Hillpig Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Barry Sheerman MP has warned of G4S becoming a "private army". Is it a sensible use of public money to employ this secretive, rather weird organization? Are they any better than the smaller regionally based security companies, why does Sheffield City Council, Sheff Wed Sheff United and Rotherham United use them when there are locally based companies with better reputations? We should be told, its our money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dosxuk Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 this secretive, rather weird organization Would you like to elaborate on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Only 94 million? I'd expect far more, are you sure thats accurate? They run a bunch of prisons, do public events, security, I think they even run some support services for the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Only 94 million? I'd expect far more, are you sure thats accurate? They run a bunch of prisons, do public events, security, I think they even run some support services for the police. I think it was the Army that run some sort of support service for G4S at one time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillpig Posted June 13, 2013 Author Share Posted June 13, 2013 I think it was the Army that run some sort of support service for G4S at one time. My apologies for the typo its £394 million. ---------- Post added 13-06-2013 at 21:25 ---------- Would you like to elaborate on that? They are secretive in that they will not aliow any investigations into their activities other than those they are legally required to allow. Which is all they have to do but it is unusual for a company of this size to have such a defensive attitude. Weird in that thier directors are some of the stranges individuals in the corporate world. Name changes, surgical procedures to change appearance, members of secret societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 They earned it right, thats what you say in the title, so I dont see a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 They earned it right, thats what you say i the title, so I dont see a problem. That's the question really. Remember the Olympic fiasco when they failed to provide the workforce required and had to be helped by the army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Barry Sheerman MP has warned of G4S becoming a "private army". Is it a sensible use of public money to employ this secretive, rather weird organization? Are they any better than the smaller regionally based security companies, why does Sheffield City Council, Sheff Wed Sheff United and Rotherham United use them when there are locally based companies with better reputations? We should be told, its our money. Presumably because they come out best in the tender processes. Big companies can tick all the boxes in the procurement procedures, many smaller companies cannot. The public sector talk a good talk about local contracts but their procurement procedures are weighed towards big firms with the backup to jump through all the hoops over small companies which the tendering process can prove too much like hassel vs possible reward. Plus last time SCC tried to employ a small local security firm with a good reputation it turned out to be a money laundering front for a convicted heroin smuggler and they wound up on Panorama. Oopsie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 That's the question really. Remember the Olympic fiasco when they failed to provide the workforce required and had to be helped by the army? And they made a £70M loss after the "fine" they received for not fulfilling their contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 What really concerns me about this organisation is that I heard recently that they are to operate Children's homes and hospitals etc; and after the Olympics fiasco their competence to qualify for tender should be in question, it seems they must just have friends in the right places - I suspect more cronyism as per usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.