Olympic security

bails87

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?

That the army are being used as stewards?!

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

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?

That the army are being used as stewards?!

Yeah, the general was saying something along the lines of this:

"we're fighting a war on two fronts and now we have to send people over to London for the olympics to stand by a gate and tell people to take their belts and coats off. Some of the guys will be coming in straight from combat in Afganistan"

So it's definitely the olympics that's stretching the army, not the two wars .

But yeah, that's the problem. Army is already stretched & they could do without this too.

GiantMike

So, there's a lack of people to tell other people to take coats and belts off? Is it therefore a security issue or an administrative one?

The point I'm making is that security is unlikely to have been degraded by having fewer poorly-trained unarmed helpers than originally planned. While it's not ideal, I bet you could run the Olympics with half the G4S staff originally planned.

And you don't need the Military to do it. The fire brigade, nurses, dinner ladies, the unemployed could do it, they just need to be able to pass a security check. The military are used as the first point of call because they already have security clearances. Assuming MPs already have a basic security clearance, they could be used to provide 650 personnel, get some of the younger Lords for another 100 or so, some senior civil servants for another 250 etc etc etc.

Peddle Up!

GiantMike wrote:

Assuming MPs already have a basic security clearance, they could be used to provide 650 personnel, get some of the younger Lords for another 100 or so, some senior civil servants for another 250 etc etc etc.

I like your style GiantMike.

Frank the tank

GiantMike wrote:

So, there's a lack of people to tell other people to take coats and belts off? Is it therefore a security issue or an administrative one?

The point I'm making is that security is unlikely to have been degraded by having fewer poorly-trained unarmed helpers than originally planned. While it's not ideal, I bet you could run the Olympics with half the G4S staff originally planned.

And you don't need the Military to do it. The fire brigade, nurses, dinner ladies, the unemployed could do it, they just need to be able to pass a security check. The military are used as the first point of call because they already have security clearances. Assuming MPs already have a basic security clearance, they could be used to provide 650 personnel, get some of the younger Lords for another 100 or so, some senior civil servants for another 250 etc etc etc.

G4S have been paid or will be being so. I take it you think it's ok then to "welch" on a contract? WOULD YOU BE HAPPY IF THE BUILDER CONTRACTED TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE EXTENTION ONLY DID HALF A JOB AND STILL TOOK FULL PAYMENT, I think not.

G4S are robbing the public purse to the tune of at least £50million+ but that's alright is it? I don't think so, do you,honestly?

adm1

Do you know that? Have you seen the contractual terms and penalty clauses - if any? I don't know the answer, but I'd certainly expect them only to get paid proportionately for the staff they do supply - and to also pay a penalty for underperformance.

daviesee

adm1 wrote:

Do you know that? Have you seen the contractual terms and penalty clauses - if any? I don't know the answer, but I'd certainly expect them only to get paid proportionately for the staff they do supply - and to also pay a penalty for underperformance.

Don't expect this to go smoothly, as in a simple pro rata calculation.
"Chief executive Nick Buckles told MPs that the military and the police would be reimbursed for providing personnel to plug the shortfall.

But he said G4S planned to keep its £57m management fee.

Mr Buckles said that because the firm expected "to deliver a significant amount of staff" it would retain the fee.

"I find that astonishing," replied Labour MP Keith Vaz,"

From here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18866153

tim_wand

I have extensive experience of defending Hmp (public sector) run prisons against contestablility or being run by Private organisations, i.e , G4S and Serco.

They basically tender to run services at a cost way below what the Government currently pay Public sector directly employed staff, and feign compliance to key performance targets.

In reality what real happens is that they dont report any non compliances and therefore never review or revise practice and end up with establishments where staff are conditioned to let Prisoners do whatever they want and go unchallenged .

Certain things, Schools, Hospitals , Prisons and Public/ National Security cannot be run on a "For Profit" status and thats exactly what happens when the Government try to defer their responsibility for such things to Private companies, who's main agenda is to generate shareholder profits and not deliver first class public services.

