Am I the only one that thinks the shortfall isnt all G4S's fault?
With the way this country is and it being more beneficial NOT to work, who would want to have a job for a couple of weeks and then find out they cant claim anything because they have worked? My guess is that most of the applicants were people that were out of work, after all who would leave a full or part time job just to work for 2 weeks?
Of course security is compromised, thats why they are calling in the armed forces, if it wasnt compromised they wouldnt need them.
Im not sure if its a bit over the top too. Apparently from Sunday morning, airspace was restricted and fighter jets have been authorised to 'shoot to kill' along with the surface to air missiles on the roofs of flats. The could have done this in Beijing (example) but we didnt know about it.
Simon, I've been meaning to post something similar. I don't know enough about the G4S situation to comment, but I have seen reports of them hiring any old dreg, some not being able to speak English or fill the forms in correctly. So they get criticised for hiring rubbish, but also get criticised for not hiring enough...they can only hire if people apply.
What really got me thinking about this was the programme about the elderly on last week with Nick and Margaret from the apprentice, all about employment and asking if older people should work to a later age.
Two programmes filmed over 2 weeks.
Week One: A group of old people in their 70s and 80s were given jobs to see how they would cope. Some in a chocolate factory, some on a building site, some in a restaurant, and one in an estate agents. At the end of the week they were assesses by the employer. Some left because they couldn't keep up, didn't have the energy, etc. and the rest were kept on for a second week.
Week Two. The same businesses then took on a younger person, 18-20, unemployed youths who were "desperate" for a job, and put them up against the older people still in it.
In the chocolate factory, 1 lad turned up late on first day, then walked out at lunch time. Another lad, never turned up after first day.
At the end of the week the manager said that all though the older lady was slower due to not be as dexterous with her hands, much preferred her to the younger ones who would not get taken on.
Estate agent; young lad was OK but didn't have the same people skills and warmth so couldn't close a sale, they said if they had to choose, would go for the elder lady.
Building site;
One young lad didn't turn on second day, and had a crap attitude so they didn't want to take him on. The other young lad was a star and they offered him a job. They thought the older people all had good skills and attitudes but both sides agreed that it wasn't a realistic proposition due to the physical nature of the work.
In the restaurant, the owners said it was a young environment and had never employed anyone older than their 40s before. The young girl in the experiment didn't turn up on her second day, but they gave her a second chance, but in the end let her go as she was crap. They offered jobs to both older people, bloke in the kitchen turn it down as he was knacked, but a woman in her 80s was set to be their star waitress.
Now set aside the issue of the elderly working, but what does this say about the young of today.
Many don't want to start at the bottom and do a hard days work, no people skills or work ethics, and happy to live off benefits, or expect someone else to provide for them.
And the bleeding hearts of the liberals criticize people like me who say we should cut benefits expenditure....no wonder the country's in the mess it is, what has happened at G4S is just a reflection of our society at large...and it won't improve unless we stop wasteful benefits expenditure, and have a much stricter immigration policy to stop all the foreigners taking the jobs.
