Olympics security

JamesL

Novice Member
Watching the lunchtime news there seems to be a big blame game going with T May in the firing line; I think that is unfair in the circumstances and say that as someone rewriting their summer plans. Such is life.
 

karkus30

Banned
JamesL said:
Watching the lunchtime news there seems to be a big blame game going with T May in the firing line; I think that is unfair in the circumstances and say that as someone rewriting their summer plans. Such is life.

T.May again. The epitome of incompetence. How she has kept her job I have no idea. I wonder how she is going to cope when airports have Qs stretching for miles and London is Gridlocked solid.
 

Rasczak

Distinguished Member
It will be interesting to see the full facts on this issue when they come out. I don't think there is any doubt G4S was at fault:
London 2012: depth of G4S security crisis revealed | Sport | The Guardian

But surely the Home Office should have been paying closer attention to what the contractor was doing? I also wonder how much of the chaos was caused by the Government agreeing to last minute recruitment to ensure costs were kept to an absolute minimium?
 

Sonic67

Banned
How were GS4 caught out? Not as if it should be a surprise. The date of the Olympics has been known for years. Not as if security isn't a priority. 7/7 happened the day after the winning bid was announced. This is what happens when you rely on private security. Two weeks to go and the armed forces needed again. God help us if a terrorist has joined thanks to inadequate vetting.
 
Last edited:

karkus30

Banned
Sonic67 said:
How were GS4 caught out? Not as if it should be a surprise. The date of the Olympics has been known for years. Not as if security isn't a priority. 7/7 happened the day after the winning bid was announced. This is what happens when you rely on private security. Two weeks to go and the armed forces needed again. God help us if a terrorist has joined thanks to inadequate vetting.

No, it's what happens when the Government prevents a free market happening by creating a protected monopoly out of one security firm. In effect it is a nationalised private hybrid. Competition is what creates better companies, better service, innovation and lower costs. This is a state backed monopoly ( I would love to see how many of the Government have their fingers in the pie ) and not true private competition.

Addendum: oh look the Prudential is a major shareholder and what a surprise Theresa May is a shareholder in Prudential !

The soldiers with redundancy notices should form a company in direct competition as a not for profit or co-operative company and make their claim on the Government funding ( we tax payers already pay for the soldiers anyway and would support a competitive bid and ready employment for the 1000s of brave soldiers who have been thrown out of work ). They should do it now and get public backing and support. Let's give G4s some serious competition and break up their stranglehold. Remember they are a British multi national corporation, in the same style as British Airways was before Laker, Branson and others did them in. We might complain about Ryan Air and Easy Jet, but we have a very competitive market now as long as there is no cartels or private agreements we can enjoy low air fairs.
 
Last edited:

karkus30

Banned
karkus30 said:
No, it's what happens when the Government prevents a free market happening by creating a protected monopoly out of one security firm. In effect it is a nationalised private hybrid. Competition is what creates better companies, better service, innovation and lower costs. This is a state backed monopoly ( I would love to see how many of the Government have their fingers in the pie ) and not true private competition.

Addendum: oh look the Prudential is a major shareholder and what a surprise Theresa May is a shareholder in Prudential !

The soldiers with redundancy notices should form a company in direct competition as a not for profit or co-operative company and make their claim on the Government funding ( we tax payers already pay for the soldiers anyway and would support a competitive bid and ready employment for the 1000s of brave soldiers who have been thrown out of work ). They should do it now and get public backing and support. Let's give G4s some serious competition and break up their stranglehold. Remember they are a British multi national corporation, in the same style as British Airways was before Laker, Branson and others did them in. We might complain about Ryan Air and Easy Jet, but we have a very competitive market now as long as there is no cartels or private agreements we can enjoy low air fairs.

You really should take a look a G4s major shareholders ! One of them runs part of Barclays investment Group, one has been involved in a courtroom in the USA for monopolistic control. Most are American investment banks associated with those companies that started the Global meltdown.

Of course Theresa May and her Partner are investors in Prudential who are the major shareholder in G4s as well as a certain Mr Condon......you know, the Police Chief. Now a Baron.
 
Last edited:

blackrod

Active Member
It will be interesting to see the full facts on this issue when they come out. I don't think there is any doubt G4S was at fault:
London 2012: depth of G4S security crisis revealed | Sport | The Guardian

But surely the Home Office should have been paying closer attention to what the contractor was doing? I also wonder how much of the chaos was caused by the Government agreeing to last minute recruitment to ensure costs were kept to an absolute minimium?

I agree. Also, surely the Home Office could have seen that G4S was no where near their target by the list of names of all security staff secured? Surely two months before the start they should have had a list of all security staff ready, if this then fell short, as it did, then get help elsewhere. How can we get to a point where we are two weeks away then having to rush troops in - or was the decision made several weeks ago and we are only being told now?
 

karkus30

Banned
blackrod said:
I agree. Also, surely the Home Office could have seen that G4S was no where near their target by the list of names of all security staff secured? Surely two months before the start they should have had a list of all security staff ready, if this then fell short, as it did, then get help elsewhere. How can we get to a point where we are two weeks away then having to rush troops in - or was the decision made several weeks ago and we are only being told now?

Go look at who has invested in them and their share prices. They are in shaky territory with acquisitions and shareholders are furious.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ff19e858-03c4-11e1-864e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz20UbFRfO6
 

Wild Weasel

Well-known Member
You have to wonder at the logic of placing surface to air missiles on buildings and in parks in London too. Perhaps it's just one of those 'show of force' things, but I wouldn't have thought blotting out an airliner over an urban area was a great idea.
 

travid

Well-known Member
karkus30 said:
No, it's what happens when the Government prevents a free market happening by creating a protected monopoly out of one security firm. In effect it is a nationalised private hybrid. Competition is what creates better companies, better service, innovation and lower costs. This is a state backed monopoly ( I would love to see how many of the Government have their fingers in the pie ) and not true private competition.

Addendum: oh look the Prudential is a major shareholder and what a surprise Theresa May is a shareholder in Prudential ! .

That phrase i.e. nationlised private hybrid is a perfect description IMO.

These people also have their fingers in a large chunk of Prisons. All prisons will be market tested within the next 3 years, no doubt with less staff etc. Private police? They may be coming to a town near you soon.

Where are all of these extra troops going to be billeted BTW?
 

dc8900

Distinguished Member
You have to wonder at the logic of placing surface to air missiles on buildings and in parks in London too. Perhaps it's just one of those 'show of force' things, but I wouldn't have thought blotting out an airliner over an urban area was a great idea.

Probably more of a last resort and 'show of force' type of thing, considering the size of the restricted air zone and the general Olympic air zone that surrounds it, I'd assume any un-authorised aircraft or airliners that deviate from the official air corridors would be swiftly escorted out/dealt with well before they were over a major populated area.
 
Last edited:

Sonic67

Banned
Where are all of these extra troops going to be billeted BTW?

According to the Murdoch press, (The Times and The Sun) they are either going to be in something like Hyde Park in tents or sleeping in a disused warehouse in East London.

No surprises regarding G4S. Minimal training, vetting and organisation, hence maximum profits for shareholders.

Olympic security: The firm at centre of the shambles 'has seen fee rise by £53m’ - Telegraph

Ministers said that problems with G4S only became apparent this week. But a separate Home Office document, seen by ITV News, shows that in April, officials were predicting “big shortfalls against planned numbers” of security staff.

The Times has it that many G4S applicants have failed criminal record checks, there was a failure in G4S’s software for shift rostering, dummy explosives were smuggled past G4S’s security checks and a senior officer in Scotland Yard alarmed about a uniformed G4S guard in the Olympic Park who could neither speak or understand English. Apparently one security firm was told yesterday by G4S to try to recruit 350 more staff.

The Times also claims a Whitehall source describing G4S’s operation as “a picture of chaotic coordination.” Whitehall provides a quarter of GS4’s £7.5 billion turnover.

The worst that will happen to Teresa May is she might get the sack but she is already set up for life anyway. This is why people don’t see a reason for loyalty to our politicians.

Nice little history of G4S.

G4S - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Slogan, “Securing Your World.”

London 2012: Theresa May musters troops for 'most important' task | Sport | The Guardian

"They stand ready to do their duty whatever the nation may ask," she added. "Our troops are highly skilled and highly trained and this task is the most important facing our nation today."

If the Commons possessed such a thing, that would have been the cue for the house brass band to erupt into the Dambusters theme. But to which task was she referring? The war in Afghanistan? The fight against global terror? Swingeing MoD cuts?

Not exactly. "I know we can rely on our troops," explained the home secretary, "to help deliver a safe and secure Olympic Games that London, the country and the whole world can enjoy."

