RISK ASSESSMENT FOR

HENRIK

BRAMSBORGS

PERSONAL PROTECTION
MODEL FOR QUESTIONNAIRES AND GRADING
01.05.2012-HB-2013

www.icpta.org

INTRODUCTION

After more than 18 years in a fascinating but motley profession, I have come
to the realization that not all professionals in the industry are equally
professional. This, of course, is not always due to lacking intellect or ability, but
is just as much a question of poor instruction and training, together with a
limited and rather ambiguous market for written material. In risk and threat
assessment, I have noticed that instructors and authors primarily explain WHAT
future bodyguards should ask when they land a client. I have yet to come
across a single explanation of HOW to use the data collected from the client.
In my own country, Denmark, I have decided to try and change this situation
by publishing different material, all of which has been tested on clients and/or
colleagues. This model is my first English publication (hope the translation is
alright). I did so because I, myself, have lacked a model for the initial steps in a
real risk assessment. The target group for this model is bodyguards. That
includes part-time executive protection specialists for anonymous businessmen
and women, full-time bodyguards for famous artists, or personal protection
specialists employed on a governmental level, protecting diplomats. It is up to
the reader to adapt the questions so they apply to the customer in question.
This MODEL is just that. It is a model for making an initial risk assessment
for a client. If you acquired the model in the hope that it would offer an allround solution, you have wasted your money. It is not intended as a
replacement for ones own thought process, but rather as a solution model, a
method so to speak and source of inspiration.
Note that the categorization applied in this booklet is a suggestion and not a
requirement. The same applies to the number and formulation of questions. If
you look through the material in the books mentioned at the back of this
booklet, you will find an array of other possible categorizations, as a uniform
model does not yet exist. I am aware that some companies claim to use models
that are all-inclusive. To contribute to the discussion surrounding fixed models
for risk and threat assessment:
I have had many different clients from a variety of branches. Furthermore,
the vast majority have been short-term contracts, which is quite natural, as I
am an independent contractor. I have yet to come across two matching
assessments, i.e., two cases with the same profile. As no two people (this
includes individuals who hire personal protection) have had the same
childhood, the same education, the same social life, the same job, etc., there
will never be a single model capable of completely covering two different
cases. For that reason, this model is also subject to reservations. There are
simply too many external factors that will change the conclusion. So my
experience is that you can use the same method for different cases, but not

the same model. (If any readers among you disagree and can prove the
contrary, I would be very interested in hearing from you.)
It is important that I point out that the copyright existing for this booklet
only applies to the complete work. Should you wish to publish any portion of
this material or use it for instruction purposes, you may do so, provided you
inform me and properly cite the source.
Accompanying this booklet is General Considerations for Escorting Women
Threatened by Violence, which was written for crisis centers by Bramsborg
Security & Safety. This short piece is very useful for bodyguards in need of
evaluating a defined threat against women testifying against a former mate.
The same copyright conditions apply to General Considerations for Escorting
Women Threatened by Violence. Should you wish to publish any part of this
material or use it for instruction purposes, you may do so, provided you inform
me and properly cite the source.

I, personally, have derived much inspiration from other professionals in the

industry. Likewise, I have received advice and criticism from bodyguards and
instructors from around the world. My thanks go to: Tony Scotti, Gavin De
Becker, Peter Van Dartel, Robert Oatman, Andy Hollinson, Richard Kobetz, Artie
Belovin, Peter Consterdine, Mark Lonsdale, and James King. All of them have
been sources of inspiration. In addition to them, I have a world of people to
thank. I will spare the reader for all this, however, and simply thank my
colleagues and competitors in the industry for keeping me on my toes. Thanks
to my family for their support and understanding of my hectic working hours
and, finally, to those who evaluated my material.
HENRIK BRAMSBORG

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

RISK AND THREAT ASSESSMENT AS A TOOL

DEFINITION

Risk assessment is an overall assessment of factors that are or could be

direct or indirect threats against our client, his/her well-being or environment.
Threat assessment is a specific assessment of threatsnatural or manmadeagainst our client, his or her well-being, or environment.
WHY

