|
Countdown
6,339 posts
65 months
|
Daily Telegraph said: Mrs May is no player of the blame game. Indeed, listening to her, you might have wondered why anyone was making a fuss at all – everything in the organisational garden sounded rosy.
“The security operation has been meticulously planned,” she said with a straight face. Mrs May claimed that it was only on Wednesday that “the gap in the numbers was crystallised”. “We have been monitoring this but of course it is only when you get to this point that the scheduling of staff comes fully through.” The opening ceremony is in two weeks.
Imagine going to a Home Office party. “Regrettably our caterers have supplied only three vol-au-vents and a bottle of Shloer. We had been monitoring this but of course it is only when you get to two minutes before the party that you check to see how much food and drink you have. Fortunately we’ve got the Coldstream Guards doing us some cheese and pineapple on sticks.” 
|
|
|
61GT
222 posts
49 months
|
Haven't they now admitted it was all their fault and they will also pick up the additional costs for the Service Personnel!
I don't know all the ins and outs of this and no doubt there is some blame on both sides but how G4S allowed themselves to get in this position on such a high profile event is beyond belief and I for one wouldn't go near them again for any future Business.
FWIW - Does the fact that there are more Troops carrying out security duties at the Olympics fill me with more confidence? - Absolutely!
|
|
|
7mike
2,053 posts
62 months
|
61GT said: Haven't they now admitted it was all their fault and they will also pick up the additional costs for the Service Personnel! A little sweetner to keep all their future government contracts healthy?
|
|
|
Jackleman
974 posts
35 months
|
richtvr said: Come on guys £250 mil and half your staff walk out because you cut pay from £8.54 to £6.80 and now the army needs to step in
How do you win these contracts? Erm why would anyone pay £8.54 an hour for a stupid monkey?
|
|
|
XCP
10,479 posts
97 months
|
Jackleman said: Erm why would anyone pay £8.54 an hour for a stupid monkey? Because that was the rate you originally offered?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Jackleman
974 posts
35 months
|
XCP said: Because that was the rate you originally offered? Fair play to your comment. But ultimately, stupidity and greed have reigned highly here.
|
|
|
XCP
10,479 posts
97 months
|
Jackleman said: Fair play to your comment.
But ultimately, stupidity and greed have reigned highly here. That about sums it up I would say.
|
|
|
omgus
4,850 posts
44 months
|
Jackleman said: Erm why would anyone pay £8.54 an hour for a stupid monkey? Because it is around the lower end pay in Security in London. Works out to approx £20k/annum and is what you would expect G4S and Securitas to be paying their contracted bodies. The client would be paying at least £12-13/ hour. The good guards won't work in London for that so you get the dregs.
|
|
|
ExFiF
18,381 posts
120 months
|
7mike said: 61GT said: Haven't they now admitted it was all their fault and they will also pick up the additional costs for the Service Personnel! A little sweetner to keep all their future government contracts healthy? 50 million loss on the Games, CEO will be out of a job within months. Sadly though the sweetener comment is probably accurate.
|
|
|
andy_s
8,467 posts
128 months
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18837524Contrition and talk of recompense for inconvenience...I think they would have fought it all a bit harder if they hadn't seen what Surrey and West Mids were doing as a result, but even then that would have placed them at odds with, ultimately, the Home Office, which would have been equally damaging. We'll see though, you know what these things are like once the story is wrapping chips...
|
|
|
Apache
38,242 posts
153 months
|
A lot of these were supposed to be volunteers, my wife works at an MOD establishment that was prepared for them all to turn up for some basic training, guess what......not a single one turned up
|
|
|
Blackpuddin
4,785 posts
74 months
|
CEO was shocking on R4 this morn, a classic case of money hypnotism and hope it all turns out all right. He was blaming the number of applicants! What did he expect in today's climate? Couldn't answer any question convincingly. Didn't even know if an ability to speak English had been set as a criterion for employment. 