Neither her praise nor the offer of thousands of free tickets is likely to win over the thousands of men and women who will have to forsake their leave and family time to patrol the Olympics.


If she knew the troops were “highly skilled highly trained and wiill help deliver a safe and secure Olympics,” why not use them in the first place?

Interesting that as recently as this Monday she was saying she was confident that G4S would deliver the Games security goods – two days later and she is calling in troops.
 

TranceFan

Active Member
Numbers aside, i think the true extent of the failings of Olympic security have been underplayed or blacked out in the media - ITV appears to have not broadcast the most worrying parts of the report from the undercover journalist Lee Hazledean who investigated the security setup...

» Media Whitewashes Olympics Security Scandal!

key points
- Hazledean was able to get the job of a security officer via a simple application process. No background checks were carried out and his personal references were not checked.

- Hazledean was successful in taking guns, knives and explosives through both metal detectors and body scanners on numerous occasions during dummy runs.

- Hazledean was told that metal detectors and body scanners would be deactivated at peak times in order to get crowds into the Olympic venue quicker. :confused:

- Hazledean was also informed that 200,000 casket linings that can hold four dead bodies each have been shipped into London in preparation for the Games. May be they know something we dont:rolleyes:

- Thousands of foreign troops under the auspices of the United Nations have also been brought into London.

- Plans for an evacuation of London in the aftermath of a deadly terrorist attack have been discussed at great length. G4S employees were briefed on the evacuation plan to a greater extent than the time spent on training them to conduct security screening.

- G4S security staff have been caught doing drug deals while in training with no retribution. Uniforms have also been handed out to unauthorized personnel as well as uniforms being stolen. G4S staff have also been caught taking photographs on their cellphones of secure locations.

- Hazledean believes G4S security staff are so poorly trained and the security operation as a whole is so lax that terrorists could quite easily stage a “massacre” during the Games.

Not a single one of these revelations appeared in the ITV News piece. Other news networks like Channel 4 refuse to cover the story at all.
 

Dave

Distinguished Member
Don't worry, it will all be fine. We all know that relying on private companies to put service before profit is a no brainer.

G4S will be doing most of your policing soon too, value for money you see. Nothing to do with making incredible wads of cash off the back of the taxpayer of course.

Coming soon to a police station near you.

Thankfully we still have enough police and military to plug the gap, don't expect this to be the case after the olympics. :hiya:
 

karkus30

Banned
Dave said:
Don't worry, it will all be fine. We all know that relying on private companies to put service before profit is a no brainer.

G4S will be doing most of your policing soon too, value for money you see. Nothing to do with making incredible wads of cash off the back of the taxpayer of course.

Coming soon to a police station near you.

Thankfully we still have enough police and military to plug the gap, don't expect this to be the case after the olympics. :hiya:

Nothing wrong with private companies and everything wrong with Government sponsored private companies. It has to be a conflict of interest when the home secretary Theresa May holds shares in Prudential and Prudential are the major shareholder in G4s. Ex Police inspector Condon is a direct shareholder.

I have no problem with private Police forces either, but only when there is unprotected competition in a really free market.
 

Steven

Senior Moderator
When London was awarded the games the armed forces was advised by the then government that it would be a civilian led games. Fast forward and our servicemen are providing the majority of the security. Hope when people are scanned at venues they remember that the service personnel could be on leave or may even be doing it with a P.45 in their back pocket

As an aside these contracts with private enterprises are suspicious and the select committee in September need to scrutinise intensely. Contracted to supply 10,000 security, can only provide 4000. How then are G4S only losing up to £50m out of a £300m contract? It must be costing the country more than £50m to have police and armed forces making up the shortfall
 

Trollslayer

Distinguished Member
There has been too many failures e.g. far too few immigration officials so security is being compromised there, journalists wandering around the Olympic stadium site etc..
 

karkus30

Banned
Steven said:
As an aside these contracts with private enterprises are suspicious and the select committee in September need to scrutinise intensely. Contracted to supply 10,000 security, can only provide 4000. How then are G4S only losing up to £50m out of a £300m contract? It must be costing the country more than £50m to have police and armed forces making up the shortfall

Haha select committee. They are only private enterprises in theory, the reality is that they are Government sponsored monopolies backed by private money. You realise they are the second biggest private employer in the world ? Backed by the Prudential, Legal and General amongst others.

Here take a look.
http://lt.hemscott.com/SSB/tiles/co...ls/major-shareholders.jsp?epic=GFS&market=LSE

And Mrs Mays lucrative cut
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=10426

Think a Government commission is going to find anything.
 

Sonic67

Banned
Nice to see Coe and others getting on top of the Games security. Not like it's a last minute thing then.

G4S statement:

BBC News - London 2012: G4S Olympics statement in full

BBC News - London 2012: G4S 'only knew eight days ago' of staff shortage

This is priceless:

G4S' PR Nightmare Deepens As Awful 'Theme Tune' Emerges

Video sadly gone but here's the lyrics:

"You love your job and the people too
Making a difference is what you do
But consider all you have at stake
The time is now don't make a mistake
Because the enemy prowls, wanting to attack
But we're on the wall, we've got your back
So get out front and take the lead
And be the winner you were born to be
G4S! protecting the world
G4S! so dreams can unfurl
24/7 every night and day
A warrior stands ready so don't be afraid
G4S! secure in your world
G4S! let your dreams unfurl
We're guarding you with all our might
Keeping watch throughout the night"
 

Sonic67

Banned

Sonic67

Banned

Sonic67

Banned
Nothing wrong with private companies and everything wrong with Government sponsored private companies. It has to be a conflict of interest when the home secretary Theresa May holds shares in Prudential and Prudential are the major shareholder in G4s. Ex Police inspector Condon is a direct shareholder.

I have no problem with private Police forces either, but only when there is unprotected competition in a really free market.

Here's another MP linked in to them:

SecurityOracle.com - Latest Security News, G4S Appoints John Reid As Group Consultant

You might remember him. He said that troops could deploy in Afghanistan without a shot being fired.
 

travid

Well-known Member
I have no problem with private Police forces either, but only when there is unprotected competition in a really free market.

Just to clarify, you would be happy to see private firms running the Police service, in whole or part?

TBF though, they (G4S) currently do this with prisons. Maybe not a monopoly at the moment but this is certainly a realistic proposition in the next 4 years and as I said in an earlier post, they could probably do this with The Police service.

No problem though, it will get rid those pesky public sector workers;)
 

karkus30

Banned
travid said:
Just to clarify, you would be happy to see private firms running the Police service, in whole or part?

TBF though, they (G4S) currently do this with prisons. Maybe not a monopoly at the moment but this is certainly a realistic proposition in the next 4 years and as I said in an earlier post, they could probably do this with The Police service.

No problem though, it will get rid those pesky public sector workers;)

Yes, but not the way it is currently being done. The Government has far too much power, the result is corrupt practices and a skewed market place.

If you go to a high street coffee shop you have a choice. I don't think anyone would thank you for a Government run Coffee shop ( in fact the mind boggles at the idea ). If you don't like the product, service or price then you don't go back. If service is generally bad they go out of service.

So, the thing is, private companies work well under simple rules and none protectionist policies. Regardless of what you think of the level of policing, the quality of policing or the effectiveness of policing, you are stuck with the current service. If you are getting mugged or burgled, if you don't feel safe walking the streets in certain areas, then I'm afraid the Police force has failed. If you went to the Coffee shop and they were unable to make you a Coffee, then they would have failed in their business.

Instead, what we have is a mistaken belief that the Government somehow provides a better Police service. How is that ? All they do is interfere, cut staff, increase paperwork. Despite the crazy idea that somehow the Police are somehow safer under the Government, still, they are rife with incident after incident of internal criminality and incompetent management performance.

What the Government has done is create a hybrid police force. It's not open to competition, exactly as the current force isn't, it's not accountable to anyone but the government, exactly as it currently is. How can we get a better private force when we let the Government have the power to appoint and prevent competition. They have just tried to do Policing on the cheap and forgotten about the waste inherent in the Government.

I think our Police do a cracking job considering the idiots that oversee them. I think they could do a better job if they were employed by private companies without Government interference and in accordance with the law. I would prefer a vocational force operating under a not for profit, or co-operative company. We could have lots of these companies in the UK competing for areas. They would Police under their own system, do what got the job done within the letter of the law. They would be overseen by a much reduced Government department. If they failed to Police appropriately they would be kicked off the patch.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Q Acoustics Q3030i, Humax Aura, Roku Streambar & WandaVision Reviews and more...

Latest News

Focal releases 1000 Series integrated speakers
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Klipsch announces ProMedia 2.1 BT speaker set
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
No Time to Die gets pushed to 8th Oct 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
KEF announces KC62 subwoofer with new Uni-Core technology
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 20th January 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published
Top Bottom