G4S Admits It Guards Dakota Pipeline as Protesters Get Attacked

a reply to: Boadicea

G4S, the contractors that have had tied with past "extremists"

a reply to: slapjacks

Yes, indeedily, those would be the ones!

a reply to: Boadicea

Enh. The guys I've dealt with don't seem terribly bad. Some of them just embody the rent a cop stigma and I don't care to hang out with them any more than I have to.

a reply to: Shamrock6

...embody the rent a cop stigma...

Do tell??? What is the rent a cop stigma?

I have an ex-brother-in-law who couldn't hack the marine corp... couldn't hack police training... and ended up a rent a cop. I wasn't surprised. I didn't like him.

G4S is a combination or shall we shall a conglomeration of many other companies. Now they are known as G4S. You are correct that in many cases they seem to be the rent a cops that most people write off.

Fact is they had security in many places in the US where there have been incidents. They are responsible for 'relocating' immigrants throughout the country. They use it as a front. If you have people doing normal things then people do not look odd in certain restricted areas and you can get access to many many things. The curious look the other way and then you do what you want.

Many people think 'operatives' are like the people in movies. These big strong scary guys who carry big guns. Your average SEAL is about 5'10 and 160-180 lbs. Same with many other branches just using them as an example because many of them go into private security. In fact, almost anyone I grew up with or knew who was in any type of SF group was pretty average looking. Easy to blend in. Many went back overseas or got jobs making some good money in the 90's and the Bush years in the Middle East and Africa.

It is a private military force. Tell me why a private military force is allowed to operate on US soil? Who gives the OK? Think about it but do not look to deep.

a reply to: matafuchs

It is a private security contractor. It's called free enterprise. Welcome to capitalism. If a US company offered a better deal they would be working the contract instead.

The very nature of any company in the security sector is that they will be exposed to environments that have stigma attached. They will be associated with trouble because that is usually why they were hired in the first place.

G4S is far from a private army. It employs over 600'000 people (many of whome are administrative) and undertakes tasks from basic unarmed security guards to full blown hostage rescue teams and everything in between. A company this diverse will have contracts all over the world and doing a range of tasks. In the UK they are a common sight as they do security van transits and provide guards for most government sites. I have had dealings with them in several places including Afghanistan, where they provide high threat/hostile environment protection details and site security.

a reply to: matafuchs

Private security contractor and private military contractor are not interchangeable terms. The guy sitting in a booth at a pay-to-park lot and the guy sitting on a roof in Brazzaville do not have the same skill sets.

a reply to: Boadicea

Lazy. Couldn't hack it as a cop or military. "Observe and report" mentality. Just here for the paycheck and the paycheck isn't that big.

They are not interchangeable but they do both if i am not mistaken. You can see them manning a parking garage or you can see them as a private detail overseas for military protection/etc correct?

That to me is the scary part because you can mix as needed and in the US there are many times they were 'there' when something happened.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Gotcha! That describes my ex-BIL. Lazy, know-it-all, and a mean streak a mile wide. I was glad he didn't become a cop. I was glad my sister-in-law divorced him too!

a reply to: matafuchs

They employ people with different skill sets depending on the job. For example if they need someone for an unarmed static guard position in the UK, Joe Bloggs off the street can fill the post with minimal training. If they need a PSD team in a hostile area they will employ people with appropriate levels of training and experience, usually ex-military, SIA licensed and with recognised high threat/weapons/medical/advanced driving courses under their belt. They are not interchangeable. Think of it like a hospital. Although it hires porters and doctors they can't do each others jobs.

As I stated earlier, this is a private company. They don't do things off their own back. They are hired for specific tasks. If they happen to be 'there when something happened' it is because they were CONTRACTED to be there either by the government or another 3rd party, most likely because a threat assessment indicated that something was likely to happen in the first place.

Another way to look at it us this. Every time someone takes a shot at a president the Secret Service always happen to be there. Does that mean that the Secret Service are the cause of the attack, or is it because part of their job is to be there if an attack happens? The same goes for private security companies.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Every time someone takes a shot at a president the Secret Service always happen to be there. Does that mean that the Secret Service are the cause of the attack, or is it because part of their job is to be there if an attack happens? The same goes for private security companies.

