Olympics security is in the hands of good-natured but possibly inept individuals

In my review of the week for LOUDMOUTH, I touched upon the crisis surrounding Olympics security and G4S, the private company contracted to provide 13,700 guards for a fee of £284 million. But one paragraph could not explain how much trouble the Home Office is in over this, resulting in the deployment of 3,500 troops to fill the void left by G4S.

So what is G4S?

They are “the world’s leading provider of security solutions”, running operations in more than 125 countries and employing over 650,000 people. They were contracted by Locog in 2010 to provide 2,000 personnel for the London Games, before their stake was upped to provide another 10,000 guards including unpaid volunteers and students.

How good are they?

According to themselves, they are a “global leader” and they have a presence in worldwide bank security, border patrol and airport security, including Heathrow. But they have met criticism for their managing of major events in the past; BBC’s Newsnight found that an internal investigation was launched after security lapses at last year’s Wimbledon. The Guardian has revealed more recent trouble with G4S, saying how:

“Guards told how, with 14 days to go until the Olympics opening ceremony, they had received no schedules, uniforms or training on x-ray machines. Others said they had been allocated to venues hundreds of miles from where they lived, been sent rotas intended for other employees, and offered shifts after they had failed G4S's own vetting.”

If guards have not received proper training, what are G4S doing about it?

Well, nothing. GHS’ Facebook page for new recruits called “Securing London 2012” has a huge number of people complaining about their lack of training, calling it a “cock up” and a “shambles”. One person, a Sam Aston said:

“I still have no accreditation and no training. Wisely, G4S recognised this and offered me 3 more training days... After my first shifts. Now I'll be working as a team leader and if I have no role specific training at all, I feel sorry for those I manage because I will be worse than useless. This has gone beyond a simple G4S cock up. If something happens at the Games, this is probably criminally negligent.”

Another recruit, Daniel Sedgeley Broadbent said:

“The training & administration has been appalling, as well as promising certain positions & not fulfilling it. Still waiting for the SIA badge from the course completed start of March. G4S can stick there poxy job where the sun don't shine! Good luck to those who are continuing, this unorganised mess is just the beginning...wait till you start!!””

So if a number of guards have no training or experience, how safe are the Games going to be?

This is where the Home Office stepped in. Theresa May announced on Thursday the deployment of 3,500 soldiers to man the Games, on top of the 10,000 already promised by the Ministry of Defence. Some number of these soldiers has had to leave combat in Afghanistan and head to the London Games for their summer leave, before going back for another tour of duty. Brigadier Alister Davis, a former British Army commander, said it best: “Some things are simpler in the desert.”

With two weeks until the Games, is London ready?

The stadiums are built, the tracks are flattened and the sun is shining (not); the stage is set for a glorious Olympics games. But behind the gloss and the flamboyance is a real, genuine problem. G4S have failed to fully securitize the Games in a job they were paid £284 million to do. Their poor management of recruits, shoddy selection of candidates (some, who according to one recruit, could not spell their own name: “the staff were having to help them.”) and overwhelming incompetence has led to the drafting in of troops from their summer leave, already demoralised by cutbacks to battalions and poor conditions and pay. It may sound cliché in this current political climate, but this has been a complete shambles. But this is not a bureaucratic one which might affect something minor or trivial; this is the safety and security of real people in the hands of good-natured but possibly inept individuals. And that is not their fault. It is that of G4S, a company who bit off more than they could chew and who I hope might feel the slice of an axe through their neck at the end of it (although an athlete might feel it first).