Sorry for starting another thread on this, couldn't find the old one. Just thought I'd comment on this one last time. Read today "G4S has said in a statement that it had had 8,000 staff on the ground over the course of the Olympics and it had delivered 83% of contracted shifts." Well I was at the Olympic Park three times over the course of the games and paralympics and in all that time I observed a total of *three* people in G4S uniform (controlling the queue into McDonalds). Now of course some of them might have been otherwise disguised but I wonder where they were all hiding, what were they doing? Clearly they are not the people in military uniform nor those kitted out as 'games makers', so from my (admittedly limited) experience I saw none of them controlling entry into the park as they were all military or volunteers. I understand G4S people did have uniform, but I certainly didn't see anyone else with "G4S" badges. Anyway point is I wonder how they calculate 8,000 staff? Is it like I count as three visitors to the olympics? You know, if one guy does 20 shifts over the games then there's 20 of the "8,000 staff" already. I understand G4S hasn't been paid since it declared shortfall, but this doesn't mean of course they will never be paid. The powers that be might just be waiting for the outcry to die down, or for a 'bad news day'. The irony is that the Government thinks that it doesn't need so many troops because internal security duties will be done in future by 'cheaper' private firms like G4S, and they are *very* buddy buddy with such firms. I don't think their contracts are very strict and I'm wondering if there is something we're not hearing that they must be paid a certain percentage regardless of their performance. Call my a cynic but I'm not sure the public gets the best deal out of such arrangements. On a positive note however, the events I saw were great and the atmosphere in the stadium utterly fantastic. I don't think the Games are probably worth the money we had to spend, and I'm very dubious about 'legacy'... the Games let's face it are all about elite performance, and that is almost the opposite of "sport for all" (remember that slogan from the 70s/80s anyone?) There is no point "inspiring a generation" if they don't have the facilities to go to or if they are overpriced (our local pool is horribly expensive). I can't help feeling that spending what the games cost on grass roots sport would have been far more effective... but that wouldn't have been such good advertising for McDonalds would it.
Lottery funding was stopped to many 'small' sports facilities as funds were diverted to the Olympics. The net effect is that most money was 'diverted' to London at the expense of the rest of the UK. No doubt the Olympics were very popular with perhaps most people in the UK but there is a sizable minority who have hardly had the views expressed by the BBC and the rest of the media. For many this whole exercise represents a colossal waste of money (estimates of 15 billion) probably more, which highlights the 'lie' about the economic state of the country. Which should really be the economic state of the bankers. Ordinary folk facing hardship brought about by the government bailing out rich bankers who caused their own problems is bad enough but to then spend billions on a few week jamboree is not a reason for praise in many peoples eye's.
G4S failed and they admitted that they failed. They should have to repay some of the money that they've already been given, let alone be asking for more.
well, i enjoyed the 'lympics. I was a cynic before but they got me. Tried for many, many tickets and only got to go to wembley for team gb. Would've loved to go to the park
I watched them but then I got overdosed on them so gave the paraolympics a miss,and now I'm glad they have gone. Still think the two could have been combined to save taxpayers money. But I totally agree with Spurf's sentiment.
I assume the taxpayer is paid for the military operation? Should have been G4S but no doubt can't be done retrospectively. These public/private deals certainly need more robust contracts. My wife is quite senior in the NHS and has told me several horror stories about vast amounts of money being paid to private organisations that have not delivered, but have not been penalised as a result. Just to reiterate, I really did enjoy what I saw (and didn't think it was too much on TV), but am very sceptical about the legacy and costs.
I worked for them, we had at max 200 staff in Cardiff, which was one of the only cities that goons4security didn't lose to the Police. I personally can reel off the names of 5 people who went through training and screening, not to get given work. In actual fact, during the middle of the games, a bus load of security guards from Manchester were shipped down, signed in, then put up in 4* hotels in Bristol. Very nice for them, but not for the workers in Cardiff that were told couldn't work anymore. They almost seemed determined to piss as much of the taxpayers money up the wall as they could. Absolute nightmare working for them, and an absolute shambles their 'operation' was too.
The part of the story that wasn't reported was that G4S staff were told the most they would be paid for working the Olympic Park was £8 per hour - which is 20% below the national average: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-18898646 If I was Nick Buckle, I would've mentioned this at the kangaroo court that LOCOG and the Tories arranged to shift the blame onto G4S, instead of spinelessly accepting the blame for everything and take the flak like a spineless coward. After all, if this was mentioned, the blame would've gone right back to LOCOG. Another thing LOCOG have done is renege on promises to put up and remove signs for the cycling road race around Surrey, which has left Surrey County Council £250k out of pocket - as well as every town on the route losing a weekend's business as they were instructed to remain closed for both days of the cycling. During the course of the Olympics, local businesses around London (especially in Stratford) lost a huge amount of business, mainly as the Olympic officials were herding people between the stadium and the tube station, whilst central London also saw a dramatic downturn in business. Meanwhile, there was a 2% rise in hotel bookings...but consider how many of those went to IOC and LOCOG officials before anyone else had a chance to book, and you see they actually had LESS people using them. Meanwhile, the people who live and work in London were told to stand aside every day, with the roads that their own taxes pay for being cordened off for Olympic officials to use, whilst London Bridge was impossible to navigate due to the barriers they errected all over the place that meant getting from the Underground to the station, a walk that takes two minutes, took the best part of ten...and when you got to your train, it was overcrowded, but that's better than the ones coming into London Bridge that were always delayed by between 10-15 minutes. Meanwhile, the outright jingoism of the BBC reached new levels of nauseating. Frankly, the BBC's coverage could have been directed by Leni Riefenstahl and nobody would have noticed the difference. In short, good riddance to the corporate jolly masquarading as a glorified sports day - hello to the crippling debt that comes with hosting it.
