Footage released recently showed Paceville ‘bouncers’ – or door staff security personnel, to give them their proper professional nomenclature - beating up two foreigners in an apparently unprovoked attack. The attack, which happened about two months ago, left the men, who were allegedly attacked after being refused entry to a nightclub, with serious injuries and needing multiple stitches. Six bouncers – all Maltese – aged between 24 and 51 years are due to be arraigned in connection with the assault.
The incident has again drawn attention to another ugly aspect of the Maltese clubbing scene, predominantly in Paceville but also elsewhere. Until five years ago, nightclub security was an unregulated free-for-all. Bouncers did not require a licence or receive training of any kind to operate. Laws regulating the ‘profession’ were introduced after several years of promises to do so with bouncers being required to have police, armed forces, prison service or private security experience. A specialised licence is issued following training.
But the ‘professional’ stipulations that have been laid down appear to have had little effect on the way Paceville venues of entertainment are regulated or, most importantly, on the standard of discipline and behaviour of ‘bouncers’. Reports of violence are a regular occurrence. Indeed, last October, the police reported they had caught 20 such ‘bouncers’ operating without a licence.
Like so much else in Malta, it would appear that although there are laws and regulations governing the employment, training and behaviour of night club security personnel, these are not being followed. Paceville suffers from endemic problems of lawlessness. They stem from lack of enforcement. Rather than the so-called ‘bouncers’ being a solution to the problem, they appear, far too often, to be a serious contributor to it.
The reason for this is twofold.
First, it is quite clear that the calibre of person employed as a ‘bouncer’ is low and they appear to receive only a minimum of training. Simply making eligibility for employment dependent on past service in one of the disciplined forces is no guarantee of quality. Employing cast-offs without giving them the specialised training necessary to perform this tricky job properly is to invite problems.
A well-trained ‘bouncer’ – a good club security staff member – requires more than just physical qualities, such as strength and size. The best ‘bouncers’ do not ‘bounce’ anyone. They judge human behaviour and communicate well with people to avoid the need for any physical intervention. A steady personality will prevent a ‘bouncer’ from being provoked by unruly customers.
Like any other member of the civilian public, they are obliged under the law only to use reasonable physical force in self-defence to eject drunk or aggressive club customers. They may restrain a customer who has committed an offence until the police arrive. Training programmes to learn what types of force are allowable by the courts are essential.
Secondly, the maintenance of law and order in Paceville has been the weak link for far too long. It is obvious that the district police are too thin on the ground to deal with the kind of spontaneous, drink-fuelled incidents that occur regularly. A sizeable police presence would be able to nip any trouble in the bud without giving ‘bouncers’ the scope or encouragement to intervene unilaterally.