G4S win tagging contract. Well done!

[Tongs ya bas]

http://www.cityam.com/268098/g4s-wins-another-tagging-contract-ministry-justice-despite

 

I'm given to understand that a former home secretary and current leading politician is married to a leading shareholder of this fine upstanding example of free enterprise in action.

My heartiest congratulations to all concerned. 

[Robin Evans]

1 minute ago, Tongs ya bas said:

http://www.cityam.com/268098/g4s-wins-another-tagging-contract-ministry-justice-despite

 

I'm given to understand that a former home secretary and current leading politician is married to a leading shareholder of this fine upstanding example of free enterprise in action.

My heartiest congratulations to all concerned. 

Be joyous. Splendid news

[Mark S]

Saintslass will be here soon to justify it!

[Shadow]

6 minutes ago, Mark S said:

Saintslass will be here soon to justify it!

Unless it was a Labour Home secretary, then it would be bad. Very bad, The baddest thing ever.

[JohnM]

Here we go again. The bland leading the bland. If you don't like it, do something about it, get off your backsides and do something about it rather than just sitting in the old folks corner mumbling about how things were so much better in your day. 

[Griff9of13]

7 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Here we go again. The bland leading the bland. If you don't like it, do something about it, get off your backsides and do something about it rather than just sitting in the old folks corner mumbling about how things were so much better in your day. 

Feel free to enlighten us to the inaccuracies in the report.

Do G4S not have an abysmal record in this area?

Is the current Mr May not a major share holder in G4S?

[Tongs ya bas]

17 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Here we go again. The bland leading the bland. If you don't like it, do something about it, get off your backsides and do something about it rather than just sitting in the old folks corner mumbling about how things were so much better in your day. 

Are you happy with this heady cocktail of incompetence and possible corruption. Check out the record of this appalling organisation. Ill do it for you if you like

[Derwent]

10 hours ago, Griff9of13 said:

 

Is the current Mr May not a major share holder in G4S?

No he isn't, he isn't even a shareholder never mind a major one. This was exposed as a twitter myth last year. Unless you can prove otherwise ?

You can see G4S's major shareholders here, noting that the biggest single shareholder only owns 12%....

http://www.g4s.com/en/Investors/Shareholder-Centre/Major-Shareholdings

[Mark S]

37 minutes ago, Derwent said:

No he isn't, he isn't even a shareholder never mind a major one. This was exposed as a twitter myth last year. Unless you can prove otherwise ?

You can see G4S's major shareholders here, noting that the biggest single shareholder only owns 12%....

http://www.g4s.com/en/Investors/Shareholder-Centre/Major-Shareholdings

Blackrock is an interesting one, isn't Gideon a board member there? Wheels within wheels comes to mind.

[Derwent]

10 minutes ago, Mark S said:

Blackrock is an interesting one, isn't Gideon a board member there? Wheels within wheels comes to mind.

No he is employed by them as an advisor, he does not hold any office of power there (not formally anyway).

Wheels within wheels has always gone on. In regard to G4S when the former Labour Home Secretary John Reid stood down he joined the board of G4S and 3 months later they were awarded a huge contract by his former ministerial department.

[Tongs ya bas]

22 minutes ago, Derwent said:

No he is employed by them as an advisor, he does not hold any office of power there (not formally anyway).

Wheels within wheels has always gone on. In regard to G4S when the former Labour Home Secretary John Reid stood down he joined the board of G4S and 3 months later they were awarded a huge contract by his former ministerial department.

Well any kind of association with black rock is bad enough, and your reference to Reid, whilst accurate has the whiff of whataboutism about it. You assume that possible corruption by a labour politician would not be picked up on. I can assure you that you are wrong. Corruption involving mps from Barnsley and rotherham has been discussed on here within the last day. And because something has 'always gone on' that doesn't justify it.

Many reputable sources have commented on May's association with this ludicrously incompetent company. If he has no association with it, well fine: although his association with other companies via the hedge fund he manages makes intriguing reading.

But why G4s? They have been shown to be hopeless time and time again, but still they get these huge government contracts for work that would have been done by government departments in the past.

[Derwent]

23 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

1. Well any kind of association with black rock is bad enough, and your reference to Reid, whilst accurate has the whiff of whataboutism about it. You assume that possible corruption by a labour politician would not be picked up on. I can assure you that you are wrong. Corruption involving mps from Barnsley and rotherham has been discussed on here within the last day. And because something has 'always gone on' that doesn't justify it.

2. Many reputable sources have commented on May's association with this ludicrously incompetent company. If he has no association with it, well fine: although his association with other companies via the hedge fund he manages makes intriguing reading.

3. But why G4s? They have been shown to be hopeless time and time again, but still they get these huge government contracts for work that would have been done by government departments in the past.

1. No I'm not trying to get into whataboutism, it's not a party political issue. The reason I wrote that was because some on here seem to infer that dodgy dealings are the sole preserve of the Tories, when they are not. That is all. As for justifying it, I am not trying to. Just pointing out that it has always go on and always will, especially if we continue to allow paid lobbying in this country.

2. They might have commented on it but nobody has provided a shred of proof that Mr May is involved with G4S. He doesn't appear on the register of shareholders, is not listed as an officer of the company at Companies House. At best his involvement will be an arms length one as an employee of an institutional investor. But even then it can't be a major shareholding as has been suggested, the proof of that is on the link provided. Mr May might be a dodgy character for all I know, but in this particular instance there is no evidence of any wrong doing on his part. It's important to be factual don't you think ?

