Can you call off security? Clubs’ bouncer problem

Michael says:

07:48am | 23/09/09

Their called Crowd Controllers these days, bouncer is a dirty word in the industry and I am so glad I left the security industry, security guards get screwed from 4 different directions, The Public who abuse us, Our employers who over work us, the client who sends us up onto the mall roof with out safety gear to chase down contractors who do have safety gear and the police who have contempt for our profession and take twice as long to respond to our calls.

Its good money, and most of the time its an easy job physically, but if you don’t have a 10 inch thick skin, stay clear for you’re mental health….

PS If you see an armed security guard in a dark alley, don’t try and hug him, we need hugs but not in dark alleys while we are wearing a pistol.

SD says:

11:50am | 23/09/09

The mandatory two security guard law is a farce.

As you suggested Leo, venues should be assessed on risk.

The over zealous enforcement of these blanket laws will do the following:

1) It will certainly NOT solve the problem of CBD violence. When was the last time there was a violent incident in a small hipster bar?

2) It will place undue financial pressure on smaller live music venues - with the likely result of forcing some venues to close.

End result? Pointless and negative. Not a good combination.

Furthermore, since many violent incidents occur outside of venues – for example, in eateries – should all businesses which are open past a certain hour be also forced to hire extra security? Of course they should not.

It is reasonable to assume that the Vic Government, before allocating resources to enforce this ill conceived law, would have considered some alternatives. But even before such alternatives can be considered, the problem needs to be clearly delimited.

What is the problem we are trying to solve?

It the problem is to for the Vic Government to score political points with voters, then perhaps appearing to be taking action, even if that action is poorly conceived and potentially harmful, is the correct way to proceed.

If anything, this is what the enforcement of these laws will accomplish: political point scoring.

The current problem of Melbourne night time violence (if that is indeed what the problem is) is yet to be clearly delimited.

For this to occur, we need data. The who, what, when, where and why applies here.

Is alcohol the problem?
Is transport the problem?
Is it a cultural problem?
Is lack of security the problem?

Undoubtedly, the actual cause is a complex combination of many factors.

After the problem has been specifically identified and defined – only then can policies or actions be conceived which will target the problem with any hope of efficacy.

The next step of the process is to operationalise the proposed policies. How will the proposed policies be enacted? When will they take place? Will there be a sunset clause on such policies?

Of course, such analysis takes time and costs money. Meanwhile, the situation (what ever it is exactly) is probably going to deteriorate. So the government must take some form of action in the interim.

Since we are still evidently in the early brain-storming phase – I propose the following ideas for consideration:

1) Enforce RSA. Venues should provide free and easily accessible water. Free nibbling food (not salted peanuts or chips) should be supplied to patrons of larger venues.

2) Instigate a form of risk based assessment on a sliding scale. The more incidents that occur outside of a venue, or if it can be established that punters spent the majority of the night inside a particular venue before a violent incident, then that same venue should have more stringent conditions applied to them. For example, forcing venues to hire more security guards, curb alcohol supply to light beer or half shots, and applying heavy financial penalties. When the venue can demonstrate that the level of incidents has decreased, then these penalties can be reconsidered.

3) Initiate a record (possibly public) of which individuals are causing the violence, tied to a strike system. If an individual is involved in two or three incidents, then they should be barred from entering the CBD or entertainment precincts – like a form of restraining order.

4) Sponsor, or encourage an over 25 night in the CBD on a weeknight. No patrons under the age of 25 allowed inside some venues. This would help to reclaim the CBD for older and hopefully more responsible patrons. Adjust licensing to allow this to occur.

5) Start a website which can serve as a public forum or record for venue appraisal. Incidents of poor management or crowd control could be reported and discussed by the public here. This would serve as a useful check on some venues.

Finally, in regard to bouncers: it is interesting to note that in Sydney, many of the larger venues in the Cross do not have bouncers on the door. Instead they often have an older female, who has the ability to turn patrons away or resolve minor disputes in a non-violent, diplomatic fashion. If a given situation spirals out of control, then the bouncers are right behind her (often just inside the door) to assist. This system works very well – I have never experienced or seen any violence in places which employ this method.

Diplomacy and physical restraint (bouncing) are two very specific, highly demanding abilities.

It is therefore highly unlikely that an individual that can put someone in a sleeper hold can also defuse a situation non-violently.

Steve says:

12:20pm | 23/09/09

Simple.. Start by giving bouncers an education, some of these twats can’t string two words together let alone assess the situation.

