Why did the government not use the British Armed forces for security at the olympics?

**BigTime** · 24 July 2012, 12:45

Backhanders and directorships don't come from public service.

**MyUserName** · 24 July 2012, 12:46

Apart from the fact that they might be needed elsewhere I would guess that they are not quite trained for this.

They are trained soldiers but civilian security is slightly different with potential legal consequences for incorrect action.

Although there are various special forces units bunkered down around London that is for a very different purpose!

**Mich the Tester** · 24 July 2012, 12:48

Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post

In the first place?

BBC News - London 2012: More troops deployed for Olympics

As another 1000 come in to fill in the shortfall, that leaves it at 4500 to the Armed Forces, 6000 to G4S.

I don't quite understand why the armed forces were not asked in the first place? We have tube drivers , bus drivers, border staff threatening legal actions/asking for bonusses etc
when if anyone deserves a bonus it's going to be the armed forces.

Firstly, they're more organised, they're better trained, they have the personal, they're not going to whinge about accomodation, they're not going to strike and they're going to turn up for work.

Anyone explain this?

Aside from any possible lobbying on the part of the security industry (Bigtime's point noted!), it's possibly because in the last 30 years or so the standard approach in anything governments want to achieve is to source the work out to private parties; there's been what could be called a 'paradigm shift' from governments doing everything through state organisations to doing things through private organisations. Politicians are stuck in an idealogical rut; 'the way to achieve this is to get quotes from our preferred suppliers', even when government organisations might be better placed to do the job, or a better solution might be some form of cooperation between the two. Just an idea.

**VectraMan** · 24 July 2012, 13:16

Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post

Aside from any possible lobbying on the part of the security industry (Bigtime's point noted!), it's possibly because in the last 30 years or so the standard approach in anything governments want to achieve is to source the work out to private parties; there's been what could be called a 'paradigm shift' from governments doing everything through state organisations to doing things through private organisations. Politicians are stuck in an idealogical rut; 'the way to achieve this is to get quotes from our preferred suppliers', even when government organisations might be better placed to do the job, or a better solution might be some form of cooperation between the two. Just an idea.

Perhaps it's time to outsource our invasions of third world nations to private organisations, and use the army to replace the more traditional public sector services. I imagine IR35 investigations would be more successful if the notice arrived accompanied by a couple of large men with machine guns.

**Scoobos** · 24 July 2012, 13:19

WHS + the government probably wanted to prove that it could be done in the "free market" and that competition would ensure ... yadda yadda.

It is embarrasing how everything the BBC criticised China for, is appearing to happen here (though it isn't of course, but China and Russia won't let that stop their media slaying us)

**BrilloPad** · 24 July 2012, 13:21

Maybe the armed forces felt it was beneath them?

And if the armed forces are anything like my brother they should not be let near civilians anyway. Fortunately most are not.

Why did the government not use the British Armed forces for security at the olympics?