We all make risk assessments in our daily lives. Most do so without really
knowing it. Who would even think that the process of looking left, right, and
then left again is actually a collection of data for a risk assessment?
When crossing a street, we assess how many vehicles are coming toward us
and then whether we can cross the road before the vehicles reach our position.
To do this, our brain must process complex mathematical formulas that take
into account distance, speed (the vehicles and our own), and light and
shadow. That is how we survive in traffic and everywhere else in our
environment. Man has always been capable of doing so, as it is a condition for
our species survival. Unfortunately, risk assessment is most often done
unconsciously. On the following pages, we will attempt, in connection with
personal protection, to bring parts of the process up to the conscious level.
In personal protection, risk assessment is our only tool for guarding against
the principle of coincidence. Naturally, it is possible to protect an individual
from a series of threats without a risk assessment. But it cannot be done
without a certain amount of security holes. Such holes, arising from
coincidental overlooked problems, are best closed by systematic process. This
will minimize the risk of accidents and facilitate the establishment of a 360
degree base with which to develop a sustainable security system.

HOW

QUESTIONNAIRE/POINT SYSTEM:

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

First, basic data is collected. You should not overlook this data when
creating the client-specific questionnaire. Because data such as age,
geographic address, and branch of industry can influence your
assessment, collection of basic data should always be the first step.

Basic data should include the following:

Clients:
Full name
Date of birth
Place of birth
Nationality
Height
Weight
Physical description and
Photo
Business:
Industry
Sector
Company name
Ownership
Position in company
Company address
Telephone numbers
Fax
E-mail
Secretary data

Health:
Physician data
Blood type
Medical history

Family:
Names
Dates of birth
Places of birth
Nationalities
Heights
Weights
Physical descriptions and
Photos
Past:
Military experience
Unit
Period
Service locations
Special service

Social life:
Sports
Memberships
Positions of trust
Routines
Humanitarian work

Politically active
Militant
Public
Positions

Some of the above basic data will save the bodyguard time, as it can
provide answers to a number of questions regarding security. Once the basic
data is collected, the questionnaire/point system is used.
The following seven principal sections are used in the questionnaire:
1. Personal lifestyle
2. Professional lifestyle
3. Public profile
4. Politics and religion
5. Prejudices
6. People and places
7. Prior actions and relationships

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

We have established a simple system in which the numbers 0, 10 and 20

figure. These numbers very deliberately do not figure next to each question, as
the client may be tempted to adapt his/her answers. By posing a series of
meaningful questions and then grading them, we are able to paint a risk
picture that is categorized as follows: no immediate risk, less likely risk, likely
risk, defined and confirmed risk, and acute danger. There are no intermediate
categories.
When all the questions have been answered, the point total will indicate
how big or small the risk is.
Grading is done as follows:
Are you prejudice with regard to, for instance, homosexuality, race, religion,
women/men on the labor market, handicaps, or in any other way?
1. Yes

__

(20 points)

2. Dont know

__

(10 points)

3. No

__

(0 points)

If the client checks Yes, for example, the answer is worth 20 points. When
all the questions are answered, the figures are added, and the total tells us
which of the five categories our client falls into.
The points can be decimalized in relation to time and qualitative relevance.
For instance, an offhand verbal threat made three years ago might not be as
relevant as a very specific threat made by phone three weeks ago. Here, time
can be an important factor. The quality factor lies in the source of your
information. We differentiate between:
1. The direct source - e.g., the victim who has been threatened or the
aggressor making the threat
2. Second-hand information e.g., a witness or allegedly signed document
3. Third-party information e.g., a document without confirmed signer or
rumors.
An account from the direct source is likely to be more accurate than an account
from, for instance, an attesting witness. This is not always the case, however,
as one must take into consideration the motives behind any account.
Clearly, a questionnaire system can never be comprehensive, which is why
we commonly use what we call footnote reports. A footnote report is a brief
report that furnishes a fairly comprehensive explanation for an answer. One
example could be:

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Have you had any romantic affair or other amorous relationship that could
trigger threats from jilted parties?
1. No
2. Maybe

