Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
So now G4S who got the gig to provide Olympics security, at a tender of £300m, have seemingly fscked it up, and are about 35% short of the staff they need. Despite record numbers of unemployed and a double dip recession.
Solution? Easy. Having told the Army that tens of thousands of them are facing the chop, rope in what will now be a total of 17,000 on duty, cancelling their summer holidays.
Increasingly, you couldn't make any of this up.
So now G4S who got the gig to provide Olympics security, at a tender of £300m, have seemingly fscked it up, and are about 35% short of the staff they need. Despite record numbers of unemployed and a double dip recession.
Solution? Easy. Having told the Army that tens of thousands of them are facing the chop, rope in what will now be a total of 17,000 on duty, cancelling their summer holidays.
Increasingly, you couldn't make any of this up.
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Joined: Mar 08 2002 Posts: 26578 Location: On the set of NEDS...
What they mean is they couldn't find people to do this for the crappy wages they were paying.
All they had to do was pay a decent rate for the job, offer basic accommodation and transport and for the dole to make it easier for people to take these short term contracts.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
It will be interesting to see just how much, if anything, G4S will be fined or have payments withheld/clawed back. I would hope it will be the total cost of providing fully-trained soldiers and not the minimum-waged dopes that G4S were relying on. Apparently the Home Office were comfortable with a JiT provision, in order to keep G4S's training costs to a minimum and were, up to the weekend, happy with the "we'll be alright on the night" messages they were getting.
Although this is a very serious matter, of more concern to me is the increasing use of the likes of G4S in future policing. What would've happened in last summer's riots if these clowns were anywhere near the problem?
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
You have to ask though, what sort of "security" can G4S offer other than a nightwatchman type duty or guiding visitors around the sites - a job that is already being fulfilled by free volunteers (thousands of them).
Bag searches and metal detector manning maybe, but I do hope that we weren't relying on them to counter a terrorist attack, which, lets be honest, is the main concern - its one thing to have a temporarily employed and quickly trained guard in a hat three sizes too big standing at the door way of one of the athletes quarters, but quite another thing to have that guard as the first line of defence in a Munich Olympics style terrorist attack.
I do hope there is a Plan B.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Joined: Aug 05 2002 Posts: 14094 Location: He can smoke a pound in a single bound!
cod'ead wrote:It will be interesting to see just how much, if anything, G4S will be fined or have payments withheld/clawed back. I would hope it will be the total cost of providing fully-trained soldiers and not the minimum-waged dopes that G4S were relying on. Apparently the Home Office were comfortable with a JiT provision, in order to keep G4S's training costs to a minimum and were, up to the weekend, happy with the "we'll be alright on the night" messages they were getting.
Although this is a very serious matter, of more concern to me is the increasing use of the likes of G4S in future policing. What would've happened in last summer's riots if these clowns were anywhere near the problem?
Apparently it's £50,000 per day per venue for not meeting staffing levels at venues.
I'm not Jesus Christ, I've come to accept that now.
[quote][b]XBrettKennyX wrote:[/b] Once more the anti SC brigade, purposely or otherwise fail to see the point.
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Billinge_Lump wrote:Apparently it's £50,000 per day per venue for not meeting staffing levels at venues.
If so, that seems a bloody strange penalty. It would probably be cheaper for G4S to turn round now and say "we can't cover any of it, here's your £50k per day, per venue back, we'll just bank the difference ta"
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Feb 12 2005 Posts: 13126 Location: East Staffordshire
JerryChicken wrote:You have to ask though, what sort of "security" can G4S offer other than a nightwatchman type duty or guiding visitors around the sites - a job that is already being fulfilled by free volunteers (thousands of them).
Bag searches and metal detector manning maybe, but I do hope that we weren't relying on them to counter a terrorist attack, which, lets be honest, is the main concern - its one thing to have a temporarily employed and quickly trained guard in a hat three sizes too big standing at the door way of one of the athletes quarters, but quite another thing to have that guard as the first line of defence in a Munich Olympics style terrorist attack.
I do hope there is a Plan B.
I don't think G4S are expected to be firing the missiles from the roofs of the surrounding blocks of flats.
"To play your best football you need players with enthusiasm and drive and energy." - Peter Sterling
Adam Pearson said not wrote:I know there are two franchises and two clubs (in Hull) and that will remain forever more
Personally I don’t see the problem, why not force the unemployed and those claiming disability benefits to fill the shortfall? For heaven’s sake those in wheelchairs can even provide their own seating as they man the entrances.
If we could only find some well meaning, professionally run, French organisation that could provide us with the names and addresses of those fit for work.
"...……. et jusqu’a ma mort je me rappellerai chaque seconde de ce matin de janvier."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 116 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum