More details are emerging about the director at the centre of the Jubilee stewards scandal. The Learning Development Centre — owned by workfare trainer/employer Molly Prince — has been using a sham office at the University of Salford in order to gain an air of legitimacy:

The home page of their website proudly proclaims:

“The Leadership Development Centre Limited launched from Technology House @ The University of Salford’s Campus, we are an Independent Training Provider who specialise in security training…”

Perhaps, like many of Prince’s other businesses, it is run from a back street in a down-at-heel area of Wigan — alongside the infamous Close Protection UK.

In response to Scrapbook’s query, the University of Salford told us:

“Leadership Development Centre rents a subsidiary ‘virtual’ office from the university on a commercial basis and has no other relationship with us … LDCUK does not provide any other training services to staff or students.”

Something smells funny.

IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING MORE ABOUT THE JUBILEE STEWARDS, MOLLY PRINCE OR HER COMPANIES, PLEASE LET US KNOW.

  1. I’ve just contacted the SIA to ask them if they remain confident of CPUK’s fitness to retain their “approved SIA contractor” status. I’ve also asked for some info re. the process of awarding “approved contractor” status to wannabe trainers (i.e. do they check out the prospective training organisation e.g. their financial health? Their Managing Director’s past directorships?). I’ll keep you informed of their response: @EamonnMy10cents

  2. I know something about the jubilee stewards. Most of them it seems had a pretty good time and are happy for the chance of a job:

    Robert Cooke, 30, from Plymouth:

    “Organisers found somewhere for us to shelter, and said that if any of us wanted to get into our sleeping bags to keep warm, then we could. Most of us just stayed up chatting. It was a good laugh, and we had access to the portable loos the whole time. They have paid for all the training for my licence and an NVQ in crowd safety. They gave us boots worth £80, and a uniform. We worked out that what they’ve spent is the equivalent of us being paid £45 an hour.”

    Kirsty Nicholls, 23, also from Plymouth:

    “I would like to thank CPUK for the amazing experience I was a part of this weekend. I am extremely grateful for this opportunity. We were treated with the utmost respect and highly praised for the work we had done. I personally volunteered to do all three days work as I found the experience incredibly pleasurable. I look forward to a long career with CPUK.”

    Markus Hanks, another volunteer, said:

    “Thanks for a great time at the Diamond Jubilee. Brilliant company to work for, great staff, brilliant atmosphere between everyone, looking forward to working with Close Protection UK again at the London 2012 Olympics. I’m supporting you and the Close Protection UK 110%.”

  3. Harry Cole as in Paul Staines’ errand boy? You’re hardly impartial. How did you get these testimonies?

    BTW – who is the ‘you’ Markus Hanks refers to in his?

  4. @ Harry Cole

    Hi Harry, can you please disclose what your relationship, direct or otherwise, is with CPUK or Molly Price?

    Many thanks x

  5. And they don’t sound remotely like the carefully pre-scripted responses of people told they’ll be given jobs if they’ll defend CPUK.

    It’s ridiculous that righties are defending this company, which goes against one of their most manically defended believes: Money for services tendered.

  6. Were these people given at the jobs at the olympics to say that, cause i’ve the exact opposite

  7. Forensic Accountant says:

    Great link by S.Preece and if followed it would appear that Close Protection UK is insolvent according to the published data.

    It just gets worse.

    Could anyone out there do some due diligence with respect to Close Protection UK ?

  8. Harry Sole? I’ve no idea what I was thinking there, maybe something about fish…or something one might pick up on the bottom of ones shoe.

  9. Heard that this sister comp to CPUK is where Jubilee Money went. If true v bad for govt if registered twice with different details

  10. And back to where we started 3rd director number and name of Mary

    Ms Mary Prince has 9 company director or secretary appointments.

    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 911160566
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966
    (For security reasons we only show Month/Year)

    Director check link with all three:

    http://company-director-check.co.uk/search?postcode=wn&name=mary+prince

    Search for “mary prince”

    Refine your director search by postcode, enter at least the first 2 characters:

    Postcode: WN

    Showing Results 1 to 3 of 3

    Ms Mary Prince
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince

  11. “Say these lovely things about us or we’ll stop your benefits.” That’s the truth, isn’t it, Harry Cole?

  12. It is concerning about the Leadership Development Centre being registered twice more than the other registrations all of which seem to be illegal if you are right Tony. Registering the same company twice with MD giving same name and different dates of birth is worse

  13. http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/911160566
    there is this one:- it all becomes very odd, I am not to certain if it is two different people but if it I think someone is breaking the law.
    The company address is I think a caravan site so maybe there is an extended family there and this might help answer why there is Mary, Molly Mrs Marry whatever etc, but I think it should be looked into

  14. I was wondering why universities are renting out “subsidiary ‘virtual’ offices”. Actually moreover, I was wondering what they are.

