The Guardian continues G4S bashing campaign:druming up public angst toward privatisation of the police?

Posted: July 24, 2012 in Olympics, Opinions, Political, Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

I am without doubt that the company G4S has demonstrated an inability to step up to the mark regarding their ability to recruit staff for the Olympic games 2012 in London.

However, in a recent news article “G4S staff ‘cheat’ on tests to run x-ray scanners at Olympic Games” by  (, Monday 23 July 2012 22.23 BST) it would appear that the media sharks have their teeth well and truly in their prey.

The news article lacks credence; using the findings of a primary, anonymous source “…who has written a column for the Guardian about these experiences…”. One could conclude that the information was not given out of concern but for something a little more tangible.

The credibility of the Olympic security operation being run by G4S is called into further question by claims that scores of trainees are being allowed to “cheat” their way through tests for the x-ray machines that detect homemade bombs and other weapons.

Trainees who fail the test are being given repeated opportunities to get the right answers to the same questions, and are also being allowed to confer with others during the exams under the noses of instructors, a source has told the Guardian.

Recruits are being given only 20 minutes’ practice on the real machines that will be used at the Olympic venues to stop visitors bringing in dangerous materials, or possibly an IED (improvised explosive device).

The opening paragraphs read like a school kid informing on the class cheats.

Whilst I do acknowledge the importance of the role undertaken by these “security officers”, I see it like this:

There are many different styles of learning which could be employed to facilitate learning across a wide population of adult learners. These styles include, the repetition of information, discussion, practice, and examination. These guys are not cheating, they are learning.

British forces with intricate detection gear miss IED’s, with devastating results. Is the equipment G4S as effective? Perhaps  could have stood next to one of the SAM missile sites with a mega-phone and invited trouble to the Olympic games?

Whilst reporters may wish to write reams on a particular issue, editors will no doubt have control over the direction this should take.  could have included evidence to support the sources allegations: for example talking to airport security officers as to how much training they receive on these particular scanners; and how many attempts at the “test” they have, but didn’t. Why not?

In conclusion this and the other articles, surrounding the failures of G4S, appear to attempt the belittling of the private security companies in an effort to drum up public angst toward privatisation of the police in the UK.

There are easier ways to do this.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s