G4S are ........................

a bunch of tossers !

«1

Comments

  • ...a bunch of fannies
  • an organisation that couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery?

  • If I were a squaddie, just back from my latest tour in Helmand, just been told I was being made redundant, and just had to cancel my leave and summer break to cover behind these guys, I might not be too happy. In fact, I might be wondering how I could demonstrate my trench-clearing technique for the benefit of the G4S management.

  • ...supposed to be employing my brother and have screwed him over. Bastards.

  • One thing I don't understand is that they couldn't hire 10,000 security guards but there are 2.5m unemployed in this country.

    With all due respect to security guards, you don't need a PhD to do it.

  • You do need a CRB check and an SC check though
  • G4S... didn't they used to be called Group 4. Who used to specialise in losing prisoners... but if you change the name everyone will forget about previous failings

  • G4S...is a rminder that we should be careful about what this government does to the NHS.

  • Why are the NHS due to start security services ?
  • Privatisation doesnt always work, expecially if you debilitate the state's ability to act as a back up.

    Bunch of companies are making money hand over fist from outsourcing. Olympics security is more visible as a cock up than many of the other cock ups that we will pay for (eg PFI)

  • So long as we don't let G4S start doing operations then
  • McGillicuddy wrote (see)

    G4S... didn't they used to be called Group 4. Who used to specialise in losing prisoners... but if you change the name everyone will forget about previous failings

    They bought Securicor and became G4S - but yes. They still hold one of the biggest contracts for the electronic tagging scheme operating in England and Wales.

  •  

    mimaduck wrote (see)
    McGillicuddy wrote (see)
    G4S... didn't they used to be called Group 4. Who used to specialise in losing prisoners... but if you change the name everyone will forget about previous failings

    They bought Securicor and became G4S - but yes. They still hold one of the biggest contracts for the electronic tagging scheme operating in England and Wales.

    Exactly.  How come our memories are longer than whoever's in charge of security for the games?  Give Mimaduck the job instead!

  • bos1 wrote (see)

    Privatisation doesnt always work, expecially if you debilitate the state's ability to act as a back up.

    Bunch of companies are making money hand over fist from outsourcing. Olympics security is more visible as a cock up than many of the other cock ups that we will pay for (eg PFI)

    Not sure I can see the logic, G4S under any name they have used have never been anything other than a private company

  • I am sure most of us will have seen G4S at various events especially in London.  I think this was just too big for them and their management structure is just not good enough to take on the contract.  There probably is some Govt liability in that they selected them, and that will be the Labour govt in the first place and the coalition who have taken on the task.

  • bos1 wrote (see)

    G4S...is a rminder that we should be careful about what this government does to the NHS.

    What has it got to do with the government?  The games are being organised by LOCOG which is a limited company.  Surely they would have awarded the contract to G4S? 

  • JF50 wrote (see)
    bos1 wrote (see)
    Privatisation doesnt always work, expecially if you debilitate the state's ability to act as a back up. Bunch of companies are making money hand over fist from outsourcing. Olympics security is more visible as a cock up than many of the other cock ups that we will pay for (eg PFI)

    Not sure I can see the logic, G4S under any name they have used have never been anything other than a private company

    Privatisation is not simply about a govt owned company becoming a private company. There is a question about what things it is appropriate for a government to do and what can be done in the private sector. Supporters of privatisation start with the assumption that government does things less well than than the private sector. That is an assumption that might need tobe reassessed.
    G4S do a lot of things that were prevously done by the state. In the area of law enforcement and security I would suggest we are all concerned that what should be deliverd, is delivred. Be that by the private sector or by the state.

  • petwencal wrote (see)
    bos1 wrote (see)
    G4S...is a rminder that we should be careful about what this government does to the NHS.

    What has it got to do with the government?  The games are being organised by LOCOG which is a limited company.  Surely they would have awarded the contract to G4S? 

    Because one of the mechanisms to privatise the NHS will be by outsourcing large swathes of the NHS to the private sector to companies like G4S, Serco, Capita.

    There has already been an outsourcing of building hospitals via the mis-named "Private Finance Initiative". This will be a massive burden on the NHS which will transfer resources from care-givers within the NHS to providers of finance (to build and operate facilities) who are in the private sector. If you pay taxes you will pay more taxes in the future because of how this was set up than if the numbers had not been gamed to favour the PFI.

    I'm not against outsourcing. I am wary of idealogues like Lansbury/Hunt making a mes of the country.

  • Muttley wrote (see)

    One thing I don't understand is that they couldn't hire 10,000 security guards but there are 2.5m unemployed in this country.

    With all due respect to security guards, you don't need a PhD to do it.

    Possibly because a large number of those unemployed won't get out of bed for £8.50 an hour?

    Also, they'd be recruiting from in and around London only.  No-one is going to (or be able to afford to) commute very far for that sort of pay, or find affordable accommodation in London for a couple of months.

    The job is very short-term - so even if you came off some/all of your benefits to do it, you'd have to sign back on again in a couple of months - with the attendant delays and hold-ups in getting your benefits re-instated.

     


     

  • So how did the last x number of Olympics manage it ?

    (perhaps with the caveat that we should ignore Beijing here due to their.....'ways of working' )

    Surely Barcelona, Atlanta, Athens and Sydney had similar problems ?

     

  • .....crap at planning

  • Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
    You do need a CRB check and an SC check though

    Really? SC level clearance to be a security guard? Sounds a bit extreme

  • Dicky M wrote (see)

    So how did the last x number of Olympics manage it ?

    (perhaps with the caveat that we should ignore Beijing here due to their.....'ways of working' ) Surely Barcelona, Atlanta, Athens and Sydney had similar problems ?  

    All pre 9/11, so different ball game, in the eyes of most people from the US terrorism did not exist before that.

  • How about Athens?  That was 2004.

  • Not in the yank's pocket like we are/were...not a target

  • sorry meant to say not as much a target as this country is, look how far things have gone in 8 years since 04

  • Surely though, since Munich every Olympics has been highly protected?

    And wasn't there an attempt to blow something up at the Atlanta games?

  • G4S will be providing staff to numerous police forces across the country if Theresa May has her way, privatisation is cheaper according to her. The police and Army are too costy !!! yet when the chips are down who do they run to. If the police and Army cuts continue then eventually they will not be able to deal with future riots and large scale disorder. We will have to call for G4S to help out, looking at some of the guards they will not turn up for work !!!

     

  • bos1 wrote (see)
    JF50 wrote (see)
    bos1 wrote (see)

    Privatisation doesnt always work, expecially if you debilitate the state's ability to act as a back up.

    Bunch of companies are making money hand over fist from outsourcing. Olympics security is more visible as a cock up than many of the other cock ups that we will pay for (eg PFI)

    Not sure I can see the logic, G4S under any name they have used have never been anything other than a private company

    Privatisation is not simply about a govt owned company becoming a private company. There is a question about what things it is appropriate for a government to do and what can be done in the private sector. Supporters of privatisation start with the assumption that government does things less well than than the private sector. That is an assumption that might need tobe reassessed.
    G4S do a lot of things that were prevously done by the state. In the area of law enforcement and security I would suggest we are all concerned that what should be deliverd, is delivred. Be that by the private sector or by the state.

    You're confusing privatisation with outsourcing. Outsourcing makes sense for a lot of non-core activities for any business or government department, including things such as security and facilities management.

    In the case of the Olympics I think the issue is really that recruiting a workforce of 10000 people for a short term contract is actually quite a big challenge whether you are public or private sector and has been royally f--ked up by G4S who haven't managed the situation well.  

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.