Over the past two years, the UK retail sector has undergone a marked and deeply concerning shift. What was once a stable environment defined by routine commerce and community interaction is now increasingly characterised by violence, threatening behaviour, and organised criminal activity.

This change has not happened gradually. It has accelerated. Recent reports from BBC and The Guardian indicate that retail staff are being punched, threatened, and spat at, with many describing their workplaces as unpredictable and unsafe.

There is clear evidence of organised retail crime groups operating “steal-to-order” models, targeting specific high-value goods based on demand rather than opportunity. There is also growing evidence that offenders are coordinating activity through social media and informal networks, enabling rapid targeting of specific stores and goods. Offenders are increasingly brazen, often acting openly with limited fear of consequences.

Incidents previously dismissed as “low-level” shoplifting have evolved into structured, repeat offending patterns. Retailers are now dealing with coordinated theft, escalating aggression, and a level of defiance that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

This is no longer about opportunistic theft. It is about control, intimidation, and a growing perception that enforcement and legal punishment is inconsistent or absent.

In 2024, the British Retail Consortium reported over 2,000 incidents of violence and abuse against retail workers every single day. Violence and abuse against shopworkers have reached unacceptable levels, and decisive action is urgently needed.

“Retail crime is spiralling out of control. People in retail have been spat on, racially abused, and threatened with machetes. Every day this continues, criminals are getting bolder and more aggressive.”

– Helen Dickinson, Chief Executive of the British Retail Consortium

This is reinforced by the USDAW, whose latest survey indicates that approximately 78% of retail staff have experienced verbal abuse, with a significant proportion facing threats and physical assault.

At a national level, Home Office data confirms sustained increases in shoplifting across England and Wales, much of it linked to repeat and organised offenders.

Crucially, this assessment is shared by policing leadership. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has warned that retail crime has become increasingly organised and that violence against shopworkers is “completely unacceptable,” with police forces under pressure to respond more robustly to repeat and high-harm offenders.

This is not anecdotal. It is systemic and escalating.

A Workforce Under Daily Threat

For retail workers, the nature of the job has fundamentally changed. The workplace is no longer a controlled environment. It is unpredictable and, at times, hostile. Staff are routinely exposed to verbal abuse, intimidation, and, increasingly, physical aggression. These are not isolated incidents. They are repeated exposures that accumulate over time.

From an operational perspective, this has clear consequences. We are seeing increased staff anxiety, reduced engagement, higher absenteeism, and a growing reluctance to challenge unacceptable behaviour. Over time, this erodes workforce stability and directly impacts operational performance.

From a human perspective, the impact is more serious. No employee should start a shift anticipating confrontation or violence. Yet, for many in retail, that is now the reality.

Security Professionals Under Pressure

Security personnel are operating under growing pressure, often within constraints that limit their effectiveness. They are expected to deter, to observe, and to manage risk. Yet, in many environments, “non-intervention” policies restrict their ability to act decisively. These policies are designed to reduce liability, but they also create operational gaps that offenders are quick to exploit.

This is a critical point. Organised crime is not random. It is deliberate, coordinated, and increasingly professional. Offenders operate in teams, target specific goods, and apply speed and intimidation to overwhelm staff and security alike.

They understand the rules, regulations, and policies. They understand the limitations. And they act accordingly. This places security professionals in a difficult position. They carry responsibility without always having the authority or tools to respond proportionately.

From an operational standpoint, that imbalance is unsustainable.

The Legislative Response

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 represents a necessary step forward. Making assault against a retail worker a standalone offence sends a clear signal that this behaviour is no longer being tolerated at a legislative level.

The removal of the £200 shop theft threshold and increased investment in surveillance technologies are also important developments. However, legislation without enforcement has a limited operational impact. The effectiveness of these measures will depend entirely on what happens next:

• Consistent and visible policing
• Timely response to incidents
• Robust prosecution of repeat offenders

Without these, the underlying risk assessment for offenders remains unchanged. Those on the frontline will judge success not by policy announcements, but by whether their working environment becomes measurably safer.

The Role of Body Armour

An increasing number of retailers are now equipping their security personnel with stab resistant body armour. This is a pragmatic and proportionate response to the current threat environment.

There is often concern that visible protective equipment may create an overly securitised or confrontational atmosphere. From experience, that concern is overstated.

Modern body armour is discreet, lightweight, operationally appropriate, and offer certified protection from the most realistic threats security professionals face today. They integrate into standard uniforms without altering the customer-facing environment in any meaningful way.

More importantly, they provide a critical layer of protection in situations where escalation can occur rapidly and without warning.

Security professionals are frequently the first point of contact in volatile situations. They step into risk on behalf of others. That reality must be recognised and addressed. Providing appropriate protective equipment is not excessive. It is responsible risk management.

The Human Cost Behind the Statistics

Retail crime is often discussed in financial terms. Loss prevention, shrinkage, and margin impact dominate internal reporting. That perspective is incomplete. The true cost is carried by people.

• It is reflected in the employee who no longer feels safe at work.
• It is seen in the security officer managing confrontation without adequate support.
• It is evident in declining morale, reduced retention, and a workforce under sustained pressure.

From a leadership perspective, this has direct implications for business continuity.

If employees do not feel safe, they will not stay. If they do not stay, operations are compromised. This is not just a security issue. It is a strategic one.

Final Reflection

The rise in retail violence is not an isolated trend. It is a clear indicator of broader challenges in deterrence, enforcement, and public order.

If retail workers feel like targets and security professionals feel constrained in their ability to act, then the system is not functioning as it should.

Addressing this requires more than policy. It requires coordinated action, operational clarity, and sustained investment in frontline capability.

The high street remains a critical part of the UK’s economic and social fabric. It must also remain a safe environment for those who work within it.

At present, for too many, it is not.

About the Author

Jim Still is the Director of Business Development at PPSS Group and a former Royal Marine Commando. After serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and working as a Private Military Contractor, he brings extensive experience in risk management and personal protection. Since joining PPSS Group in 2016, Jim has focused on developing and expanding protective solutions that help frontline professionals operate more safely in high-risk environments.

The post The UK Retail Crisis: Violence, Organised Crime, and the Human Cost appeared first on PPSS Group.

1. The Scale of the Crisis
2.  Attacks on Prison Officers
3. A System Under Strain 
4. The UK Parliament Debate 
5. Understanding the Threat
6. Protective Equipment
7. The Cost of Inaction
8. A Call to Action

Every day, prison and correctional officers walk into one of the most dangerous working environments in the world. They do so quietly, largely out of public view, and too often without the protection they deserve. Their job is to maintain order and safety in facilities that house some of society’s most volatile and dangerous individuals, and yet the personal safety and well-being of these officers is routinely overlooked by the public, the media, and policymakers alike.

That has begun to change. In March 2026, the UK Parliament held a dedicated debate on whether body armour should be made mandatory for prison officers across England and Wales, a significant moment that reflects years of campaigning by officers, unions, and frontline advocates.

This article brings together the full picture: the statistics that demand action, the threats officers face, the landmark parliamentary debate, and the protective equipment solutions that are already making a difference.

1. The Scale of the Crisis

The data reveals a stark reality that cannot be denied: the UK Prison Service is in crisis. Attacks on prison officers are at record levels. Assaults in prison and correctional facilities have escalated sharply in recent years, with 2025 producing the most alarming figures on record.

According to the Ministry of Justice, in the year to March 2025, prisons in England and Wales recorded 10,568 assaults on staff, a 7% increase on the previous year. Total assault incidents across the prison estate rose to 30,846, up by 9%. By the 12 months to September 2025, overall assault incidents had climbed further still to 31,555, a rate of 364 incidents for every 1,000 prisoners, representing a 6% rise. Of those recorded incidents, 10,326 were assaults on staff, with 931 classified as serious assaults.

The House of Commons Library briefing published ahead of the March 2026 parliamentary debate placed these figures in sharp relief: the prison officer leaving rate stands at 12.2%, a workforce under immense pressure, with 878 fewer full-time equivalent officers in post by March 2025 than just twelve months earlier.

