National No to G4S Convergence // OCTOBER 6th

Activists from various anti-G4S campaigns are coming together for a UK-wide gathering in Sheffield on Saturday 6^th October. Individuals and campaign groups are invited to attend to share, network, strategise and plan how to build an even more effective Stop G4S campaign. The gathering is open to all who oppose G4S and want to work with others to Stop G4S from taking over public services for private profit while violating human rights.

Despite its track record of complicity in human rights abuses in the UK and abroad, G4S is being handed control of public services - everything from policing to “asylum markets” to the welfare system. Even after the Olympics débâcle, G4S looks set to take over even more control of our communities.

Campaigns have begun to highlight the appalling record of G4S and to work to prevent it from putting profit before human rights and dignity. From local campaigns to pressure G4S as it cuts corners, to demonstrations targeting the company’s AGM and headquarters, we’re beginning to damage the G4S brand.

The gathering will launch the UK 'StopG4S' campaign coalition, bringing together grassroots campaigns, networks and organisations with the aim of providing support, resources, guidance and skill-sharing. This coalition will be inclusive and non-hierarchical.

Please respond to: stop-g4s@riseup.net to reserve a place, find out more or to request a speaker to attend a meeting to discuss campaign plans. If you or your organisation (if you have one) wish to endorse this call please let us know. Facebook event

Reasonable travel costs may be paid to those unable to fund themselves. Overnight accommodation will be provided by local activists.

The many reasons to Stop G4S:

G4S and Public Contracts:

• G4S has recently been awarded £210million of public money to provide housing services to asylum seekers in Yorkshire, Humberside, Midlands and the North East .
• With profit its only motive in what it calls “asylum markets”, it’s expected that over 1000 asylum seekers will be uprooted from their communities to live in slum housing.
• G4S profits from the privatisation of policing, courts & prisons
• Workfare: G4S profits from forcing the unemployed to do unpaid work or risk having benefits cut.
• G4S won the contract to provide security for the Olympics and failed to deliver on time but still insists on receiving payment.

Human Rights Abuses:

• Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan asylum seeker died, following restraint by G4S employees. The DPP recently ruled that no prosecution was necessary.
• In 2011 G4S Australia admitted liability and was fined for the death of Warburton Elder Mr Ward.
• It profits from imprisoning refugees while it abuses families and children in their 'care'.

G4S and Israel’s occupation of Palestine:

• G4S provides equipment and services to Israeli prisons in which Palestinian prisoners, including child prisoners, are illegally held and tortured.
• G4S supplies equipment and services to Israel’s illegal settlements and Wall.
• Palestinian civil society has called for action to hold G4S to account for its role in profiting from the detention of Palestinian political prisoners, 1,600 of whom recently held a mass hunger strike.

Selection of actions taken so far:

• Local campaigns in cities and campuses across the UK
• G4S headquarters rooftop occupation.
• Demonstrations in Birmingham, Sheffield, London and beyond
• Successfully pressuring companies to drop their ties with G4S
• Publishing detailed analysis online (see http://bit.ly/R9JbkB, http://bit.ly/PRhYMi, http://bit.ly/Kz0Uhn)

Endorsed by:

Boycott Israel Network

No Borders UK

Newcastle Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Sheffield Palestine Solidarity Campaign

Stop Deportations

SYMAAG (South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group)

A Masterclass in Privatised Security: G4S and the Olympics

The Guardian put the allegations to G4S. A spokesman for the company responded: "We are unable to respond to the specific questions you raise because to do so would involve pulling staff, who are working hard to mobilise the 2012 workforce, off the work they are doing."We will enquire into the claims that are made and we take very seriously any allegation of poor standards on our part."  

The Guardian, 13th July 2012

Although they were originally contracted to provide 2,000 security staff, G4S' new multi-million pound contract with Games provider LOCOG now requires them to provide 13,700 guards over the course of the Olympics. Over the last few days, it has been revealed that - two weeks before the opening ceremony - only 4,000 G4S guards are fully vetted, trained and in place to provide the service. G4S' assurance that a further 9,000 are in the pipeline hasn't convinced the Home Office who have now drafted in Army reserves to fill the gaping whole. A total of 17,000 servicemen will now be involved in Olympic security.

