G4S earn £94 million of public money

[ECCOnoob]

Shareholders themselves.

 

Like you said earlier (I think it was you who made the point ), these days there are so many shareholders, with smaller stakes, and hence smaller voices.

 

So what do you prefer? One big shareholder with a big voice and a lot of control?

 

Isnt' that just putting it back into private ownership again?

 

I dont understand. Nobody can have it both ways.

[Anna B]

What point, that it is impossible to find the owner of G4S because of all the secrecy. She disproved that by finding out who started the company, who was the majority shareholder up until 2010 and who the major sharehoders are now.

 

Finding out required the use of search engines, severel web sites and cross referencing - none of which were available until the relatively recent advent of the internet. So maybe the days of absolute secrecy are limited, (and why censorship of the web would be in their interests) but it was hardly readily available information.

 

And that still doesn't prevent setting up companies, buying and selling shares etc. under proxy names, which they do, as was disclosed by a Panorama or Dispaches television programme recently.

 

Staunton's point is perfectly valid.

[Hillpig]

I suppose its the nature of the services the supply that worries people, prisons, prison escorts, services that would, in earlier times be done by public bodies that were accountable to the public. G4S is accountable only to its shareholders, notwithstanding the fact that we, the taxpayer hand over £394mill per annum.

[Longcol]

I suppose its the nature of the services the supply that worries people, prisons, prison escorts, services that would, in earlier times be done by public bodies that were accountable to the public. G4S is accountable only to its shareholders, notwithstanding the fact that we, the taxpayer hand over £394mill per annum.

 

If you have a contract with a private company or a public service then you should fulfill the terms of the contract.

 

If G4S have a contract with the "public sector" then it should be accountable to the whoever in the sector that they a contracting to. The "public body" (central government, local authority) should ensure that the contract is fulfilled on behalf of the public, and are accountable to the public.

[Anna B]

If you have a contract with a private company or a public service then you should fulfill the terms of the contract.

 

If G4S have a contract with the "public sector" then it should be accountable to the whoever in the sector that they a contracting to. The "public body" (central government, local authority) should ensure that the contract is fulfilled on behalf of the public, and are accountable to the public.

 

 

Isn't G4S the company that totally screwed up at the 2012 Olympics?

 

Why are they still getting contracts? Where is the accountability in that?

[Longcol]

Isn't G4S the company that totally screwed up at the 2012 Olympics?

 

 

Yup - and had penalty clauses invoked - G4S chiefs resigning left, right and centre............

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/10070425/Timeline-how-G4Ss-bungled-Olympics-security-contract-unfolded.html

[Hillpig]

I suppose I am uncomfortable with it due to the fact I have been away for many years and perhaps notice the changes here more starkly. I did see G4S in Thailand and South Korea, where they are very Police like in their activities, patrolling enclaves, shopping malls hotels usually armed. I never expected that the UK would allow what used to be public services to be privatised in this way.

[Anna B]

Yup - and had penalty clauses invoked - G4S chiefs resigning left, right and centre............

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/supportservices/10070425/Timeline-how-G4Ss-bungled-Olympics-security-contract-unfolded.html

 

So why give them future contracts?

 

If I ask a guy to build me a house and he puts up a shed, I don't ask him to build me another house, I go elsewhere.

[Longcol]

So why give them future contracts?

 

If I ask a guy to build me a house and he puts up a shed, I don't ask him to build me another house, I go elsewhere.

 

Could be a chance that 99% of the time they build a house -like someone else on the thread pointed out earlier, fulfilling a contract properly isn't a news story, screwing up is - the time they build a shed the penalty clause comes into effect so you don't lose out.

 

---------- Post added 16-06-2013 at 11:15 ----------

 

I suppose I am uncomfortable with it due to the fact I have been away for many years and perhaps notice the changes here more starkly. I did see G4S in Thailand and South Korea, where they are very Police like in their activities, patrolling enclaves, shopping malls hotels usually armed. I never expected that the UK would allow what used to be public services to be privatised in this way.

 

Not sure what you're saying here - certainly providing security in shopping malls, hotels, enclaves has always been a job for the private sector over here - thankfully unarmed. Never been a public service.

[Mecky]

Because there is no law that says if you make mistakes you must stop operating. They obviously provide a LOT of services and probably most of them very well however that doesn't sell newspapers.

 

Well, G4S have an extensive catalogue of major ****-ups stretching back donkey's years and you would think public confidence in them would be at an all-time low. Yet people keep throwing contracts at them despite the fact they should know better, why is that?