G4S

[retrocomeback]

G4S is akin to a swear word in my household, their incompetent desire to become a private police force is genuinely worrying. Especially when it is driven purely by profit for shareholders! Nobody should be profiting directly from the misfortune of people who are a victim of crime. Grrrrrr :evil:

 

[Neil]

G4S is akin to a swear word in my household, their incompetent desire to become a private police force is genuinely worrying. Especially when it is driven purely by profit for shareholders! Nobody should be profiting directly from the misfortune of people who are a victim of crime. Grrrrrr :evil:

I think that's harsh criticism.

As a private sector company, their interest in expansion, profit and growth are all quite normal and expected. And in the assumption you have nothing against capitalism, perfectly laudable.

If the government, or state(s) are using them inappropriately then that is a matter of government policy and control. If you were a shareholder you'd probably expect not much more than they're doing. If they're being used wrongly, that's hardly their call.

 

[greenstiles]

There's only one G4s i trust...........

...............G-Force

 

[retrocomeback]

http://soundcloud.com/user6060683/01-g4s-securing-your-world G4S have a theme tune! Hahahahah!!!!!

Seriously, profiting directly from the misfortune of victims of crime may not be legally wrong but morally it f****** stinks. Who gave G4S the Olympic contract? John Reid former Home Sec! Who's a director of G4S now? John Reid! :shock: G4S's incompetence has meant thousand of soldiers R&R with families whilst kids are off school has been lost, and In some cases wedding cancelled. Some insurance companies are not classifying soldiers use at Olympics as a deployment so are not covering them for the thousands of £'s they face losing. Damn right I don't like G4S
:evil:

 

[Neil]

http://soundcloud.com/user6060683/01-g4s-securing-your-world G4S have a theme tune! Hahahahah!!!!!

Seriously, profiting directly from the misfortune of victims of crime may not be legally wrong but morally it f****** stinks. Who gave G4S the Olympic contract? John Reid former Home Sec! Who's a director of G4S now? John Reid! :shock: G4S's incompetence has meant thousand of soldiers R&R with families whilst kids are off school has been lost, and In some cases wedding cancelled. Some insurance companies are not classifying soldiers use at Olympics as a deployment so are not covering them for the thousands of £'s they face losing. Damn right I don't like G4S
:evil:

Most of this criticism should probably be more placed at those employing or putting G4S in this position. They're probably doing what any other private sector security company would do.

If they're used inappropriately, that's more down to who's employing them, than the company itself. Companies rarely turn down work.

 

[retrocomeback]

I respect your views Neil, but seeing this from a policing and military angle both G4S and indeed the government are seriously taking the p*ss. I'm going to bow out of the thread now for fear of my blood pressure, all the best mate!

 

[Neil]

I respect your views Neil, but seeing this from a policing and military angle both G4S and indeed the government are seriously taking the p*ss. I'm going to bow out of the thread now for fear of my blood pressure, all the best mate!

Don't get me wrong - I get that some love to hate them - and I get how the fallout can be issues for people.

But mostly, it seems to be because of how they've been employed / commissioned to do things and their suitability.

My fundamental point, though, is that most slag them off in ignorance, persuaded almost entirely by media sensationalising.

As a company they have a staggering record over the last decade, or so - one that many would like to emulate, even if they've had some embarrassments over that time, too.

Personally, I can decouple them being used / selected / employed with a bit too much glibness, and them not always being the best solution, to how they've performed as a company. Big companies do make mistakes - and I'm not going to try and hand-wave those away - but all the same, for everybody who'd comment about how feckless as a company they are, they are fundamentally missing how well, as a company, they've performed in the market.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I don't give a fig how 'successful' they are in monetary terms.

They are a terrible company, with a long record of misdoings.

Like most companies whose reason d'etre is purely making money.

Whether that be in oil, banking, arms dealing or anything else, when your primary objective is to satisfy shareholders corners are cut and people are exploited.

Regardless of so called government regulation.

As usual the tax payer will wind up bearing the costs twice over.

Regardless of their promises to cover the price of their blunders over this, which they would readily fail to do were they not thinking of future contracts and the possibility they might be forced out of business in the UK as a result of this.

 

[Neil]

I don't give a fig how 'successful' they are in monetary terms.

Their success isn't just over their balance sheet - their profit / loss, assets vs liabilities, or share price - it's about their growth, all the while most would happily use them as a punchline for their jokes.

They are a terrible company, with a long record of misdoings.

Like most companies whose reason d'etre is purely making money.

Whether that be in oil, banking, arms dealing or anything else, when your primary objective is to satisfy shareholders corners are cut and people are exploited.

They may well be all of those things - just like many other huge companies.

All the same, there's a whole load of ignorant bollocks spouted about them, by people who clearly have no clue whatsoever in terms of how they've actually performed over the last decade or so - and let's not forget, that's what companies are suppose to do, make profit, grow their market share.

Regardless of so called government regulation.

As usual the tax payer will wind up bearing the costs twice over.

Regardless of their promises to cover the price of their blunders over this, which they would readily fail to do were they not thinking of future contracts and the possibility they might be forced out of business in the UK as a result of this.

I seriously doubt that'll happen. They've had worse press, and prevailed in the market.

I understand some of the criticism - even nod my head - but some of that, is not purely their doing. Governments outsourcing or privatising key aspects that companies like G4S have grown into, in recent times, is just how the market reacts.

Perhaps in many of those cases, the market shouldn't have been asked - or more closely monitored / regulated / penalised.

All the same, though, their business model is the envy of many other aspiring business - that's not to say all aspects of their performance are, though.

 

[dbmtb]

I use G4S for my shop security.

When the contract expires - it won't be renewed because of this disgusting situation.