Teresa May assured the Commons that details about G4S' failure to honour the terms of the contract only came to her knowledge on Wednesday (11th July), although it seems as if ministers had been aware about the possibility of calling in extra troops for the past couple of weeks. G4S' own heads may have also been in the sands, with the managing director of G4S Global Events telling Reuters early in the week that "we are keen to pursue events all over the globe and we do have the scale to do more than one thing at once." These "nine-figure aspirations" look set to dissipate under the pressure of criticism from government and media alike.

It's difficult to sift through the pages of reportage that swiftly followed G4S' Olympian fall from grace without a wry smile creeping across my face. We've already found reasons to take issue with G4S' creeping control of public services, but now so has everyone else. 

The idea of a private security army being hired to 'secure' the Olympic Games - in the twisted Orwellian fantasy that is the 2012 London Olympic Games - makes perfect sense. In this hyper-commercialised space, where non-MacDonald chips are only allowed to be served as an accompaniment to fish and 80% of all Olympic visitors expected to be coaxed through the new Westfield shopping centre in Stratford en route to the Olympic Village, we have been given an exclusive preview of what a world run by private companies with 'commercial interests' could become.

Keith Vaz, the Home Affairs Select Committee Chairman, declared that "G4S has let the country down and we have literally had to send in the troops" and stated that all public contracts with G4S should be reviewed and all potential contracts shelved. Another Liberal Democrat MP and member of the public accounts committee, Ian Swales, stated that concerns about G4S' extortionate profit margins had been continually raised in meetings:

"We were really concerned because when the announcement of doubling of the number of security personnel was made we looked at the breakdown of the costs and we saw that the G4S contract was going up from £86 to £284 million, which felt like a colossal amount of money. [...] For these large amounts of money you would expect excellent service so to me this is just compounding a felony, vast sums of money buying a service that is very poor quality." 

Similar concerns have already been voiced by Jeremy Corbyn (Labour) and Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat) in Parliament.

G4S' capacity to execute the £284 million pound contract was also put in doubt when aspects of their interview and training processes were revealed by the press. Experienced ex-police officers and prison officers were appalled by the level of incompetence found within G4S' administrative staff, claiming that the company clearly didn't have sufficient staff and methods in place to deal with the sheer quantity of applicants. Many have still not received accreditation, uniform or confirmation of their employment. It is little wonder that G4S' own Facebook page is fast becoming a forum for angry employees.

Future procurement prospects in the policing sector have also been put in doubt. Surrey Police have now shelved plans for police privatisation with G4S' Olympic Security fiasco cited as a reason for delaying the decision. The police authority chairman, Peter Williams, told press that "members agreed today that it is right that we should suspend our involvement at this time and that we should look to withdraw altogether following a more detailed assessment of our options in September."

When the City and Government have become quasi-synonymous, it is hardly surprising that the government is threatening G4S with financial penalties. And even these financial penalties are under question. Whilst LOCOG stated that G4S would be charged for failing to provide the number of staff it promised, a government source - speaking to the Independent - stated that the contract was in fact drawn up on a pro-rata basis, with G4S paid per guard rather than for the whole security contract. However, by Friday (13th July) evening, G4S conceded that it expects to lose between £35 and £50 million for its failure to honour the terms of the contract. Their net market value also dropped by £150 million in the past two days.

