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

Fill in the blank

1 to 20 of 36 messages
15/07/2012 at 13:53

a bunch of tossers !

Lee the Pea    pirate
15/07/2012 at 13:56
...a bunch of fannies
15/07/2012 at 14:55

an organisation that couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery?

15/07/2012 at 15:09

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.

15/07/2012 at 15:14

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

15/07/2012 at 15:15

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.

Dave The Ex- Spartan    pirate
15/07/2012 at 15:17
You do need a CRB check and an SC check though
15/07/2012 at 15:37

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

15/07/2012 at 15:42

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

Dave The Ex- Spartan    pirate
15/07/2012 at 15:48
Why are the NHS due to start security services ?
15/07/2012 at 15:52

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)

Dave The Ex- Spartan    pirate
15/07/2012 at 16:26
So long as we don't let G4S start doing operations then
15/07/2012 at 16:30
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.

15/07/2012 at 19:54

 

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!

16/07/2012 at 10:39
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

16/07/2012 at 10:44

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.

16/07/2012 at 14:28
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? 

17/07/2012 at 13:30
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.

Edited: 17/07/2012 at 13:31
17/07/2012 at 13:40
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.

17/07/2012 at 13:43
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.

 


 

1 to 20 of 36 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums