Talk:G4S/Archives/2012

Parodies of it

Gilliam satirized it in Episode 37 of Monty Python's Flying Circus in an animation. It was Securicor Ambulances, Ltd.

"Focus on" Groups

These "focus on" groups are repeatedly cited as a source, but personally I don't believe that they really conform to NPOV standards that we have come to expect from wiki sources. Their website really is quite misleading and obviously had an agenda. Most of its articles only source is their own.

I also find it odd we are using sources from an SEIU sponsored website for G4S, as it is established they have an ongoing conflict citing one's webpage hardly seems a Neutral source?

If noone objects il remove all this stuff in a few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieHughes (talk • contribs) 23:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

G4S has been "Focusing On" privatisation of former state assets. they own a number of private prisons, and lobby both above and under the table to rob the Nationals of the UK from their state-owned assets, "focusing on" overplaying costs and hiding profitability in state-run, and reversing in corporate mode. They run many local jails and courthouse security in the UK, although being dominated by US and/or profit seeking interests. The Horseferry Road Magistrates Court security and surveillance was awarded to G$S, costs were driven up, then the case was made for relocating the court, using the facility to house HMPS (state-owned) staff, prior to refitting it for sale as residences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.110.212.78 (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:G4s.jpg

Image:G4s.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Death in G4S Custody section

Although I did rewrite it to a more neutral tone and to be more consistent with the refs, I have doubts the section should be included at all. Your thoughts ? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 12:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In my view the section is a clear example of recentism, a whole section is completely unjustifiable in my view. An appropriate mention would be a single, brief, sentence in the history section. Rangoon11 (talk) 14:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, whilst the death is still being investigated, it more than merits its own section, then depending on how the investigation goes the article may need rewritten. According to WP:RECENT; "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in: 1)Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. 2)Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. 3)The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus." as i see it the section is fairly small at the moment so there is no risk of overburdening the article, and if the case does escalate in court (i.e. if the guards are charged with murder) then it would certainly merit its own article (which couldn't be called flimsy or transient due to its severity and what would undoubtedly be very high profile news coverage) and would THEN only merit a short hyper-linked mention in this article, but for now i think the section is fully justified -ross616- (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a distinct lack of any mention of the debacles Group 4 were known for in the UK, with regard incompetent prisoner transfers that I believe lead to the changing of their name to G4S to help distance themselves. This along with the terrible public image they garnered when the government assigned private companies to fulfill once government run contracts. Even after the name change they managed to burn down a four month old immigration detention centre at huge cost to the tax payer. There is plenty of coverage of their failures on the BBC news website e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1822528.stm and would help balance the page somewhat. I came here for research and found little more than a self-congratulatory corporate patting-on-the-back page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.89.26 (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Theresa May's Husband- How Many Shares in G4S?

Does anyone know how many he actually holds? I've seen press reports in excess of 32%- in view of the Olympics 2012 security team now being 1300 short, according to BBC reports on 12th July 2012, there's more than a whiff of cordite about why this company hadn't even tried to recruit from the ranks of the unemployed(did Theresa know they could get Afghanistan war veterans for free, despite the fact they're OWED a holiday like no one else is).212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.127 (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Name

On the Now Show on the radio, they joked that the company was trying to copy the iPhone generation 4S. What does it actually stand for? It is a inconsequential question, but it is interesting (especially given the weirdness of it). Is there a group 1, 2 and 3? Securicor is not a real word, so what does the -cor ending mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.144.13 (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a hunch that "Securicor" was based on "Security Corps" (after the Corps of Commissionaires), and that does seem to be the case. According to this page, Securicor started life as "Night Watch Services" in 1935, and became "Night Guards" in 1939, but went dormant during the Second World War. It was reformed in 1946, and changed its name to "Security Corps" in 1951, but government objections led to a contraction to "Securicor" in 1953. Most of these details are corroborated by this interview with Buckles. It was only in 2004 that Securicor merged with Group 4, but the origins of the latter's name seem harder to pin down. It might really be a good idea to deal with the two companies separate under sub-headings under "Origins". Although there is no separate page for pre-merger Group 4 Falck (which redirects here), there is one for Securicor, although there's so little in it that it might be better merged with this one. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I would recommend keeping the Securicor article seperate - there is some good information there. The name Group 4 derives from the fact that the founder brought together 4 different security businesses to form one Group. (see [1]) I have now written a brief article on Group 4. Dormskirk (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

History Section

I think the History section needs a re-write, it essentially comprises a couple of points about Group 4 (not G4S) and the minor 02 thing. I think it would be a good idea to give a full history of both branches (Group 4 and Securicor) around what is already there? If noone wants to do anything il do it at the weekend. - Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieHughes (talk • contribs) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are the guards of this company armed in Britain? I know that the British have a hangup with guns, I'm curious to know if people that guard banks, and the vehicles used to transport money are armed in the UK. User 070 (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not armed. They only have to wear a helmet. I live in the UK and I knew someone working for them. Personally many times in Morrison's (UK supermarket)I saw a guard walking with money in a special case - wearing white shirt and helmet and not having any weapon at all. Misiekuk (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the most "armed" G4S employees in the UK are the officers at HMP Birmingham (Prison) who carry extendible batons. This was a public sector prison recently (2011)and controversially privatised. The first prison to be privatised in the UK. Surely worth a section on it's own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.254.59.124 (talk) 21:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Some of them are armed. G4S(WACKENHUTT) control most of prisoner transport and court security/jailing duties in the UK. There has been talk of listening devices in their facilities. They currently have the contract for accommodation of GCHQ Staff at Cheltenham, despite the fact thet they have no National interest at heart (private, for-profit, largely american). They actively lobby for privatisation of the Prison Service, and were linked to the bid of DHL to supply prisoner confectionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.110.212.78 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)