[TimCypher]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

It is all political with various countries competing to hold the games primarily for prestige reasons and for rather unproven economic benefits and to do that they must stump up the money. I very much doubt you will ever get proper statistical evidence as to whether the London games actually benefited UK taxpayers for the investment made on their behalf.

Yup - in any other walk of life, someone deciding to 'invest' money on a totally unproven and unprovable business case would be for the chop.

But this is no small sum of money - it's billions upon billions of pounds...of someone else's money!

How on earth can these things be allowed to happen?

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

If the IOC were doing this themselves with their own funding they would build a permanent venue somewhere to hold the games at. Perhaps as the Greeks never made any money out of the Athens games and are up the creek without the proverbial paddle they should stick them there.

LOL, indeed...

Regards,

Cypher

[carrier_wave]

Originally Posted by TimCypher

The issue is that the government, and public money, should be absolutely nowhere near the Olympics.

This is a sporting event, and, like any other sporting event, it's up to the Olympic Steering Committee to plan it and pitch it to a ticketed, paying audience, and then to sell the broadcast rights to TV stations wishing to air it.

If they want to host it in London, they can pay for *their own* stadium and *their own* security, plus an 'inconvenience' charge to local residents for the upheaval they will undoubtedly have to endure as a result of it being there.

It's got nothing to do with the UK taxpayer, nothing at all. The vast majority will be going nowhere near the stadium, and, even if they wanted to, they'd stand a fat chance of getting tickets as they've all been comped out to the international elite, subsidised by our bloody money!

It was a racket from the outset, of which this G4S debacle is but a tiny component.

Regards,

Cypher

I entirely agree, I for one am sick of being told that the London Olympics will benefit everyone in the UK - I can see how it may cost me money in taxation, but can see no advantage to me whatever from this overblown charade being held in London (or anywhere else for that matter).

[cpu121]

Originally Posted by googleking

The part that amazes me is that the contract was worth £286m - to supply 10,000 security guards, most of which were for no more than 6-8 weeks

£286m divided by 10,000 is roughly £30,000 per guard! For 6-8 weeks each?

Why is nobody kicking off about what ludicrously bad value the contract was anyway!?

Because the contract covered more than 10,000 staff.

G4S were required to recruit, vet, equip and train 10,000 guards. They were also required to train a further 6,000 students and volunteers. So behind those numbers you will have several hundred more people, at least, doing the recruiting, the training, the vetting etc. They also have to provide uniforms, transport and in some cases accommodation.

Some of the capabilities G4S are providing go beyond basic security guards, e.g. sniffer dogs.

G4S are also responsible for managing the overall security staff of 23,000. For that they have another 800-900 people who need offices.

A breakdown of the contract was provided to Parliament, it went roughly:

60% Wages and Labour
20% Operational and Logistics costs (training, uniforms, etc)
20% Project Management costs (managing the overall security system during the Olympics)

Of course, LOCOG and the Home Office completely undermined any negotiating position by having to do this at the last minute because they failed to carry out proper planning earlier.

[A4papertoosmall]

Originally Posted by Lyricalis

Yep, we've had lots of private sector incompetence over this year, but here is another example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18804547

G4S can't recruit enough people to provide security for the Olympic games. They can't find enough people during a period of record unemployment?

Perhaps it's time for some of the arrogant twits that keep insisting that the private sector is always better to admit that perhaps some things that the public sector have traditionally done are actually beyond them?

Again the answer may be here

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1692521

[Mr.Humphries]

An incompetent public sector, an incompetent private sector, an incompetent Parliament, an incompetent population. I hope our Olympic guests manage to enjoy their stay and to return home safely.

[rossi_dr]

They left Olympics high and dry – but G4S will not pay penalty

Government confirms no penalty clause in security firm's contract, despite Theresa May's assertions



Private security company G4S will not be financially penalised for failing to recruit sufficient security guards for the Olympic Games, it emerged last night.

The firm has been accused of letting the country down just two weeks before the Games, with soldiers forced to cancel family holidays to ensure venues are protected. But a senior Government source told The Independent that the contract with G4S did not include a penalty clause.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-7939668.html

[glasshalffull]

What's our "olympic minister" been doing about this for the last x months?

