Close protection is often assessed through the lens of military, policing or other government-security experience. Yet private-sector protective work demands a different mindset. It is a […]
Executive protection is often reduced to the visible presence of close protection personnel and their ability to respond when an incident occurs. That view significantly understates […]
16 April 2026 Global Protection Group has been formally registered in the Baza Uslug Rozwojowych (Development Services Database), administered by the Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiebiorczosci (PARP). […]
Modern organisations operate in an environment defined by constant connectivity. Smartphones, laptops and other mobile devices have become embedded in daily business practice, accompanying executives and teams during strategic meetings, negotiations and operational decision-making.
Modern organisations operate in an environment defined by constant connectivity. Smartphones, laptops and other mobile devices have become embedded in daily business practice, accompanying executives and teams during strategic meetings, negotiations and operational decision-making.
In recent weeks, the media have reported incidents that at first glance may appear isolated— a suspicious parcel reported by an employee, an artillery round brought to a police station, or the evacuation of a building following a bomb threat.
In close protection, one mistake recurs: treating visible presence as proof of protection. Someone stays very close to the protectee, adopts an intimidating posture, issues unnecessary commands and repeatedly signals readiness to intervene.