Excellent point -- thank you! Unfortunately, you have only helped increase my suspicions.

Of course the Secret Service always present because the president is ONLY protected and served by the Secret Service. There is no one else that we would expect to be "always present." There is no other choice. There is no possibility that the Secret Service will NOT be present.

That's not true for GS4. There are plenty of security companies all over the country. Lots and lots and lots! Hence, the chances that GS4 would be "present" are greatly diluted. And yet, there they are...

a reply to: Boadicea

And there are incidents where other companies are involved. G4S just happens to be one of the biggest of its type in the world and has high profile government contracts. With this amount of industry saturation and the nature of the contracts taken on they are bound to be involved in more public incidents than other smaller companies.

a reply to: PaddyInf

You say that as if it should be a comfort... it's not. Especially because governments have policing/law enforcement authorities, which are much different than private security companies which are not held to the same level of public scrutiny and accountability.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

a reply to: Boadicea

It's not meant to be a comfort - just the truth.

People have to get used to the privatisation of certain services. It already happens with the military on overseas deployments - over a third of the US military footprint in Afghanistan was made up of private companies, including security contractors.

Yes the government has law enforcement departments etc, however they are busy doing their jobs. Services are over stretched. It makes good financial sense to outsource security contracts, and it frees up police etc to do what they employed for rather than be an over paid and trained security guard.

a reply to: PaddyInf

People have to get used to the privatisation of certain services.

No, actually, we don't. We simply have to recognize and acknowledge that it is happening. But we can fight it. We can point out problems with it. We can demand better. We can raise holy hell all the time and every time. But, no, we don't "have to get used" to it.

We don't have to do a damn thing.

a reply to: Boadicea

You can stamp your feet and say "we don't have to do anything" all you like. It's already happening and has been for a long time, and will only increase with time.

By all means demand high quality services from the providers, but unless you are willing to pay more in taxes or accept a reduction in public services there will be ever increasing private outsourcing in things that are traditionally considered as government provided.

Government bodies are accountable for their budgets (i.e. your tax money), so SHOULD be looking for the most cost effective way of delivering services. This is often inevitably the private sector. It costs a lot less to out source a contract rather than directly employ people, as it cuts out lots of red tape. They don't have to deal with pensions/unions/admin staff/staff welfare etc as the contractor does all this. They just cancel the contract at the end of the job and don't have to worry about staff retention or layoffs. The military has been doing this for years.

Fight it all you like, but it's how the World works.

a reply to: PaddyInf

Fight it all you like...

Thank you, I will!

...but it's how the World works.

Actually, more like it's how the world got so screwed up... well, among other things.

Our social contract demands and requires that government work in the best interests of the people, NOT the best interests of corporations or the federal reserve or our congress critters. The problem is putting $$/profit first. That must change. Money is a tool -- not the master -- and must be used accordingly.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: PaddyInf

Our social contract demands and requires that government work in the best interests of the people, NOT the best interests of corporations or the federal reserve or our congress critters. The problem is putting $$/profit first. That must change. Money is a tool -- not the master -- and must be used accordingly.

The social contract also requires that the tax money collected from the people is allocated accordingly. It is a fool who believes that there is no corruption, but again it has always been, and will always be so. It should be identified and challenged. However the government contracts private companies for many of the services you make use of as it is the most cost effective method of delivering said services and utilises people with appropriate skills without having to train them. It provides increased flexibility and allows for changing requirements.

Do you believe that the government (which I'm sure you will agree is the most corrupt corporation of them all) should provide the manpower for all public services? If so you will end up with a very bloated and expensive system.

Getting back on track, who do you believe should be guarding facilities? If not G4S then it will be another security company. It certainly won't be the police or military. Do you want a seperate force, run by the government?

No matter who is providing security services, incidents will still occur.

a reply to: PaddyInf

I am far more concerned with the harm that can be inflicted by any government act/policy if misused or abused, than I am by any good that can be accomplished if implemented correctly... especially because, as you noted, corruption is and always has been.

Which is exactly why such power was never intended nor granted by the founding documents and is in letter and in spirit a gross violation of our organic and Constitutional law.

Rather than simply accept and expect abuse by government for our own good... ahem... we should approach issues much differently.