    And finally, I was wondering who wrote these glowing references so kindly provided by Mr Cole.

  15. 2nd Close Protection UK registration same thing with dob but this time different name

    http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/911160566

    Director Summary

    Ms Mary Prince has 9 company director or secretary appointments.

    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 911160566
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966
    (For security reasons we only show Month/Year)

    Address

    15 King Street
    Hindley, Wigan
    Lancashire
    WN2 3AW

    Advertise on this website

    Company Summary

    Company Name Company Status
    CLOSE PROTECTION UK LIMITED Active
    VOLUNTARY EVENT SERVICES LIMITED Dissolved
    CPUK.COM LIMITED Dissolved
    ANGEL EVENT SOLUTIONS LIMITED Dissolved
    EVENT SAFETY SOLUTIONS LIMITED Dissolved
    VENUSEC LIMITED Dissolved
    DMD SECURITY LIMITED Dissolved
    LDCUK LTD Dissolved
    LDCUK LTD

  16. that appears to be apparent common practice in what may possibly ! be called the lower end of the security industry , it at least appears that what is described as a sham address at Salford University is an accommodation address – the respectable front if you will .

    I’ve even known one firm run from a council house – cuts overheads down , whilst mail was sent to an address on a Industrial Estate ; another practice is close / matrimonial relatives on the board ? , even known of one where the boss and his apparently greedy wife ( according to a card carrying Tory ) were alleged to be on benefits and when it came to pay day for his guards , she’d allegedly shuffle monies between different accounts – people are entitled to draw whatever conclusions they like from that …another one to look at maybe …let’s just say some ! appear to juggle a lot of balls in the air and operate on the edge as it were .

    That picture tallies with the ” tired looking old shop in Hindley ” allegations in that very ” interesting ” account from the apparent ex serviceman that went for ” training ” for a civilian security licence . Based on experience , this has got bouncer agency written all over it …of course I could be completley mistaken and / or be too cynical and jaundiced .

    However these bouncer agencies can sometimes be a bit ” territorial ” …it wouldn’t do be on someone’s patch otherwise …things can possibly get a bit tasty , and it would be possibly prudent for some security firms to look for work elsewhere and branch out if you will , based on my experience .

    Wigan can be a bit ? rough , Wiganners knocking seven bells out of each other is a apparent spectator sport ……a lot of pubs have to have bouncers to keep their licences ……..there’s been some ” interesting ” comments about Mrs Prince’s background , these commenters could be getting ” very warm ” , failing that mistaken .

    This is ” interesting ” ……..from traditional centre right authoritarian types …however with Dave’s MOD cuts trying to turn the clock back to the pre Crimean War era …..when the supply side to the army was privatised …..there’s going to be a lot of redundant servicemen looking for work in civvy street and it wouldn’t do for the employment market to be flooded with seemingly poorly trained wannabes with apparent mickey mouse vocational qualifications …….not all security firms are benevolvent to servicemen , there’s too many line manager types and jumped up ” aggressive types ” in suits that envy and fear ex servicemen ….threatened even , as their ability is possibly questioned ? . http://www.arrse.co.uk/intelligence-cell/182855-jubilee-olympic-security-jobseekers-working-free.html

  17. another 2 and another name

    http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/916699536

    Director Summary

    Mrs Molly Prince has 2 company director or secretary appointments.

    Short name – Molly Prince
    Director ID : 916699536
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966
    (For security reasons we only show Month/Year)

    Address

    15 King Street
    Hindley
    Wigan
    Lancashire
    United Kingdom
    WN2 3AW

    Advertise on this website

    Company Summary

    Company Name Company Status
    VISION LIFESTYLE LIMITED Active
    COMMITMENT FITNESS LIMITED Active

  18. yes Freyda

    just to spell it out becouse it might be me being stupid and on the wrong track here.
    Neither of which is CPUK I am sorry but try as I may, I just can’t reconcile the listings with Molly Prince being the director of CPUK and acting within the law as I understand it (I could be wrong)

  19. Address in King St and name of Prince, same dates of birth, they fact she calls herself Molly Prince when she is dealing with media and is registered as Mary and Mary Jane with different dates of birth on director searches for Close ProtectionUK. Sorry if it is the stupid bit-nothing I can do on that one

  20. Molly Prince is the person who presents herself as the MD of CPUK when it is infact registered in one instance to Mary and another to Mary Jane. One of them as the same dob as Molly one has dob in1970 not 1966. All of them plus CP UK are at the King St address

  21. this is frying my brains
    just on Mary Jane Prince

    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 1 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 916371765
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1970
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 1 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 916371820
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1970
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 4 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 909696726
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966

  22. Tony add to that the Mary with 9 appointments
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 911160566
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966

  23. I am lost myself. Would be helpful if you could do a list like that for everything Tony. I am well and Truly fed up of it now

  24. Outinthecold says:

    Can anyone find out if all these “potential” employees actually had been issued with, and were in possession of, an SIA photoID card at the event?

