G4S Farce .......

[Mordoror]

Mordoror, you are assuming that the State would have had no difficulties recruiting and training 10000 temporary security agents. I´m not so sure about that.

G4S bid low? Why not, they wanted the contract and took a risk. Unfortunately they lost and and transferred the risk to others instead of themselves by lowering their expected margin. And in addition, I do think that the supervising authorities did not do their job by monitoring correctly the advancement of the G4S project and putting the pressure on the company in due time.

I am not talking about low level security agents but rather LEOs
Of course the state won't recruit at once 10 000 policemen. However how much a LEO is more efficient than a temporary security agent (vigile ?) ? How much is he more deterring than an unarmed, badly formed, rules restricted (by law) temporary agent.
I am one of few that thinks (at least on this board) that public security is something too important to fall in the hands of the market and should stay in the hands of the state (this is something we call "pouvoir regalien" in French)
And that's true for armed forces too
Moreover this example is another nail in the coffin that shows that privatizing security and/or law enforcement (as well as military affair) could be, in the end, more expensive than initially thought as well as dangerous
Because here UK will have to deploy policemen and soldiers while the Kingdom is already a bit overstreched both in money and manpower.

[Telmar]

I am not talking about low level security agents but rather LEOs
Of course the state won't recruit at once 10 000 policemen. However how much a LEO is more efficient than a temporary security agent (vigile ?) ? How much is he more deterring than an unarmed, badly formed, rules restricted (by law) temporary agent.
I am one of few that thinks (at least on this board) that public security is something too important to fall in the hands of the market and should stay in the hands of the state (this is something we call "pouvoir regalien" in French)
And that's true for armed forces too
Moreover this example is another nail in the coffin that shows that privatizing security and/or law enforcement (as well as military affair) could be, in the end, more expensive than initially thought as well as dangerous
Because here UK will have to deploy policemen and soldiers while the Kingdom is already a bit overstreched both in money and manpower.

I agree with you on full time LEO and military. But that is not the level of people required here, and on some short term projects the State is not always the most efficient vector.

The real question here is who was supposed to supervise the project. Wether a project is private or public, no supervision or supervision by the executor of the project itself is asking for trouble. This could have gone bad just as much with a public recruitment in which a manager hides the fact that he is failing to fulfill the plan with a supervising authority asleep at the wheel.

[SDL]

this may be a bit controversial.... but with all the hassle that has taken place, i dunno why they didn't just use the army from the start?

Think it was Cameron today who was quoted as saying that they'd be activating every fine clause in the contract with G4S... so they may need to get the £57M to cover the fines

[happyslapper]

You mean use the military, with no civvi security personnel? That would be massive overkill (and very expensive) IMO.

The G4S failure 'only' accounts for the extra 3000, there were already about 4x that on duty.

[SDL]

You mean use the military, with no civvi security personnel? That would be massive overkill (and very expensive) IMO.

The G4S failure 'only' accounts for the extra 3000, there were already about 4x that on duty.

If i understand the numbers correctly, G4S were contracted for about 10K people with about 13K military personnel added later on... and now with G4S failing to get the 10K, we've added more army personnel to cover the missing numbers.

[wotsnext]

The G4S song: When corporate mission statements and rock collide

A rock song released last year by security firm G4S extolling its own virtues has attracted ridicule in the wake of the company's Olympic security problems. Corporate mission statements and rock don't always make a comfortable mix.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18887250




Music critic Simon Price is not a fan, rating the song as "sub-Bon Jovi tripe".
"It sounds like they're soldiers against Satan rather than a private security firm. I thought they were there to direct to you the toilet. They sound so heroic."

[b0sco]

On the topic of Olympic security...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ch-bearer.html

Isn't this the third time the torch bearer was attacked?

[wotsnext]

Manchester police plug Olympic venue security gaps

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18932799

Only nine G4S recruits out of a up to 140 attended a training session in Manchester this week, reports said.

What a fvck-up

[Arfah]

Isn't this the third time the torch bearer was attacked?

We had people attack it when it was being escorted by chinese police 4 or 5 years ago. Then it was raising awareness about the Chinese Tibet occupation.
Today, it's youngsters being 'dared' by their mates.

[Telmar]

Manchester police plug Olympic venue security gaps

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18932799

Only nine G4S recruits out of a up to 140 attended a training session in Manchester this week, reports said.

What a fvck-up

That should be enough to guard a shopping mall. At 30000 pounds per security agent, , that's some half a million short of what the organizers (taxpayers) paid for.

[timetraveller]

http://t.co/4LWzCN96


lol .... U can't make this shyte up

[SDL]

just seen that myself... Is it even legal to impound a military vehicle?

[Lov3ll]

Has to be fake I don't imagine g4s walk around with fliers with "this military vehicle" written on them.

[timetraveller]

Well the pic was posted by a serving soldier ..

[Corrupt]

Well the pic was posted by a serving soldier ..

And soldiers never play pranks?