Olympic security

Frank the tank

G4S should not have any of their payment made, they've failed to fullfil their side of the contract.

PRIVATE SECTOR, I'VE SH1T 'EM. :evil:

raymondo60

Apparently...or should I say 'allegedly', the contract for security was priced at £30k per operative; that's what G4S will/would have received; that's £30k for about 4 weeks supply of one security guard. Surely that can't be right?

Frank the tank

Well if they pay the squadies £30k each for a month that'll help top up their redundancy which they're looking down the barrel of.

Fatamorgana

Basic security pay is about £8.50 per hour with G4S.

MichaelW

We may have insufficient, un-vetted, underpaid and under-trained amateurs securing the venues, but we can at least take comfort that London is protected by surface-air(-ground) missiles and a helecopter assault ship.

Giraffoto

MichaelW wrote:

We may have insufficient, un-vetted, underpaid and under-trained amateurs securing the venues, but we can at least take comfort that London is protected by surface-air(-ground) missiles and a helecopter assault ship.

And could this be the first time ever that a government minister has been asked to explain why we've had to forego paying £30k per person to get un-vetted, underpaid and under-trained security and will instead have to make do with well trained, dedicated professionals who the government is already paying for anyway?

CambsNewbie

And remember, G4S is the company which have taken over all the civilian staff roles for Lincolnshire Police and they are bidding to do the same for Bedfordshire Police, Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Constabularies and possibly Surrey police.

These roles include taking calls from the public, operating the control rooms and despatching police officers to the calls as they come in, operating the custody suites and investigating crimes.

If they can't organise the right number of security guards for an event they knew was coming and have been given a huge amount of money to do so, then how can they be trusted to take over all these critical roles for the police?

If the government has any balls then they will impose massive fines for every security guard they fail to provide and stop them from bidding for the next contract for this type of operation.

BelgianBeerGeek

Giraffoto wrote:

MichaelW wrote:

We may have insufficient, un-vetted, underpaid and under-trained amateurs securing the venues, but we can at least take comfort that London is protected by surface-air(-ground) missiles and a helecopter assault ship.

And could this be the first time ever that a government minister has been asked to explain why we've had to forego paying £30k per person to get un-vetted, underpaid and under-trained security and will instead have to make do with well trained, dedicated professionals who the government is already paying for anyway?

Who are these dedicated professionals?

bearfraser

LGOG = piss up in a brewery. And I'm sure they would all make a sh*t load of money doing it ! :evil:

Monty Dog

I was at the stadium the other evening and it was welcome to be warmly received by our guys in uniforms rather than some £8/hr temp in a bright yellow vest. Unfortunately, there's likely to be little comeback to G4S as I'm sure they negotiated-away any prohibitive penalty clauses in the contract.

Cleat Eastwood

all the staff can be provided. theres fear of a threat so the security services want the military on the street.

manglier

Soldiers are NOT police, nor should they be required to act as such. They are not trained for it nor are they geared up for it.
This is not MACP (military aid to the civil power), nor is it MACA (military aid to the civil authority), and I don't believe that there is such a thing as MAG4S!

Frank the tank

From what I've heard my take is yet again it's all about profit.

Are you telling me in the current ecconomic climate they couldn't enlist 10,000 people?

I reckon it's 'cos the pay was not too great.

Headhuunter

MichaelW wrote:

We may have insufficient, un-vetted, underpaid and under-trained amateurs securing the venues, but we can at least take comfort that London is protected by surface-air(-ground) missiles and a helecopter assault ship.

I'm not taking much comfort from aircraft carriers docked in Deptford and missile launchers on Blackheath, the real terrorist threat will be from inidividual loonies blowing themselves up or using gas in busy venues etc... Aircraft carriers and missile launchers are simply a futile show of strength. Where we need security is on the ground at venues, trained individuals who can spot a sweaty, suspicious looking terrorist in a crowd.

rick_chasey

Headhuunter wrote:

MichaelW wrote:

We may have insufficient, un-vetted, underpaid and under-trained amateurs securing the venues, but we can at least take comfort that London is protected by surface-air(-ground) missiles and a helecopter assault ship.

I'm not taking much comfort from aircraft carriers docked in Deptford and missile launchers on Blackheath, the real terrorist threat will be from inidividual loonies blowing themselves up or using gas in busy venues etc... Aircraft carriers and missile launchers are simply a futile show of strength. Where we need security is on the ground at venues, trained individuals who can spot a sweaty, suspicious looking terrorist in a crowd.

They do.

The big stuff is more there as a big sign to say "we're taking it seriously". Hence we all know where they are.

Why let the public know everything about their anti terrorism plan? Makes sense to you surely.

And anyway, they're treating the event like they treat getting onto an aeroplane, so it's not like they're not taking precautions in that respect.

Frank the tank

It seems to get (BETTER :roll: ) well actually worse with every passing day. Orgy in a brothel springs to mind.

It's absolutely crap, still I suppose this is all the last governments fault aswell.

Peddle Up!

"Contractor G4S "repeatedly assured" ministers they would "overshoot their targets" for Olympics security staffing, Theresa May has told MPs."

Liars telling lies to liars. :roll:

Please God can we be rid of them all.

de_sisti

Monty Dog wrote:

.... Unfortunately, there's likely to be little comeback to G4S as I'm sure they negotiated-away any prohibitive penalty clauses in the contract.

The people in whatever government department who negotiated the G4S contract should be dismissed.
Doubt it though.

It amazes me that people at the top in organisations who should have their finger on the pulse of the big
important issues, always seem to find out when things go wrong at the last minute. :roll:

giant_man

usual government fu$k up ...

adm1

giant man wrote:

usual government fu$k up ...

Not really a government feck up to be honest. Contract placed (by this or the last government BTW?) contractor selected and expected to perform to terms of contract. Seems like the contractor hid the issues until it was too late. They should be penalised for non performance, and be made to foot the bill for the armed service personnel used in their place.

Anyway. It's just a bit of running and jumping. Let's not take it too seriously.

de_sisti

adm1 wrote:

Anyway. It's just a bit of running and jumping. Let's not take it too seriously.

lifting, throwing, riding, sailing, diving (oh, I meant football), punching, kicking, hitting, etc etc
(don't take this too seriously, I'm sure you won't)

Frank the tank

Seen Jeremy Hunt interviewed on newsnight and lost count of the amount of times he said "contigency plans". What a cnut.

Peddle Up!

Frank the tank wrote:

Seen Jeremy Hunt interviewed on newsnight and lost count of the amount of times he said "contigency plans". What a cnut.

James Naughtie's finest moment.

daviesee

Never mind. Our "bosses" are taking charge. :roll:
http://news.sky.com/story/961071/us-sec ... r-olympics

Peddle Up!

daviesee wrote:

Never mind. Our "bosses" are taking charge. :roll:
http://news.sky.com/story/961071/us-sec ... r-olympics

"Stand behind the line SIR!" {click, click}

GiantMike

Do we really need all this G4S security anyway?

I fail to see what a poorly-trained G4S muppet is going to actually do. A well-motivated and armed terrorist is unlikely to be bothered about unarmed poorly-paid volunteers milling around, particularly after the initial excitement of the event has worn off after 3 days. Are they really going to tackle terrorists and put their lives on the line for £8.70 per hour? This is all just a pre-games media sh!t-storm because they were hoping to report on the terrible organisation and unfinished facilities and they don't have that story.

It's the highly trained Police and Military in the background the terrorists will really be concerned about, and they were going to be there anyway.

rick_chasey

The G4S isn't for national security.

It's more to keep an eye on crowds etc.

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

The G4S isn't for national security.

It's more to keep an eye on crowds etc.

Have any of those no-shows already been given uniforms?
May be a concern. :?:

Frank the tank

Another thing.

G4S were awarded the contract for gmes security surely they're expected to deliver. But I'll tell you what as a "contingency plan" we'll have the army and police on standby. Makes me wonder what would have happened if the building contractors had come up so woefully short. Send in the sappers.

GiantMike

Rick Chasey wrote:

The G4S isn't for national security.

It's more to keep an eye on crowds etc.

Exactly. So what's all the fuss about?

Frank the tank

GiantMike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The G4S isn't for national security.

It's more to keep an eye on crowds etc.

Exactly. So what's all the fuss about?

The fuss is they were contracted to supply 10,000 security personnel, thus far they've supplied about 4,500 with a max of 7,000 come D-Day.