Dear Friends,
I am unclear as to what is being prioritised for protection here.

I think we should always be prioritising personal safety over property, but, and maybe this is just my interpretation of what I have been reading, it see most of the discussion has been about property.

Having been confronted by a homeless person in our toilets who was cutting his hair and turned towards me aggressively with scissors in his hand, I am mindufl that I was fortunate enought that he was not between me and the exit. We called the ploice who encouraged him to leave. I am confident that had my exit been blocked by the homeless person that taking out my phone to call for help would have catalysed the situation, and probably not in my favour!

I noted that Oxford seemed to use a WhatApp group to confirm wellbeing at the end of a shift, I would question whether abscence of a message at the end of the day, compared to recieving a message, would trigger action. 

HSE have some very good information on Protecting those who work alone, it states:

Lone working does not always mean a higher risk of violence, but it does make workers more vulnerable. The lack of nearby support makes it harder for them to prevent an incident.
...

Some of the key workplace violence risks include:

• late evening or early morning work, when fewer workers are around
• lone workers, such as security staff, who have authority over customers and are enforcing rules
• people affected by alcohol or drugs
• carrying money or valuable equipment

See: Lone working: Protect those working alone - HSE

I wonder if for some meetings, it might be worth having a lone worker device as a quick way to call for help without escalating the situation. Obviously, if we are prioritising property over people, that becomes less important.

In Friendship,
Karl

Saffron Walden Quaker Meeting