Olympics Security Debacle

#1
YorkVol

YorkVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
19,021
Likes
4,512
#1
Haven't seen much about this in the U.S. press, but it is, of course, all over the UK press. G4S (who, btw, is the 2nd largest employer in the U.S. after Walmart) has been having trouble filling all their contracted security positions so they Brits are using about 3500 soldiers to fill the gaps.

That's the story that appears all over the place and currently the G4S CEO is taking all of the heat. However, part of the blame rests with the UK government as they always had a major part of the security mission but had not completed their planning until recently. Consequently, G4S never knew until last month the total number of positions they needed to fill.

I only point all of this out to ask the question, are private and government partnerships appropriate for securing such a lucrative target as the olympics? Just wondering what others might think.

And yes, this has personal impact since they sign my paycheck...

G4S Olympic security debacle - Q&A | UK news | guardian.co.uk

London 2012 Olympics: 3,500 troops to boost security - video | Sport | guardian.co.uk
 
#2
#2
Private security forces tend to be owned and operated by former security professionals and, by and large, that is who you are depending on to plan and execute the contract.

If you contract with such folks to provide security on this scale and they f it up, you have only yourself to blame, imo.
 
#3
#3
Private and public partnerships rarely create an adequate product for the consumer. The private company often secures the contract by "knowing people", or by doing something shady. It rarely goes to the most qualified party, IMO.
 
#5
#5
I didn't read the articles but how could the government and company sign a contract without knowing the number of people the company would need to provide?? That would seem to me the most basic requirement for a contract.

In principle, I don't have a problem with a public/private collaboration of security for high visibility events as long as the responsibilities are clearly delineated.
 
#7
#7
OldandStillaVol said:
I didn't read the articles but how could the government and company sign a contract without knowing the number of people the company would need to provide?? That would seem to me the most basic requirement for a contract.

In principle, I don't have a problem with a public/private collaboration of security for high visibility events as long as the responsibilities are clearly delineated.
Click to expand...

If I understand it, the Home Office was supposed to identify the key positions it would fill with government/military forces and they failed to do so accurately until recently. Their number was lower than estimated and G4S had to cover more than originally planned. A private security firm can't generally provide several thousand trained officers without adequate notice. It is interesting that G4S is taking all the blame instead of sharing it with the Home Office people.

Also, I agree that the partnership can work. For example, we provide security for the Philadelphia Eagles in partnership with another private company as well as the Philly PD. The other company does the visible security, we do behind the scenes and staff the detention cells, PD does mobile response, traffic etc. It works because everyone knows their role.

(Note, I don't work at that location!)
 
#8
#8
YorkVol said:
If I understand it, the Home Office was supposed to identify the key positions it would fill with government/military forces and they failed to do so accurately until recently. Their number was lower than estimated and G4S had to cover more than originally planned. A private security firm can't generally provide several thousand trained officers without adequate notice. It is interesting that G4S is taking all the blame instead of sharing it with the Home Office people.

Also, I agree that the partnership can work. For example, we provide security for the Philadelphia Eagles in partnership with another private company as well as the Philly PD. The other company does the visible security, we do behind the scenes and staff the detention cells, PD does mobile response, traffic etc. It works because everyone knows their role.

(Note, I don't work at that location!)
Click to expand...

That's a repeating chore with, what, a couple if dozen, max? Maybe 50?

Hiring private vendor to give you 7000 trained guys on one tine basis a whole different animal.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
That's a repeating chore with, what, a couple if dozen, max? Maybe 50?

Hiring private vendor to give you 7000 trained guys on one tine basis a whole different animal.
Click to expand...

Agree, scale is different, point about roles is still germane.
 
#11
#11
How was it that they did not discover that they were several thousand short until this month? Does not compute.
 
#12
#12
Personally, I see the fact that Heathrow has let people on the terrorist watchgroup into England leading up to the Olympics as another debacle. They are blaming it on temporary employees that have been added in order to deal with the larger crowds due to the Olympics.

I'm trying to figure out how temporary employees are the ones responsible for flagging and detaining known terrorists. :ermm:
 
Last edited:
#13
#13
I don't know the history of Olympic security, but I doubt the British government would host a worldwide event without proper security. JMO.
 
#14
#14
mtt2d said:
I don't know the history of Olympic security, but I doubt the British government would host a worldwide event without proper security. JMO.
Click to expand...

Not great. Extreme example '72 Munich games. More recent example, Hope Solo mentioned how she and some of the other girls on the soccer team snuck in some celebrities at the last Olympics. Olympic security is not known for their diligence.
 
#15
#15
Weezer said:
Not great. Extreme example '72 Munich games. More recent example, Hope Solo mentioned how she and some of the other girls on the soccer team snuck in some celebrities at the last Olympics. Olympic security is not known for their diligence.
Click to expand...

Olympic security is a lot different than it was in 72. One of the biggest expenses of hosting is the security. I saw what Hope said about sneaking in non athletes, but for the most part they do a good job in security and do not allow non authorized people back into the Olympic Village.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top