Security


Within the last few years, there has been a noticeable rise in ‘high-profile disruption’ incidents occurring at protected heritage sites and museums in the UK. Groups and activists attempting to attract media attention from these sites via public stunts and disruptive behaviour have unfortunately become a regular occurrence, and managing these incidents will require a new approach from the security industry as a result.


In investigating this we recently


asked our network about the biggest security concerns they were facing, and the results were stark. Over 1 in 3 respondents now list anti-social behaviour as their biggest concern as we head into the summer.


This shift away from theft paints a worrying


picture and demands a


change in direction. Where security firms at museums and heritage sites in the past have zeroed in on asset protection, today’s environment will require the industry to pay greater attention to managing behaviour and protecting people to maintain safe sites.


For instance, in December 2025, apple crumble and custard were thrown at the Crown Jewels in the Tower of London during a public demonstration. More than £600 of damage was caused to the Crown Jewels casing and the museum floor, with the exhibition having to temporarily close to the public. The incident gained widespread attention across social media and the press, understandably distressing families and tourists hoping to see a cultural landmark.


In our view, the growing prominence of disruptive anti-social behaviour means the industry must pivot towards contingency planning by default. Rather than over relying upon mere visible deterrence to keep sites safe.


What This Means In Practice


Traditional security models for heritage sites focus heavily on presence and deterrence, with fixed staffing levels, and limited integration between security and local policing. These approaches are proving less effective in today’s world for several reasons. In the UK, the vast majority of our heritage sites are open-air, intentionally designed for mass public accessibility. While this brings great public benefit, these sites make easy targets for groups looking to cause mass disruption. Between limited perimeter security controls and a pre-arranged number of


patrol staff throughout the day, disruption is easier to achieve than many expect.


At present, coordination between these sites and local policing resources is, quite frankly lacklustre. In fact, many incidents sit in a ‘grey zone’ between public order policing and private site security, which can create response delays and develop unclear responsibilities for security teams.


Managing these evolving threat behaviours is more difficult for professionals. Spontaneous protest activity and coordinated ‘fast impact’ disruption tactics are much harder to anticipate than traditional theft and loss prevention. Static approaches are not efficient for deterring this type of crime when the disruption has longer lasting consequences.


To protect heritage sites against evolving threats and avoid further damage or public disturbance, we believe a different approach is required to manage these incidents - one that is more complex and focuses on contingency planning.


fmuk 35


With this in mind, we are taking an adaptive, risk-led approach and tailoring of our deployments to our customer’s needs. We believe intelligence-led strategies combined with physical security measures are the way forward, ensuring we are prepared for every scenario thrown at our teams.


This


training, proactive monitoring, and coordinated planning,


includes behavioural incident


eliminating concerns from the outset.


Staff at heritage sites are often managing both security and customer service day to day,


leaving them to juggle many


responsibilities. By teaching staff to adapt to the evolving environment, they become more aware of how low-level disruptive behaviour can take hold, and gain an in-depth knowledge of potential threats against the specific site they service.


Retaining mobile response options, as a central tenet of contingency planning, should be a standard way of working going forward. Being able to deploy additional colleagues when incidents take place ensures open-air sites remain surveyed, regardless of the situation.


This is a clear evolution within the sector; security can


no longer being reactive when


servicing heritage sites and museums. Contingency planning and tailored approaches will set apart firms in this space for years to come.


‘grey zone’ analysis response So, What Is The Solution?


The days of one-size-fits-all security models are gone, and instead it’s necessary to tailor packages to our customer’s needs.


The evolving risk landscape across heritage sites therefore requires us to think outside the box and prioritise new measures to ensure the effective security of these spaces. We have to be prepared, not solely react.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52