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,492 posts
40 months
|
Apache said: A lot of these were supposed to be volunteers, my wife works at an MOD establishment that was prepared for them all to turn up for some basic training, guess what......not a single one turned up Electronic tags on all G4S staff 
|
|
|
Laurel Green
14,873 posts
101 months
|
Blackpuddin said: CEO was shocking on R4 this morn, a classic case of money hypnotism and hope it all turns out all right. He was blaming the number of applicants! What did he expect in today's climate? Couldn't answer any question convincingly. Didn't even know if an ability to speak English had been set as a criterion for employment. It was indeed shocking. It was almost as if he was practising to become a government minister.
|
|
|
Blackpuddin
4,785 posts
74 months
|
Laurel Green said: Blackpuddin said: CEO was shocking on R4 this morn, a classic case of money hypnotism and hope it all turns out all right. He was blaming the number of applicants! What did he expect in today's climate? Couldn't answer any question convincingly. Didn't even know if an ability to speak English had been set as a criterion for employment. It was indeed shocking. It was almost as if he was practising to become a government minister. When someone prefaces just about every sentence with the word 'basically' you know they're wasters. That's just another way of saying 'to be honest' - and we all know what that means. The Govt spokestwerp who was on Today immediately beforehand, 'defending' the decision to allow councils to impose 20mph limits, somehow managed to be even worse than this G4S idiot.
|
|
|
calibrax
2,944 posts
80 months
|
G4S are charging the Olympics £280m and say they will lose £50m. That would mean their costs for supplying 6,500 security staff is £280m + £50m = £330m. So, it works out at around £50k per person. For an event which last just 17 days.
How much are the staff being paid? Let's be very generous (although I'm sure G4S won't be) and say 3 months pay at £3k per month = £9k per person. What makes up the remaining £41k per person (i.e. £266 MILLION) in costs? And why is nobody in government asking G4S these questions?
|
|
|
Derek Smith
16,034 posts
117 months
|
andy_s said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18837524Contrition and talk of recompense for inconvenience...I think they would have fought it all a bit harder if they hadn't seen what Surrey and West Mids were doing as a result, but even then that would have placed them at odds with, ultimately, the Home Office, which would have been equally damaging. We'll see though, you know what these things are like once the story is wrapping chips... I think you are, depressingly, spot-on. We have these figures bandied about: £35 million, £50 million, they are just figures, they do not relate in anyway to money that will be given back. There will be lobbying, and expense account dinner for someone in authority and the money will be paid according to all the reports. It is unlikely that G4S will make a less profit from the games than they anticipated and no one will be inconvenienced in any way shape or form. Anyone who's not a police officer, soldier or of course a taxpayer. If we do hear anything remotely resembling an exposé then the politicians responsible will say they worked under legal advice all away through and everybody will be happy.
|
|
|
Mermaid
12,492 posts
40 months
|
calibrax said: G4S are charging the Olympics £280m and say they will lose £50m. That would mean their costs for supplying 6,500 security staff is £280m + £50m = £330m. So, it works out at around £50k per person. For an event which last just 17 days.
How much are the staff being paid? Let's be very generous (although I'm sure G4S won't be) and say 3 months pay at £3k per month = £9k per person. What makes up the remaining £41k per person (i.e. £266 MILLION) in costs? And why is nobody in government asking G4S these questions? They don't have a calculator
|
|
|
TonyRPH
4,726 posts
37 months
|
calibrax said: G4S are charging the Olympics £280m and say they will lose £50m. That would mean their costs for supplying 6,500 security staff is £280m + £50m = £330m. So, it works out at around £50k per person. For an event which last just 17 days.
How much are the staff being paid? Let's be very generous (although I'm sure G4S won't be) and say 3 months pay at £3k per month = £9k per person. What makes up the remaining £41k per person (i.e. £266 MILLION) in costs? And why is nobody in government asking G4S these questions? I'm not saying it makes up the balance - but you forgot about the cost of training, certification etc.
|
|
|
Steameh
3,047 posts
79 months
|
TonyRPH said: calibrax said: G4S are charging the Olympics £280m and say they will lose £50m. That would mean their costs for supplying 6,500 security staff is £280m + £50m = £330m. So, it works out at around £50k per person. For an event which last just 17 days.
How much are the staff being paid? Let's be very generous (although I'm sure G4S won't be) and say 3 months pay at £3k per month = £9k per person. What makes up the remaining £41k per person (i.e. £266 MILLION) in costs? And why is nobody in government asking G4S these questions? I'm not saying it makes up the balance - but you forgot about the cost of training, certification etc. It wont just be direct to the staff either, costs of overheads like head office rental, electricity etc etc it all adds up. Add in some profit as well and you will get to your magic number.
|
|