3. No idea why G4S. I'm not here trying to defend them or their record. At first sight they would seem a bad choice given their previous history, but unless you know who the other bidders were then it's hard to compare. It could well be a case of "best of a bad bunch". Not ideal I agree but that's the world we live in now where everything must be "competitively tendered".

[Tongs ya bas]

35 minutes ago, Derwent said:

1. No I'm not trying to get into whataboutism, it's not a party political issue. The reason I wrote that was because some on here seem to infer that dodgy dealings are the sole preserve of the Tories, when they are not. That is all. As for justifying it, I am not trying to. Just pointing out that it has always go on and always will, especially if we continue to allow paid lobbying in this country.

2. They might have commented on it but nobody has provided a shred of proof that Mr May is involved with G4S. He doesn't appear on the register of shareholders, is not listed as an officer of the company at Companies House. At best his involvement will be an arms length one as an employee of an institutional investor. But even then it can't be a major shareholding as has been suggested, the proof of that is on the link provided. Mr May might be a dodgy character for all I know, but in this particular instance there is no evidence of any wrong doing on his part. It's important to be factual don't you think ?

3. No idea why G4S. I'm not here trying to defend them or their record. At first sight they would seem a bad choice given their previous history, but unless you know who the other bidders were then it's hard to compare. It could well be a case of "best of a bad bunch". Not ideal I agree but that's the world we live in now where everything must be "competitively tendered".

1 there are plenty who don't think that including me...again I refer you to the comment about corrupt labour politicians.

2 fair enough. And my apologies for any slight upon Mr May's good name are as deep as the Marianas trench and as humble as Uriah Heep if not more so and I really really mean that.

3 it is indeed the world we live in my friend, and that's the problem isn't it?

[Phil]

12 hours ago, JohnM said:

Here we go again. The bland leading the bland. If you don't like it, do something about it, get off your backsides and do something about it rather than just sitting in the old folks corner mumbling about how things were so much better in your day. 

I do stuff, I'm doing something about it.

im involved in all sorts of groups and actions, many of them I'm not prepared to publicise on this forum 

[Tongs ya bas]

16 minutes ago, Phil said:

I do stuff, I'm doing something about it.

im involved in all sorts of groups and actions, many of them I'm not prepared to publicise on this forum 

Me too

[Tongs ya bas]

1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

Hang on, I'm confused. I thought all you EU worshippers were fine with corruption and nepotism? It's the EU way after all.

How do you know I'm an Eu worshipper?whatever that means. Are you suggesting that being in favour of being in the eu means an approval of corruption? How bizarre. 

[Tongs ya bas]

6 hours ago, Johnoco said:

Because I saw you going to that EU temple last Sunday morning just off the York Road, that's how.

B and Q at seacroft? Who knew

[Saint Toppy]

Can't help but laugh at stories like these. It's either lazy journalism or just incompetence if they don't understand how government contracts are procured.

No politicians sit on any of the procurement panels so regardless of any share ownership by an mp's spouse it would make no difference to the decision to award or not. The relevant government minister just rubber stamps the deal and is not permitted to vote on selection,  only to veto the company selected by the procurement team.

[Tongs ya bas]

10 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

Can't help but laugh at stories like these. It's either lazy journalism or just incompetence if they don't understand how government contracts are procured.

No politicians sit on any of the procurement panels so regardless of any share ownership by an mp's spouse it would make no difference to the decision to award or not. The relevant government minister just rubber stamps the deal and is not permitted to vote on selection,  only to veto the company selected by the procurement team.

so G4S haven't been awarded the contract. Phew thats a relief. i mean, have you seen their track record?

[GeordieSaint]

3 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

No politicians sit on any of the  panels so regardless of any share ownership by an mp's spouse it would make no difference to the decision to award or not. The relevant government minister just rubber stamps the deal and is not permitted to vote on selection,  only to veto the company selected by the procurement team.

Are you suggesting procurement teams can't be influenced? If you are, you are sadly mistaken. Many private companies winning such contracts are normally littered with ex-government workers still in contact with their former colleagues. There are many channels with Ministers and MPs to influence decision-making other than simply having a vote.

[Tongs ya bas]

27 minutes ago, GeordieSaint said:

Are you suggesting procurement teams can't be influenced? If you are, you are sadly mistaken. Many private companies winning such contracts are normally littered with ex-government workers still in contact with their former colleagues. There are many channels with Ministers and MPs to influence decision-making other than simply having a vote.

The defence procurement industry is riddled with such people

[Saint Toppy]

It's against the governments own rules for any MP to interfere in the decision making in any way. The procurement panel are also banned from talking to any politician or other outside body about the assessment during the process. 

[Griff9of13]

47 minutes ago, Saint Toppy said:

It's against the governments own rules for any MP to interfere in the decision making in any way. The procurement panel are also banned from talking to any politician or other outside body about the assessment during the process. 

The same rules apply for the employees of the bidding companies; there should be no direct contact with anyone who has influence on the procurement panel other than via the official bidding process.

[tonyXIII]

It seems generally agreed that G4S are incompetent, so I have a question.

Assuming the bidding process was kosher and G4S won on merit, who were the other bidders and just how bad are they?

 

[Bedford Roughyed]

2 hours ago, tonyXIII said:

It seems generally agreed that G4S are incompetent, so I have a question.

Assuming the bidding process was kosher and G4S won on merit, who were the other bidders and just how bad are they?

 

Probably the likes of Serco, Thales etc.