G4S Lack of Security Staff for Olympics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Crossover

Established Member
Joined
4 Jun 2009
Messages
8,317
Location
Yorkshire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18813729

BBC News said:
There is "no question" of Olympics security being compromised, the home secretary has said, after it emerged 3,500 extra troops would be needed.

Theresa May said it was discovered only on Wednesday - 16 days before the Games begin - that contractor G4S did not have enough trained security staff.

The troops are in addition to 7,500 already agreed for venue security.

Labour MP Keith Vaz said: "G4S has let the country down and we have literally had to send in the troops."

G4S was contracted by the London 2012 Organising Committee to supply 10,400 staff out of the 23,700 security staff needed for the Games.

It said it had 4,000 people already working across 100 venues.

It also said there were a further 9,000 people going through the final stages of extensive training, vetting and accreditation.
Why does anyone actually use G4S - they usually have staff on gatelines who probably wouldn't know what a train was if they walked into one, and they can't get themselves organised to provide the security staff in time for the Olympics (which has hardly "sprung up" on anyone)? Always a tale of woe!
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,370
Location
Llanelli
I don't know why anyone even considers using G4S. I wouldn't trust them to guard my tea and toast.

Sadly, I am not surprised they have got themselves in a bit of a pickle. It's a bit like watching 2012, though!
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
The report states G4S to be responsible for 10,700 of the 23,700 figure quoted. Who are those who are responsible for the other 13,000 operatives and will all of those 13,000 be subject to the vetting procedures of the SIA, as will have been the case with all the G4S applicants ?

I wonder if, by the end of these games, how the bid figure will tally with the actual cost of staging these games, when compared to the bid figures and actual final costs that were incurred in previous Olympic Games since the 1970's.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
What an incredible waste of highly trained military personnel. It's not as it these jobs for which g4s were recruiting for would be something that would require specially trained Anti Terror skills or anything, is it; it's just like the "security" at festivals. Bouncers, basically.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,370
Location
Llanelli
The report states G4S to be responsible for 10,700 of the 23,700 figure quoted. Who are those who are responsible for the other 13,000 operatives and will all of those 13,000 be subject to the vetting procedures of the SIA, as will have been the case with all the G4S applicants ?
The report says that the other staff are a mixture of military personnel and voluntary workers. There appears to be no problem with these staff, just those that G4S are responsible for.

Similarly, I am sure that vetting and accreditation will be required for all non military personnel, regardless of who is recruiting them. I would think that the military training and vetting would be regarded as superior to anything in civvy street!
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Similarly, I am sure that vetting and accreditation will be required for all non military personnel, regardless of who is recruiting them. I would think that the military training and vetting would be regarded as superior to anything in civvy street!
I totally agree with what you say. It was the matter of the non-military section covered by the volunteers that caused me to wonder who exactly was in charge of the vetting for those people and how deep would be the depth of such vetting.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,370
Location
Llanelli
I totally agree with what you say. It was the matter of the non-military section covered by the volunteers that caused me to wonder who exactly was in charge of the vetting for those people and how deep would be the depth of such vetting.
I would think that the vetting, background checks and training would need to be very vigorous for such a high profile event. I think that G4S has bitten off more than it could chew. But I don't have a very high opinion of their chewing ability, as you've probably noticed!
 

4SRKT

Established Member
Joined
9 Jan 2009
Messages
4,409
Quite apart from the fact that military personnel aren't trained for civilian policing and security. The whole thing is a nonsense and a waste of resource. The 'whole thing' in question being the Olympics rather than just the security.

Think how much richer the country would be if Sebastian Coe had been academically gifted and had gone into a normal career, rather than being the kid who was good at PE.
 

Masboroughlad

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2011
Messages
1,471
Location
Midlands
Quite apart from the fact that military personnel aren't trained for civilian policing and security. The whole thing is a nonsense and a waste of resource. The 'whole thing' in question being the Olympics rather than just the security.

Think how much richer the country would be if Sebastian Coe had been academically gifted and had gone into a normal career, rather than being the kid who was good at PE.
Well said!

On Newsnight -Didn't catch which newspaper it was but one for tomorrow mornings breakfast table has the headline "Olympic Chump" with a picture of Theresa May! Has she actually done ANYTHING right?! :roll::roll::roll:
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
I was in a pub not that long ago with a bunch of people (event security I think) wearing G4S shirts. The way they were talking really made me feel that I'd love to employ people like them!

I wasn't surprised at all. And it was bloody obvious that any firm getting a contract would want to make the training as cheap as possible. Turn up, sit in a room for a day or three, then pass. Why would you fail people and incur more costs? If you still can't get enough people, something is seriously wrong.

I was in China for the Olympics. It was amazing how everyone spoke good English and were incredibly polite (okay, not that surprising for China) and helpful. That was China, speaking good English that they probably had to learn or lose members of their family. Here we'll have people IN GREAT BRITAIN that apparently won't be able to speak good English. How the hell is that possible?

Who outsourced security to G4S in the first place? I've no doubt management lied and blagged their way to the very end, so can't see all the blame going on the Government that were probably misled all the way. However, they should have known G4S was useless and not believed anything they were told.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I notice that not one single mention has been made with regard to the SIA involvement in this affair by the media, as irregardless of whatever any security company makes of the training of their staff, no such staff can be legally employed until clearance has been given by the SIA from all the vetting checks that are carried out in conjunction with Government agencies. Many of these security positions will require an enhanced level of security clearance.

I honestly believe that the SIA are totally incapable of processing the number of security staff over and above the levels that are normally requested of them, which will have been the case for the very large security staffing numbers required by the Olympic Games.
 

Johnuk123

Established Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
2,802
And what about the hoards of British ex-pats living in France etc. who don't speak the language either?
Irrelevant as they aren't all working as security operatives where the ability to speak the language is absolutely key.
 

Bungle73

On Moderation
Joined
19 Aug 2011
Messages
2,583
Location
Kent
Irrelevant as they aren't all working as security operatives where the ability to speak the language is absolutely key.
It's very relevant, and something people conveniently forget when they start with the "there's people living here who don't speak English" argument.

And where's your source that says the people handling the Olympics won't be able to speak English?
 

Johnuk123

Established Member
Joined
19 Mar 2012
Messages
2,802
It's very relevant, and something people conveniently forget when they start with the "there's people living here who don't speak English" argument.

And where's your source that says the people handling the Olympics won't be able to speak English?

The whistleblower featured on Sky yesterday who is working as a trainer for G4S is one source.

He said that one of the major problems with the staff is a very poor understanding of English.The sourcing of local staff was always going to be a problem with the large immigrant population.

He said G4S have a "no fail" policy and when the operatives fail a course they are simply downgraded but never sacked.

Everybody who knows anything about the security industry will tell you that G4S are a poor company with an awful record.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
And what about the hoards of British ex-pats living in France etc. who don't speak the language either?
They should learn to speak French. Ditto those moving to Spain. Do you not agree?

If I moved abroad, I'd try my hardest to learn the language. It's simple courtesy, and also makes your life a lot easier.

Anyway, it wasn't some rant about foreigners doing security as there were no stats on that. I can well believe many people unable to string a sentence together or speak in a polite tone (as against trying to speak like some gangster) are 100% English. In fact, given how well many foreigners speak English, I'd be more inclined to believe it was mostly English people that were causing the problems.

If you want the sources for the information, might I suggest you Google or look at the many reports on the news yesterday and the newspapers today.
 

Oswyntail

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
4,183
Location
Yorkshire
...Theresa May! Has she actually done ANYTHING right?! :roll::roll::roll:
Well she does seem to have taken prompt and appropriate corrective action when this came to light. Or would you rather she took the Mrs Doyle approach of asking G4S "Do you really have enough staff?" every five minutes since the start of organising. That, in any case, would be down to LOCOG.
This reflects very badly on G4S, and the process by which they got the original contract should be examined closely. But the pieces do seem to be being piicked up well.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
While an easy way to attack the Tories, I'd be more bothered about the original contract and the terms, as well as the detail on why G4S was chosen in the first place.

Then again, I'd also like to know how companies like Serco, Veolia, Capita and the like win a lot of contracts too... but I think I already know the answer to that (and suspect we all do, even if there's not the concrete proof).
 

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,436
Location
Glasgow
G4S have operations worldwide (I know for a fact they are responsible for security screening at a number of large continental European airports) and you'd think they would want to use this major event to showcase their skills and expertise at providing 'security services' on 'home soil'

People visiting the site will expect staff to speak a decent level of English and if they can't/don't interact well with visitors that will reflect badly on London. This has nothing to do with how many people in the UK can't speak English or anything like that, don't hire them if they can't. If the Olympics were being held in Madrid or Paris, they'd have to speak the local language and perhaps basic English as well.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Then again, I'd also like to know how companies like Serco, Veolia, Capita and the like win a lot of contracts too... but I think I already know the answer to that (and suspect we all do, even if there's not the concrete proof).
I am interested in how the final wording of your statement would stand up in a Court of Law. Surely "concrete proof" (to use your own words) is an more essential part of a court case when set against "mere supposition".

