Olympinonsense

[Bryn]

Why not transfer the high visibility jacket wearing folk dotted along the Egham Bypass. They certainly appear to be wasting their time and our money in their current role of dissuading drivers from drifting into the (mostly empty) Olympics lane.

[Anna]

No doubt, but do you have any idea which company could have done these things properly instead?

No one company could provide all the security required. Locog have contracted several companies for the 'event' side of things and there are no problems, if the security had been subdivided between half a dozen companies and between venues it probably would not be the mess it is now. Eggs in baskets.

Several points emerged from the questioning of Nick Buckles. Firstly, this was to them a vanity contract, not to make them money but to enhance and boost reputation with the aim of getting further lucrative contracts (until last week they were intending to bid for the next World Cup and 2016 Olympics in Brazil)

Secondly, they have never tried to implement such a large scale, short term, contract. I'm not sure that any company has. They admitted it was not cost effective to have staff trained in advance so it would always be a last minute operation. Staff would not be on retainers so the gap from March to July obviously means those you have accepted by that time have found alternatives or are no longer interested.

As to the no-shows (such as today for the cycling at Box Hill) of the 200 they promised 30 turned up, those 30 were rostered. They couldn't roster the full amount as they don't have the full amount of trained people in their system. They get paid for training people (who they don't have to contact again) but only get paid for those who do turn up. Nick Buckles said they would pay for military and police who are having to fill the gap plus £1 per day bonus for those who do turn up and complete the whole Games. Eggs in baskets turn into egg on face. I imagine the next share holders meeting will be a stormy affair. I also sincerely hope their proposed privatisation of West Mids, Surrey & Beds police won't come about and any contracts due to be signed for UK prison and security work won't be signed.

[amateur51]

No one company could provide all the security required. Locog have contracted several companies for the 'event' side of things and there are no problems, if the security had been subdivided between half a dozen companies and between venues it probably would not be the mess it is now. Eggs in baskets.

Several points emerged from the questioning of Nick Buckles. Firstly, this was to them a vanity contract, not to make them money but to enhance and boost reputation with the aim of getting further lucrative contracts (until last week they were intending to bid for the next World Cup in Brazil)

Secondly, they have never tried to implement such a large scale, short term, contract. I'm not sure that any company has. They admitted it was not cost effective to have staff trained in advance so it would always be a last minute operation. Staff would not be on retainers so the gap from March to July obviously means those you have accepted by that time have found alternatives or are no longer interested.

As to the no-shows (such as today for the cycling at Box Hill) of the 200 they promised 30 turned up, those 30 were rostered. They couldn't roster the full amount as they don't have the full amount of trained people in their system. They get paid for training people (who they don't have to contact again) but only get paid for those who do turn up. Nick Buckles said they would pay for military and police who are having to fill the gap plus £1 per day bonus for those who do turn up and complete the whole Games. Eggs in baskets turn into egg on face. I imagine the next share holders meeting will be a stormy affair. I also sincerely hope their proposed privatisation of West Mids, Surrey & Beds police won't come about and any contracts due to be signed for UK prison and security work won't be signed.

Totally agree Anna - well put!

[Anna]

London 2012 is withdrawing 500,000 football tickets from sale. The Olympic Games begin with a round of football matches on Wednesday 25 July, including Team GB's women taking on New Zealand in Cardiff, two days before the opening ceremony in Olympic Park. The capacity in the stadium will be scaled down from nearly 75,000 to 40,000.

London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe told the BBC "just shy of 40,000" tickets had been issued for that match and suggested the shortfall in football ticket sales was to be expected. "It's always a challenge; you've got lots of venues and lots of matches and you don't know until late on who is going to be playing," he said.

Lord Coe said the remaining tickets would be sold "by hook or by crook".

Unfortunate choice of phrase and in tonight's episode of Twenty-Twelve they are re-branding - wait for it - Womens Football! I feel the edges between fantasy and reality are truly beginning to blur ..............

[mangerton]

London 2012 is withdrawing 500,000 football tickets from sale. The Olympic Games begin with a round of football matches on Wednesday 25 July, including Team GB's women taking on New Zealand in Cardiff, two days before the opening ceremony in Olympic Park. The capacity in the stadium will be scaled down from nearly 75,000 to 40,000.

London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe told the BBC "just shy of 40,000" tickets had been issued for that match and suggested the shortfall in football ticket sales was to be expected. "It's always a challenge; you've got lots of venues and lots of matches and you don't know until late on who is going to be playing," he said.

Lord Coe said the remaining tickets would be sold "by hook or by crook".

Unfortunate choice of phrase and in tonight's episode of Twenty-Twelve they are re-branding - wait for it - Womens Football! I feel the edges between fantasy and reality are truly beginning to blur ..............

Yes indeed. I heard Mr Hunt's performance on "PM" and thought it was a disgrace - on a par with Buckle's.

I just thought I'd add this tip. If, like me, and presumably Anna, you're going to watch Twenty Twelve this evening, make absolutely sure you're tuned to BBC2 (or HD) and not the ten o'clock news on BBC1.

I think it will be hard to tell the difference.

[amateur51]

Yes indeed. I heard Mr Hunt's performance on "PM" and thought it was a disgrace - on a par with Buckle's.

I just thought I'd add this tip. If, like me, and presumably Anna, you're going to watch Twenty Twelve this evening, make absolutely sure you're tuned to BBC2 (or HD) and not the ten o'clock news on BBC1.

I think it will be hard to tell the difference.

[ahinton]

No one company could provide all the security required. Locog have contracted several companies for the 'event' side of things and there are no problems, if the security had been subdivided between half a dozen companies and between venues it probably would not be the mess it is now. Eggs in baskets.

Several points emerged from the questioning of Nick Buckles. Firstly, this was to them a vanity contract, not to make them money but to enhance and boost reputation with the aim of getting further lucrative contracts (until last week they were intending to bid for the next World Cup and 2016 Olympics in Brazil)

Secondly, they have never tried to implement such a large scale, short term, contract. I'm not sure that any company has. They admitted it was not cost effective to have staff trained in advance so it would always be a last minute operation. Staff would not be on retainers so the gap from March to July obviously means those you have accepted by that time have found alternatives or are no longer interested.

As to the no-shows (such as today for the cycling at Box Hill) of the 200 they promised 30 turned up, those 30 were rostered. They couldn't roster the full amount as they don't have the full amount of trained people in their system. They get paid for training people (who they don't have to contact again) but only get paid for those who do turn up. Nick Buckles said they would pay for military and police who are having to fill the gap plus £1 per day bonus for those who do turn up and complete the whole Games. Eggs in baskets turn into egg on face. I imagine the next share holders meeting will be a stormy affair. I also sincerely hope their proposed privatisation of West Mids, Surrey & Beds police won't come about and any contracts due to be signed for UK prison and security work won't be signed.

I agree - but implicit in my question was whether any security firm could reasonably expect to be entrusted to deliver on such a contract...

[Lateralthinking1]

It says something about this country now when I can listen to Buckles at the Select Committee and think:

"He isn't so bad - it is only diabolical inefficiency - at least it isn't corruption"

Then, of course, I think of his remuneration, the typical corporate response to being asked to pay up for the failings, and the sheer ordinariness of him plus, until now, the anonymity and political unaccountability of such an influential person.

One contributor mentioned earlier that when the prisons were privatised, there was talk about bringing in American riot squads to deal with any disruption. This, he hoped, had been a passing moment.

Perhaps but according to the press American secret agents are on their way here to have a key role in airport security during the Olympics. The Department for Transport have refused to confirm or deny the reports but have admitted to being in regular contact with them. Historical time scales weren't mentioned, nor the phrase 'rendition flights'. But then why would they be?

[amateur51]

I agree - but implicit in my question was whether any security firm could reasonably expect to be entrusted to deliver on such a contract...

And if the answer to your question is 'no' ahinton?

[ahinton]

And if the answer to your question is 'no' ahinton?

Then so be it (albeit the opinion of one person) - but that would leave a problem rather larger than the one revealed by the G4S stuff, methinks...

[amateur51]

Then so be it (albeit the opinion of one person) - but that would leave a problem rather larger than the one revealed by the G4S stuff, methinks...

What I was, unsuccessfully, driving at is that in unknown territory such as organising such a huge event, it is pretty dumb, as Anna has posted earlier, to put all your eggs in one basket. It would have been more sensible to create a team of suppliers each offering different experience and expertise. That way you keep costs down by providing greater competition and you also have a fall-back if one supplier falls out. This isn't written in hindsight, it's based on my experience & that of others.

A LOCOGS insider has described LOCOGS as being amateurish

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18853874

[ahinton]

What I was, unsuccessfully, driving at is that in unknown territory such as organising such a huge event, it is pretty dumb, as Anna has posted earlier, to put all your eggs in one basket. It would have been more sensible to create a team of suppliers each offering different experience and expertise. That way you keep costs down by providing greater competition and you also have a fall-back if one supplier falls out. This isn't written in hindsight, it's based on my experience & that of others.

A LOCOGS insider has described LOCOGS as being amateurish

I understand the principle of that, but might the danger not then morph into that of lack of co-ordination and/or competition between a series of smaller firms selected to undertake the contract between them, with similarly unreliable results and the risk of an even lengthier and more convoluted and complex series of subsequent brickbat-throwings and blamings that might end up requiring (among many other things) not merely one but an entire raft of appearances of the respective CEOs before teams of MPs who really ought to be doing something else at least some of the time? Imagine, for example, the Treasury Select Committee having to call before it the CEOs of 25 banks in succession rather than just Bob Diamond! I imagine you can see where I'm coming from here...

[mangerton]

A LOCOGS insider has described LOCOGS as being amateurish

I've just had a look here:

http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the-games/locog/index.html

At the make-up of the board and management team, and I can't say I'm impressed. The site is full of bullshit bingo (qv), and the CV writers seem impressed most of all by the honours and the medals that these people have been given and have won.

Very few of them appear to have actually run (ie been in charge of) anything. I look at the logo - I keep seeing Lisa Simpson - and then I look at the "mascots". I think someone is having a laugh at our expense. The King's New Clothes come to mind.

Oh dear.

[scottycelt]

What I was, unsuccessfully, driving at is that in unknown territory such as organising such a huge event, it is pretty dumb, as Anna has posted earlier, to put all your eggs in one basket. It would have been more sensible to create a team of suppliers each offering different experience and expertise. That way you keep costs down by providing greater competition and you also have a fall-back if one supplier falls out. This isn't written in hindsight, it's based on my experience & that of others.

Not mine, amsey!

If the Government had gone for various companies and not put all their eggs in one basket it would have cost them (us) more not less ... that's exactly why it went for the cheaper option of putting 'all eggs in one basket'.

Furthermore, companies don't pay staff to hang about waiting hoping another company collapses so they can suddenly fill the breach caused by a broken contract.

I'm also rather astonished to see you are now apparently in favour of the ethos of competition to bring down costs. My goodness, whatever next, privatisation of the NHS?

Are you a closet Tory heterosexual, or something ... ?

[Lateralthinking1]

I've just had a look here:

http://www.london2012.com/about-us/the-people-delivering-the-games/locog/index.html

It says "up to 70,000 volunteers" too. Who - and where - are they then? Or is it like "From 99p"?