It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

G4S Secure Solutions (Wackenhut) Hiring Armed guards for BP contract vessels

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:53 PM
link   
One of my friends that works for G4S Secure Solutions ( Formerly G4S Wackenhut ) that is a Coustom protection officer (CPO), called me up today to tell me he had been offered a new job.

He was asked if he wanted to work on a BP contract vessel as an Armed CPO. He said he didn't have much details but the job pays $18/hr + OT for a 21 days on 7 Days off schedule. I asked him how many guys they were hiring and he didn't know but he say it was a lot. He said they were looking for Guys with a Minimum of 10 years in either Military or Law Enforcement or a combanation of the 2.

So I am trying to figure out why BP needs armed guards on vessels when the Shipping industry can't get them for anti-pirate defense.

www.scribd.com...

Now they don't mention G4S here but I know that they have been hired on as a Contractor from my friend that works for them as a CPO.

Any thoughts on a motive?

I am thinking it's to keep people quiet and cover up things.

[edit on 12-7-2010 by SWCCFAN]




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:57 PM
link   
OMG...everytime I read that name I am 12 again. Where are all the guards? They're down at the wakenhut.

On a serious note, BP needs armed guards to protect all the documents they are shredding before Exxon buys them. It could also be to keep journalists away from the mobile hospitals that house the sick workers.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by zroth
 


I am trying to figure out if having armed guards on Merchaint Ships is even legal.

BP must something to hide thats a huge risk to take putting armed people on a vessel.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Is 18 dollars an hour plus OT good money for someone with 10 plus years worth of military or police experience? It seems you would make a whole lot more staying in the police or the military if that is going rate.


Is this to protect the ships and if so from what???? Or is this to make sure the people on the ships keep doing their job even though they are getting sick?



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous Avatar
 


Yes, one would think so. However to put an average figure out there, lets look at the average max pay for an enlisted soldier. Most with 10 years are mid-career.

While deployed to a combat zone = No federal taxes on income
If married, the following exist:
-Family separation pay
-Basic allowance for food
-Basic allowance for housing, with dependants
-Hazardous duty pay
-and of course, base pay.

Including all of these "perks and bonuses" to pay, I still make less than 50k a year.

Not including the OT that the op said is offered, thats pretty close to making in a month 1/3rd of what I make in a year, as a 10+year service member, deployed to a combat zone.

Now granted im not as high in rank as I probably could be, and with higher rank comes a pay raise, but i think you get the point.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous Avatar



Is this to protect the ships and if so from what???? Or is this to make sure the people on the ships keep doing their job even though they are getting sick?


Now those are the questions we need to get answered.

It would be my guess Bp will be using the armed goons as a deterant for people to blow the whistle.

Guys we are dealing with an oil spill here. I don't think anyone would want to impeed the clean up or capping process. You don't muster those type of security assets unless there is a certain threat that has been assessed. I don't think they are worried about Al-Cia-Duh attacking the clean up crews.

We have already seen the post on here about private security goons blocking media access. I have also witnessed private security forces take over public small craft harbors to use them as staging areas. I live 3 miles from 1 of them. They are unarmed and so are the others in the videos I have seen. This is an escalation of force and I beleive the only reason it's being done is because BP has somthing to hide.

Workers are falling ill and BP has established there own medical clinics for the workers so the Mississippi Dept of Health (MSDH) don't have records. Request have been made but all BP puts out are the heat stress and the minor injuries to the MSDH.

Add to all this the new offshore drilling moratorium put in place by the Obama ( Bin-Laden ) Adminastration just today.

All of this will kill the local economy here. No more fishing or Oil patch jobs here. Thats about 40% of our local economy here.

Between BP and the FEDs they are trying to starve us all to death down here.

All we want is the truth, so far no one has gotten it yet.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


The 10 year Mil/LE requirment seems odd to me. I know a guy that worked for wells fargo, and brinks for 17 years Armed and I gave him the info to call about the job. They told him the same thing 10 years Mil/LE only need apply. Now I understand that they have certian skill sets to bring to the table, but BP is not at war .... are they


I can tell you the MS militia is monitoring this situation very closely. You can read my other post about that.

BP would be wise not to pull the crap like they did in Grand Isle LA. I know a few LEO's that are looking to slap the cuffs on them if they try that crap here.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Hrm.... Well the only common denominator between the two that I can think of, is the knowledge of crowd control technique..




I can tell you the MS militia is monitoring this situation very closely.


Good!, Glad to hear it! Though hopefully it wont come down to that.
I hope....but cant say I think it wont. If I did, I never would have begun investing in lead.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

MSC 86 - Maritime Safety Committee - 86th session: 27 May - 5 June 2009

The MSC agreed that flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers, it was agreed, are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker. Carriage of firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.

It was agreed that the use of unarmed security personnel is a matter for individual shipowners, companies, and ship operators to decide. The carriage of armed security personnel, or the use of military or law-enforcement officers (duly authorized by the Government of the flag State to carry firearms for the security of the ship) should be subject to flag State legislation and policies and is a matter for the flag State to authorize, in consultation with ship owners, companies and ship operators.

MSC.1/Circ.1333 Recommendations to Governments for preventing and suppressing piracy and armed robbery against ships suggests possible counter-measures that could be employed by Rescue Co-ordination Centres and security forces. Now also includes draft Regional agreement on co-operation in preventing and suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships.


Extracts:

Self protection

3 Ships can and should take measures to protect themselves from pirates and armed robbers. These measures are recommended in MSC.1/Circ.1334. While security forces can often advise on these measures, and flag States are required to take such measures as are necessary to ensure that owners and masters accept their responsibility, ultimately it is the responsibility of owners, companies, ship operators and masters to take seamanlike precautions when their ships navigate in areas where the threat of piracy and armed robbery exists. Flag States should make shipowners/ companies aware of any UN Security Council, IMO, or any other UN resolutions on piracy and any recommendations therein relevant for the shipowner, ship operator, the master and crew when operating in areas where piracy or armed robbery against ships occur.

4 With respect to the carriage of firearms on board, the flag State should be aware that merchant ships and fishing vessels entering the territorial sea and/or ports of another State are subject to that State's legislation. It should be borne in mind that importation of firearms is subject to port and coastal State regulations. It should also be borne in mind that carrying firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.

Non-arming of seafarers

5 For legal and safety reasons, flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ships may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.

Use of unarmed security personnel

6 The use of unarmed security personnel is a matter for individual shipowners, companies, and ship operators to decide. It should be fully acceptable to provide an enhanced lookout capability this way.

Use of privately contracted armed security personnel

7 The use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships may lead to an escalation of violence. The carriage of such personnel and their weapons is subject to flag State legislation and policies and is a matter for flag States to determine in consultation with shipowners, companies, and ship operators, if and under which conditions this will be allowed. Flag States should take into account the possible escalation of violence which could result from carriage of armed personnel on board merchant ships, when deciding on its policy.

Military teams or law enforcement officers duly authorized by Government

8 The use of military, or law enforcement officers duly authorized by the Government of the flag State to carry firearms for the security of the ship is a matter for the flag State to authorize in consultation with shipowners, companies, and ship operators. Flag States should provide clarity of their policy on the use of such teams on board vessels entitled to fly their flag.


MSC.1/Circ.1334 Guidance to shipowners and ship operators, shipmasters and crews on preventing and suppressing acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships contains comprehensive advice on measures that can be taken onboard to prevent attacks or, when they occur, to minimize the danger to the crew and ship.


Extracts:


Firearms

59 With respect to the carriage of firearms on board, masters, shipowners and companies should be aware that ships entering the territorial sea and/or ports of a State are subject to that State's legislation. It should be borne in mind that importation of firearms is subject to port and coastal State regulations. It should also be borne in mind that carrying firearms may pose an even greater danger if the ship is carrying flammable cargo or similar types of dangerous goods.

Non-arming of seafarers

60 The carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship is strongly discouraged. Seafarers are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ship may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.

61 It should also be borne in mind that shooting at suspected pirates may impose a legal risk for the master, shipowner or company, such as collateral damages. In some jurisdictions, killing a national may have unforeseen consequences even for a person who believes he or she has acted in self defence. Also the differing customs or security requirements for the carriage and importation of firearms should be considered, as taking a small handgun into the territory of some countries may be considered an offence.

Use of unarmed security personnel

62 The use of unarmed security personnel is a matter for individual shipowners, companies, and ship operators to decide. The use of unarmed security personnel to provide security advice and an enhanced lookout capability could be considered.

Use of privately contracted armed security personnel

63 If armed security personnel are allowed on board, the master, shipowner, operator and company should take into account the possible escalation of violence and other risks. However, the use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board merchant ships and fishing vessels is a matter for flag State to determine in consultation with shipowners, operators and companies. Masters, shipowners, operators and companies should contact the flag State and seek clarity of the national policy with respect to the carriage of armed security personnel. All legal requirements of flag, port and coastal States should be met.


Source



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


After the Media reports surfaced about the Goons in Grand Isle the MS Militia Contacted the Media and Law Enforcement on that issue.

So far the LEO's here haven't been bought out by BP like they have in LA.

Got quite a few ole spooks that miss the good ole days back in the Jungle and the sand box, if you know what I mean.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Heh, roger that.


As to your follow up, "Use of privately contracted armed security personnel ", par. 7
It seems that this action is indeed permissible, just not officially condoned.

Sort of a "now you really shouldn't do this..." finger wagging.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by blood0fheroes
 


Yeah ...

I was a DOD contractor for the NAVY for over 5 years and was on armed vessels. Had to have high security clearance too. I also had to re-quall every 6 months the NAVY guys did it yearly.

I miss those days ... ever shot birds with a 240B .... fun times.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Maybe has something to do with this?

Houston - Disguised as a package of chocolates and left on the doorstep of a Texas oil executive, the bomb went off when a woman opened the apparent gift.
In spite of BP's shares rising over the weekend due to apparent increased confidence in the company's attempt to recap the Deepwater Horizon, it appears that an oil industry executive might have been targeted for murder after someone left a "package bomb" at the home of a Houston oil executive last week.

www.digitaljournal.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Question: Is the crew allowed to carry firearms in a cargo ship?

Title 46 of United States Code applies to U.S. Merchant Mariners. There is no provision within the code allowing crew to carry firearms. In fact, mariners are subject to standing regulations defined by the Master of the vessel. Typically, prohibitions include drugs, alcohol and weapons being brought aboard the vessel. Violations can result in punitive measures, including a charge of misconduct resulting in suspension or revocation of their license or document as noted in 46 U.S. Code § 7703, “Bases for suspension or revocation. “

Additionally, the regulation pertaining to Personnel Action against mariners is included in 46 Code of Federal Regulations 5.27:

“Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal, duly established rule. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the common law, the general maritime law, a ship’s regulation or order, or shipping articles and similar sources. It is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that which is required.”

That’s the long answer. The short answer is: No.

Source


Vessels supplying oil rigs are cargo vessels. So according to the CFR's they are not alowed. However the Master of the vessel can allow it if the company ok's it. That was the case with my line of work but I was part of the vessel's crew and not just a Hired gun.

I am continuing to question the Justifaction of armed guards on Offshore Supply Vessels, Drilling rigs and Crew Supply vessels.

I just don't see a threat to the vessels and even if they are armed they cannot shoot outside the Life lines of the vessel.

This is getting stranger by the minute.



posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gmoneycricket
Maybe has something to do with this?

Houston - Disguised as a package of chocolates and left on the doorstep of a Texas oil executive, the bomb went off when a woman opened the apparent gift.


Guys with guns are useless aganst a bomb. What are they gonna do open fire on any vessel that comes too close?

Hell now I want to go for a boat ride



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Wow .... this thread droped off the map quick.

I guess people are loosing intrest.




new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join