AD says:

12:39pm | 23/09/09

It’s not the bouncers that are the problem. It’s the idea that small live music venues who make diddley squat will have to pay for 2 security guards ... there’s no way that places like 303 high st or the Vic Hotel or open studio or the edinburgh castle will be able to continue programming bands (for FREE mind you - many of these places have no or mininal door charge) if they have to use their bar earings to pay for security. Leading to a situation where in some cases there will prob be more security than musicians or patrons in the room. Totally ridiculous. ANY blanket law like this needs to be questioned.

IC says:

01:38pm | 23/09/09

Regarding your David Hookes statement i find it to be offensive i myself am what you would call a bouncer and i have actually experienced real life violence unlike the movie violence that seems to fill yours and many young peoples heads i have seen people beaten to a pulp and i have seen people punched once and die. That is reality that is real life its not a game do you think every bouncer goes to work thinking hmmm who am i going to bash tonight??? No most just want to get through the evening and go home to their familes.

But back to the crux of my argument you seem to infer that dragovic started the incident well considering at trial he was found innocent i find that offensive and considering how out spoken and how much off an arrogant man David Hookes was i think it is ridiculous to insinuate he started anything and considering that Hookes Friends gave such varying testimonies at his trial i find it even more ridiculous.
Obviously considering the details and the man its pretty safe to assume hookes was in the wrong.
But instead we as Australians worship at the Alter of another dead sportsman who never dead anything to change the world but throw a ball ok!!!

Below you will find info on the hookes case:.

On the night of 18 January 2004, Hookes went to the Beaconsfield Hotel in St Kilda, Melbourne with members of the Victorian and South Australian cricket teams, to celebrate a win by Victoria over South Australia in a one-day match. Shortly after midnight, the party was asked to leave the hotel, though there are conflicting stories as to the reason. It is also unclear whether the party left voluntarily or were forced to leave. The security staff continued monitoring the behaviour of the party for a short distance outside the hotel, and there was an altercation. Witnesses gave highly conflicting testimony of what occurred and who started the fight, but what is not in doubt is that Hookes fell to the ground, hitting his head in the process, and going into cardiac arrest. He was revived by paramedics but did not regain consciousness. He was taken to Melbourne’s Alfred Hospital and placed on life support. Hookes was taken off life support on the evening of 19 January after family and friends had said their goodbyes, and he died shortly afterwards. Hookes was an organ donor and ten people received transplanted organs.[7]

A memorial service was held on Adelaide Oval on 27 January 2004 attended by all members of the Australian, South Australian and Victorian cricket teams, as well as the Premier of Victoria, Steve Bracks.[8] Total attendance was estimated at 10,000. His estranged wife Robyn declined to participate in his memorial service, but sat in one of the outer grandstands.[8]

[edit] Trial
On 12 September 2005, Zdravko Micevic, a former boxer and a security guard at the hotel, was acquitted on the charge of Hookes’ manslaughter. The jury had taken five days to come to its decision, after a two-week trial. An issue in the trial may have been conflicting statements given by witnesses. Throughout the trial Micevic had maintained that Hookes had without provocation punched him twice, and he felt obliged to defend himself against a further attack. After the trial, Micevic expressed his condolences to Hookes’ family and his regret that the incident had ever occurred. A civil suit by his wife Robyn was withdrawn in 2007.

J says:

03:14pm | 23/09/09

get your licence, do the door, work inside, tell a patron they are too drunk, refuse a person entry, tell them they cant smoke inside and see what can happen and how much crap you have listen too and how many times you have to push a person away from the door of the venue before the patron takes a swing.

If your pulled up asked to leave for intox then deal with it and leave instead of arguing the point as most of you do. If patrons would just shut their mouths do as they are told then we wouldnt have a problem. If you retaliate then suffer the consequences but thisLuke kid is a 19 year old potential footballer i dont believe for a sceond he didnt provoke it even though it should not have carried on the way it did, this kid definately provoked it.

As for hooks he was always a mouth. A celeb that couldnt be told and ran with the ’ Do you know who Iam’ attitude. Bottom line is it doesnt matter who you are, what you think or how old you are, rules are rules whether you like them or agree with, comply with them and therefore there will be no issue between security and patrons

Andy says:

03:37pm | 23/09/09

“I’ve seen my own brother violently evicted from multiple venues after bouncers took one look at him and decided he was off his face despite his protestations that he suffers from an eye condition that, among other things, makes him look permanently stoned or very pissed.”

The bouncers have to go by what they see, they are not doctors who have your brothers past medical histroy.

99.9% of the time people who have red eyes, look stoned, etc. means that they are drunk.

thirdly had your brother left the venue without arguing the poitn then there would be no need for a physical ejection.

I suggest you go read the rules regarding trespass, and you will find security/manager of a venue can ask you to leave at any time for any reason its not your god given right to be in a pub or nightclub.

and lastly then there is the rules of intoxication, if you are being quarrelsome (ie arguing the point of why you have been asked to elave then security and use force to remove you)

Mick says:

04:19pm | 23/09/09

Leo Shanahan - Have you ever gone and attempted to interveiw a crowd controller? No, I thought not. I have been one, I have a licence, I am proud of the job I did. I no longer work in the industry because it became far too dangerous. I like many others, could no longer put up with people spitting in my face, kicking, punching and biting their way into even more trouble. I am now an office manager - earning over $80K a year, I have never considered myself a dumb thug and never will,. I am intelligent, thoughtful and considered, but I had to use muscle on a number of occasions, as much for my own protection as well as for the protection of others. Please stop writing this rubbish, as with any industry there is a small percentaghe who dont do the job well, but dont tar us all with the same brush.

The Warden says:

04:26pm | 23/09/09

There is NO doubt that the majority of Bouncers become such due to their massive unwarranted ego’s, there are other jobs around, but as ‘Steve’ says most have no education or moral standards & thus do not know right from wrong, they probably cannot get a real job. They fail to comprehend they are there to control not king-hit, kick or bash people. The best crowd-controllers are those that rarely need to get violent. The rest are thugs. End of story.

SD says:

04:49pm | 23/09/09

Talk about a case in point:

“and lastly then there is the rules of intoxication, if you are being quarrelsome (ie arguing the point of why you have been asked to elave then security and use force to remove you) “

Straight from the horse’s mouth.

E says:

05:25pm | 23/09/09

Response to ‘J’ ,

I’m a highly educated, well paid professional, and the idea that some barely shaved monkey can tell me to do ANYTHING is simply offensive.  Which is why I spend my money at the bottle shop instead of pubs and clubs nowdays (with much better people). So perhaps the quality of patron of these clubs has taken a dive since I dont know anyone who still goes to these places, theyre trash for trash people.

Further, it is not possible for said bouncer to tell from a glance if someone is drunk, its usually some primal ‘instinct’ which drives these people, and I think we should have higher quality staff than that. Apologies to all the intelligent people doing security work while they finish their masters, I’m not talking to you.

Really we should be re-assessing the existence of late night liscences and enforcing RSA. Personally I would vote for a cop on the door of every venue with a capactiy of over a certain threshold, and mandatory pocket searches for all commers, with the cost borne by the alcohol manufacturers and club owners.

Why is it that some industries whose products cause untold damage to society are not billed?

Tic says:

06:36pm | 23/09/09

“the problem with private security is that they’re not cops and often they can cause more problems than they solve. “

“The psychology of a bouncer getting involved in a situation that does not warrant their intervention is complex and can range from a complete misunderstanding of what’s actually going on around them to being bored with their night.”

Based on what evidence.

I’m sorry Leo but this feels like parachute journalism coupled with the rare but unfortunate situation your brother faces.

My partner was a crowd controller (we don’t refer to your profession by a slang term) for years while he was woking on his PhD in Literature.  Many of his fellow security were also paying for their tertiary education.

If you did some research on these guys, their backgrounds and motivation it would show that the vast majority are just trying to do their jobs and look after people and the venue without getting hurt.

I know that the prolonged exposure to patrons who are hateful and violent (hopefully the minority) did make him view people in a more negative light over time.  You wouldn’t believe the things he regularly experienced, and he certainly kept the worse ones from me. I’ve no doubt this did cause less compassionate behaviour over time in some other security he knew.  All part of the reason he stopped to find other ways to support himself. 

Maybe this would be a more helpful story to research.  We might all learn something about each other.

Michael says:

08:46pm | 23/09/09

“I’m a highly educated, well paid professional, and the idea that some barely shaved monkey can tell me to do ANYTHING is simply offensive.”

Glad you stay away mate, you are the type of tosser who wants to argue civil rights and the finer points of law, while we try to monitor the behaviour of a couple of hundred people.

The assumptions you make about security guards are just flat out offensive you can take that apology and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

Tiffany L says:

11:56am | 24/09/09

Having at least two bouncers at music venues which have 100 people or less will not necessarily reduce violence. It may actually create more violence, especially because bouncers are not police officers!

