Olympics Security bailed out by army..

bankhater_1965

chewmylegoff wrote: »

If the armed forces has capacity to do this, then why weren't they doing it in the first place? Surely the incremental cost to be tax layer would be far lower if troops, whose salaries are already budgeted for, were used for his sort of thing? Plus why are we making such swingeing cuts to the military, and then using tax revenues to fund payments to G4S to do a job the forces could have done? I'm sure there is a good reason that I am missing.

i very much doubt the armed forces has the capacity for such a role ,they have them fighting pointless wars abroad, the tories have stripped it down to the bone as they do im afraid

bankhater_1965

A._Badger wrote: »

Cue rapturous applause from the disciples of Marx, Engels et al who have still to find a single example of their ideas working.

If G4S has failed as badly as suggested and if it continues to do so, it will eventually be bought by someone else and turned around.or it will fail. There is an endless list of companies that have suffered that fate. PanAm, Marconi, EMI, Saab, Barings, Nokia (watch this space)...

And then there is the question of how G4S was awarded the contract in the first place, and by whom (step forward NuLabour). Companies like G4S at Capita flourish under quasi-socialism. Using them as a stick to beat capitalism with is disingenuous. That's corporatism at work - not capitalism.

pan american soley went into administration because it was targeted hard by terrorism

GeorgeHowell

The key thing is that taxpayer's money should not be used to reward failure, yet again. Even if there is no penalty clause (probably not ,as Labour would have negotiated it), the government should award itself damages and reduce the payment accordingly. Of course the Sir Humphreys would choke on their G&Ts and do everything possible to stop such a move -- they hate anything like that. But Mrs May should be bold enough to fend of all opposition and just do it, making it clear that if this security contractor ever wants any more government business then it had better bite the bullet. Will she have the bottle to do that ? ... No ? ... You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Sampong

Dear Serving Soldier,
I appreciate that you may be a bit busy at the moment, but just before I give you the sack would you mind awfully helping out at a small sporting event we are holding in London this month. You see I have just spent £475,000,000 on a private firm to do the security but they trousered the money and cannot commit. I have managed to wangle an old warehouse for your accommodation & some rat packs for food, but you should be used to that by now.Tell the family sorry for mucking up the holiday plans theres always next year and you will have plenty of time off when your looking for a new job. (Gotta keep the cost down L.O.L).
Many thanks David Cameron.
P.S. Your my favourites ..

bankhater_1965

Sampong wrote: »

Dear Serving Soldier,
I appreciate that you may be a bit busy at the moment, but just before I give you the sack would you mind awfully helping out at a small sporting event we are holding in London this month. You see I have just spent £475,000,000 on a private firm to do the security but they trousered the money and cannot commit. I have managed to wangle an old warehouse for your accommodation & some rat packs for food, but you should be used to that by now.Tell the family sorry for mucking up the holiday plans theres always next year and you will have plenty of time off when your looking for a new job. (Gotta keep the cost down L.O.L).
Many thanks David Cameron.
P.S. Your my favourites ..

you couldnt of said it any better ! i think the goverment have a damm cheek personaly asking the troops ! i got the impression they didnt want them anymore !

Sampong

It's just one more example of the complete lack of acumen in our goverment.

I mean............ HOW can you get this wrong.......

Andy_L

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i very much doubt the armed forces has the capacity for such a role ,they have them fighting pointless wars abroad, the tories have stripped it down to the bone as they do im afraid

The Army has about 10% of its strength deployed in Afganistan/Iraq. They always had the capacity to do this, it just meant people getting !!!!!!ed about and, lets face it, it never looks great having troops on the streets. Oh, and don't forget, the private sector is always cheaper & better than the public sector

grizzly1911

Andy_L wrote: »

The Army has about 10% of its strength deployed in Afganistan/Iraq. They always had the capacity to do this, it just meant people getting !!!!!!ed about and, lets face it, it never looks great having troops on the streets. Oh, and don't forget, the private sector is always cheaper & better than the public sector

Personally I would prefer to see military uniforms on the street rather than across between a clown and a dictator.

I am sure the private sector have shown us just how much more efficient they are.;)

It was always going to be an uphill task finding thousands of suitable canditates, for a three week temporary post and maximise the profits at the same time.

olly300

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The key thing is that taxpayer's money should not be used to reward failure, yet again. Even if there is no penalty clause (probably not ,as Labour would have negotiated it),

Unfortunately many civil servants don't have real world experience so don't know that they need to check the small print of contracts, and that they can insert penalty clauses.

They actually rely on people from the private sector via outsourcing to help ensure they don't get screwed.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

the government should award itself damages and reduce the payment accordingly.

G4S and the like are quite happy to pay lawyers to fight anyone who takes them on even if they don't win. Most large firms have money set aside for legal cases.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Of course the Sir Humphreys would choke on their G&Ts and do everything possible to stop such a move -- they hate anything like that.

Not necessarily. Some of them tell them not to take on such a firm in the first place. When they get ignored they just go with the flow as they want their pensions.

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

But Mrs May should be bold enough to fend of all opposition and just do it, making it clear that if this security contractor ever wants any more government business then it had better bite the bullet. Will she have the bottle to do that ? ... No ? ... You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.

Then she will be following Mrs Thatcher who prevented Arthur Andersen, one of the largest accountancy firm from ever getting a government contract again while the Tories where in power due to their behaviour. They paid Nu Labour some money and Mr Blair gave them government contracts. Due to their involvement in Enron they are no more.

Point is there are quite a few large companies who should not be given government contracts. Unfortunately due to how the UK government does it's procurement and the stupid ideas that get in some civil servants heads who have some power let alone their ministers, it's very hard to change things.

grizzly1911

olly300 wrote: »

Unfortunately many civil servants don't have real world experience so don't know that they need to check the small print of contracts, and that they can insert penalty clauses.

They actually rely on people from the private sector via outsourcing to help ensure they don't get screwed.


G4S and the like are quite happy to pay lawyers to fight anyone who takes them on even if they don't win. Most large firms have money set aside for legal cases.


Not necessarily. Some of them tell them not to take on such a firm in the first place. When they get ignored they just go with the flow as they want their pensions.


Then she will be following Mrs Thatcher who prevented Arthur Andersen, one of the largest accountancy firm from ever getting a government contract again while the Tories where in power due to their behaviour. They paid Nu Labour some money and Mr Blair gave them government contracts. Due to their involvement in Enron they are no more.

Point is there are quite a few large companies who should not be given government contracts. Unfortunately due to how the UK government does it's procurement and the stupid ideas that get in some civil servants heads who have some power let alone their ministers, it's very hard to change things.

I have worked with numerous outsource projects and as you say the devil is in the detail and you do need to drain the crocodiles out of the swamp.

I have also worked with ex MOD procurement guy, in a private sector role, and he was a nightmare. Heard on the news a few weeks ago that Israeli MOD have something like 450 procurement bods and Whitehall has something like 20 000 + IIRC.