This is what has happened here. G4S should be fined for non compliance to contract and the clowns responsible for accepting their tender should hang their heads in shame

dylanfernley

I say it looks like a perfect opportunity for The Bottom Inspectors to take the limelight--- all punters must be checked to see if they've wiped properly

GiantMike

Frank the tank wrote:

G4S have been paid or will be being so. I take it you think it's ok then to "welch" on a contract? WOULD YOU BE HAPPY IF THE BUILDER CONTRACTED TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE EXTENTION ONLY DID HALF A JOB AND STILL TOOK FULL PAYMENT, I think not.

G4S are robbing the public purse to the tune of at least £50million+ but that's alright is it? I don't think so, do you,honestly?

I clearly don't think that it's sensible to pay for something that hasn't been provided. Never said it was. My point is that it's not a threat to Olympic Security that there are fewer under-trained unarmed 'girl guides and scouts' around asking people to take their coats off. It's merely a threat to Olympic Administration and may result in a less-slick games.

MichaelW

I dont understand how G4S were allowed to get away with a Just In Time recruitment policy.
JIT is for stable production environments where you can plan and order stuff, safe in the knowledge that your supplies will turn up, just as they do every other Monday morning, and your production staff will use the stuff. The system is vulnerable to upsets from weather, industrial action and other freak events. There is little contingency because contingency plans costs money and are rarely used so you just take the hit.

A one-off security project is all about contingencies and not about a regular process. You cant just take the hit in security. I don't think ministers in the committee really pressed this issue. Why did LOCOG let G4S do things this way. A risk analysis would have flagged this up as a major weakness. The only people who looked hard at this whole issue were the bean counters.

The staff were to be used in security, not the high-end, counter terrorist stuff, but the donkey work of sealing a site Glastonbury style, enforcing the use of official entrances and operating x-ray machines.

beverick

Without trying to defend G4S in their indefensible position, I do note that the initial contract was to deliver 2,500 "security" staff but that this was increased to 10,000 as late as December 2011.

We've been trying to recruit 3 people since January without luck so I'm not actually surprised that they've struggled to recruit an additional 3,500.

Bob

daviesee

beverick wrote:

Without trying to defend G4S in their indefensible position, I do note that the initial contract was to deliver 2,500 "security" staff but that this was increased to 10,000 as late as December 2011.

We've been trying to recruit 3 people since January without luck so I'm not actually surprised that they've struggled to recruit an additional 3,500.

Bob

Shhh.
Don't you know that there is a recession out there and people can't find jobs. :twisted:

beverick

daviesee wrote:

beverick wrote:

Without trying to defend G4S in their indefensible position, I do note that the initial contract was to deliver 2,500 "security" staff but that this was increased to 10,000 as late as December 2011.

We've been trying to recruit 3 people since January without luck so I'm not actually surprised that they've struggled to recruit an additional 3,500.

Bob

Shhh.
Don't you know that there is a recession out there and people can't find jobs. :twisted:

Availability of recruits is not the issue. Could your organisation identify, interview, vet, train and deploy up to 400 people per week? Ours couldn't.

Bob

ps From the quality of candidates we've seen I'm not surprised why some of them are unemployed.

Pross

No lack of security at the hotels around Cardiff where some Olympic athletes are staying - police everywhere and little tents set up outside with airport style equipment to scan everything going in. I'm at the Celtic Manor tomorrow evening and hoping to bump into some of the Olympic cycling squad as they are training at Newport so hopefully staying there.

daviesee

beverick wrote:

daviesee wrote:

beverick wrote:

Without trying to defend G4S in their indefensible position, I do note that the initial contract was to deliver 2,500 "security" staff but that this was increased to 10,000 as late as December 2011.

We've been trying to recruit 3 people since January without luck so I'm not actually surprised that they've struggled to recruit an additional 3,500.

Bob

Shhh.
Don't you know that there is a recession out there and people can't find jobs. :twisted:

Availability of recruits is not the issue. Could your organisation identify, interview, vet, train and deploy up to 400 people per week? Ours couldn't.

Bob

ps From the quality of candidates we've seen I'm not surprised why some of them are unemployed.

I'd have thought that not being able to recruit 3 people in 6 months would be an indicator. Employing that many people in a short time is ridiculous I agree. I was just playing with the work availability situation. :oops:
Your small text section ties in with my point.

Jez mon

beverick wrote:

Without trying to defend G4S in their indefensible position, I do note that the initial contract was to deliver 2,500 "security" staff but that this was increased to 10,000 as late as December 2011.

We've been trying to recruit 3 people since January without luck so I'm not actually surprised that they've struggled to recruit an additional 3,500.

Bob

AFIK they didn't have to accept the request for more security staff.

dylanfernley

A job for the Bottom Inspectors--- those who haven't wiped properly don't get in !

dylanfernley

Bob -- you do not make it clear what 3 people/posts you are trying to fill, security is not hard to do, astronauts on the other hand are a bit harder.

if you cannot find suitable people , either your pay is too low and are attracting the wrong type, or your bar is set too high or there are No suitable people--- do give us a clue

beverick

dylanfernley wrote:

Bob -- you do not make it clear what 3 people/posts you are trying to fill, security is not hard to do, astronauts on the other hand are a bit harder.

if you cannot find suitable people , either your pay is too low and are attracting the wrong type, or your bar is set too high or there are No suitable people--- do give us a clue

Re applicants I've never been surprised by the apparent unsuitability of many candidates applying for any job I've been involved in. It doesn't come down to pay, criteria or requirements, it's just that you get innundated.

I don't think the role's relevant either but you could say that recruiting secuity staff is at the harder end of the spectrum as you won't be able to rely on qualifications to 'filter' candidtes and may well have additional processes such as CRB checks and local authority registrations to go through (which can takes months for a single instance never mind thousands).

From personal experience you usually get 1 in 10 suitable interview candidates for any job so, unless G4S were willing to take anyone off the street (which of course they'd have been pilloried for), I bet they'd have had to deal with up to 50k people and interview in excess of 20k to find 10k suitable candidates.

Why this penny didn't drop with G4S or Locog in Dcemeber I just don't know.

Bob

alanp23

beverick wrote:

From personal experience you usually get 1 in 10 suitable interview candidates for any job so, unless G4S were willing to take anyone off the street (which of course they'd have been pilloried for), I bet they'd have had to deal with up to 50k people and interview in excess of 20k to find 10k suitable candidates.

I thought that this was what the £50m+ management fee was for.

I get the feeling that this is G4's Ratner's moment. I cant see anyone trusting them to look after anything in the future.

Pross

alanp23 wrote:

beverick wrote:

From personal experience you usually get 1 in 10 suitable interview candidates for any job so, unless G4S were willing to take anyone off the street (which of course they'd have been pilloried for), I bet they'd have had to deal with up to 50k people and interview in excess of 20k to find 10k suitable candidates.

I thought that this was what the £50m+ management fee was for.

I get the feeling that this is G4's Ratner's moment. I cant see anyone trusting them to look after anything in the future.

I don't know much about the company but if they are running prisons etc. then the Government wouldn't be able to allow them to go under would they? How would they plug the gap if they did?

alanp23

I suspect they wont be getting many government contract renewals.

There's a gap in the market appearing. <insert appropriate escape joke here>

shinyhelmut

alanp23 wrote:

I suspect they wont be getting many government contract renewals.

There's a gap in the market appearing. <insert appropriate escape joke here>

After making the front pages for releasing prisoners and some high profile escapes Group 4 simply rebranded themselves. It doesn't seem to have stopped them from securing government contracts.

Peddle Up!

ShinyHelmut wrote:

alanp23 wrote:

I suspect they wont be getting many government contract renewals.

There's a gap in the market appearing. <insert appropriate escape joke here>

After making the front pages for releasing prisoners and some high profile escapes Group 4 simply rebranded themselves. It doesn't seem to have stopped them from securing government contracts.

Never forget - "They're all in it together". :evil:

OffTheBackAdam

With the capabilities of their management, you'd think that they're Civil Servants incharge of defense procurement!

OffTheBackAdam

graham.

Anyone been watching "Twenty Twelve"?
I thought it was a rather good comedy...seems it's a documentary!
Graham.

OffTheBackAdam

OffTheBackAdam