Skip to main content

G4S deal

I notice that the £284 million new deal private security firm G4S struck with the (Tory) Government was, in effect, that they would get £20,000 per security employee, for each of the 13,700 security staff they promised to supply (but will fail to supply) for the Olympics. We all now know how little training and vetting those staff are getting.

But my question is - why was the deal ever made in the first place? G4S are paying those staff £6.50-£8.50 per hour (after promising £14 per hour, according to one potential employee.) Three weeks full-time work at 40 hrs per week will earn each security employee a maximum of about £1,000 each.

So, where does the other £19,000 go that we the British taxpayers are paying for each of them? How on earth could this have been thought a good deal for the British public?

I imagine G4S are generous Tory party donors but is there any other explanation?

Comments

Unknown said…
It's a disgrace. How is it we allow this sort of thing to happen? No, really?
July 14, 2012 at 9:12 PM
Anonymous said…
It seems likely to me that G4S will incur other legitimate costs. e.g. paying the people who do the recruiting and training, management costs etc...

Also, do we know if these people are being paid for their time while training? Who is supplying uniforms and equipment?

Are G4S tory party donors? Or are you just making that up?

In any case it seems to be a good deal because now the army are taking over the slack (and they'll probably do a better job) and G4S are footing the bill for that while also having to pay a huge fine.
July 16, 2012 at 11:10 AM
wombat said…
(Dunno what happened to a previous detailed comment but the punchline was this:)

G4S look to be making a loss of £50Million on the contract. More Millions than that has been wiped of their stock market value.

Looks like either they didn't donate enough or their competitors did a better job of lobbying!
July 16, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Csiki Attila-József said…
Probably something similar I have seen in Romania: big firm gets contract, gets big money, then subcontracts a hundred smaller firms to do the job for less than half the price, does sh*tty administrative job and skims the difference as "administrative costs" and "risk deposit" (in case of any unforeseen legal mishap) that they wont pay out to no one, it's theirs...
Or something similar.
July 17, 2012 at 7:11 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se
446 comments
Read more