“Violence is unacceptably high in our prisons. There is an average of 28 assaults on staff every day in the prison system.” – UK Parliament, House of Commons debate, 26 March 2026

Internationally, the pattern is consistent. In New York State prisons, 1,760 assaults on staff were recorded in 2024 alone, beating the previous record of 1,671 set in 2023. Research from the United States has found that for every 10,000 full-time corrections officers, there were 254 workplace assaults and violent injuries, that’s 36 times the rate for all American workers. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) has reported approximately 2,000 correctional employee injuries due to inmate violence annually.

The numbers are not abstract. Behind each statistic is an officer who left for work and did not return unharmed.

2. High-Profile Attacks on Prison Officers

The statistics are made real by a series of high-profile, deeply disturbing attacks on prison officers in 2025, all involving contraband weapons, and all causing serious injury.

• In April 2025, Hashem Abedi, brother of the Manchester Arena bomber, attacked officers at HMP Frankland using boiling oil and improvised bladed weapons, inflicting severe burns and stab wounds on three officers.
• In May 2025, at HMP Belmarsh, Axel Rudakubana, the Southport killer, scalded a prison officer with boiling water through a cell hatch, an assault requiring hospital treatment.
• On 30 May 2025, a prison officer at HMP Long Lartin was brutally stabbed and required emergency surgery.

These were not freak occurrences. They are part of a systemic pattern of violence that has become more apparent as time goes on. According to a BBC investigation, over the past five years more than £20 million has been paid out in damages to staff and prisoners alike following violent incidents. However, the financial price paid here barely scratches the surface when considering the total human cost.

A Sky News investigation titled “I thought I was going to die: The epidemic of violence against prison officers” brought further accounts into the public domain. Officers described moments of genuine terror where they were totally isolated, under-equipped, and facing individuals who had spent months planning their attack.

In May 2025, Mark Fairhurst, National Charman for the Prison Officers Association (POA), spoke directly on the matter of violence in prisons. After a series of high-profile attacks on officers in prisons across the UK, the demand for stronger protection for prison staff and tighter restrictions on inmates was an immediate concern.

“It’s only a matter of time before one of my colleagues is murdered on duty”. – Mark Fairhurst, National Chair, Prison Officers Association

In response to the attacks at HMP Belmarsh and HMP Frankland, Justice Secretary, David Lammy announced in September 2025 that 10,000 more prison officers would be given body armour in a bid to improve safety in jails.

This new investment, initially announced by Lammy to “send a clear message of support to the country’s prison officers”, has been questioned by some as political pandering designed to quiet opposition voices who have been calling out for prison reforms for years.

The chief executive of the Prison Reform Trust, Pia Sinha, stated that “tasers and stab proof vests may help staff feel safer […] but we must not confuse these reactive measures with a strategy to reduce violence at its source”.

While the move to invest more funding in prison officer protection has been seen as a step in the right direction, the limited roll out of stab vests to only prison officers in high-security facilities has left many questioning whether the government is doing enough to protect all staff in correctional facilities.

During the recent debate in Parliament on this issue, one of the key findings was that the risk to prison staff is far too widespread to only provide protection to a select number of officers in high-security units.

“Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked. Therefore, any prison officer working on any wing of any prison deserves to be protected from violence while trying to do his or her job.” – Sir Julian Lewis, UK Parliament debate

However, concerns that body armour may be “too heavy and restrictive for everyday use” has left the subject of introducing mandatory use of body armour across the UK Prison Service in need of further debate before rolling out stab vests to all prison officers.

3. A System Under Strain

Independent reports have provided some of the starkest assessments of what is happening inside England and Wales prisons. In December 2025, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons issued an Urgent Notification to the Secretary of State for Justice following an inspection of HMP Swaleside.

The findings were deeply troubling. Swaleside prison had one of the highest rates of violence of all prisons in England and Wales. In 2025 alone, six men had been assaulted or stabbed during their first night in the jail. A third of prisoners told inspectors they had been assaulted by another prisoner, and many said they currently felt unsafe. Drones carrying drugs and sometimes knives were exacerbating instability across the wings.

Staff were described as burnt out and demoralised from sustained, unrelenting levels of violence. Chronic long-term understaffing meant many officers lacked the experience to effectively manage the population they were responsible for. The Governor had only been in post for five months. The prison had been without permanent leadership for much of 2024 and 2025.

“The appalling outcomes we found at Swaleside, holding some of the most dangerous men in the country, represent serious failings by leaders in the prison service to address the systemic problems at this troubled jail.” – Charlie Taylor, Chief Inspector of Prisons, December 2025

Swaleside is the third prison in the long-term high security estate to be issued with an Urgent Notification, after Manchester and Woodhill. The pattern is impossible to ignore. These are not isolated failures, but systemic ones.

The Institute for Government has added analytical weight to these findings, demonstrating that overcrowding is a direct driver of violence.

A 1%-point increase in the proportion of prisoners in crowded accommodation implies around 1.3 additional staff assaults per 1,000 prisoners. With England and Wales now holding over 88,000 prisoners, near record levels, the structural conditions for violence are firmly in place.

4. The March 2026 UK Parliament Debate

On 26 March 2026, Members of Parliament debated whether body armour should be made mandatory for all prison officers in England and Wales. It was a significant moment, the first time the specific question of mandatory PPE for corrections officers had been given dedicated parliamentary time, and the debate surfaced both the urgency of the situation and the complexity of the solution.

What Parliament Established

Several clear findings emerged from the debate:

• Violence remains unacceptably high, with over 10,000 assaults on prison staff annually, including serious incidents involving improvised weapons.
• The risk is not confined to high-security units. As stated explicitly during proceedings: “Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked.”
• The Government has committed to scaling up stab vest availability from 750 to 10,000, with mandatory use currently limited to designated high-risk environments.
• There is no commitment yet to universal provision of body armour across the entire prison estate.
• Existing equipment has drawn criticism, described in some quarters as “unfit for purpose”, restrictive, and causing health problems for wearers.
• Concerns were raised specifically about fit for female officers, with the finding that “body armour failed adequately to accommodate female anatomy.”
• A clear standard was set: “Body armour must be lightweight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods.”
• Parliament’s core takeaway on implementation: “The selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed.”

The Double Standard That Cannot Be Ignored

One of the most powerful threads running through the parliamentary debate is the stark disparity between how police officers and prison officers are protected.

Police officers, who typically engage with dangerous individuals for minutes at a time, usually with backup, body-worn cameras, and a rapid response framework, are legally mandated to wear body armour in most countries.

On the other hand, Prison officers, who supervise the very same dangerous individual’s day after day, sometimes for years, are in most jurisdictions issued with no protective clothing whatsoever.

The dangerous individual does not become less dangerous upon entering prison. If anything, a prisoner becomes more dangerous over time. Due to a combined issue of overcrowding, a lack of prison funding, and organised crime, smuggling weapons into a cell is easier than ever. Plus, with time on their side, and access to improvised weapons, a planned out premeditated attack on a prison officer is going to be far more serious than a typical police encounter.

The Role of Frontline Campaigners

The parliamentary debate did not happen in a vacuum. It followed sustained campaigning by frontline officers, their families, and advocacy groups. Among the most prominent voices has been Claire Lewis, a former prison officer who was herself seriously injured in an attack involving a broken bottle. Her petition calling for improved protection for prison officers drew widespread public support and helped build the political momentum that led to the 2026 debate.

Her story tells of the human reality that every statistic in this article represents.

5. Understanding the Threat of What Officers Face

To advocate effectively for better protection, it is necessary to understand precisely what corrections officers are facing daily. The threats are multiple, compounding, and increasingly unpredictable.

The Improvised Weapon Problem

Prisoners have something that police encounters rarely account for: time.

Hours, days, weeks, and months to plan, to develop grievances, and to engineer weapons from everyday materials. Sharpened bed or table frame legs, razor blades melted into toothbrush handles, broken glass, ceramic shards, pens, pencils, and shanks fashioned from plastic or porcelain have all been documented.

Almost any object, given sufficient time and ingenuity, can become a lethal instrument.

An officer might deliver entirely routine news, a disciplinary decision, a cancelled visit, a cell search, bad news from home, and face a violent response that has been planned and premeditated over days or weeks. The best communication skills and the calmest demeanour cannot always prevent what has already been decided.

Edged Weapon Injuries

Stab injuries occur where the depth of a wound exceeds its surface length, the result of a thrusting motion, typically with a pointed improvised weapon. Slash injuries are the reverse: the surface wound is longer than the depth, caused by a sweeping or dragging action.

A retrospective survey of hospital admissions that informed the development of protective clothing standards found that 63% of wounds attributable to sharp-edged weapons were slash events, with the most affected areas being the head, arms, thighs and neck.

The Critical Risk: Uncontrolled Bleeding

Catastrophic and uncontrolled bleeding is one of the leading causes of death in violent attacks. The key arterial points, where a severed artery can cause rapid, fatal blood loss, are:

• Carotid Artery — either side of the neck
• Brachial Artery — both upper arms
• Radial Artery — both wrists, close to the surface of the skin
• Femoral Artery — either side of the groin
• Axillary Artery — each armpit

Injury to any of these points can render an officer unconscious within approximately 30 seconds and result in death within three minutes if bleeding is not controlled. Venous bleeding from shallower wounds can be equally life-threatening when multiple injuries occur simultaneously.

Internal bleeding caused by deep penetrating injuries or severe blunt force is the most difficult to treat and may not be apparent until the situation is critical.

A natural self-defence instinct, raising the arms to protect the face, directly exposes the axillary artery. This is not a failure of training; it is a fundamental human reflex. The appropriate response is not to criticise the reflex, but to protect against its consequences.

Blunt Force Trauma

Blunt force trauma is in fact the most statistically likely type of assault a prison officer will face. Fists, feet, knees, elbows, iron bars, bricks, fire extinguishers, pieces of furniture. All are documented instruments of attack in prison environments. The severity of injury depends on the speed, velocity, size, and weight of the object involved. Outcomes range from bruising and fractures to internal haemorrhage, organ rupture, cardiac tamponade, and death.

6. Protective Equipment That Works

We cannot eliminate the risk of workplace violence in prisons. However, we can, and must, reduce it. The parliamentary debate was right to insist that the selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed. The technology exists. The solutions have been developed, tested, and refined over many years specifically for the corrections environment.

Carbon Fibre Stab Vests

PPSS Group’s carbon fibre stab vests are purpose-designed to address the three primary threats facing corrections and prison officers:

• Blunt force trauma
• Improvised edged weapons
• Spikes, shivs and hypodermic needles

Certified to internationally recognised standards for knife resistance (KR1), spike resistance (SP1) and blunt force impact (VPAM W5), our body armour provides protection that can be genuinely trusted.

Material selection is everything. We use the same class of high-performance material used in motorcycle helmets, sports cars, and aerospace & defence. Carbon fibre body armour uses solid plates that are body-moulded to fit all sizes in a unisex design that is lightweight, comfortable and made to be worn all day.

This solid carbon fibre plating is precisely what delivers meaningful protection against blunt force trauma. The ridged carbon fibre structure absorbs kinetic energy from a physical strike and distributes it across the body, leaving the wearer feeling almost nothing at all.

Unlike soft body armour made of aramid fibres, such as Kevlar®, these vests cannot provide adequate protection against blunt force trauma from close combat.

Carbon fibre armour is also exceptionally thin and lightweight, but most importantly, it does not degrade over time. Kevlar® vests require replacement approximately every five years due to reduction in performance whereas carbon fibre armour offers an essentially unlimited lifespan, making it a demonstrably stronger long-term investment.

Solving the Weight Problem with the MOLLE System

The March 2026 parliamentary debate identified a very specific practical concern: that existing PPE, combined with the weight of equipment belts carrying radios, batons, and PAVA spray, was causing health problems and physical strain, particularly during long shifts.

Modern MOLLE-compatible stab vests address this directly. By allowing essential equipment to be integrated onto the vest itself, weight is distributed across the upper body rather than concentrated at the hips and lower back. This directly responds to the parliamentary requirement that body armour must not impair mobility and must remain comfortable for lengthy periods, not as a design aspiration, but as an operational necessity.

Fit for Female Officers

Parliament explicitly raised the finding that existing body armour had failed to adequately accommodate female anatomy. This is not a minor consideration; it has direct safety implications. Equipment that does not fit correctly will not be worn consistently, and inconsistently worn equipment provides no protection at all.

Modern protective equipment is now developed with proper sizing for both male and female officers, reflecting the reality of the workforce. This is not optional. It is a prerequisite for any equipment programme to function effectively.

SlashPRO® Slash Resistant Clothing

Body armour protects the torso. But as the injury data makes clear, some of the most dangerous and likely points of injury lie on the limbs, neck, and underarms. SlashPRO® slash resistant clothing is designed specifically to address this gap.

By shielding key arteries from laceration, SlashPRO® garments significantly reduce the risk of rapid blood loss, shock, and death. The full range spans covertly worn T-shirts, overtly worn combat shirts and jackets, cut resistant boxer shorts, neck guards, and balaclavas.

All garments carry full certification to European Cut Level 5 (EN 388:2016), International Cut Level 5 (ISO 13997:1999), and American Cut Level A5 (ANSI/ISEA 2016). Verified test reports are publicly available.

For CERT teams and Tactical Response Groups managing serious disturbances, this level of slash-specific protection is particularly critical. These officers face the most sustained and intense exposure to edged weapons, typically in confined and chaotic environments.

The Layered Protection Approach

No single item of PPE addresses every threat. The most effective strategy is a layered one: stab resistant body armour combined with slash resistant clothing, calibrated to the specific threat environment of each facility and operational role. The precise combination should be the output of a structured, honest threat assessment not the result of budget convenience or institutional inertia.

As Mike Bird, former National Instructor with the National Tactical Response Group (NTRG) and a 20-year veteran of the UK Prison Service, has put it:

‘if equipment is too heavy, it comes off. If it restricts movement, it gets avoided. If it does not fit properly, it creates hesitation rather than confidence. This is not theoretical, it is the lived experience of officers on the wings”. – Mike Bird, PPSS Group

7. The Workforce Cost of Inaction

The case for better protective equipment is a moral one. It is an operational and financial one.

The prison officer leaving rate of 12.2%, combined with the loss of 878 full-time equivalent officers in a single year, is not unrelated to the violence picture. The Institute for Government’s analysis shows that resignation rates are higher in more violent prisons, and that higher staff turnover means less experienced officers on the wings, officers who are less likely to have developed the relationships with prisoners that reduce conflict, and more likely to feel isolated and unsupported.

More than £20 million was paid out in damages over five years to staff and prisoners assaulted in violent incidents. Every serious injury generates sick leave, potential long-term disability, recruitment and training costs for a replacement, and potential legal liability. The cost of proper protective equipment is not a burden on the justice budget. It is a reduction of a far greater cost already being absorbed.

“We get it, budgets are tight. The justice sector has been under pressure for years. But if financial pressure is the reason staff are not being issued proper protective equipment, then the logic does not hold up. How much longer can the system afford these constant payouts, sick leave, recruitment costs and legal claims? More importantly, how long can we ask frontline officers to put themselves in danger with little more than training, a radio, and their instinct?” — Mike Bird, former NTRG National Instructor, PPSS Group

8. A Call to Action

The UK Parliament debate of March 2026 is a step forward. It acknowledges the scale of the violence, recognises the inadequacy of current provision, and sets a standard for what protective equipment must achieve. But acknowledging a problem is not the same as solving it.

The question is no longer whether prison officers need protection. That has been answered by the statistics, by the parliamentary record, by the inspection findings, and by the firsthand accounts of the officers themselves. The question now is whether those in positions of authority will act with appropriate urgency, and whether the equipment introduced will be fit for purpose.

No matter how hard we try, we cannot eliminate the operational risks faced by prison and correctional officers. But we can do everything within our power to reduce them. The technology exists. The evidence is clear. The moral case is unanswerable.

About the Author

Mike Bird, Director of Corporate Relations at PPSS Group

With over 35 years’ experience in custodial, security, and care settings, Mike brings extensive expertise in handling highly hostile, challenging, and complex individuals. After 20 years in the prison service, specialising in the Use of Force and serving as a National Instructor at the National Tactical Response Group (NTRG), Mike has since provided training and consultancy services to police and prison services in the UK, Africa, Asia and Europe.

The post Understanding the Threat Facing UK Prison & Correctional Officers appeared first on PPSS Group.

On 26 March 2026, UK Parliament debated whether body armour should be made mandatory for prison officers across England and Wales.

Key findings:

• Violence remains high
  • Over 10,000 assaults on prison staff annually, including serious incidents involving weapons and boiling liquids
• Risk is widespread
  • “Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked.”
• Government action underway
  • • Up to 10,000 stab vests being introduced
    • Mandatory use currently limited to high-risk units
• No full rollout yet
  • The Government has not committed to body armour for all prison officers
• Concerns over current equipment
  • Described as “unfit for purpose”, restrictive and causing health problems
  • Issues with fit, particularly for female officers
• Key requirement identified
  • “Body armour must be light in weight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods.”
• Core takeaway from Parliament
  • “The selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed.”

Supporting context (House of Commons briefing – 20 March 2026):

• 10,326 assaults on prison staff (12 months to Sept 2025)
• 931 serious assaults
• 12.2% prison officer leaving rate
• Ongoing union calls for stab vests across the prison estate

Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10593/

Why this debate matters now

This debate did not happen in isolation.

It follows a series of high-profile assaults on prison officers in 2025, alongside growing pressure from unions, frontline staff, and campaigners such as Claire Lewis. The incidents referenced include officers being stabbed with improvised weapons, attacked with boiling liquids, and hospitalised following coordinated assaults.

The Chair of the Prison Officers Association described the situation clearly:

Prison officers are “dealing with more prolific, violent and serious threats to our safety”

From experience, this is not new. It reflects the reality officers already face every day.

Risk exists across every prison, not just high-security units

One of the most important lines from the debate was:

“Any prison officer working on any wing of any prison can be attacked.”

That is not a political statement. It is operational reality.

Violence is unpredictable. It does not stay within high-security units. It happens across remand wings, general population, and lower category prisons.

Yet protection is still being rolled out selectively. So the question becomes difficult to ignore. If the risk is shared, should protection still be limited?

The real issue: is current body armour fit for purpose?

The debate did not just focus on whether prison officers should have body armour. It also raised concerns about whether protective equipment, more broadly, is always suitable for frontline use.

Reference was made to wider findings around PPE, where equipment had been described as:

“unfit for purpose”, restrictive and causing health problems

There were also concerns around inclusivity:

“Body armour failed adequately to accommodate female anatomy”

And a clear expectation of what protection should look like:

“Body armour must be light in weight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods.”

These are not technical details. They directly affect whether equipment is worn consistently or not.

A practical solution to a known problem

One of the consistent concerns raised during the debate was not just the need for protection, but how that protection is worn in practice.

As highlighted in Parliament, existing equipment can create additional strain and practical challenges for officers. Concerns were raised around items being:

“cumbersome and impractical utility belts, which are weighed down with equipment, with discomfort, health issues and even injuries”

Officers are often required to carry essential tools such as radios, batons and spray on their belts, which can concentrate weight around the hips and lower back during long shifts.

There was also a clear expectation set within the debate that any solution must go beyond protection alone:

“body armour must be light in weight, not impair mobility and remain comfortable if worn for lengthy periods.”

This reinforces an important point. Protection cannot come at the cost of usability.

This is one example of how equipment design is evolving to address the challenges highlighted in Parliament. Solutions such as MOLLE compatible stab vests offer a more practical approach. By allowing equipment to be integrated directly onto the vest, weight can be distributed more evenly across the upper body rather than concentrated around the waist.

This supports improved comfort during extended wear, maintains mobility, and helps reduce the physical strain associated with carrying multiple items on a belt.

In the context of the concerns raised in Parliament, this is a clear example of how modern protective equipment can address both safety and practicality at the same time.

From experience: if it doesn’t work, it won’t be worn

Having spent 20 years in the UK prison service, including working as a national instructor at NTRG responding to all major incidents in the UK Prison service and training officers nationally, I have seen how quickly equipment becomes part of the problem if it is not designed properly.

• If something is too heavy, it comes off.
• If it restricts movement, it gets avoided.
• If it does not fit properly, particularly for female officers, it creates hesitation rather than confidence.

That is not theory. It reflects the reality prison officers face on a daily basis.

This is not just a policy discussion

This issue is not being driven by policy alone.

We recently spoke with Claire Lewis and Jed Mulheran, who have led a petition calling for improved protection for prison officers. Claire, a former prison officer, was herself seriously injured in an attack involving a broken bottle, and more recent incidents at HMP Frankland, where officers were doused in hot oil and attacked with improvised weapons, have further highlighted the risks faced by staff.

During a live segment on Sky News, the issue was discussed publicly as part of the growing national conversation around prison officer safety.

During that broadcast, our covert certified body armour was visibly shown on screen, helping to illustrate what modern, lightweight protection can look like in practice.

This is not theoretical. It is being raised by people who have experienced the consequences first hand.

“Right, not rushed” – the key takeaway

One of the most important points made during the debate was:

“The selection of protective equipment must be right rather than rushed.”

That is where the focus now needs to be.

Because introducing body armour across the prison estate is not just about availability. It is about whether it performs properly in real working conditions.

That means:

• Equipment that can be worn for full shifts
• Fit that works for both male and female officers
• Freedom of movement during incidents
• Practical integration into daily duties

Without these, the effectiveness of any rollout will be limited.

Where this leaves body armour for prison officers

The UK Parliament debate is a step forward.

It recognises the scale of violence and the need for improved protection.

But the next stage is critical.

Not just introducing body armour, but ensuring it is fit for purpose.

From a development perspective, this is where things have already evolved. There are now solutions available that address the concerns raised in Parliament. Lightweight body armour designed for extended wear, developed for both male and female officers, and built around real operational environments.

Final thoughts

The question is no longer whether prison officers need protection.

That has already been answered.

The challenge now is ensuring that protection works in practice.

Because at the end of the day, this is not about policy. It is about making sure the people doing one of the most demanding jobs in the public sector are properly protected when it matters most.

About the Author

Mike Bird brings over 35 years of frontline experience across custodial, security, and care settings. His career began with two decades in the UK prison service, where he specialised in the Use of Force and served as a National Instructor with the National Tactical Response Group (NTRG).

Following his service, Mike founded his own consultancy, delivering expert training and operational guidance to police and prison services in Abu Dhabi, Oman, Macedonia, Nigeria, The Hague, and across the UK. In recent years, he has also supported Secure Children’s Homes and Young Offender Institutes, working closely with senior leaders to manage high-risk individuals and improve staff safety.

The post Body Armour for Prison Officers: Key Findings from the UK Parliament Debate appeared first on PPSS Group.

Enforcement Agents, commonly known as bailiffs, play a critical role in upholding the rule of law across the UK. Acting on behalf of courts, councils, and government organisations, they are responsible for recovering unpaid debts and ensuring that legal decisions are carried out effectively. 

It is a role that sits at the intersection of law, public service, and human behaviour. And increasingly, it is a role that carries growing risk. 

A Changing Environment on the Frontline 

Recent data from the Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA) highlights a concerning shift in the working environment for Enforcement Agents. Nearly half of the public (48%) admit they may react aggressively to a bailiff visit, reflecting the heightened tension surrounding enforcement activity. 

Recent data paints a concerning picture: 

• 58% say incidents of physical violence and threats are increasing  
• 56% of enforcement agents report facing verbal threats at least once a week  
• 97% have called for tougher consequences for members of the public who abuse or attack agents during their duties  

These figures reveal a profession under pressure, where confrontation is not the exception, but often the norm. 

Enforcement agents frequently enter emotionally charged environments. These are homes where individuals may already be under financial stress, anxiety, or distress. This volatility significantly increases the risk of verbal abuse, intimidation, and physical harm. 

These situations are complex, with tensions that can escalate quickly, even when procedures are followed correctly. 

The Wider Context: Financial Pressure and Increased Demand 

The broader economic landscape is also playing a role. The ongoing cost-of-living pressures have led to increased financial strain across many households, resulting in more cases progressing through enforcement channels. 

With this comes a natural consequence: more visits, more interactions, and greater exposure to unpredictable situations. 

