Maybe the armed forces felt it was beneath them?
And if the armed forces are anything like my brother they should not be let near civilians anyway. Fortunately most are not.
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Why did the government not use the British Armed forces for security at the olympics?"
Collapse
-
WHS + the government probably wanted to prove that it could be done in the "free market" and that competition would ensure ... yadda yadda.
It is embarrasing how everything the BBC criticised China for, is appearing to happen here (though it isn't of course, but China and Russia won't let that stop their media slaying us)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Mich the Tester View PostAside from any possible lobbying on the part of the security industry (Bigtime's point noted!), it's possibly because in the last 30 years or so the standard approach in anything governments want to achieve is to source the work out to private parties; there's been what could be called a 'paradigm shift' from governments doing everything through state organisations to doing things through private organisations. Politicians are stuck in an idealogical rut; 'the way to achieve this is to get quotes from our preferred suppliers', even when government organisations might be better placed to do the job, or a better solution might be some form of cooperation between the two. Just an idea.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by MarillionFan View PostIn the first place?
BBC News - London 2012: More troops deployed for Olympics
As another 1000 come in to fill in the shortfall, that leaves it at 4500 to the Armed Forces, 6000 to G4S.
I don't quite understand why the armed forces were not asked in the first place? We have tube drivers , bus drivers, border staff threatening legal actions/asking for bonusses etc
when if anyone deserves a bonus it's going to be the armed forces.
Firstly, they're more organised, they're better trained, they have the personal, they're not going to whinge about accomodation, they're not going to strike and they're going to turn up for work.
Anyone explain this?
Leave a comment:
-
Apart from the fact that they might be needed elsewhere I would guess that they are not quite trained for this.
They are trained soldiers but civilian security is slightly different with potential legal consequences for incorrect action.
Although there are various special forces units bunkered down around London that is for a very different purpose!
Leave a comment:
-
Why did the government not use the British Armed forces for security at the olympics?
In the first place?
BBC News - London 2012: More troops deployed for Olympics
As another 1000 come in to fill in the shortfall, that leaves it at 4500 to the Armed Forces, 6000 to G4S.
I don't quite understand why the armed forces were not asked in the first place? We have tube drivers , bus drivers, border staff threatening legal actions/asking for bonusses etc
when if anyone deserves a bonus it's going to be the armed forces.
Firstly, they're more organised, they're better trained, they have the personal, they're not going to whinge about accomodation, they're not going to strike and they're going to turn up for work.
Anyone explain this?Tags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Yesterday 07:16
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Sep 18 21:16
- IR35: Substitution — updated for 2025/26 Sep 18 05:45
- Payment request to bust recruitment agency — free template Sep 16 21:04
- Why licensing umbrella companies must be key to 2027’s regulation Sep 16 13:55
- Top 5 Chapter 11 JSL myths contractors should know Sep 15 03:46
- Top 5 Chapter 11 JSL myths contractors should know Sep 14 15:46
- What the housing market needs at Autumn Budget 2025 Sep 10 20:58
- Qdos hit by cybersecurity ‘attack’ Sep 10 01:01
- Why party conference season 2025 is a self-employment policy litmus test Sep 9 09:53
Leave a comment: