Security at the Olympics...Never again in the UK..

First topic message reminder :

I have been watching the bumbling, inept performance over the last couple of weeks of the security company that was awarded the security contract for London 2012.

What worries more is that this company was awarded the contract in the first place. I cannot even perceive what idiots awarded his contract.

When sports people from all over the globe are travelling to another country to perform, they are entitled in todays world of 2012 to expect competent security. The fact that the British do not grasp this point shows that the Olympic games should never again be awarded to Britain, and now I wonder that appontments for important Sporting events like the Rugby World cup should also not be awarded to Britain, if they cant even cope with an olympics.

I am gonna also mention that this issue has actually affected me and my business personally- I am possibly one of the only people on these boards that has a right to have a pop at this issue. I have been carrying out work at all the TA centres cadet centres and army bases in and around london . I havent been able to complete 3 sites, due to how busy there are at present- which is holding up payment and wasting my labour resource due to g4s's inadequeces. Yet all we hear is people whinging about something that hasnt materilised- Sorry auckland you clearly have no idea!

Sorry nay for calling him a numpty . I don't want this thread removed I want the ignorance highlighted. I shouldn't have dropped to that level

Whose ignorance?

aucklandlaurie wrote:When sports people from all over the globe are travelling to another country to perform, they are entitled in todays world of 2012 to expect competent security. The fact that the British do not grasp this point shows that the Olympic games should never again be awarded to Britain, and now I wonder that appontments for important Sporting events like the Rugby World cup should also not be awarded to Britain, if they cant even cope with an olympics.

aucklandlaurie,

One point on your rather petty article.

Are you aware of the enormous difference in scale between the RWC and the Olympics? If so, why say 'even'?

Sugar and Spykes
Really my post has nothing to do with the size of the rugby World cup as opposed to the Olympics, that point is not important.

The even relates to priority as in being in 2012.I am a very avid rugby fan, which no doubt you are already aware.but as I said above Rugby doesnt have a great deal to do with my post.

It's the way you use conjecture and exaggeration that rankles.

This article doesn't really have anything to do with security, it's just your excuse to have a pop and insult the British.

Maybe you should change your OP if half of it has nothing to do with your point.

I dont think I should, my post is motivated by the security issue and nothing else.

But there was never a 'security issue'. Only a shortfall in staff to stand in doorways and check bags. A shortfall that was very quickly remedied.

There is not a security risk and there was never a security risk.

Your views are the height of ignorance auckland

djlovesyou wrote:But there was never a 'security issue'. Only a shortfall in staff to stand in doorways and check bags. A shortfall that was very quickly remedied.

There is not a security risk and there was never a security risk.

Well said

There was never a risk really, the security company ballsed up but it was quickly rectified. Nothing to see here really.

Thomond wrote:There was never a risk really, the security company ballsed up but it was quickly rectified. Nothing to see here really.

I'm only surprised that this thread is still drivelling on.

This issue is a complete and utter dead duck. It has been for more than a week now. The Games have started and medals are being decided. I would have thought that would be the real issue of interest now,


.

Auckland, if your point is hiring G4S was an awful move. You don't say.

But if you're saying that should prevent us getting the Olympics years down the line. You're talking bunkum. There's always someone who wants to take a pop, wind your neck in and enjoy the sports.

G4S failed to delver their contract and will be fined

The plan B was mobilised quickly and there never was any security risk

If people wonder why G4S was awarded the contract (i.e. should the Olympic committee not gone to a more reliable company), then it might help to know G4S is the second BIGGEST employer in the globe - yup, they have more staff than any other company except Walmart in the whole world

So, it would be safe to expect them to do their job - they failed and the planners brought in plan b -

Not really sure what the whole point of this article is, as it seems more like a drunken rant u expect at the end of a night, rather than an disucssion on the merits or the security procedures

Agree with the majority of the respondents. Its a pretty stupid article with a deliberately and unnecessarily provocative title.

@Riskysports: Second biggest employer or not, G4S have a pretty shabby track record in Britain, ever since they were given the contract for prisoner transportation and other jobs formerly handled by the police.

As someone else commented I'm actually far happier now the police and armed forces have stepped up to cover the shortfall. After seeing some of the G4S trainees interviewed, it seems the organisation was abysmal. Just goes to show "big" doesn't necessarily equal "competent". You only have to look at people like Bob Diamond to know that.

Agree with everyone.

What a ridiculous OP. Most of it didn't even make any sense.

I would hide your age if I were you, only makes you look even worse.

Plus, no amount of backtracking of fudging of the issues can hide your initial intent, which was clearly to malign a whole nation.



emancipator

Plainly obviously the OP was trying to wum I'd suggest.

Eh, better to have the army doing security anyway. It's worked out fine. Knock on wood

You like a man in uniform then Chequered?

I like a woman in uniform

Cool...