The BBC were deliberately slow at reporting, to avoid showing rioters where the best riots were. Sky News on the other hand were right there straight away.

The management fee (20% of the contract) is for managing the overall 23,500 security staff - providing everything from the staff to office facilities. The contract involved more than just supplying 10,000 security staff.

Quite how they were supposed to sort all this out a long time back when the scale of the Home Office/LOCOG fk up was only revealed late last year by HMIC and dumped on G4S in December seems to be a point still missed by some posters.

It seemed to have been missed by their CEO too who failed to mention any of this or indeed defend his position at all.

"Take the flack old chap and we'll ensure you get to replace real cops with your ranks of jobbie-bobbies"

Todays one act play was a disaster for real policing in the future.

I'll keep pointing it out because it is constantly missed, the increase was meant to be assisted, the DWP was supposed to be on-board, that didn't happen, extra staff at LOCOG were not recruited to process their side of the accreditation.

I'm not letting them off at all, the whole thing stinks, but just because one pile of crap right in front of us smells bad, you don't ignore the other steaming piles around you.

We're well in the mire then if they have less than 3 years notice...

It's still a bit of a big gamble I think. There are other companies that are in the bidding that will no doubt use this situation to their advantage - using them would be the best solution for the govt. as well - they wouldn't have to use the tarnished G4S but could still push through the privatisation plans, going G4S would just give fuel to the opposition.

Just musing.

I think Surrey had already canned the privatisation plan a few days before the G4S mess erupted. The reason they gave was that most of the new PCC candidates oppose it, and since they would have to sign it off, there's no point pursuing it. Or so they say.

Not just G4S that are getting help, UK Border Agency too.

USA sending Transport Security Authority officers to work at Heathrow and elsewhere

US security agents are to be based at Heathrow and some other UK airports for the duration of the ‪Olympic‬ Games, according to Sky sources.
The Department for Transport has reached an agreement with the US Transportation Security Administration for specialist agents to be based at several UK airports.
They will arrive one week before the Olympics, and leave around a week after the end of the Paralympics.
Sky's Home Affairs correspondent Mark White said: "This is an added security layer that has been done to help boost and aid the American airlines in particular that fly in and out of the likes of Heathrow and other airports.
"Nonetheless it is a very unusual occurrence and is significant."




Rumours that it's not request for help, but USA said this is what is going to happen. I don't know what to believe.

The Met's ability with rioters is admired worldwide by other police forces.

You quote the money the police get: this country pays less per capita than France and Germany to police, much less. One German area has three helicopters to police less than 80% of a force in this country that has a quarter of a helio.

The Met response to the rioting was as good as their reserves allowed. People with fingers in their ears don't realise just how few police officers we have in this country. They can't be magiced up.

There is a very sophisticated system, used in the Miners' Strike and many times since, of mutual aid. If a police force, now normally metropolitan, requires assistance with a problem, such as a riot, other forces contribute officers to cover. In my force they have a minimum which they must not go below and then everyone else gets in a bus and goes. It's used in major incidents as well.

Few other countries have this because they are not so understaffed.

However, with the swingeing cuts from the coalition, many forces, and mine in particular, are currently running at or below the minimum figure. Last year many forces had to drop well below their minimums to supply officers for London and elsewhere. I know of one force that will be unable to supply officers if it all goes up this year or next and I beleive it is not alone.

Despite promises of immediate payment to compensate for the costs of the riots, one very large force had had no money from the government by November last year. The government making savings out of a service already reeling from savage cuts.

What is remarkable is that the police are able to supply officers for the G4S shortfall, although this can only be done by stopping all leave, including annual leave. One force has stopped all staff days off from 1 July to 3 September other than 8 days of all types of leave. Plus there will be longer hours each day. And now there are even more demands due to ineptitutde of G4S.

Despite what the simple believe, responding to a riot is not a simple case of throwing officers at it. Even on small scale public order you need to group. It is a fact of public order response that when you send a unit in without clear targets you lose them.

The riots were virtually unique in London. The area covered was abnormal and gave rise to specific problems. Further, turn up with a force at one location and the trouble stopes. It then starts up elsewhere. This is no problem when the area is confined but the hot spots were miles apart. Unfortunately I don't think that such a riot will be unique for long. When Thatcher started her campaign of mass unemployment she had the sense to boost the police numbers. Once the problem was over she started the cuts. Cameron, on the other hand, has decided on an alternative strategy. Time will tell which is the better but I know which my money is on.

Told you we shouldn't joke about it