G4S

They've kept me in employment (albeit in a different division) and provided for my family for the last ten years or so...

I'll keep my rant to a minimum - and yes the security side have not covered themselves in glory over the Olympic situation.

But what really REALLY get me is those hypocritical MP Bastards... any issue and they drag the company in front of a select committee whose sole purpose is to absolve the Bastard MP's of any blame whatsoever...

And their smug satisfaction when Buckles admitted that they wouldn't be bidding for future contracts abroad.... HELLO! That's income that can be taxed for the benefit of this country.... TWATS!

And another thing! HF... Who plays the bigger part in making sure your trips to the Bank/ATM are successful... Be a hungry chappy if G4S ceased their UK operations...

I worked for a company that was bought by G4S, they didn't want the competition so they just bought the company. Fair enough you might say, but ask anyone in the security industry what G4S stand for and they'll reply maximum profit and minimum quality.

All very well if you provide tupperware mugs, or pencil-sharpeners, or A4 paper. But security? Not the same. The point made about John Reid was spot-on. The single biggest culprit in my view is the Government, who gave a big contract to a company (using tax-payers money, naturally) then singularly failed to maintain oversight of how that contract was administered, and whether G4S set (or met!) key performance indicators, targets etc. Try doing that in the private sector. Nick Buckles is quite right to keep the £57m management fee. They haven't managed well, but they've managed something.

To summarise then:

I agree with that, the mp's are covering their own ass by making a big song and dance about it before the public to absolve themselves of any blame and I do suspect given the fact the government are none too popular with the public these days, they are trying to appear credible that being what has happened is a publicity stunt.

And as to the oleaginous Keith Vaz, he is hardly one to demand anything of anyone given the fact he has been involved in rather a lot of sleaze during his time as an mp.

OK

I take your point.

In the same way we could talk about UKAEA as a very successful company, while at the same time pointing to their faults. Which is more relevant to the public? I reckon the fact we are dancing around radioactive particles on our beauty spots would be of more concern to the average Joe than how well the company that put them there did in the market place over time.

My take is that it is a mistake for a liberal democracy with deeply ingrained and valued socialist structures to become a conduit for pure capitalism in allowing unfettered access to our markets by multi nationals whose operations are informed by involvement across many and diverse markets, rather than home grown companies whose culture would be one of working within this societies norms from the beginning and thus from the ground up.

Certainly more regulation would help, but it is rather like whipping a wild horse rather than taking it into your corral and breaking it gently.

Would I?

I reckon we would make it through the few days disruption until other operators stepped in. It is hardly rocket science, after all.

What should be truly relevant to the public is the entire picture - but that's rarely done, wanted nor sought. That, in itself, is telling.

What is made over to the public, being negative soundbites, because that's what the public is largely interested in.

Look at it this way - for all the negative things you, or the Daily Wail, can highlight, what's the likelihood that there's a huge amount of stuff they get right? Otherwise, how would they have prevailed in a global market economy?

Is the market loyal?

That is a somewhat separate matter.

All the same, though, I'm not suggesting that people put aside bad things, or poor things that companies do - merely to put them in context - which, really, the public, the press or other media doesn't really do.

Wonderful.

"Would that it were, Mr Highlandsflyer, would that it were..."

If you can get the majority of the electorate on your side, then maybe you can reverse the last few decades of people largely driven by self-interest, and respecting those that have the gold, make the rules.

I wouldn't argue that many companies - like G4S have probably been used inappropriately by governments, and in doing so, either by poor management, and / or apathy, they've had issues and failures in certain matters, that probably should have never been so easily or swiftly devolved.

All the same, it doesn't trounce their other success in the market place, that can't just be out of loyalty or ignorance.

Success in the marketplace really is not the be all and end all though, now is it?

It says as little about a companies ethics as the Daily Mail readership approval does about Jordan's new novel or navel, both are probably outsourced.

We seem to be moving somewhat in the positive direction of disregarding mere financial success as a measure of right or wrong.

If anything lasts from all the bank scandals, etc. it will hopefully be a change in the perception of success.

Personally I feel you are as morally 'successful' as your least well regarded actions.

On that measure, arbitrary and subjective as it may be, I find it hard to argue for companies as large and wide spread as G4S enhancing the world at large.

No - and I'm not trying to imply it does.

Merely that there's a bigger picture that many detractors either ignore, or are ignorant about.

My point about it was - if they were comprehensively so bad at what they do, they wouldn't prevail in the market.

We are doing nothing of the sort, as a generalism. Society, especially in the UK, are doing what they always do - looking for reasons to do something down.

All I'm saying is that most of the detractors of G4S do so in ignorance as to how they've performed as a business.

I think you're ever the optimist.

I don't think perception of success will be what changes, nor celebration of success, per se. I think people look for scapegoats - and with the banking crisis, at least, will look for greater regulation and scrutiny - much to the chagrin of many financial commentators and essayists.

I'm not arguing that they're enhancing the world - I never have - merely that there's a bigger picture, and some of the responsibility for some of their embarrassing failures, has to largely fall on those in government outsourcing particular things to the private sector, too.