Advertisement
Message Forums |
|
Topic: G4S Olympic security. What a joke.
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5
|
17/7/2012 at 10:31am
Location: Keswick Outfit: Bailey
View Profile
Reply
Quote
|
Joined: 11/12/2009 Diamond Member
Forum Posts: 3150
Site Reviews Total: | 8 |
|
Site Reviews 2024: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2023: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2022: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2021: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2020: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2019: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2018: | 0 |
|
Site Nights 2024: | 0 |
Site Nights 2023: | 0 |
Site Nights 2022: | 0 |
Site Nights 2021: | 0 |
Site Nights 2020: | 0 |
Site Nights 2019: | 0 |
Site Nights 2018: | 0 |
|
Just a theory, but is G4S actually running the security contract? In major contracts it is a usual practice to set up a "shelf" company with no assets to run the contract. The main contract is then assigned to that shelf company. The cash flow funding for the contract is loaned as an inter company debt from the parent company. In that way the parent company avoids any potential liability and leaves the actual operating company with a massive secured debt which ranks in priority to any other debts e.g contract damages.
So let's assume that G4S has done that. Now we have the Police from 9 Forces involved and they are already demanding payment for their resources. Thus, as at today, no one has promised to reimburse the Police for their action, standby, and resources. If the actual contractor does not then presumably it will either be the Government or the Local Taxpayers of the Police force being used. Here in East Yorkshire that has to be a no no as our force is under funded anyway!
Then with cuts in the number of Police, with personnel being moved to other parts of the Country what happens if we need Bobbies around here? Potential action for a failure to meet their statutory duty?
Then you can consider the liability issue. Who is now actually responsible for security at the Games is it G4S, the Army or the Police? If anything untowards happens and that results in claims for compensation who pays? Anyone suffering a loss has to work that little maze out!
If the contract has been assigned by G4S to a shelf company, has the Games management Committee secured personal guarantees from the parent company to underwrite any potential claims? When the Police step in to manage events is there any indemnity in place from G4S for any of their liabilities. As they are stepping in at a moments notice I imagine that there is no time to negotiate such an indemnity. So who do you sue if the wheel drops off? Sue G4S and they will probably try to pass the liability off to the Army/Police. That would be normal litigation practice.
The opportunity here for the public purse to pick up any losses is potentially quite large. Then if G4S shelf company, if there is one, has a potential liability it can be liquidated so that it can't be sued (in reality). Even if you sue a Company in administration/liquidation it becomes more of a lottery action. That is to say, you win your case but you have to wait for the shelf company to win the lottery before it has any money to pay out the damages.
Look at Jarvis. It won the contract to maintain the railway lines. It passed the contract to a company it set up to operate the contract and called it Railtrack. That became responsible for any number of breaches of contract and after the Paddington crash it was wound up and its liabilities/benefits etc all passed to a Public body - Network Rail - to manage the rail tracks. That company was then prosecuted by the HSE for breaches of safety (leading to deaths) that occurred long before that company was created!!!! The Public purse had to pay the enormous fine. That is the reality of the theory I have talked about thus far.
Just hope that when the House of Commons select Committee today investigate this mess they probe these particular issues so that Joe Public knows just where it stands.
So, potentially, this mess is not just about G4S not getting its act together, it's about potential consequences if the wheel drops off.
Private train companies are required to renew the rolling stock as part of their contract. They aren't doing, so part of the £9bn announced yesterday by the Coalition is not just for electrifying the tracks (managed by a public body Network Rail) but is also for new rolling stock. Tax payer picks up the tab again for a breach of contract. A recent think tank report into British rail system recommended nationalisation of the the lot if it is ever to brought into the 21st century. This will be another example of what Jeremy Hunt calls the 25% failure rate in major contracts being expected as the norm. It is what I would call setting up the contract so that if that 25% failure rate manifests itself then the contractor should pay.
