It gets worse and worse.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.guardian.c...-olympic-security-g4s

/// Security guards provided for the Olympics by the firm G4S may not be able to speak English, the company's chief executive has admitted. ///

Well I wonder how much more it's going to cost us to provide interpreters?

For example a Bulgarian border guard may say Добре дошли в Англия , Welcome to England.

[Mick-Talbot]

We have Bulgarian border guards working as security at the Olympics ?

[ELVIS68]

Ideal for Bulgarian visitors then for example?

[emmie]

my comments on another post said as much, as those going through the gates to be interviewed, sounded and looked like failed asylum seekers, or parolees.

[Anngel123]

If all they are doing is searching bags only the person directing the people to them needs to speak English surely? I expect none of the unemployed people locally feel it is enough money to get them off the dole?

[Gromit]

He did not admit that and the Guardian report is not accurate.

He said he did not know (either way) if they were are were not fluent in English.

That is completely different from the report which says he Says they may not be englush speaking.

You have to look out for bias in newspaper reporting AOG. I am surprised you fell for this obvious piece of private sector bashing.

[emmie]

just remember who signed the contracts back in 2008

http://uk.eurosport.y...rs-50m-064128881.html

[emmie]

one assumes our soldiers speak English, as do the Police, so this is an almighty balls up, which ever way you look at it. It's going to cost the company a small fortune, and rightly so.

[Gromit]

Em10

You mean Locog? What is your point?

[Brenden]

Isn't Seb Coe part of Locog?

[emmie]

G4s

LONDON (Reuters) - The head of private security firm G4S said on Saturday his firm only realised just over a week ago it would not be able to supply enough venue guards for this month's London Olympics, as he publicly apologised for the embarrassing failure.

The day after G4S said it would incur a loss of up to 50 million pounds ($77.7 million), its chief executive Nick Buckles hit the airwaves and TV studios to express remorse for the problem which has forced the British government to put 3,500 extra troops on standby to fill the gap.

[emmie]

they have had a long time to work out what is needed, shambolic.

[douglas9401]

How about a public tearing up of the contract and a minicab to send Mr Buckles on his way at his own expense?

[sir.prize]

Will get Mr Qatada or Mr Hamza get a chance at Border control?

[emmie]

very likely..

[anotheoldgit]

No need to speak English after all, they have come up with a cost-cutting solution.

http://i.dailymail.co...005DC-666_964x643.jpg

[anotheoldgit]

Well thanks to these excellent Daily Mail photos, the would be terrorists now know what they are up against.

http://www.dailymail....trength-Olympics.html

[jno]

Em, I don't think they have had all that long - as I recall Locog significantly increased the number of security staff needed quite recently. Can't find a link at the moment; but it may not be all G4S's fault

[emmie]

they were asked back in 2010 to increase the amount of people, it was in one of the BBC pieces i think.

[LazyGun]

@JNO
from the BBC -
"In March, the Public Accounts Committee said it was "particularly concerned" that Locog had asked G4S in December 2011 to supply twice the number of security staff it originally agreed to, trebling the cost of the contract from £86m to £284m.

It said that Locog and G4S faced a "significant challenge to recruit, train and coordinate all the security guards in time for the Games".

Margaret Hodge MP, chair of the Public Accounts Committee, said it was "staggering that the original estimates were so wrong".


It does sound as if the initial requirement for staff was significantly ramped up by LOCOG at a late stage in preparation. Equally though, G4S sound like they have had a lot of issues with processing applicants, and it staggers me that the CEO says he only knew they were going to have problems fulfilling the revamped targets 9 days ago.

It seems fairly clear that LOCOG massively underestimated the staff requirement for security, but equally, G4S should not have signed up to the revised target figures unless they were confident they could fulfill it.

There are also big questions over the quality and training of the staff they have already hired, and why it is that they are notifying LOCOG at such a late stage that they are unlikely to fulfill their responsibilities.

All in all ,a big PR disaster for G4S, and likely a costly one in fines etc.

[emmie]

can't find it now sorry, but surely anyone, whether it's G4S, Seb Coe, would realise you need a huge amount of security staff considering the nature of the games, how big it is, how big an area it's spread over, and for how long. It goes from 27th July to 9th September, and isn't just the Olympic park. So failure all round and slapped wrists, let's hope the poor bloody soldiers get recompensed for the time.