    If they didn’t then dear Molly is in even deeper cack.

  25. To Summarise

    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 4 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 909696726
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 1 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 916371765
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1970
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 4 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 909696726
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966
    Ms Mary Prince has 9 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 911160566
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 1 company director or secretary appointments.

    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 916371820
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1970
    Mrs Molly Prince has 2 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Molly Prince
    Director ID : 916699536
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966

    CPUK registered twice under different names and dates of birth and The Leadership Development Centre twice under the same name with different dates of birth

  26. Outinthecold says:

    Licensing Requirements for the ACS

    An ACS application, or existing approval, may be jeopardised if your organisation does not continue to meet mandatory licensing requirements for your licensable staff. Achieving and maintaining approval is dependent upon your organisation having at least the designated percentage of your security staff licensed at all times, regardless of whether or not they are currently deployed.

    From 1 September 2006, for all licensable activities a minimum of 85% of licensable staff must hold a licence at all times. This means that, at most, 15% of your staff may have their applications in progress – that is, their licence applications have been accepted by the SIA. By ‘accepted’ we mean that we have confirmed that we are processing those applications.

    You are eligible to apply for ACS if your organisation meets the relevant requirements detailed in the table below. These requirements include licences issued and applications in progress. Note that staff who have their applications in progress must not perform any licensable activity until your organisation has been approved, including authorisation to issue Licence Dispensation Notices (which has not been withdrawn), and those staff have been issued with a personal Licence Dispensation Notice.

    Licence Dispensation Notice

    Authorisation to deploy security staff while their licence applications are being processed is given to an Approved Contractor in the form of an SIA Licence Dispensation Notice (LDN).

    The Approved Contractor then issues a personal LDN to each individual member of staff who is entitled to work under the terms of this dispensation. The personal LDN is issued on an Approved Contractor’s own stationery but conforming to a template issued by us. The template requires:

    the name of the Approved Contractor, contact details and the signature of a representative;
    the name of the individual operative, contact details and their signature;
    the individual operative’s SIA licence application reference number;
    an expiry date for the Personal LDN;
    the sectors for which the LDN applies.

    Even if an LDN has been issued, an offence is still committed under Section 3 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 unless all of the following circumstances apply:

    the person has applied for a licence and the application is pending;
    the licence applied for is for the activity in which the individual is engaged;
    the person hasn’t previously been refused a licence for that activity;
    the employer is an Approved Contractor for the relevant activity (sector) under the ACS;
    the SIA has authorised the employer to deploy employees whose licence applications are pending.

    It is also a breach of the ACS terms and conditions to deploy more members of staff under licensing dispensation than authorised, to deploy members of staff without issuing personal LDNs, or to fail to keep adequate records of the use of licensing dispensation. Misuse of the licence dispensation facility, whether as an Approved Contractor or otherwise, may result in the refusal of future applications for Approved status, the withdrawal of the licence dispensation facility and / or the withdrawal of Approved status, as deemed appropriate by us.

  27. Sorry put this twice
    Mrs Mary Jane Prince has 4 company director or secretary appointments.
    Short name – Mary Prince
    Director ID : 909696726
    Month/Year of Birth: 01/1966

  28. Tony or if you are the same person. Seems to be a lot of coincidences but could be 3 Mary Jane Princes, 2 with the same date of birth, connected with King St. You never know do you? She has not denied she is boss of the Salford one though

  29. This is stupid Molly is the MD it says so Molly Prince | Managing Director| The Leadership Development Centre. | Close Protection UK Limited, ..

  30. As someone who has done an apprenticeship with LDC I can say that LDC is a completely useless company. I didn’t even complete my apprenticeship with them as they were that useless. After being took on by the company and being told that I would be given tuition on a weekly basis, I did not have hardly any contact with anyone in the company for at least 4 months, by which point I had given up even wanting to do the course. Other people at the same training with the same company have also has several problem the main one being payment of wages, which were hardly ever paid on time

  31. Definitely consider that that you said. Your favorite justification appeared to be on the web the simplest thing to take into accout of. I say to you, I definitely get annoyed at the same time as other people consider worries that they just do not understand about. You controlled to hit the nail upon the highest and defined out the entire thing without having side-effects , other people could take a signal. Will probably be back to get more. Thanks

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

1000

Comments are limited to 1000 characters.