From my experience, small music venues that only hire one bouncer and serve alcohol have not experienced much violence. It is usually the larger venues that need more bouncers to control people.

The Victorian Government have failed to consider the fact that music venues, clubs and bars that are located in areas or suburbs with a greater history of violence are more prone to violence, alcohol related or not.

In many situations such as the David Hookes incident, bouncers are to blame. People who don’t comply to the dress code, or those who appear to be drunk but are not, may come into confrontation with bouncers who exacerbate the problem rather than solve it!

Shaun says:

12:42pm | 24/09/09

Interesting article. Highlights the power of opinion pieces.  Some young journalist who has a bee in their bonnet about licensed venue security writes an article demonising bouncers.

Of course they’re not neccessary. Of course they’re all bad.

Bet you’re the same type of person who comes running to the bouncers that are not needed when an unruly patron attacks you and say “where were you when this happened”

I_Exist says:

12:45pm | 24/09/09

Are we discussing a proposed law or just hagning shit on corwd controllers?

“I’m a highly educated, well paid professional, and the idea that some barely shaved monkey can tell me to do ANYTHING is simply offensive.”

I share some of your sentiment but you sound like a complete tosser!  Everyone has to do a job- and their job (much like trolley collecting) only exists because humans are F$#)ing hopeless!  The bouncers do not create the demand for their services. 
Most that I interact with are perfectly civil- and at the end of the day you can just drink at home with mates (or not at all!).  It is not like they are police and you are forced to interact with them.

THE BIG ISSUE HERE.  More importantly:  musicians in this country already do it tough- there are not a lot of gigs to be had and we are also up against the pokies!  These laws might be another blow for Australian music.

Lets end with a funny:
Q. Why do people get into crowd control? 
A: No ones drinks with them on the weekend anyway!

Alice says:

02:55pm | 24/09/09

While I think that security guards are a major part of solving Melbourne’s crime issue, it must be asked what their impact is in a society where stabbings, glassings and violent attacks are on the increase.  Even if there were five security guards per 100 patrons at a venue, they would have little impact when a weapon is used. These security guards are not armed, nor should they be, however I think a big part of preventing violent crimes is by preventing weapons from entering these venues. Whether this is by screening patrons upon arrival, or replacing glass with plastic during certain peak times.

As for the comments about security guards being “thugs” on a power trip, for a large part this is not true. Of course in some circumstances there are some security guards who may lack discretion and make bad mistakes, this can be applied to any occupation. As somebody who has worked in hospitality for a number of years, I can tell you that some security guards are not made for the profession, and usually management will recognise this by firing them. For the most part, in my experiences most crowd controllers are people who take the profession seriously, and I know of a few who have worked in the industry for over 30 years. They are the ones who realise that violence is not the solution to violence, and pass this ethic onto all who work with them. 

Ultimately the solution to violence cannot be found in any one issue, it is only when a number of factors are addressed that violence in Melbourne will ever be reduced. Blaming it on one issue will not bring a solution.

tim says:

01:51pm | 25/09/09

I found that you can not use logic or reason with most people who are intoxicated you have to treat them differently.

Daniel says:

07:56am | 10/10/09

Why does it matter if someone is drunk? Just becuase you look a little intoxicated does not mean you will start trouble. I have to be a bit intoxicated to to get up the will power to go into such venues. I enjoy the music but I can’t stand the violent Arsholes that are inside. But I have never been in a fight nor instigated a violent incident in my life. Yet the crowd controllers can decide from a single look whether or not you are “drunk”. Or maybe it is simply whether or not you are unsuitable for this club - too old, too fat, clothes not trendy enough, friend’s friend has alreadt slept with your ex ... etc .... This is the security man’s perogative, though in fact he should be acting with his employer’s interest’s in mind. To be refused entry when you -even though intoxicated - are more able to hold a cogent conversation than the very person refusing you entry is insulting. I do recognise that there are a lot of rambuncious Aussie males out there but in my experience I’ve rarely met a well adjusted bouncer who discriminates based on sound, informed (ie, through a couple of well timed and incisive questions) reasons. My apologies to the really nice bouncers I’ve met who are just doing ther job, which is to ensure everybody has a good time and spends money at establishment.

Bouncers who defy reason are being collected on my undercover expose ... yes your dumb comments are being recorded and you are secretly being filmed. When i told the B this last night he looked like he wanted to kill me. High marks for “intention” ... important in the MMartial Farts.

Isaac says:

08:33am | 16/10/09

“Why does it matter if someone is drunk?”

Don’t drive a car with that attitude!