He has no need to say it, they're doing it and taking this flack on behalf of the incompetent will give him and his Company a bonus, their Jobbie-bobbies have an in.
I came up with a proposition of what aces he holds, he may have one or all of them, it's not 'bullst' as you call it, it is a very possible reason for his acquiescence, a greater long term benefit.
See above.
No, you should read the text again, the CRB tests that G4S get are from Capita, but LOCOG do a double blind and don't use capita, that is because un-convicted terrorism suspects are not on that Capita Db, they get that from the Met/MI5
Perhaps if you read more carefully and understood the cut and thrust of debate you would avoid making a complete Vaz of yourself in not grasping the real point of the matter.

Cheers

Gene.

Vaz... made me chuckle.

Actually I think you learn more about reality from forums such as this, than from a select committee report.

You think that agreeing that his company was completely incompetent will help him get police privatization deal? Yes, associating with companies that mess up on such great scale is always going to be vote winner.

Or he had none of them and for the very same reason didn't use them. 'But maybe ....'. No, he didn't have any aces hence he said 'I agree - complete shambles on our part'. If you think this is the way to win future business, you do need reality check. His admission that he shouldn't sign the contract doesn't really fit well with your conspiracy theory, does it ?

All parts of your first post were done by Capita. Once proven wrong, you could say; mea culpa and move on, or you can move goalposts. I expect your next 'proof' of conspiracy to hamper the G4S effort will be Illuminati or equivalent.

Ah once again; 'You don't understand'. How predictable, and yet entertaining. The 'real point' of the matter is, that you have no idea what you are talking about. Everything that you said so far was proven as wrong. To counter that, you are coming up that even though everything you said so far is wrong, it is all done with the bigger picture in mind. Neil-the-confused really didn't come across as mastermind taking the flack for future gains. He came across as incompetent and out of his depth. IMHO, you came across as someone who should be member of flat earth society. 'It's all about bigger picture that great unwashed can't understand'.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Oder,order....order me a taxi...

G4S chairman John Connolly is also the Chairman of the board of London 2012 sponsors.
Tom Winsor, the current Chief Inspector of the Constabulary, is a lawyer who advised G4S on the £200 million policing contract they secured.
G4S have ex-Home Secretary Reid and ex-Met Chief Condon on their board.
May has shares in the PRU, which are a stalkholder in G4S.

Any other links between the politico, the plodio and Good4ste?

That's where we disagree - you're treating the Government as just another customer and this contract as just another contract.

In this case there a mix of ministers, civil servants and other officials (LOCOG/Police/etc). Their primary concern isn't really cost, contract performance or viability. It's simply ensuring that it makes them look good in the immediate term and that they don't get the blame.

They know that by the time things go wrong they will have moved on - whether by cabinet reshuffle, elections, civil service promotions/another role, whatever - or by then nobody cares anymore such as once the Olympics are finished. Even those responsible for project when it goes tits up can normally pass the blame onto their predecessors. It's even easier when the blame can be pinned onto the opposition. How many Shadow Ministers have ever been held responsible for something that happened when they were Minister? Not very many. And they all know that.

When a problem occurs the refrain is "don't care, do whatever you have to do to make it go away". That usually means throwing money at it and letting the schedule slip. Ministers and officials don't really care that if is even possible - the contractor is simply instructed to carry on in the hope that it'll be the next minister/official who has to deal with the fallout.

It happens all the time in Defence procurement. Some military officer is given a procurement role for 18 months. It's not a job he wants to do, trained to do or is interested in. He wants every last fancy toy on his jeep and then decides what he really wants is a tank instead. The delays and cost over-runs this cause isn't his problem because in 18 months he'll moved onto another command. It's not even limited to procurement - every brigadier and battle group in Iraq and Afghanistan all decided they knew what was needed and threw away the work of the previous brigadier/battle group only to end up having to rebuild it all when they realise why the previous incumbents did things that way.

The trouble with this (and any Olympic) contract is that it can't be delayed - it has a hard deadline. But again if you're the Government that isn't really a problem either. You just dump the problem on the Police and the Ministry of Defence especially. So if you're the Home Office, it doesn't really matter if you leave it to the last minute because someone will bail you out - better yet by bailing you out they even provide a public distraction from your incompetence. If you're LOCOG all you care about is getting through the Olympics - afterwards you don't care because it will be over and people will get about it.

There's lots of talk about the penalty clauses in the contract. But there isn't much talk about the other side of the contract - what if G4S said they couldn't do it? Given that LOCOG's plan all along was to do this at the last minute (it wasn't G4S that decided that the recruitment would begin in January and run right up to the Games), "No" was never going to be an option. If you're a contractor that is something that is very difficult to protect against. On the aircraft carrier project, the Aircraft Carrier Alliance negotiated tough penalty clauses against cancellation - because they were expected to make very significant investments for a highly risky return. Yet the Government still tried to screw them over - by blaming the contractor for the penalty clauses.

Fundamentally in government procurement it is one rule for the Government and another for everyone else. While everyone else plays by normal commercial rules (if the client was a private company, they wouldn't be having this dispute in public), the Government plays by the rules of politics - which means shifting the blame onto someone else, preferably someone who can't defend themselves.

In public this is being presented as LOCOG/Home Office/Government v G4S. One side has turn Crown Evidence to keep their own head away from the chopping block. Yet in private the MOD have laying the full blame at the doorstep of the Home Office - partly because if the MOD was run the way the Home Office has been they would be crucified and rightly so.

That's the point I'm making in this thread - we are being manipulated by Theresa May.

Select Committe reports themsevles aren't too bad -especially when based on work by the National Audit Office. They usually contain useful information, particularly written evidence, that never makes the headlines.

The real problem is how Select Committees now treat oral evidence sessions. These used to be dull affairs, run by MPs who knew how to ask the right questions to evidece out of witnesses, and existed solely to gather evidence for the final report.

But as far as current committee members are often concerned the purpose of committee hearings is to score a soundbite. We now have MPs with no other experience of, well, anything and whose only concern is their media profile. They demand from witnesses a level of detail that no senior official could hope to answer there and then. Traditionally it was accepted that a detailed answer would be provided in writing (as it still is) to inform the written report. But now MPs simply use the opportunity to unfairly portray the witness as incompetent and go on a rant that gets them headlines. As we've seen in recent inquiries (Murdoch, Barclays, G4S) these sort of questions have displaced the proper searching questions that any other intelligent person would ask. All because committee MPs are far too concerned with getting a clip on Sky News/Twitter than producing factual reports.

This is simply another symptom of our diseased political culture.

But that's G4S's business ethic. They took over Lincs Police and promptly made a load of the civilian staff redundant. That's after they'd already been culled to the bone before handover.

But we don't know what sort of margin they were working on, but we do know that the terms of employment were agree by LOCOG and the HO before the contract was signed, so the other parties must share the responsibility.

In all honesty EB, you don't seem able to offer an objective view any more, so influenced are you by what you perceive to be unfair treatment of the Police.

Thanks for the heads up on Lincs, BTW, it must be like the wild west up there now, I'll give it a wide berth.

You'll forgive my quoting. In my experience, public bodies that i do work for, (nothing on the scale like this contract), are very good at negotiating contracts, they always insist on 'what-if-not-delivered' clauses. For some contracts that meant that we had to say ; 'Sorry, no, risk/profit doesn't work for us in this instance.'.

Contracts are not simple, and I would imagine that at this level, you'd have scores of very capable lawyers scrutinising all details of contracts and defining measurable KPIs, on both sides.

As far as TM is concerned, she is held at the same level of contempt as GB or TB or DC or Nick-the-liberal.

I'm sure that G4S is not the only guilty party. Even they now realise that they should of walk away from the contract. If that happened nobody (in their right mind) would blame them. They didn't, so they get the blame.

Trying to blame police, who for the record, are not perfect by any stretch of imagination, or trying to get MI5 involved to deflect attention from G4S is misplaced, at best.

I would honestly like to know what was the problem with getting Police/Military to provide security to the games in the first place. Was it lack of numbers, training or something else? I don't have the answer to this, so it is a genuine question.

I think the UK is crazy - how on earth can the government justify all of the quangos and hundreds of thousands of potential 'non jobs (where people work not to the real benefit of the population, but as a hindrance to), yet tell us that we cannot afford a decent Police Force or army!
I think the core services, police, army and emergency services should be absolutely the last areas to be cut of public funding.
Still, in the UK, it seems much more important to employ jobsworths who phone private companies to ask if they have a radio licence….

Not even close, they were assuming they would fill the majority of these posts with volunteers