Phil
Post last edited on 17/07/2012 12:19:16
------------- If you're not on a fell your wasting your feet and for 2014 it's.......Feb Castleton Mar North Yors Moors; Apr Sutton on Sea; May Thirsk; Jun Clapham/Riverside (Lakes); July Wharfedale; August Crakehall; Sept Knaresborough; Oct Wirral Park/Clitheroe
|
18/7/2012 at 12:59pm
Location: Keswick Outfit: Bailey
View Profile
Reply
Quote
|
Joined: 11/12/2009 Diamond Member
Forum Posts: 3150
Site Reviews Total: | 8 |
|
Site Reviews 2024: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2023: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2022: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2021: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2020: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2019: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2018: | 0 |
|
Site Nights 2024: | 0 |
Site Nights 2023: | 0 |
Site Nights 2022: | 0 |
Site Nights 2021: | 0 |
Site Nights 2020: | 0 |
Site Nights 2019: | 0 |
Site Nights 2018: | 0 |
|
When G4S said that they will lose £50m as a result of the Troops and Police being called in everyone took that as meaning that G4S will pay compensation. I took a different view. The contract is valued at around £284m. According to news reports it has been structured so that G4S get paid for what they deliver. If they deliver, say, £50m short of what is required then they get paid £234m and so lose £50m of what they hoped to get out of the contract. That £50m, which has been set aside already to cover the G4S security contract could be used to pay the Soldiers/Police etc. In other words the Tax Payer pays out of the original contract sum. LOCOG does not lose out financially. G4S doesn't lose out as it gets paid for what it actually delivers.
Just a different slant on things perhaps. No one has yet said what happens to the money left over from the G4S contract as a result of them not delivering 100% of the contract. The MPs on the Select Committee never went along that line of questioning. Maybe they will when LOCOG appears before them. From what I saw on the tele the MPs appeared to be more concerned with showboating - publicly humiliating the CEO, rather than getting into the nitty gritty of the contract and why it went wrong.
The contract is also, apparently, split as regards payments. Payment of a contract admin fee they get no matter what and then payment for what they actually deliver. So the contract management fee goes to the company and the fee for the security staff pays their wages. The CEO made it clear that G4S are to keep the management fee of some £50odd million despite their breach of contract. Just what did they do for £50 odd million and does that represent value for money which all public awarded contracts are required to do. Maybe the Select Committee will investigate that issue?Doubt it, these investigations tend to be undertaken some time after the event by the National Audit Office. It then issues a report and if we go to the usual timetable, when that is issued, there will have been a General Election, LOGOC will have been disbanded and G4S, or any shelf company it set up for this contract (if there is one), will all have changed or moved on or retired and if there is any ginger pointing there will be no one left to blame.
Happy days...let's hope it all goes swimmingly otherwise there will be hell to pay if anyone can be found to pay.....oh that's us isn't it?
Phil
------------- If you're not on a fell your wasting your feet and for 2014 it's.......Feb Castleton Mar North Yors Moors; Apr Sutton on Sea; May Thirsk; Jun Clapham/Riverside (Lakes); July Wharfedale; August Crakehall; Sept Knaresborough; Oct Wirral Park/Clitheroe
|
21/7/2012 at 7:45am
Location: East Sussex Outfit: None Entered
View Profile
Reply
Quote
|
Joined: 02/6/2005 Diamond Member
Forum Posts: 2674
Site Reviews Total: | 12 |
|
Site Reviews 2024: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2023: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2022: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2021: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2020: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2019: | 0 |
Site Reviews 2018: | 0 |
|
Site Nights 2024: | 0 |
Site Nights 2023: | 0 |
Site Nights 2022: | 0 |
Site Nights 2021: | 0 |
Site Nights 2020: | 0 |
Site Nights 2019: | 0 |
Site Nights 2018: | 0 |
|
I heard my first G4S joke yesterday.
Q: How many G4S security guards does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: 4 soldiers and a police officer.
|
|
|
10959 Visitors online !
Free UKCampsite.co.uk Window Sticker - Recommend to Friend - Add a Missing Campsite
[Message Forums]
[Caravan Sites & Camping]
[Company Listings]
[Features / Advice]
[Virtual Brochure]
[Shop!]
[Reception]
[Competitions]
[Caravans & Motorhomes For Sale]
[Event Diary]
[Contact Us]
[Tent Reviews]
Please note we are not responsible for the content of external sites & any reviews represent the author's personal view only. Please report any error here. You may view our privacy and cookie policy and terms and conditions here. All copyrights & other intellectual property rights in the design and content of this web site are reserved to the UKCampsite.co.uk © 1999 - 2024
|
Advertisement
|
|
|