Oh yeah...recruiting for a new SpAd...probably turn out to be the kid of the CEO of G4S

[heiker]

Originally Posted by jmclaugh

It is all political with various countries competing to hold the games primarily for prestige reasons and for rather unproven economic benefits and to do that they must stump up the money. I very much doubt you will ever get proper statistical evidence as to whether the London games actually benefited UK taxpayers for the investment made on their behalf.

If the IOC were doing this themselves with their own funding they would build a permanent venue somewhere to hold the games at. Perhaps as the Greeks never made any money out of the Athens games and are up the creek without the proverbial paddle they should stick them there.

I've always held the opinion that we should give it to the Greeks on a permanent basis.

New Labour thought they'd win the 2010 general election and that the British nation would be applauding as Glorious Politburo Leaders Blair and Brown personally opened the games. A grateful nation happily squandering billions of borrowed money massaging the egos of a pair of opportunist and talentless politicians.

[heiker]

Originally Posted by Mr.Humphries

An incompetent public sector, an incompetent private sector, an incompetent Parliament, an incompetent population. I hope our Olympic guests manage to enjoy their stay and to return home safely.

What's that noise...













It's the sound of Parisians cheering because they didn't win the right to host the 2012 Olympics

[Sallyforth]

Originally Posted by Mike_1101

Here you are Security Industry Authority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securit...stry_Authority

"The SIA does not run training courses or award qualifications; it also does not approve or vet training providers. The SIA specifies the knowledge and skills that a licence holder needs to know and be able to do, and these specifications form the basis of the qualifications linked to SIA licensing.

The SIA has endorsed certain awarding bodies to offer these qualifications and approve training providers. As of January 2012, these awarding bodies are:
British Institute of Innkeeping Awarding Body (BIIAB); Buckinghamshire New University;
City & Guilds;
Edexcel;
EDI;
HABC;
Industry Qualifications (IQ);
Laser Learning Awards;
NOCN;
SQA.

In January 2008, Panorama carried out an undercover investigation in to the training that candidates were undertaking to obtain their SIA licences. This revealed that mobile phone use and open talking in exams was common practice during the training course and examination that the reporter took
"

Are these qualifications worth anything...?

The qualifications are valuable of themselves, but if poor practice takes place in the process of gaining them then obviously that will devalue them.

[jmclaugh]

It is rather amusing and at the same time depressing when you think of the ethos and philosophy behind the Olympic Games and the fact that so much money and effort has to be put into the security for it.

[Lyricalis]

Originally Posted by rossi_dr

They left Olympics high and dry – but G4S will not pay penalty

Government confirms no penalty clause in security firm's contract, despite Theresa May's assertions



Private security company G4S will not be financially penalised for failing to recruit sufficient security guards for the Olympic Games, it emerged last night.

The firm has been accused of letting the country down just two weeks before the Games, with soldiers forced to cancel family holidays to ensure venues are protected. But a senior Government source told The Independent that the contract with G4S did not include a penalty clause.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...y-7939668.html

Some interesting bits in there:

A spokesperson for Locog, which negotiated the £284m contract with G4S, said: "If G4S are not providing the same number of staff as they were before, they will not be being paid the same amount of money."

Yeah, that's not how contracts work. Sure, you can take companies to court for breach of contract if the supplier doesn't provide something they agreed to, but is that actually the case? We'd have to see this contract to confirm that.

According to documents shown to the Public Accounts Committee, of the £284m, £125m constitutes G4S's "program management" and "operational costs", which rose from around £10m when the contract was renegotiated. "We will not be getting any of that par back," Ms Hodge claimed.

That's truly shocking.

[thms]

Originally Posted by Lyricalis

Yep, we've had lots of private sector incompetence over this year, but here is another example:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18804547

G4S can't recruit enough people to provide security for the Olympic games. They can't find enough people during a period of record unemployment?

Perhaps it's time for some of the arrogant twits that keep insisting that the private sector is always better to admit that perhaps some things that the public sector have traditionally done are actually beyond them?

I agree.. but the nhs is probably #1 for incompetence

[Lyricalis]

Originally Posted by thms

I agree.. but the nhs is probably #1 for incompetence

If the bankers had run the NHS many of us would be dead by now, the rest would still have to queue to be seen (with little hope of anyone actually getting any treatment), and the government would be spending its time defending the people who ran it and trying to deflect the blame onto the sick.

The NHS are doing stuff that is actually difficult, whereas the banking sector have made what they do complicated on purpose.

[thms]

Originally Posted by Lyricalis

If the bankers had run the NHS many of us would be dead by now, the rest would still have to queue to be seen (with little hope of anyone actually getting any treatment), and the government would be spending its time defending the people who ran it and trying to deflect the blame onto the sick.

The NHS are doing stuff that is actually difficult, whereas the banking sector have made what they do complicated on purpose.

I really don't like the nhs, and it would take a complete overhaul of that organisation before I can recommend it..

[jjne]

Originally Posted by heiker

It's the sound of Parisians cheering because they didn't win the right to host the 2012 Olympics

I called that at the time.

I was praying for the French to win this. To see our old rivals going through the pain we're currently going through would have given me much petty amusement

[gold2040]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/g4s-...nnel-1-2411965

SECURITY firm G4S last night said it would cover the cost of the increased military deployment to protect the Olympic Games in two weeks.

[thenetworkbabe]

The soldiers seem to be costing £20 million for 3000-3500 extra. Yet G4 has a contract for £286 million for 10000 guards and 6000 studenst/A level students and volunteers.

You would hope some MPs with calculators might ask why the untrained, poorly paid ,workforce costs twice as much as the better paid, trained one.

They might then enquiry how much more all the similar contracts cost.

[occy]

G4S seems to be having to cough up to pay for the armed forces to be bought in. It's a real shambles. Scrambling all these military forces shows they were on standby.

[Majlis]

I dont quite understand why G4S was originally contracted to supply 2000 guards, which was then suddenly increased by the Games organisers to 10,500 - seems pretty poor planning by the Olympic Organising Committee. What suddenly changed?

[Auld Snody]

More inept government planning working alongside inept private company. What's new?

[trfk8]

this whole mess could of been predicted by anyone who works as a security guard/officer for any one of the "leading" companies. the security industry as a whole could never get this manypeople through the system in the time scale required.

maybe it would of been better to ask guards / officers nationwide who were already qualified if they wanted to work during the olympics.

there must be loads of people with sia licences not in work at the moment that could of worked. and those that are working already maybe could of been replaced by those that have just been trained for the four weeks or so that the event goes on for.

[cpu121]

Originally Posted by thenetworkbabe

The soldiers seem to be costing £20 million for 3000-3500 extra. Yet G4 has a contract for £286 million for 10000 guards and 6000 studenst/A level students and volunteers.

You would hope some MPs with calculators might ask why the untrained, poorly paid ,workforce costs twice as much as the better paid, trained one.

They might then enquiry how much more all the similar contracts cost.

Except the contract was not just to supply 10,000 paid staff and 6,000 students/volunteers, complete with recruiting, vetting, training and uniforms (all costs already borne by the MOD in the case of the Armed Forces). G4S are also managing the entire security contigent (i.e. the staff on the gates rather than the Police and specialist military units!). 20% of the contract cost relates to employing 800-900 people to manage this and an office to put them up in.

So it would be extremey misleading to compare the two figures. Which is exactly what the Moronic People on the Public Accounts Committee will do.

Originally Posted by Majlis

I dont quite understand why G4S was originally contracted to supply 2000 guards, which was then suddenly increased by the Games organisers to 10,500 - seems pretty poor planning by the Olympic Organising Committee. What suddenly changed?

The original estimate (10,000 total, of which G4S were to supply 2,000) was nothing more than a "finger in the air" estimate asthe Home Office called it.

What changed was that LOCOG/Home Office finally did a proper analysis and realised they needed 23,500 instead. That analysis was only begun in Summer 2010 and didn't finish until late 2011.

[heiker]

Lord Dannatt (British Army Chief of the General Staff 2006-2009) said in a recent TV interview that, when the games were awarded to London, Labour politicans told him that security for the games would be the responsibility of civilian organisations and that there was no requirement for military assistance.

[madanglian]

Originally Posted by heiker

Lord Dannatt (British Army Chief of the General Staff 2006-2009) said in a recent TV interview that, when the games were awarded to London, Labour politicans told him that security for the games would be the responsibility of civilian organisations and that there was no requirement for military assistance.

Yeah but then the Tories got in ........