Why we must listen to the other side…

Last week brought about one of the most eye-opening security conversations I’ve had in years. And I’m not exaggerating.

We took the Smoke Screen van up to Nottingham Police HQ for a session with a group from the Open 2 Recovery scheme – a project that works with people coming out of addiction and persistent offending, helping them rebuild their lives and empowering them to mentor others doing the same.

There were three former offenders there. All three had struggled with addiction to alcohol, drugs, or both. Those addictions fuelled desperation which prompted cycles of negative behaviour. An all-too-familiar story for a lot of folks, unfortunately. All three have now been clean for between one and three years. One of them spoke openly about a period where he was among the most prolific offenders in Nottingham – at one point actively hoping to get caught because prison felt more stable than life outside.

So yeah… not a typical security workshop. But possibly one of the most useful.

We went there with heaps of questions about the incidents we want to stop – daytime offences with staff present, counter-jumps, quick in-and-out thefts. The sort of situations where theory only takes you so far. (And that’s not far at all).

You think you understand risk until you hear it described by someone who has lived it. Helen Clayton – who was core to setting up the session – summed it up perfectly at one point: “You think you know what you’re talking about until these guys come along”.

Within minutes it was obvious we were beyond the things you get in textbooks, incident reports, or industry guides.

I’m trying to synthesise it all into a cohesive article here so you don’t get this far, frown, and click off to something else. So here’s a key point: information spreads SUPER quickly among offenders.

Which stores are easy targets? Which ones are likely to challenge you? Which ones are predictable? Which simply aren’t worth the effort? Word travels on all that. Reputation matters in our world. Clearly.

We often see store customers and staff as the audience for our security measures.  And they obviously are pivotal. But the offender is a key audience too. If they know a place is difficult, unpredictable, or likely to interrupt them mid-incident, that knowledge directly influences behaviour.

We asked these recovered offenders what would happen if a Smoke Screen system activated during a daytime incident. The answer was unanimous: “I’d leave immediately”. No hesitation, no escalation. Just gone.

That tallies with other real-world cases we’ve seen, but hearing it from people who had actually committed offences gave it serious weight.

Something else became very clear: experienced offenders read an environment in seconds. They can rapidly gauge staff confidence, numbers on the shop floor, security routines, stock accessibility, the sort of tech present, and exit routes. They even know which officers are likely to challenge and which ones won’t.

All three of them reflected on being prolific in their offending, but by no means unpredictable. That struck me. One of them even said: “I didn’t realise how organised I still was in the grips of my addiction”.

So there you have it. Most visits aren’t random; offenders watch places and learn patterns. Even supposedly opportunistic theft usually involves more preparation than you might expect.

At one point we discussed how offenders respond to security staff. Being ignored, frowned at, or confronted by a security officer would actually encourage offenders to come back and cause trouble. Being greeted, offered help, and treated normally often had the opposite effect. In several cases, they said they would simply leave.

So in case you needed a reminder that security is as much about human interaction as hardware… there you go. Free of charge. You’re welcome.

There’s also a broader point (and potentially heavy social/political/human debate) here about recovery vs. punishment.

Even from a strictly financial standpoint – limited as it may be – it costs a hell of a lot to put someone through the criminal justice system and into prison. I read it costs over £50k to annually to imprison one person. It costs far less (about £5k) to support recovery and reintegration through community initiatives.

Programmes like Open 2 Recovery turn lived experience into something positive. Sure, these former offenders can help businesses prevent crime rather than simply reacting to it. But more important than that is the fact that they can become champions and advocates for recovery. To be honest, I think it should be a national programme. Fund it to the hilt, promote it, and watch as everyone benefits.

From a purely practical standpoint, engaging with people who understand offending first-hand makes enormous sense. They see vulnerabilities others miss and understand motivations that statistics merely flatten out.

If the aim is to reduce crime rather than just respond to it (spoiler: that is definitely the aim), then that kind of perspective feels SO invaluable.

The offenders we met were keen to point out one thing: there’s no perfect deterrent. That brought something of a wry smile crossed with a grimace from the Nottinghamshire Police Chief Inspector in attendance. She, as well as anyone, knows that offenders adapt, circumstances vary, and the show goes on.

But there are ways and means of improving security. For example, you can build layers of risk – make places less predictable and appealing, increase perpetrators’ uncertainty, remove their control, and at every turn recognise their humanity.

You can also just ask better questions – and ask them to people you never thought you’d be in a room with.