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.

 

Were The G4S Security Problems Planned - Lets Look Deeper

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
All,

There has been an upsurge in Olympic 2012 threads recently, some very diverse and thought provoking but there is still one major burning issue in my mind and that's regarding G4S Security and their role.

We all know the saga, they were awarded the contract to train and station 10,400 guards during the Olympic and Paralympic Games. They were awarded the contract 19 months ago and the contract was worth around £280million, and only the week beginning the 9th of July 2012 did they declare that they wouldn't be able to fill their contract.

We now find ourselves with yet another 2000 soldiers being drafted in to fill the gap (reported today on the Radio). That brings the total expected soldier count that will be present in London to around 13,500. The number of soldiers that will be present in London is roughly the entire active military of the countries of Qatar and Kuwait.

As you all know, we also have anti aircraft missiles stationed on the roofs of buildings around London, these missile have the capacity to travel 3 times the speed of sound after only 400metres of launch.

The Navy is providing 2 warships (HMS Ocean - Aircraft Carrier and HMS Bulwark - An Amphibious Assault Vessel), Patrol Boats, Helicopters and Bomb Disposal Squads.

The Army is providing Helicopters, Bomb Disposal and a High Alert Emergency Readiness Squad.

The RAF is providing Euro Fighter Typhoons, Dogs and Bomb Disposal.

Source

What we find here is a large proportion of our military forces being stationed to look after athletes, this is shaping up to be a military event, not a sports event. This is more like the preparation for something.

Is it possible to contemplate that G4S were set up to fail to allow the government to send in 13,500 soldiers?

Is it possible to contemplate that the only way the UK people would ever allow such a large presence of soldiers in the capital is for an event like this? For their security?

Is it possible that the military know what is going to happen, a planned attack or whatever and are placing soldiers on the ground for martial law?

Lets be honest here, the Symbolism, Posters, Rik Clay, Police Force Whistle blowers, "Zion", Mascots...is enough to raise an eyebrow, but a more sophisticated and capable army presence in one city in the western world for a sporting event that could handle the entire armies of Kuwait and Qatar is making the second eyebrow raise as well.

This isn't normal...




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


i agree in part about the presence of military personnel instead of these G4s rent-a-guards. i think MI5 are likely to be well aware of specific threats and have brought in numerous soldiers for a reason. i wouldn't be surprised if there was more than one of these terrorist cells unaccounted for. for those that are not from UK these seven were on the M1 which links the North to London.

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I've been thinking something similar for quite a while now, and now they have added even more troops it definitely makes you wonder, there is no other way the public would have accepted this amount of troops on the streets...Doh what am i on about, half the country wanted the army out last year during the riots, little realising they wouldn't have been able to do a lot, after all most people dont seem to realise, if the army is on the streets we are under martial law



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   
not discounting the possibility of any kind of attack, but I personally feel it's all about acclimatization and getting everyone accustomed to the security measures/military presence.

What is a Stadium? And where does it take Place?

thread; "The sports facilities are the detention/relocation camps..." ?

if you do look at that thread, start at the end. There are examples from all over the world, some ongoing, some even in the US



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
this also raises questions about Lee Hazledean/Ben fellows, the guy who infiltrated g4s and exposed many flaws...

Was he a plant? Was his whole purpose just to get people to beg for intervention? he's been vindicated in many of the things he said, but what about when he talks about their plans/intentions to be involved in the evacuation of london?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
The notion of the G4S scandal being a staged event also occurred to me. I just find it hard to believe they only realised until it was too late that they were thousands of bodies short. Surely someone must have been keeping an eye on the ever increasing tally knowing what quota they had been contracted to reach.

Something defo isnt right IMO...



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibonz
The notion of the G4S scandal being a staged event also occurred to me. I just find it hard to believe they only realised until it was too late that they were thousands of bodies short. Surely someone must have been keeping an eye on the ever increasing tally knowing what quota they had been contracted to reach.

Something defo isnt right IMO...


This is exactly my point. They had 19 months to sort this out, they would have known through the "Recruitment Drive" if they were on target. They could have made a call for help months ago. The thing is they only told "us" a couple of weeks ago, there is no other organisation in the UK who could fill the gap bar the military.

This whole thing just isn't right!



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
According to that interview with Hazledean/Fellows on Red Ice Radio (worth listening to), G4S has a shortfall of around 9,000 personnel for this event, and it's lost contracts over this. 10% of its shareholders have pulled out.

Just thought I'd share that with you.
edit on 24-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1825114
this also raises questions about Lee Hazledean/Ben fellows, the guy who infiltrated g4s and exposed many flaws...

Was he a plant? Was his whole purpose just to get people to beg for intervention? he's been vindicated in many of the things he said, but what about when he talks about their plans/intentions to be involved in the evacuation of london?
tell me more i have not heard about this now i am curious now


JAK

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Hmm, something to think about isn't it?

For me, i do not see it as being planned. G4S have a record of cocking everything up that they touch. For me, the real question should be "how did they win the contract, given their record?".

Although thinking about that, i guess that links back to what you were saying...........certainly something for me to ponder.

Until further thoughts strike me, at the moment it smacks of corporate greed rather than conspiracy (per say) but i am certainly open on this topic. There are certainly a fair few "grey areas" around the way G4S have gone about this. However, at present, it looks more like a case of a company bidding for a huge contract they had no wish or willpower to fulfill - probably figuring that even with fines, they would effectively be getting money for nothing.

In their defence (not a position i will be championing) they have stated that most of the staff would be filled by students at the end of the Uni year. As such, they have a serious problem if these numbers are far lower than expected. This is where i have a bit of sympathy with them in that i have experienced this first hand before (but on a far, far smaller scale). A few years ago, a local festival was using a security firm that operated on a similar basis (seasonal student work). Nowhere near as many students turned up as expected and the event was nearly called off, until some locals stepped in to "do" security. So that part i think is feasible but not really excusable in that they should have had contingencies in place.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


On a slightly different angle, I was poking around companies house and discovered the Group 4 Security corporate entity that we know today is only three months old! Check out the date of incorporation;




Now, this might be nothing more than clever accounting tricks, but a quick glance at some of the other entires for Group 4's divisions at companies house;
Group 4 Listings

Other parts of the organisation have been going steady since 1989, since being incorporated under the name Drenset. But, from about 2008 onwards, a number of 'shell' companies pop up. Does this coincide with the period the government moneys were being received and moved about by Group 4?

Could be nothing, but I think the guy getting grilled by the Select Comittee on TV has nothing to do with the Group 4 Operations anymore. Looks like he has been paid off between 2008 and 2010 (was it 2010 that Group 4 got the contract?) and pulled his 'bung money' out through a subsidiary holding company.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by JAK
 


thanks thats a eye opener



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Outfoxed
 


Is it possible that they fore-saw the mess, incorporated that business into their group of companies with the responsibility for the failings falling under that newly incorporated branch of G4S?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrmcleod
reply to post by Outfoxed
 


Is it possible that they fore-saw the mess, incorporated that business into their group of companies with the responsibility for the failings falling under that newly incorporated branch of G4S?


It is very possible, which is why i am thinking corporate greed rather than anything else. At this stage........



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I can't believe that a multi national company has an H.R Director on the board that dosent know how to recruit people and leaves this shortfall in numbers unreported untill a fortnight before a major world event. Something stinks and I agree with others that this is a put up job. How big was that brown envelope G4S?

The British army had around 10,500 troops deployed in N Ireland during the early 90's to combat an active rebel Republican force of around 300. On normal combat operations the British army will deploy an attacking force in numbers of around 3 to 1 aginst an enemy. With around 13,500 troops in London alone, what sort of attack are they expecting? And don't forget the metropolitan police force alone is around 10,000 strong and there are other police forces being brought in to help! That is one hell of a lot of boots on the ground! And what's with all these anti aircraft missiles on the top of residential tower blocks? I'll confess that I'm an ex British soldier and this is one hell of an operation taking place. It's bigger than the force we sent to Kosovo for crying out loud!

There is something about this whole Olympic's that just isn't siting right. We, if I'm correct, are the only country to have held the modern games three times? Something niggiling in the back of my mind about that.

I'm staying up north for the duration of these games, never mind the conspiracy theories 25,000 boots on the ground isn't for our safety. It's to keep us locked down! That just isn't very sporting if you ask me.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Possible. It's always difficult to tell what corporations are doing, but you guessed correctly that a new corporate identity will make it difficult for the money to be recovered if Group 4 Security don't fulfill their contract. It may affect any legal action that can be taken against them in the event of an... 'event'.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Outfoxed because: removed digreesion



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Outfoxed
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Possible. It's always difficult to tell what corporations are doing, but you guessed correctly that a new corporate identity will make it difficult for the money to be recovered if Group 4 Security don't fulfill their contract. It may affect any legal action that can be taken against them in the event of an... 'event'.
edit on 24-7-2012 by Outfoxed because: removed digreesion


At which point, any failings later attributed to G4S wouldn't matter to them, because they possibly gained more money than they would have through future contracts.

I've disregarded almost all the conspiracy theories about the Olympics, but I still have a bad feeling about this. Something's not right, and I can't put my finger on it.
edit on 24-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


The sheer number of troops ,plus their attendant hardware,seems to indicate that they are there for the aftermath of an event,rather than as a deterant force.

Is it possible that the security services have knowledge of a plot to detonate either a "dirty bomb" or an actual thermonuclear device?,both events would ,most likely, lead to the imposition of martial law in the capital.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It is obvious to me that G4S is the fall guy patsy. You can't sue them. All you can do is discredit them. They will make a huge loss and much of the money paid to them will vanish in an accounting nightmare. The parent company will just throw their hands in the air and blame G4s CEO.

An interesting question, is G4S publicly listed and how have it's shares been going. Has it made a proverbial mountain of gold at the beginning and then had all of it's shares quietly sold off to mum and dad investors?

I don't know how to get that info, can anyone help.

P



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join