Perhaps there are those on this forum better versed than I in the legal system who could make a clarification of this particular matter.
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
I think basic English would be a requirement for every country hosting the Olympics, or any other big international event, as the chances are greater that people will at least speak some English as a second language.

They did it without any problem in China, so if people can't speak it here then it will be somewhat ridiculous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am interested in how the final wording of your statement would stand up in a Court of Law. Surely "concrete proof" (to use your own words) is an more essential part of a court case when set against "mere supposition".

Perhaps there are those on this forum better versed than I in the legal system who could make a clarification of this particular matter.
It wouldn't stand up in court. But this isn't court. When did anyone mention presenting the above statement in court?

I can't even say how I know things, or which companies I am talking about (luckily one of the companies I do know a lot of things about wasn't included!), but I know stuff and suspect a lot more - and so do others. And that was my point about other people knowing (not necessarily everyone as I suggested, which was a bit silly).

I can say one thing I could have easily exposed to the media if I'd been so inclined however, but my wife begged me not to and I didn't fancy the possible repercussions. It involved a company she worked for (a contractor) paying bribes to someone within a big London council to be able to invoice for work that was never done. She was asked to deliver the envelope to the person and refused, and left the company soon after. However, it was common for this contractor to bribe many councils, in London, Essex and Hertfordshire. I have no reason to doubt it still happens, but I don't have that concrete proof. Still, I know it's happening and it only takes someone to go out and GET that concrete proof.

I am sure in the future we will see that proof obtained about loads of contracts and it will keep the media going for a few months when we stop finding out new things about the banking industry.

I could also tell you quite a bit about the scams going on with 'partnering agreements' but still won't give you concrete evidence to present in court.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,574
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
However, it was common for this contractor to bribe many councils, in London, Essex and Hertfordshire. I have no reason to doubt it still happens, but I don't have that concrete proof. Still, I know it's happening and it only takes someone to go out and GET that concrete proof.
Surely, if this was the case, why should not an official police investigation be set up:-
A)...To reveal the company who is offering the bribe.
B)...To reveal the identity of the person within the Local Authority accepting the bribe.

Are not both cases above criminal in their activities as defined in law ?
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
24,493
Location
UK
Maybe the police will get involved one day, but my wife didn't want to get involved or make any statements and I respected her wishes.

The company involved has since been bought out by a larger firm and the person who owned the business (who by all accounts was also involved in more serious crime - hence her not wanting to be involved for a genuine fear for her life) has since died.

We're talking organised crime here, and I wouldn't be surprised if the police didn't already know him and his other operations. A story for another time and place perhaps!
 

Clip

On Moderation
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,616
Well said!

On Newsnight -Didn't catch which newspaper it was but one for tomorrow mornings breakfast table has the headline "Olympic Chump" with a picture of Theresa May! Has she actually done ANYTHING right?! :roll::roll::roll:
Well it wasnt her that signed up G4S to run the security of the Olympics so how can this possibly be her fault? 2 years ago the company got told that they were not on target to recruit enough staff in time yet they let it pass without doing much.

So I wonder what more you think Teresa May couldve done and why you think that she should carry the can for something that she did not let nor sign away?
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Doesn't really suprise me after what I have seen of G4S staff at Man Pic and Wigan Wallgate who do ticket checks. Although I think Northern are one of the best TOCs, I wish they would bring their ticket checking staff at certain places in house. The way the G4S people do their job is poor at best and shocking at worst, with many not complying with no contact policies.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,370
Location
Llanelli
I am no fan of the coalition, but I don't see how any political capital can be made out of this story.

However, I wish that politicians would heed the lesson that outsourcing just about everything to private companies whose overriding interest is making money, is not always the best choice.
 
Joined
29 Aug 2010
Messages
696
I don't know why anyone even considers using G4S. I wouldn't trust them to guard my tea and toast.

Sadly, I am not surprised they have got themselves in a bit of a pickle. It's a bit like watching 2012, though!
If one didn't know one could assume that 2012 is a documentary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top