• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Jobs

You guys touched on it but at which point did the LOCOG or Government recognise that there was a serious problem with G4S recruiting the numbers promised within the contract?

I am pretty sure there would be contract management meetings and reports blah blah blah so why did the Government not do anything about it till the last week or two? I blame both parties - G4S for failing to fulfil their promise and the Government or LOCOG or whoever from not doing much about it till the last couple of weeks.

I dont know the ins and outs, maybe the government knew waaay before they acted but im not sure.

As you guys also said - 100k in security guards - really? Is that really needed? Not to mention the entire police force present.
 
Buckle confirmed the first time G4S said there was an issue was 2 weeks ago.

The account director at G4S was boasting only last month they could deal with 2 Olympics!!
 
Leeds Spur said:
Buckle confirmed the first time G4S said there was an issue was 2 weeks ago.

The account director at G4S was boasting only last month they could deal with 2 Olympics!!
Click to expand...

So they basically lied? fiddled with reports etc. Fraudulent - no?
 
Sheikh Ma Nuggets said:
I trust no-one! Inherently sceptical...or just paranoid :mrgreen:

From the murmurings coming out, it sounds like no-one thought to place safeguards into the contracts, hence the question as to whether they have legal recourse to compensation for a failure of service. First and foremost concern for me, has always been to ensure that all risk sits with the supplier and not whichever client I happen to be working for; breakclauses, compensation, tightly worded penalties - no wriggle room at all.

G4S have spectacularly failed here. There shouldn't even be a question as to whether the majority of the contract costs will be automatically recovered. I note ministers are patting themselves on the back, grinning that G4S will stand the £50m or so which it's cost to bring the army in. That's all good and well, but that £50m should be on top of recovering at least £100m or so from the main agreement which has catastrophically failed and was obviously undeliverable.

Makes you wonder though doesn't it: The Olympics is one of, if not the biggest worldwide events; you'd think the management of G4S would want its best management team working on that contract to ensure that there wasn't a royal fudge-up such as this, wouldn't you? I think they obviously got carried away with themselves; believed a bit of their own hype, arrogance breading incompetence, etc. Paying for it now though. Their top boy should go for this - without a shadow of a doubt; having to bring the army in because your company couldn't deliver?? :lol: fudge me fella, move on!
Click to expand...

A complete PR disaster. How can G4S possibly recover from this?
 
Leeds Spur said:
It would appear so. But I suppose they weren't under oath!!
Click to expand...

Under contract which is legally binding blah blah blah.

There is nothing wrong (technically) with not being able to achieve what you set out to achieve but everything is wrong with pure lying hence share prices have plummeted and reputation gone downhill. Trust has gone and a number of clients that I work with use G4S for a number of services and I know they expressed some concern.

Anyways. I am now presuming they wont get paid the contract and in effect Management will be subjected to as much scrutiny as the likes of Bobby Diamond etc
 
They still reckon they'll get a £57 million management fee!! :)

I'm sure they can say they believed they could deliver the contract until they realised they couldn't.

Passed on in good faith blah blah blah!!!
 
Re: G4s.
Wasn't sure whether to post this, as could have implications, but what the hell!
A work colleague of the wife is married to the guy at g4 who was tasked with the training up of all these extra security people for the Olympics.
I dont know numbers, but about 6 months ago, he was, out of the blue, told to double (yes, double) the amount of staff he originally planned for.
This instruction had come from government.
Needless to say, it became a very stressful task, and we know it hasn't happened.
Now, at no stage have I seen mention of this anywhere, so I wonder if some cover-up has taken place, with the government paying someone at g4 to take the fall?
 
Re: the airports.
Heathrow would indeed be closed if the thames airport scheme went ahead. Already stated as such.
Can,t actually remember what was said about gatwick and stanstead, but i could not see airlines wanting to go in there when all the connecting traffic would be elsewhere.
Gatwick, in the last 5 years has suffered from this after heathrow opened up to allow all the US carriers in, along with many other big international airlines.
Gatwick has a tiny amount of through or connecting traffic now, and as such has become a low cost/bucket and spade airport again.
 
Badly worded the g4 post.
The guy we know didn't pick the original numbers to train, that was also a figure created by government
 
Crawley said:
Re: G4s.
Wasn't sure whether to post this, as could have implications, but what the hell!
A work colleague of the wife is married to the guy at g4 who was tasked with the training up of all these extra security people for the Olympics.
I dont know numbers, but about 6 months ago, he was, out of the blue, told to double (yes, double) the amount of staff he originally planned for.
This instruction had come from government.
Needless to say, it became a very stressful task, and we know it hasn't happened.
Now, at no stage have I seen mention of this anywhere, so I wonder if some cover-up has taken place, with the government paying someone at g4 to take the fall?
Click to expand...

No mate - that's all documented. After there were more hysteria and concerns over security the government doubled the security budget and engaged G4S to do likewise, which again they agreed to readily and said no problem. That was the time to push back IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4S

657,000 staff!
 
Basically the G4S contracts will be honoured.

The likes of them and Serco/Capita/Atos are embedded in the delivery of key services to government and the government aint gonna take these staff back in house.

As long as it all works out OK things will die down.

I'm sure the likes of The Mail are praying for a terroirist attack though.
 
Crawley said:
Re: the airports.
Heathrow would indeed be closed if the thames airport scheme went ahead. Already stated as such.
Can,t actually remember what was said about gatwick and stanstead, but i could not see airlines wanting to go in there when all the connecting traffic would be elsewhere.
Gatwick, in the last 5 years has suffered from this after heathrow opened up to allow all the US carriers in, along with many other big international airlines.
Gatwick has a tiny amount of through or connecting traffic now, and as such has become a low cost/bucket and spade airport again.
Click to expand...

There will always be room for a low cost airport for the likes of Ryanair, Easyjet and such.
 
Crawley said:
Re: the airports.
Heathrow would indeed be closed if the thames airport scheme went ahead. Already stated as such.
Can,t actually remember what was said about gatwick and stanstead, but i could not see airlines wanting to go in there when all the connecting traffic would be elsewhere.
Gatwick, in the last 5 years has suffered from this after heathrow opened up to allow all the US carriers in, along with many other big international airlines.
Gatwick has a tiny amount of through or connecting traffic now, and as such has become a low cost/bucket and spade airport again.
Click to expand...

Question mate, I hear an MP say airports should be built north and south of major cities rather than east and west so the city isn't in the flight path. Is that actually the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back