It is important to recognise that, for many individuals, an enforcement visit represents a particularly difficult moment. At the same time, for Enforcement Agents, it represents a professional duty carried out within a legal framework. 

Balancing these two realities is one of the defining challenges of the role. 

The Human Impact on Enforcement Agents 

While much of the focus is often on the outcome of enforcement activity, less attention is given to the individuals carrying out the work. 

Regular exposure to: 

• Threats  
• Confrontation  
• Hostile environments  

This can lead to stress, burnout, and long-term mental health challenges. Despite this, many Enforcement Agents continue to carry out their duties with professionalism, supporting local authorities and helping recover funds that ultimately contribute to essential public services. 

Why Safety Must Be a Priority 

As the operating environment becomes more challenging, the need to prioritise safety becomes increasingly clear. 

This is not about a single solution, but a combination of measures, including: 

• Ongoing training in communication and de-escalation  
• Clear operational procedures and risk assessments  
• Appropriate support when higher-risk situations are identified  
• Stronger legal protections and penalties for violence and assault  

In high-risk scenarios, personal protective solutions, such as stab resistant vests, can provide a critical layer of defence against unpredictable threats. For many Enforcement Agents operating on the frontline, where they may encounter individuals in highly volatile or emotionally charged situations, the use of personal protective equipment is increasingly being considered an essential part of the role. 

While training, communication, and procedures remain the first line of defence, protective equipment can play a vital role in reducing the risk of serious injury. It only takes one encounter, at the wrong time, for a routine visit to escalate into a serious incident. 

Moving Forward 

Enforcement agents are a vital part of the UK’s justice and financial systems, but their safety cannot be taken for granted. The tragic events of 2026 serve as a stark reminder that no one should risk their life simply for doing their job. 

As enforcement activity continues to rise, so too must the commitment to protecting those on the front line. Balancing effective debt recovery with compassion and safety is one of the biggest challenges facing the industry today. 

But one thing is clear, protecting enforcement agents isn’t optional, it is essential.

The post The Dangers Facing Enforcement Agents in the UK appeared first on PPSS Group.

I recently did a post on LinkedIn about this but thought I would delve a little deeper and write an article. At PPSS Group we’ve seen many times that procurement decisions regarding what PPE should be issued to employees. Are being made by individuals who may not be directly involved in the operational side of things and may even not know the risks employees are facing.

In an ideal world, decisions around Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) would always be made with one guiding principle in mind: does this equipment genuinely protect the person wearing it in real-world conditions?

Unfortunately, that isn’t always the case.

Across many sectors like security, healthcare, corrections, mental health, education, enforcement, we’re increasingly see a disconnect between procurement-led decision making and operational reality. PPE is sometimes selected by individuals or teams who may be highly competent in cost control, tender compliance, and supplier management, but who do not routinely experience the environments or have little to no knowledge of the risks in which that equipment will be used.

That gap matters. And in high-risk roles, it can have serious consequences.

PPE is not a commodity. It is a risk control measure.

Procurement teams often operate under significant pressure:

• Budget constraints
• Framework agreements
• Standardisation targets
• Audit and compliance requirements

All of these are valid considerations. But PPE, particularly protective equipment designed to mitigate violence-related risks, is not simply another line item.

It is a control measure within a wider risk management strategy.

If that control is poorly specified, inadequately tested or certified, impractical, or unsuitable for the threat environment, it may:

• Not be worn consistently
• Be used incorrectly
• Equipment fails to protect when it matters most
• May not be certified to protect against specific risks

At that point, the organisation hasn’t just wasted money, it has created a false sense of safety.

The cost of decisions made too far from the front line.

One of the most common issues we encounter is PPE being specified based on:

• Paper-based standards alone
• Outdated threat assumptions
• Lowest-cost compliance
• Aesthetic or “perception” concerns

rather than:

• Actual incident data
• Current patterns of violence or assault
• Feedback from operational staff
• Real-world wearability and endurance
• A thorough risk assessment being carried out by a competent individual

When frontline professionals say “this won’t work for what we face” and that feedback is overridden or never sought, the organisation exposes itself to unnecessary risk operationally, ethically, and legally.

“Perception” should never trump risk assessment.

A particularly concerning trend is PPE being rejected because of how it might look rather than how well it protects.

Concerns such as:

• “It makes the environment look unsafe”
• “It sends the wrong message”
• “We don’t want to alarm the public”

These should never outweigh a proper risk assessment.

If staff are at credible risk of assault, edged weapons, biting, spitting, or blunt-force trauma, then PPE decisions must be grounded in evidence, not optics.

Failing to do so risks breaching an organisation’s duty of care and more importantly, risks preventable injuries to people simply doing their jobs.

Procurement and operations should be partners, not silos.

This is not a criticism of procurement professionals, far from it.

The solution is collaboration, not blame.

The strongest PPE decisions happen when:

• Procurement teams engage early with operational leaders
• End users are consulted and listened to
• Trials are conducted in real working conditions
• Risk assessments drive specifications, not the other way around

When procurement expertise and operational experience are aligned, organisations achieve better outcomes:

• Higher compliance
• Better protection
• Improved staff confidence
• Reduced incidents and injuries
• Reduced risk of litigation

A simple question every PPE decision should answer.

Before any PPE procurement decision is signed off, one question I would recommend which should be clearly and confidently answered:

“Would I be comfortable asking my own colleague, or family member, to rely on this equipment in that role?”

If the answer isn’t an unequivocal yes, then the decision deserves further scrutiny.

Closing thought.

Protective equipment exists for one reason: to protect people at risk and potentially save lives.

When procurement decisions drift too far from operational reality, that purpose can be lost. Bringing those perspectives back together isn’t just good practice, it’s a leadership responsibility.

Because when PPE fails, it’s never a spreadsheet that pays the price.

About the Author

Richard Fox is the CEO of PPSS Group. With over 30 years of service in the British Armed Forces and continued service as an Army Reservist Company Sergeant Major, he brings extensive operational leadership experience alongside deep knowledge of PPE compliance, quality assurance, and international safety standards. Appointed CEO in 2025 after serving as Global Operations Director, Richard oversees strategy and day-to-day operations while ensuring PPSS Group maintains the highest levels of product performance and certification.

The post Why PPE Procurement Decisions Must Prioritise Real Protection appeared first on PPSS Group.

Retail security today looks very different from even a decade ago. Historically, loss prevention focused primarily on opportunistic shoplifting and occasional in-store disputes. While theft was always a concern, incidents were generally isolated and rarely escalated into serious violence. That landscape has changed significantly.

Recent data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and industry bodies shows that retail crime, particularly shoplifting and violence against workers, has increased sharply across the UK.

A Sharp Rise in Recorded Offences in Retail Crime

Official figures show a clear upward trend in retail-related crime:

• Shoplifting offences in England and Wales rose by approximately 20% in the year to March 2025, reaching over 530,000 recorded offences – the highest level since records began in 2003.
• Retailers reported more than 20 million shoplifting incidents in the year to 2024 – equating to roughly 55,000 thefts per day when including unreported cases.
• Total losses to UK retailers from customer theft, prevention measures, and associated costs reached £4.2 billion annually in 2023/24.
• Convenience stores alone recorded an estimated 6.2 million theft incidents in the most recent reporting year.

These figures reflect more than short-term fluctuation. They point to sustained pressure on the retail sector, with organised retail crime and repeat offending becoming more prevalent.

Violence and Abuse Against Retail Workers Is Also Increasing

Retail crime is no longer solely about stock loss. The human impact has intensified. According to the British Retail Consortium (BRC):

• Incidents of violence and abuse rose to over 2,000 per day, compared with approximately 1,300 per day in previous years.
• Retailers report around 70 weapon-related incidents per day.
• Industry surveys indicate that a majority of retail workers have experienced threats, abuse, or violence linked to theft or robbery.

This shift changes the nature of retail security entirely. What was once primarily loss prevention has, in many environments, become frontline risk management.

What This Means for Retail Security Teams

Three major changes now define modern retail security risk:

1. The volume of theft has increased to the point where incidents are daily and often persistent. Retail crime is no longer sporadic — it is systemic.
2. Incidents increasingly involve aggression, intimidation, and organised groups rather than opportunistic petty theft.
3. Exposure of Staff
4. Security officers and retail employees face higher levels of confrontation, threats, and weapon-related risk than in previous decades.
5. The cumulative effect places sustained pressure on security teams, store management, and frontline staff.

How Retailers Are Responding

To address escalating risks, many retailers have invested in:

• Advanced CCTV and AI-driven analytics
• Personal Protection Measures
• Body-worn cameras
• Conflict management and de-escalation training
• Improved incident reporting systems
• Greater intelligence sharing with law enforcement
• In higher-risk environments, consideration of certified stab vests for frontline security personnel

However, many industry professionals argue that staffing levels, legal deterrence, and police response capacity have not kept pace with the scale and frequency of offences. This creates operational gaps particularly in high-footfall urban environments.

A New Era of Retail Security Risk

Retail security has evolved from visible deterrence to managing complex, high-frequency and, at times, violent threats. Technology plays a growing role. Training is increasingly critical. But the central factor remains people. Security professionals and retail workers are operating in an environment that is measurably more volatile than in previous years. Understanding these trends is not simply about acknowledging rising statistics, it is about recognising the real and personal risks faced by retail professionals every day.

About the Author

Jim Still is the Director of Business Development at PPSS Group and a former Royal Marine Commando. After serving in Afghanistan and Iraq and working as a Private Military Contractor, he brings extensive experience in risk management and personal protection.

Since joining PPSS Group in 2016, Jim has focused on developing and expanding protective solutions that help frontline professionals operate more safely in high-risk environments.

The post How Retail Security Has Changed and Why Retail Crime Is Increasing appeared first on PPSS Group.

A Growing Security Workforce and a Growing Exposure to Risk

In 2017, there were just over 317,000 active SIA licence holders in the UK. By December 2024, that number had risen to over 497,000, a 57% increase in only seven years. This tells us something important, that more people are working in environments where the potential for confrontation, aggression or violence is real. Whether that’s door supervision, retail security, healthcare security, transport hubs, or local authority operations. Even if only a modest proportion of these professionals operate in high-risk situations, the absolute number of individuals exposed to risk has grown significantly. It’s simple maths, more licence holders, more people needing protection.

The Threat Environment is Evolving

The rise in assaults on security personnel, retail staff, enforcement officers, and healthcare security has been widely reported. Knife crime remains high, and many frontline professionals now find themselves intervening in situations once handled exclusively by the police. Between 2015 and 2024, knife crime in England and Wales has remained consistently higher than a decade ago, with several spikes recorded during this period. According to the Office for National Statistics, knife-enabled offences rose from around 25,000 in 2015 to over 49,000 at their peak in 2019, before dipping slightly during the pandemic and then climbing again in the post-lockdown years. Whilst London continues to account for the largest proportion of incidents, the rise has been seen across multiple regions, including the Midlands and the North of England. Data from the Home Office shows from March 2024 to March 2025 there were 53,047 serious offences involving knives in England and Wales. This sustained level of knife crime has had a direct impact on those working in frontline security roles, increasing the likelihood of them encountering edged weapon threats in the course of their duties.

Duty of Care and Legal Pressure

Employers have a legal and moral duty to protect their people. Regulatory bodies and legal frameworks increasingly expect risk assessments to translate into tangible protective measures. If staff face a foreseeable risk of violence, providing appropriate PPE, including stab resistant body armour, becomes less of an option and more of an obligation. In the coming years, more organisations will recognise that failing to protect staff adequately is a serious liability.

Modern Body Armour Removes the Old Barriers

One of the most significant changes in recent years is product innovation. Gone are the days of bulky, uncomfortable stab vests. Modern protective solutions are lightweight, breathable and covert, allowing professionals to wear them for extended periods without discomfort or drawing unwanted attention. This shift is critical, because the more comfortable and discreet armour becomes, the easier it is for organisations to deploy it more widely. Wearing a stab vest once carried a stigma, it was seen as something only “heavy” security roles needed. That’s no longer the case. Wearing body armour today is viewed by many professionals as standard kit, much like a radio, high-viz or ID badge. As that culture continues to shift, resistance to adoption will fade, and expectation will rise.

Looking Ahead

The direction of travel is clear, we are seeing more licence holders in frontline security roles, and with that comes greater exposure to violence and aggression. Legal and moral pressure on employers to protect their teams continues to build, while modern, lightweight armour is making widespread deployment increasingly practical. At the same time, the culture around personal protection is shifting. What was once optional is fast becoming expected. The security workforce of tomorrow will be better protected, because it will have to be. The demand for effective, lightweight body armour is not just likely to rise, it’s inevitable.

About the author:

Richard Fox is the Director of Operations at PPSS Group, specialists in protective solutions for frontline professionals. If you want to talk to our team about stab resistant body armour options or other protective solutions we offer, you contact us here.

The post The Rising Demand for Stab Vests in UK Security appeared first on PPSS Group.

In response, the Ministry of Justice is implementing security enhancements, conducting Taser trials, and taking other measures to combat contraband and enhance safety in High-Security prisons. However, even with these proposed safety measures, prison unions argue that current actions are still insufficient.

This new trial has only come into effect since the BBC recently revealed that over the last five years, more than £20 million has been paid out in damages to staff and prisoners who have been assaulted due to the rise in prison violence.

The latest data paints a troubling picture: in the year to March 2025, prisons in England and Wales recorded 10,568 assaults on staff, a 7 % increase over the previous year, while total assaults rose to 30,846, up 9 %.

In such a climate of escalating violence, prison officers face unprecedented risk, both physically and mentally, and urgent action is required. Several high-profile, disturbing attacks in recent months illustrate just how dangerous the current situation has become:

• In April 2025, Hashem Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber’s brother, attacked three officers at HMP Frankland using boiling oil and homemade weapons, inflicting severe burns and stab wounds.
• In May, at HMP Belmarsh, the Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, scalded a prison officer with boiling water through a cell hatch, an assault that required hospital treatment.
• At HMP Long Lartin on 30 May 2025, a prison officer was brutally stabbed, prompting emergency surgery.
• Moreover, a drone-delivered knife attack at HMP Long Lartin reignited calls to equip staff with stab vests; Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood initiated a “rapid review” expected to approve their use.

All of these incidents point to a system under strain, overcrowding, inexperienced staffing, gang activity, and prison violence rising to record levels, which are converging to create a serious threat to officer and staff safety. According to Mark Fairhurst, National Chair of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA), officers at HMP Frankland were “absolutely traumatised” after the attack, and the victims face a long road to recovery. Fairhurst described the attack as occurring in a separation centre, a facility housing the most high-risk terrorist offenders in the UK and criticised the current allowances that enable prisoners to access cooking facilities and resources to fashion weapons. He emphasised:

“Separation centres are there for one reason and one reason alone: to control and contain the most prolific and serious terrorist offenders. Basic entitlements are all they require. Everything else must be strictly controlled.”

Fairhurst also highlighted the longstanding issue of protective equipment:

“We’ve been calling for several years for staff to be issued with professional stab-proof vests. This has been consistently denied because of concerns it might look militaristic or intimidate prisoners. Staff safety should always be the priority.”

His comments underscore the urgent need for frontline protection against increasingly violent incidents. However, this isn’t the first incident that has prompted the request for urgent action to increase protection measures inside prisons. The POA has highlighted that a significant number of assaults over the past several years have not been fully investigated or addressed, leading to staff feeling unprotected and at risk.

The Pros and Cons of Not Protecting Prison Officers

Since 2010, budgets for prisons have been cut, the number of inmates has increased, sentences have become longer, and staffing levels have plummeted. The mounting pressure on the UK Prison Service to do more with less has inevitably led to the situation where physical violence is at an all-time high, and fast action needs to be taken to prevent further escalation. The need for a solution to the problem is not a simple fix, yet there are practical steps that can be taken to reduce the risks involved and that are easily implemented. One of those steps is by introducing protective body armour to frontline staff who need it most.

Mike Bird, a former National Instructor with the National Tactical Response Group (NTRG), recently shared his thoughts on the current situation within the UK Prison Service and the real cost of not protecting prison officers:

“We get it, budgets are tight. The justice sector has been under pressure for years. But if financial pressure is the reason staff aren’t being issued proper protective equipment, then the logic doesn’t hold up. Because let’s be honest, how much longer can the system afford these constant payouts, sick leave, recruitment costs, and legal claims? More importantly, how long can we ask frontline officers to put themselves in danger with little more than training, a radio and their instinct?”

Having spent over 20 years working in the UK Prison Service, Mike has been an advisor to the Prison Service and Police Forces both in the UK and worldwide, supporting front-line staff in some of the most challenging work settings. He understands the pressure the UK Prison Service is under and knows first-hand the difficulties facing staff in the modern-day correctional system.

As of September this year, the UK government has recently announced a major safety boost in protective body armour for frontline prison staff in high-security prisons. An investment of £15 million will increase the number of prison officers with stab vests from 750 to nearly 10,000 officers with essential protective equipment. The initiative will also see up to 500 prison officers trained to use Tasers, significantly scaling up the initial trial announced this summer for 20 specialist staff. These new safety measures appear to be ticking the right boxes; however, we should still question whether this recent announcement is genuinely for the benefit of the Prison Service or simply political posturing aimed at presenting a tough stance on law and order.

Preventing Escalation and Protecting Lives

While surveillance technology, staffing increases, AI-driven risk assessment, and trialling Tasers are steps in the right direction, they cannot prevent every violent incident that happens behind prison walls, especially those occurring in close quarters or executed with improvised weapons.

• Close encounters during cell checks, conflict resolution, or door control remain particularly hazardous, even under surveillance cameras.
• Improvised weapons and scalding liquids can bypass rigid protocols and readily available tools, leaving officers exposed.

Thus, there is a clear and pressing need for effective personal protection, not just deterrence strategies or technological fixes.

Why Body Armour Offers a Simple Solution to the Problem

Currently, in the UK, the level of protection that Prison Officers have been provided has been minimal to none. This is where the PPSS Group steps in. Our stab-resistant body armour is purpose-designed for custodial environments and offers frontline officers a critical layer of protection. Here’s how it works:

• Rapid deployment: Lightweight and easy to wear during daily duties, no cumbersome suits required.
• Targeted protection: Constructed to absorb puncture energy from sharp objects, blades, improvised weapons, and other threats common in prison assaults.
• Proven performance: Engineered and tested for real-world prison risks; robust enough to stand up to the kinds of violent acts we’ve seen this year.

Why this matters now more than ever:

• The UK Prison Officers who were attacked earlier this year had little warning before each attack, and even less protection to prevent serious injury.
• Stab-resistant body armour can make the difference between being hospitalised with life-threatening injuries and walking away from a survivable encounter.
• Rapid, unplanned incidents, especially involving scalding liquids, leave staff vulnerable in seconds. That’s why PPE that protects the torso is essential.
• Body armour is an essential piece of equipment designed to give officers the confidence to do their job without fear of injury, knowing they are protected.

Conclusion

2025 has brought record highs in assaults and self-harm incidents across the UK, with frontline staff bearing the brunt of the violence. High-security prisons are seeing knives, boiling oils, and drones weaponised against those sworn to maintain order. While we understand that body armour is not the solution to all the problems facing the prison system, we believe it is a practical and urgently needed safeguard for staff in these dangerous working conditions. Combined with broader reforms, enhanced training, and increased government funding, essential PPE such as our stab-resistant body armour is proven to protect against life-threatening attacks. This benefits everyone from management to staff and even prisoners. Creating a safer environment for both officers and inmates effectively reduces workplace injuries, helps increase staff retention, and lowers compensation claims, all while ultimately saving lives.

About the Author:

Mike Bird, Director of Corporate Relations at PPSS Group

With over 35 years’ experience in custodial, security, and care settings, Mike brings extensive expertise in handling highly hostile, challenging, and complex individuals. After 20 years in the Prison Service, specialising in the Use of Force and serving as a National Instructor at the National Tactical Response Group (NTRG), Mike has since provided training and consultancy services to Police and Prison Services in the UK, Africa, Asia and Europe.

The post Assaults on Prison Staff Hit Record Highs in 2025 appeared first on PPSS Group.

It should be noted that it’s not just the larger most populated nations that are the only ones dealing with the problems highlighted above.

Violence Reaches Even Smaller, Respected Nations Like New Zealand

Take New Zealand for example, an island country of two main landmasses, North Island and South Island, located in the southwestern Pacific Ocean and neighbours to Australia. With an estimated 2025 population of around 5.3 million and a population density of around 19.7 people per square kilometre, it’s a sparse open country.

However, data collected from the NZ Department of Corrections/Ara Poutama Aotearoa from 2015 to present, shows a fluctuating but concerning pattern of serious assaults in New Zealand prisons over the past decade. The highest recorded incidents occurred in 2018-19 with 29 serious assaults and 2020-21 with 28 serious assaults, well above the ten-year average of 21. While there was a notable decline to 17-18 incidents in years like 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2021-22.

However, the trend in recent years appears to be rising again, with 24 serious assaults in 2022-23 and 26 in 2023-24.

It should be noted that the data for 2024-25 is incomplete, and the number of 20 in the table below inevitably will rise higher.

The data paints a picture of a correctional system under ongoing strain. Assaults on prison staff are not isolated incidents, but part of a wider trend that spans across New Zealand’s prison network, from maximum security to remand facilities.

According to the New Zealand Department of Corrections:

“Assaults in prisons, whether against other prisoners and frontline staff, are unacceptable. Corrections staff come to work every day to keep New Zealanders safe. They deal with some of New Zealand’s most challenging people and do an exceptional and brave job in often very difficult circumstances.”
Source – Corrections NZ

Increased volatility has been attributed not just to overcrowding and staffing shortages, but to the changing nature of New Zealand’s prison population. As highlighted by the New Zealand Herald:

“Since then, we have safely reduced the prison population to manageable levels. But while doing that, we have continued to lock up our most violent and dangerous criminals. This has resulted in a far higher proportion of gang members in prison. Combined with a rise in prisoners experiencing more mental health and addiction issues, it has led to a more volatile environment for Corrections officers to manage.”
Source – NZ Herald

Most notable to stand out of all the 19 prison sites spread across New Zealand was Auckland Prison, it had the most serious assaults over the past decade. Auckland Prison was responsible for 21% of all serious assaults in the male prisons. It should be noted that Auckland Prison is the country’s only specialist maximum-security facility.

The NZ Dept of Corrections classifies assaults under the following definitions:

Serious: an act of physical violence that involves one or more of the following:

• bodily harm requiring medical intervention by medical staff followed by overnight hospitalisation (beyond initial assessment or medical observation) in a medical facility.
• bodily harm requiring extended periods of on-going medical intervention.
• sexual assault of any form where Police charges have been laid.

Non-serious: an act of physical violence that results in physical injuries that may require:

• medical treatment, and/or overnight hospitalisation as part of initial assessment
• medical observation but not on-going medical treatment (e.g. blood nose, x-ray required, cuts requiring minimal stiches, gouging, or bites).

Non-injury: an act of physical violence that does not result in:

• physical injuries or require any form of medical treatment (e.g. kicking, shoving, jostling, striking, or punching that did not result in injury).

Non-serious assaults account for an average of 254 per year across NZ prisons.

The Mount Eden Corrections Facility and again, Auckland Prison, stand out by a fair margin of the prisons with the most non-serious assaults. With Auckland Prison having 346 over the past decade and Mt Eden Corrections Facility having a whopping 456. Mt Eden serves as the main reception prison for newly remanded male prisoners in NZ, the high figure of assaults likely reflects the hectic nature of early detention periods.

A positive to note, although very slowly, there has been a decline in non-serious assaults since 2019-20 to present, as shown in the graph above.

So, it begs the question, what should NZ Dept of Corrections do? I’m sure they’re very aware that corrections officers are not there for collateral damage. They’re performing one of the toughest jobs in the public sector and deserve the best protections that can be afforded.

Root causes that lead to problems should be addressed, like understaffing for example, in recent years it has been reported in the media that the NZ Dept of Corrections is down by more than 850 frontline staff. A lack of staff means that prison programmes, time out of cells, and visiting hours will be cut due to health and safety concerns. This in turn will lead to more stress and frustration in the prison populations, resulting in potential assaults.

The Suitability of Stab Vests and Body Armour

Since 2015 the NZ Dept of Corrections have trialled and issued stab resistant body armour and body worn cameras. Is the body armour they have suitable and current? ‘Stab vests’ have evolved over the years and improved greatly. Super strong and light-weight options like ours that are made from a special bespoke blend of carbon fibre. These offer the wearer superb and certified all-round protection, not just from edged weapons and spikes, but from blunt force trauma attacks.

Prison leadership and policymakers, as well as the union (Corrections Association of New Zealand (CANZ)) must come together and prioritise staff safety. This means reviewing current protective equipment standards, enhancing de-escalation training, increasing staffing ratios, and ensuring robust post-incident support.

A measure of a fair and moral Department of Corrections is not only how it treats its prisoners, but also how it protects those who guard them.

About the Author:

Mike Bird, Director of Corporate Relations at PPSS Group

With over 35 years’ experience in custodial, security, and care settings, Mike brings extensive expertise in handling highly hostile, challenging, and complex individuals. After 20 years in the prison service, specialising in the Use of Force and serving as a National Instructor at the National Tactical Response Group (NTRG), Mike has since provided training and consultancy services to police and prison services in the UK, Africa, Asia and Europe.

The post Violence Against Prison Staff is Intensifying appeared first on PPSS Group.

According to the CDC, 70% of all workplace trauma incidents in 2019 occurred in the healthcare sector. The reports show that healthcare workers are four times more likely to experience workplace violence than workers in private industry.  

In the UK, the statistics tell a similar story, according to the latest 2024 NHS Staff Survey, approximately 1 in 7 NHS staff (14.38%) have experienced at least one incident of physical violence from patients, their relatives or other members of the public last year.  

The data shows that physical violence on healthcare staff has increased by almost 14% since 2023. However, this does not account for the number of incidents that don’t get reported each year. The fact remains that at least 25% of NHS staff who experience physical violence at work do not report it to the authorities, even though the data shows that reporting has gradually improved since 2022. 

The report reveals that 1 in 4 NHS staff have experienced at least one incident of harassment, bullying, or abuse from patients or members of the public in 2024. It also shows that only 54% of Staff who experienced harassment, bullying or abuse reported the incident to a senior colleague. That means that almost half (46%) of the abuse that goes on in hospitals and healthcare facilities goes unheard. Unsurprisingly, over 41% of NHS staff have admitted feeling unwell due to work-related stress in the last 12 months.  

These numbers may only be statistics, yet they indicate a clear rise in workplace violence and abuse, signalling a deeper crisis impacting recruitment, morale, and most critically, safety in healthcare. 

The Unique Challenge Facing Healthcare Security Services 

Hospital security officers are required to manage far more than traditional security threats. As the Former NHS Head of Healthcare Security, John Currie explains: 

 “What can be a quiet Emergency Department or Ward can suddenly erupt into an exceptionally violent, aggressive, and volatile situation in the blink of an eye.” 

These officers must not only protect staff and patients but also respond with sensitivity to those suffering from mental health conditions, dementia, or drug-induced psychosis. Their role often includes: 

• Working collaboratively with clinical teams 

• Conducting rapid, dynamic risk assessments 

• Applying healthcare-based conflict resolution tactics 

• Understanding mental health and dementia care principles 

This high-pressure, dynamic environment demands specialised skills and appropriate protective measures. 

What Security Training is Available to Healthcare Staff 

To support the challenges faced by security officers in the care industry, many healthcare providers now invest in bespoke training far beyond standard SIA Physical Intervention qualifications. Advanced programs often include: 

• PMVA (Prevention and Management of Violence and Aggression) 

• Patient dignity and safeguarding protocols 

• Mental health and dementia awareness 

• Bed-based restraint techniques 

Crucially, these training methods are clinically integrated, ensuring officers can act legally, ethically, and with empathy. 

Why PPE for Security Officers Is a Necessity, not a Choice 

Despite these realities, hospital security officers have historically been discouraged from wearing PPE such as stab vests due to concerns over its perception, specifically, looking “too paramilitary.” But as threats increase, this perception is rapidly changing. 

Hospital security guards face the daily risk of being assaulted by unstable patients or members of the public using knives, needles or any makeshift weapon. Many security guards and hospital staff have to deal with these threats with little more than their wits and limited training. And in some tragic cases, the lack of PPE has led to serious injury or even death, prompting scrutiny from Health and Safety Executives and Coroners over whether employers did enough to mitigate foreseeable risks. 

As a result, more Trusts and private healthcare providers are now issuing more essential PPE to hospital staff and healthcare security officers, such as body-worn video cameras, cut-resistant clothing, and most critically, stab-resistant body armour. 

At PPSS Group, we currently supply approximately 66 hospitals, NHS Trusts or healthcare teaching clinics with certified stab-resistant body armour to healthcare security officers in the UK. However, the NHS infrastructure in England alone has a huge footprint, including 1,140 hospitals and 7,500 primary care sites. 

As a main provider of certified stab-resistant PPE, we supply less than 6% of NHS hospitals with the lifesaving protection their security teams need to keep staff and patients safe. That means that potentially 94% of NHS healthcare security officers in the UK lack the proper protection required to do the job.   

The Role of Body Armour Protection in Healthcare Security 

PPSS Stab-Resistant Body Armour is designed for unpredictable, high-risk environments like busy city hospitals, clinics and care sites. However, unlike military-style vests, PPSS body armour is: 

• Lightweight and discreet 

• Comfortable for long shifts and agile movement 

• Seamlessly integrated with standard hospital uniforms 

• Resistant to knives, spikes, hypodermic needles and blunt force trauma 

• Home Office Certified for knife resistance (KR1) and spike resistance (SP1) 

• NIJ Standard Certification – Threat Level 1 for spikes and edged blades 

For security staff involved in physical interventions, whether restraining a violent patient or preventing a weapon-based assault, this protection can mean the difference between going home safe or not going home at all. 

Equipping hospital security teams with body armour not only improves physical safety but also reduces injury-related absences and compensation claims, boosts morale and confidence, and demonstrates a tangible commitment to duty of care. 

Technology That Supports Healthcare Officer Safety 

Personal protective equipment is vital, but it must be part of a larger system of safety. Many hospitals now implement robust security procedures, including: 

• Access control systems: Restricting entry to high-risk zones 

• Emergency communication tools: Enabling coordinated responses 

• Wearable panic buttons: Allowing discreet and instant calls for help 

• Video surveillance: Supporting both deterrence and post-incident analysis 

• Visitor ID verification and staff background checks: Reducing internal threats 

Additionally, clear policies around restraint, aggression management, and incident reporting help shape a workplace culture where safety is prioritised. 

Hospital security officers must also be briefed on up-to-date risk assessments, particularly when dealing with patients transferred from police custody. Given that many work in small teams without access to mechanical restraints, timely communication is essential. 

A Safer Hospital Starts with Protecting Security Staff 

When hospital security officers are well-equipped, well-trained, and well-supported, the entire care environment becomes safer. These officers act as the first line of defence, helping clinical teams maintain calm, prevent escalation, and protect vulnerable patients. Investing in their welfare, both physical and psychological, isn’t just the right thing to do but a strategic necessity in today’s healthcare landscape. 

A Critical Layer of Protection 

Workplace violence in healthcare isn’t a distant concern; it’s happening now, in hospitals across the UK and worldwide. For healthcare providers serious about improving safety, now is the time to re-evaluate protocols, training, and equipment. 

PPSS Stab-Resistant Body Armour offers a critical layer of protection for those who risk their lives to keep others safe. Combining this with the right training, effective procedures, and a safety-first culture can transform healthcare security from a vulnerable weak spot into a cornerstone of care. 

About the Author

Richard Fox is the Director of Operations at PPSS Group, a UK and US registered company specialising in high-performance body armour and protective clothing. With a military background, Richard brings over three decades of experience to his role. At PPSS Group, he oversees global operations, HR, quality assurance, and compliance. Richard is committed to advancing personal safety solutions for frontline professionals and individuals at risk from workplace violence, ensuring they have access to the most effective protective gear available.

The post Why Healthcare Security Officers Need Better Protection appeared first on PPSS Group.