3. Yes

Answer: Checked Maybe, as two relationships over the last two years
ended in confrontation. In these confrontations, the client was the passive
party and the rejected partners were the aggressive parties. Since then there
have been no confrontations or threats from the rejected parties.
The answer in the footnote report is furnished verbally during an interview
that follows completion of the form.
Upon completion of the risk assessment, if it is found that a threat exists;
additional interviews are conducted with the client. If the threat is defined,
these interviews should focus as much as possible on the defined threat. If the
threat is not defined, the interviewer should try to aim their questions in
multiple directions so as to investigate as many threats as possible. For
example, a political background, an unfortunate media statement, or a
romantic affair all constitute directions that should be investigated.

The form here is industry-specific and should be adapted so that the

questions are relevant for each client. Likewise, not all questions on the form
are necessary for all clients.
The described example relates to a businessman occupying a top position in
an international firm. The series of questions is not comprehensive, but will
give you an idea of how the model can be used. Practically-speaking, it is
impossible to draw up an exhaustive list of questions, as the answer to each
existing question in the model can give rise to a whole series of new questions.
Example:
Do you take or have you taken any kind of medicine or narcotic?
1. Yes

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

A Yes is not comprehensive, since we do not know whether the substance

the client takes is hazardous or whether it has a life-prolonging or healing
effect.
New questions, therefore, could include:
What medicine/narcotic?
Why do you take the medicine/narcotic?
When do you take the medicine/narcotic?
How often do you take it/them?
Etc.
The same can be said of a number of other questions, such as those
regarding sports. Not all sports are equally healthy. Both scuba diving and
skydiving are categorized as sports, but do not require any particular physical
skill. A man or woman with circulatory problems owing to obesity would
absolutely NOT benefit from diving for corals at a depth of 30-50 feet
regardless of whether or not it is a sport.
Again, you can start with a 5-page list of questions and end up with a 50-page
list.
Underlining the complexity of this type of form, the questioning technique
should/will also vary from client to client. Some clients are academically
educated and are used to the type of language spoken in an academic
environment. Others, for instance, those with newly acquired wealth who
started independently and later became successful businessmen, might expect
a more relaxed language. Some artists education was so fundamental that it is
reminiscent of My Fair Lady.
How far should you then go in your assessment? The short answer is: as far
as practically possible. Naturally, this depends on a number of factors: The
clients immediate entourage, the clients expectations, your own
assessment/intuition, environment, culture, etc.
Again, the following pages are only question proposals!

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PERSONAL LIFESTYLE

Are you in good physical shape?

1. No

__

2. Maybe

__

3. Yes __
Are you physically active?1
1. No

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. Yes

__

What kind of person are you?

1. Bachelor/Fast lane

__

2. Relaxed social life

__

3. Family man/woman

__

Do you have any allergies?

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Active sports are generally considered healthy, but extreme sports are not always without risks.
Therefore, you should consider the type of sport practiced by the client and his physiological level.

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Do you take or have you taken any kind of medicine or narcotic?

1. Yes

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

Do you have or have you had any physical afflictions?

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Do you have or have you had any mental afflictions?2

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

What kind of person are you?

1. Dominant or provocative

__

2. Introverted and quiet

__

3. Assertive, empathetic

__

What is your sexual preference, based on societal standards?3

1. Extreme

__

2. Experimental

__

3. Normal

__

Note: In some cultures, there is a great deal of shame attached to having suffered from depression or
the like, so the answer may be somewhat colored.
3

More than a few people have died during sexual acts that got out of hand. What is more, there can be
risks associated with certain sexual subcultures.

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Cont.
Are you monogamous?4
1. No

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. Yes

__

Are you law-abiding?

1. No

__

2. Almost always

__

3. Yes

__

This is primarily with respect to problems with rejected lovers or former partners.

10

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

P R O F E SS I O N A L L I F E S T Y L E

Are you:
1. Employer/manager

__

2. Freelancer or similar

__

3. Employee

__

Do you work5
1. Over 50 hours a week

__

2. 40 hours a week

__

3. Less than 40 hours a week __

Is your work stressful?
1. Yes

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

Is your work physically demanding?6

1. Yes

__

2. Occasionally

__

3. No

__

The response here could give us an indication of potential future problems such as stress and burn-out.

In addition to the more obvious risks, this could give us an indication of the relative length of the clients
work life and possible health problems associated with stress.

11

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PUBLIC PROFILE

Are you a public personality?

1. Yes

__

2. Partly
3. No

__
__

Have you made public statements about controversial issues, politics, religion,
sexuality, the environment, animal welfare or the like?
1. Recently

__

2. Long ago

__

3. Never

__

Are you a member of any association that makes public statements or which is
often in the spotlight?
1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Do you serve on any board that makes public statements or which is often in
the spotlight?
1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

12

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

POLITIC S AND RELIGION

Are you politically active?

1. Very

__

2. Somewhat

__

3. No

__

Are you a member of a political party?

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Do you meet with politicians?7

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Are you religious?

1. Yes

__

2. Somewhat

__

3. No

__

Cont.
7

The primary concern here is that the client may be an unfortunate victim of a criminal act aimed against
the political figure whom the client happens to be with.

13

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Do you go to mass or confession?

1. Regularly

__

2. Rarely

__

3. Never

__

Do you meet with religious figures?

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Do you know any individuals who are political or religious radicals?8

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Here, the concern is that the client may fall victim to hearsay or gross accusations and, therefore, could
be designated as a target of certain governments or extremists.

14

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PREJUDICE

Are you prejudice with regard to, for instance, homosexuality, race, religion,
women/men on the labor market, handicaps, or in any other way?
1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

If so, do you speak openly about the topic?9

1. Yes

__

2. Rarely
3. No

__
__

Have you ever been accused of being prejudice?

1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you had confrontations with any of the above categories of individuals?

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Even when intended as humoristic anecdotes, prejudice comments can be taken amiss.

15

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

PEOPLE AND PLACES

Do you know or have you known anyone who might want to harm you?
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you, your family, your company or your industry ever been threatened?
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Can you, your family, or your company be associated with people who have
been threatened?
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Do you live in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area where
earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides and cloudbursts do
not normally occur.)
1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Do you work in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area where
earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides and cloudbursts do
not normally occur.)

16

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Do you vacation in a geotechnically stable area? (By this, we mean an area

where earthquakes, hurricanes, tidal waves, landslides/mudslides, cloudbursts,
etc., do not normally occur.)
1. Yes

__

2. Dont know

__

3. No

__

Are you ever stationed in foreign countries?

1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Does your company have units in countries in which your companys presence
is unwanted by the population or parts of the population? 10
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Do you work, travel, or vacation in areas where there are nuclear, biological or
chemical companies?
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

10

Even though the client may not personally work in that country, he/she is not out of harms way. A
radical group could aim an attack against the companys domestic parent company.

17

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

P R E V I O U S A C T S A N D R E L AT I O N S H I P S

Have you ever committed a crime in this country, other countries or cultures?
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you ever committed an act that might be considered morally offensive by
others?
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Have you ever been involved in an armed conflict? (either civil or military)
1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Were you once politically or religiously active?

1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

Can you be associated with people from your past who have been politically or
religiously active?

18

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

1. Yes

__

2. Possibly

__

3. No

__

G R A D I N G A N D C O N C LU S I O N

Depending on the questionnaire you used and, in particular, the point

system you used, you can use a graph with a given number of points ranging
from 0 to 500, as in this example.
In this system, we have chosen to use the following five categories:
No immediate risk, Less likely risk, Likely risk, Defined and
confirmed risk and, finally, Acute danger.

19

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Acut
e
dang
er

301-400
Defined
and
confirmed
risk
201-300
Likely risk

101-200
Less likely risk

0-100
No immediate risk

This is just an example. Form is not important when you change the
questionnaire, as the variables can be changed in relation to the number of
questions, the significance of the answers, etc.
In this example, the categories do not change. The only way to change the
values is to change the answers. This can happen if the client, deliberately or
not, gives the wrong answer and the error is discovered during the interview.
Hence, the importance of the interview.
Lets imagine we get a questionnaire back from a client and we do a
preliminary analysis. In other words, we analyze the answers based on what we
already know, what we have learned from the clients entourage, and can learn
from public sources. Out of 30 questions, there are three answers regarding
personality and lifestyle that are eye-catching in that they seem remarkably
positive vis--vis the client. Whats more, the remaining 27 answers total 190
points.

20

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

If the interview reveals that the client has embellished the truth in the three
answers concerning personality and lifestyle, the threat picture changes from
Less likely risk to Likely risk. In addition, each answer must be reexamined, as there is a theoretical possibility that the client also answered
other questions favorably in his own short-sighted egoistic interest. During the
interview, the results of the risk assessment might jump up as many as two
categories.
This occurs frequently with questions relating to personality and lifestyle, in
particular. Not necessarily owing to mean-spiritedness, a sense of honor, or
mere vanity. It is just as often a misunderstood perception of the ego.
The conclusion can be drawn with or without a threat assessment. It goes
without saying, if no reason is found during the analysis to make a threat
assessment, then there is no reason to do so. Unless, of course, it is to point
out that smoking is unhealthy or that too much bacon with breakfast will kill
the client in the long run.
The conclusion should contain the following:
Date and time of the analysis
Method used for the analysis
Sources used for the analysis
Description of highlights and significant changes following interview(s)
Summary, with recommendations
Signature of interviewer and any assistants
In addition, it is important not to forget reservations pertaining to external
factors and false information. As pointed out earlier, the client may have
different reasons to say one thing when reality is another. I will not get into
motives and causal need1, but merely point out that we all adapt our behavior
to our environment, and very personal questions can seem frightening to
some.

1. Causal needs often arising in childhood

T H R E AT A SS E SS M E N T

Definition:
1. Identification of one or more threats

21

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

2. Investigation into and assessment of the threat(s)

3. Handling of each threat
Threat assessment is an important tool in the consulting process. If
anything, the client naturally wants to know what he/she has to
be afraid of.
As we said earlier, a threat assessment is only relevant when there is
a specific threat. For instance, if we know for a fact that Al Qaeda
has the client on its list of targets or that the clients profile
matches the type of target usually pursued by a particular
criminal / terrorist organization. Another threat could be the direct
threat derived from the clients own conduct. Many famous
personalities have lost money through compensation claimsnot
to mention jobs and market sharesbecause they have physically
or verbally abused others in public. Some have been labeled by
prostitutes as sexual deviants. Such behavior constitutes a direct
threat to the clients renomm and, consequently, revenue, and
should be uncovered.
But the threat assessment is especially based on data collected from
public sources. Start with what you, yourself, can find out. Then, if
deemed safe to do so, look for information from the clients
entourage/organization and, lastly, from the authorities2.
After data has been collected, threat models can be useful in
defining the characteristics that are typical of the threats. This
could be, for instance, the dynamics of a car pile-up, a hurricanes
potential trajectory and strength, or a terrorist groups modus
operandi. When all possibilities have been considered, a
conclusion should be drawn againthis time only regarding the
relevant threat scenario(s). Advice is then given accordingly.

2. The more information you possess, the greater the chances are that the authorities will cooperate.

22

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

RISK MANAGEMENT

Definition: As it pertains to personal protection, risk management is

traditionally divided into three categories:
A. Risks that can be eliminated
B. Risks that can be reduced
C. Risks that can be neither eliminated nor reduced
Examples:
Risks that can be eliminated.
Proof exists that a client has been threatened and attacked by a
former colleague.
! The client is protected physically, evidence is collected, the
case is reported, and the aggressor is taken into custody.
Risks that can be reduced.
A client lives in a geographic area known for its high criminal
statistics.
! - The statistics are laid out and acceptable alternative homes
are proposed.
Risks that can be neither eliminated nor reduced.
A client lives in a country where kidnapping is a frequent
occurrence. The client cannot or does not wish to stop working
there and cannot afford bodyguards.
! The client is trained in personal safety and safety in hostage
situations. A crisis plan is developed and insurance is taken out.
As we have seen, risk management is largely a matter of controlling
ones conduct. Who does what in a particular situation? Here, too,
we must rely on the clients willingness to cooperate. Not only to
change the clients behavior, but also to convince the clients
entourage that their behavior can be more appropriate.
Efforts to protect a client from terrorism or criminality can be in vain
if the clients private chauffeur chooses to drive like a madman or
while intoxicated. In this case, a request from the client could be a
way in which to change the drivers behavior.
Common to Risk Assessment, Threat Assessment, and Risk
Management is that you, as consultant, must constantly adjust
your results. The world is constantly evolving and so will your
conclusions and subsequent advice to the client.

