the specific circumstances they face, making split-second decisions while remaining within the bounds of established guidelines.
In the pursuit of maintaining compliance and competence, practitioners must also be acutely aware of common law principles.
Common law, derived from legal precedent rather than written statutes, forms the basis of many legal systems.
When employing physical intervention techniques, practitioners must ensure that their actions align with these foundational legal principles.
Common law dictates that any use of force must be reasonable and necessary to the threat faced.
This underscores the importance of ongoing training and development for practitioners, ensuring they stay abreast of the legal standards and ethical considerations.
Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse and therefore practitioners must strive to integrate legal awareness into their training programmes.
The Fallacy of Technique Name Recognition
A prevalent misconception is the belief that if a physical intervention technique is not recognised by a specific name, it is not valid or effective.
This fallacy undermines the essence of compliance, competence, and adherence to common law.
Instead of fixating on names, the emphasis should be on understanding the principles behind the techniques and applying them judiciously.
In the realm of physical intervention techniques, the focus must shift from the semantics of names to the fundamental principles that govern effective practice.
Compliance with established protocols, competence in applying techniques, and adherence to common law principles are the standards of excellence that we should all be seeking to attain and maintain.
Practitioners should embrace continuous learning, understanding that the efficacy of a technique is not defined by its name but by the practitioner’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and legality in their field.
I truly welcome your thoughts.
To learn much more – https://nfps.info/