Last season s corresponding match MK Dons first visit to Kingsmeadow since they replaced the old Wimbledon 15 years ago passed without any trouble after heightened measures were implemented. The MK Dons team coach will enter the ground via a separate entrance to avoid it coming into contact with home supporters. Away fans will have to make the trip on official supporters coaches and will also be kept apart from Wimbledon fans.
MK Dons have decided their club officials, including chairman Pete Winkelman, will again sit in the away end and not in the directors box.
In a similar move to the March game of last season, the name of the away team will be missing from the front of the matchday programme and the visitors will appear on the scoreboard as just MK .
On 14 September 2017, at Llandudno Magistrates Court, Mark Pursglove and was found guilty of working without a licence, Rachel Williams for aiding and abetting Mr Pursglove, and Alan Williams was found guilty for providing false information. This is not the first time we have prosecuted Mark Pursglove. In February 2016, Mark Pursglove along with his company, Mark Pursglove Security Limited, pleaded guilty at Holyhead Magistrates Court to supplying unlicensed security operatives and providing false information to the SIA. As a result, we revoked Pursglove s licence to prevent him from working or operating in the private security industry.
This meant Pursglove could not personally carry out any licensable activities; nor could he manage, supervise or be a director of any company supplying security operatives to licensable roles. However, on 25 February 2016, Mark Pursglove formed a new security company called MP Security Services Ltd. It operated from the same offices and provided the same staff to the same contracts. Intelligence sent to us pointed to the fact that Mark Pursglove was the acting director of the new company and the sole shareholder.
We investigated MP Security Services Ltd, and found that Mark Pursglove had visited these customers premises shortly after his conviction, to offer reassurances. He had explained that the new company would continue to supply security operatives and that the terms of the contract would remain the same. He had also stated that he would not be involved in the business. During the investigation, we discovered that Mark Pursglove had listed one of his security guards as a company director without the guard s permission and later appointed a friend, Alan Williams, as a director. He also appointed his partner, Rachel Williams, to undertake a managerial and supervisory role. It became clear that Mark Pursglove was trying to disguise his role in the company.
Our investigators suspected that both appointments were false and requested information from Alan Williams, as he was the named director. He provided this information but the SIA doubted its validity and believed that Mark Pursglove continued to run the company himself. As a result, we gathered further evidence and prosecuted Mark Pursglove, Rachel Williams and Alan Williams. They all pled not guilty; however, all were found guilty.
Mark Pursglove was found guilty of acting as an unlicensed manager or supervisor and of acting as an unlicensed security director. This is a section 3 offence under the Private Security Industry Act (PSIA) 2001. Rachel Williams was found guilty for aiding and abetting Mark Pursglove to commit the above offences. Their sentencing was adjourned and will take place at Caernarfon Magistrates Court on 12 October 2017.
Alan Williams was found guilty of providing false information. He was fined 420 and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of 42 and costs of 2750. Nathan Salmon, the Head of SIA Criminal Investigations, said:
Mark Pursglove continued to operate as a provider of security services despite his previous conviction and knowing full well we had revoked his licence. He tried to disguise his own involvement within the company by using others, placing them in key roles within the company and changing the name of his business. Using individuals as a front will not protect businesses from prosecution; the Private Security Industry Act specifically interprets the role and responsibilities of directors and the SIA will assess personal liability, meaning those guilty of offences cannot hide behind others. This strong conviction highlights the fact that security regulation exists in order to protect those who use contracted security services, as well as the general public.
It also helps to ensure the effectiveness of security businesses that operate within the industry.
- The Security Industry Authority is the organisation responsible for regulating the private security industry in the United Kingdom, reporting to the Home Secretary under the terms of the Private Security Industry Act 2001.
The SIA’s main duties are: the compulsory licensing of individuals undertaking designated activities; and managing the voluntary Approved Contractor Scheme.
- For further information about the Security Industry Authority or to sign up for email updates visit www.sia.homeoffice.gov.uk.
Security links between Britain and the European Union should be secured with a new legal pact, says the Home Secretary. Amber Rudd says current security arrangements including membership of Europol and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) “will end” after Brexit. But days after Britain was hit by a terrorist attack at Parson’s Green tube station1, the UK is preparing to present proposals for a new treaty to give legal backing to intelligence, law enforcement and criminal justice partnerships post Brexit. Writing in The Sun on Sunday, Amber Rudd praises existing arrangements within the EU as “some of the world’s most sophisticated cross-border systems in the fight against crime”. The Home Secretary makes reference to the success of the EAW and Europol but goes on to say: “When we leave the EU, these current arrangements will end, but our partnership must go on for the security of the UK and the continent.” She adds: “Tomorrow, the Government will publish a paper outlining how we want to achieve this . It will suggest that the fight against crime and terror could be underpinned by a new security treaty between the UK and the EU.
“A new treaty would allow us to maintain and strengthen our current level of cooperation and provide a new legal framework to do this.”
Image: New security treaty proposed following Parsons Green terror bombing
In the past, both the EU and the UK have accused each other of using intelligence services as leverage in negotiations. In March, the Home Secretary stated it was “likely” the UK will leave Europol in the wake of Brexit unless a deal is made. Last month, EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier also warned that Britain would be forced to leave Europol and that the EU-UK split would weaken British security and counter-terrorism.
And Theresa May linked failure to strike a trade deal with a reduction of intelligence sharing in her Article 50 letter in March.
She wrote: “In security terms, a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.”