23

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

In principle, an analysis that is two days old is outdated. Naturally,

this depends on the topic and external factors:
Know that the client's reaction to your advice will largely depend on
your argumentation and the manner in which you present the
conclusion/advice. As such, it can be a good idea to obtain written
reports from authorities or public/semipublic institutions that can
back your advice.
There will be those customers who consciously object to having a risk
assessment done. There can be many reasons for objecting to an
assessment, but it is most often merely a sign of ignorance. I always
do a risk assessment. Regardless of the clients wishes. The client can
choose not to participate, but that merely means that the assessment
will be based on a weaker foundation. This is formulated in writing to
the client, who then has the opportunity to see what risk assessment
is and to change their mind regarding their participation in the
assessment.
A client can also choose to participate in the assessment, only to
ignore or reject your advice. Depending on the relationship
between you and your client, you can politely protest or you will
have to adapt your advice and protection according to the clients
conduct. This can be quite frustrating, but is part of being a
consultant/bodyguard.
Some colleagues in the industry choose not to do risk assessments.
We have heard some argue that the customer will not be using
the assessment for anything anyway or that the client will not pay
the extra cost involved in doing a risk assessment. That attitude is
regrettable. In part, because it is part of our job to do the
assessments. Also, because the risk assessments serve to help
the bodyguard, so they are not harmed while providing personal
protection.
Thus, whatever the clients attitude toward risk assessments, we
strongly recommend that persons providing personal protection
should make such assessments. In some cases, for example oneday assignments, it may appear to be a burden on resources.
That way of thinking can kill.
The U.S. Secret Service, U.S. State Department, Danish PET,
Metropolitan Police, and Scotland Yard all use risk assessments.
No government agency operating in the field of personal
protection works without risk assessments. Nor do I see any
reason why we in the private sector should do so.

24

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

25

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

Source material is taken from the following books:

The New Executive Protection Bible.
M.J. Braunig
The Art of Executive Protection.
Robert L. Oatman
The Modern Bodyguard.
Peter Consterdine
Bodyguard: A Practical Guide to VIP Protection.
Mark V. Lonsdale
The Bodyguard Manual: Protection Techniques of the Professionals.
Leroy Thompson
Providing Executive Protection I+II.
Edited by Dr. Richard Kobetz
Providing Protective Services.
James A. King
Bodyguarding: A Complete Manual.
Burt Rapp & Tony Lesce
Executive Protection Specialist Handbook, sec. edition
J. Glazebrook & N. Nicholson, Ph.D.
Men in Black. Bodyguard Training Manual.
Mark Yates

26

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

In addition the above, there are a number of other interesting books that
briefly address the subject. It is my hope that the model and explanations
in this booklet have been useful and can be instrumental in your work. It
is a good idea to reread the example from time to time, as these types of
models have a tendency to be forgotten. When this happens, we fall back
into the old routine of guessing our way forward or asking too few
questions.

ICPTA offers the following courses:

7 day Basic Close Protection course
Stalking countermeasures
PR-24/Tonfa courses
Selfdefense and combatives courses
Evasive driving courses
The above courses are open courses.

For more information, visit us at

www.icpta.org

The content of this material may not be reproduced in either hard

copy or electronic form. Partial reproduction is permitted with the
authors written consent. Contact Henrik Bramsborg at
bramsborg@hotmail.com concerning reproduction.

27

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG

28

2003-2013 HENRIK BRAMSBORG