Longcol Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 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. A link to this "evidence" would be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 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. sorry to hear that your company lost out to this company xenia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 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. andygardener's point is valid and well made. We are beginning to see evidence of how multinationals are operating against the interests of ordinary people and using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner that excludes small and medium enterprise from successful tendering for public contracts. Corporate operators pay no or little tax, giving an enormous advantage, whilst their resources allow them to bid for contracts at a level that wiil be loss making for a number of years before moving into a lucrative level of profitability. Small companies simply cannot compete since they can't afford to operate without income for such lengthy periods, and both government and local authority leaders know this. This is our tax that is being diverted into the pockets of the multinationals. Ordinary people and small businesses are being harmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 andygardener's point is valid and well made. We are beginning to see evidence of how multinationals are operating against the interests of ordinary people and using their monopoly in an anti-competitive manner that excludes small and medium enterprise from successful tendering for public contracts. Corporate operators pay no or little tax, giving an enormous advantage, whilst their resources allow them to bid for contracts at a level that wiil be loss making for a number of years before moving into a lucrative level of profitability. Small companies simply cannot compete since they can't afford to operate without income for such lengthy periods, and both government and local authority leaders know this. This is our tax that is being diverted into the pockets of the multinationals. Ordinary people and small businesses are being harmed. It's not all down to cost. When a tender is put out the first thing they will want to do is cover their own arses. G4S will drown them in lots of paperwork and procedure (a lot of which they won't understand) and despite the Olympics debacle, a massive firm like that is a "safe" bet and are big enough to carry the can if something goes wrong. If you pick a small firm and something goes wrong the first thing that will be asked "why didn't you use a big firm" and the council (or whoever) carrys the can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Who owns G4S? Not the CEO, you can find that out on the website, but the actual owner? Who owns Serco? Who owns Capita? Who owns all these companies that are in receipt of major government contracts, and therefore vast sums of tax payers money? Why is it so hard to find out? What are they afraid of? Why is it better for our money to go to private individuals rather than the public sector? Why do we have no say over who gets these contracts? It stinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 It's not all down to cost. When a tender is put out the first thing they will want to do is cover their own arses. G4S will drown them in lots of paperwork and procedure (a lot of which they won't understand) and despite the Olympics debacle, a massive firm like that is a "safe" bet and are big enough to carry the can if something goes wrong. If you pick a small firm and something goes wrong the first thing that will be asked "why didn't you use a big firm" and the council (or whoever) carrys the can. I'd take your point in general but a quick google soon reveals G4S as having an appalling record of shortcomings, certainly enough to justify having them removed from any tender list of contractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Staunton Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 It's not all down to cost. When a tender is put out the first thing they will want to do is cover their own arses. G4S will drown them in lots of paperwork and procedure (a lot of which they won't understand) and despite the Olympics debacle, a massive firm like that is a "safe" bet and are big enough to carry the can if something goes wrong. If you pick a small firm and something goes wrong the first thing that will be asked "why didn't you use a big firm" and the council (or whoever) carrys the can. Thank you tinfoilhat. This is another useful insight that further explains how the corporate sector can use the resources at their disposal to override so called 'free market' competition and garner lucrative contracts at public expense. Similarly, small and medium entreprises are often faced with prohibitive insurance costs that the multinationals can easily accommodate, a factor which, like tinfoilhat's point, gives the lie to government rhetoric suggesting that cooperatives, social enterprises and SMEs might benefit from the great public sector sell-off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 they will not aliow any investigations into their activities other than those they are legally required to allow. Would any other company be willing to allow snooping investigations on their operations in the vain hope of raking up some muck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 Who owns G4S? Not the CEO, you can find that out on the website, but the actual owner? Who owns Serco? Who owns Capita? Who owns all these companies that are in receipt of major government contracts, and therefore vast sums of tax payers money? Why is it so hard to find out? What are they afraid of? Why is it better for our money to go to private individuals rather than the public sector? Why do we have no say over who gets these contracts? It stinks. Seeriously? They are all plcs so anyone can buy shares in them, thats why you cantbfind out the name of the owner because more than likely they all have thousands of owners. And its better in most cases because they can do it cheaper than the council can provide the service for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted June 14, 2013 Share Posted June 14, 2013 They do it cheaper because they have a bottom line to stick to and they don't tend to put up with any trouble from unions etc. They don't overpay their staff like the public sector does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.