Now, history tells us that the governments attraction to G4S's commercial viability has not been dented by charges, scandal or slander. The death of Jimmy Mubenga, potentially being charged with corporate manslaughter, tides of complaints brought against the company by detainees (a record 773 in 2010), rises in prisoner suicides in G4S run prisons, and countless other 'questionable' aspects of G4S' track record have not - so far - been sufficiently considered in government due diligence procedures as reason to reconsider their suitability for new contracts. Despite having their forcible deportation contract cut short in 2011 (after the death of Jimmy Mubenga), G4S have still been awarded multi-million pound asylum housing contracts in Yorkshire, the North East and the Midlands. In the words of one Independent columnist: "In the City, the odd migrant death and PR slip doesn't seem to make a dent on analyst expectations of a public-sector contract bonanza." If 'City' is swiftly accompanied by 'Government', we've hit the nail right on the head.

With the Olympics putting London centre stage, a scandal on this scale cannot be seen to go unpunished. Yet it saddens me that serious issues regarding the safety and protection of asylum seekers in the UK - who have been subject to atrocious G4S service provision for the past few years - have failed to rouse such an indignant roar from the press. This Olympic security catastrophe has given the government a masterclass in the ethos of privatisation: profit before people, and even before product. Lets not make any more mistakes.

G4S News Update // 18 - 24th June

G4S News Update // 18th - 24th June 

Yorkshire Campaigners Claim Small Victory Over World's Biggest Security Company, Open Democracy, 20th June 2012: Campaigners across Yorkshire have forced G4S to sever their relationship with slum landlords, United Property Management. G4S quietly removed all reference to the company from their website. (See original posting on G4S blog for further information.) 

G4S Boss Predicts Mass Privatisation of UK Police Forces, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Info4Security (amongst others), 21st June 2012: The Guardian's interview with G4S boss David Taylor-Smith was picked up by much of the mainstream press and online commenters. Claiming that the general public 'don't really care' about police privatisation, Taylor-Smith reiterated G4S' interest in furthering contracts within Policing services. 

How G4S is Securing Your World, The Guardian, 21st June 2012: Matthew Taylor's feature comprehensively details G4S' rocketing growth over the past few years. 

G4S Security Staff Accused of Faking Sniffer Dog Searches at Olympic Site, The Sun, 22nd June 2012: Two members of G4S staff have been suspended after an internal review of G4S' security provision at the Olympic Site revealed that staff had been faking the searches of traffic entering the Olympic Park for 3 years. 

G4S Online Systems Hit by Hacktivist, Information Age, 23rd June 2012: An online hacker published a list of G4S personnel and their contact details online, as part of a protest against G4S' violations of human rights. G4S claimed that their security had not been breached. 

Coalition to end 'cosy' government supply contracts, The Telegraph, The Independent, 24th June 2012: Twenty-two private companies - including G4S - that hold the most contracts with the UK government have been called to a meeting at the Cabinet Office to be warned that the government will be "tough" and demand the "best value for money" from their private contractors. A government spokesperson stated that “suppliers with poor performance may therefore find it more difficult to secure new work for the Government.” Yet G4S' 'poor performance' hasn't seemed to have affected their capacity for renewed and further government contracts…

Mobilising Outrage

In another excellent article from John Grayson on Open Democracy, the processes of our no to G4S campaign are put in context:

How does a company with G4S’s reputation clean up on so many public privatising contracts now worth well over £1 billion a year in the UK alone? 

Firstly, it simply coopts, employs or buys former senior politicians, civil servants and diplomats to ‘advise’ and lobby for its contracts. The best known is former Home Secretary John (now Lord) Reid, a G4S board member. In recent months G4S has appointed to the new post of Director of Probation and Community Services David Griffiths, recently Deputy Director (justice policy) at the Ministry of Justice. 

In January Richard Northern joined G4S Risk Management as an adviser. He is “the former British Ambassador to Libya during the period leading up to and throughout the 2011 uprising”. According to G4S, he will be “pivotal in identifying, introducing and developing relationships with prospective clients and key Libyan decision-makers”.

(First published in Open Democracy on the 12th April, 2012)

First they came for the asylum seeker...

Again, we have to thank Jon Grayson for another brilliant article on the Institute for Race Relations' website. Published just before G4S won the government contracts for the provision of asylum seekers' social housing in Yorkshire and Humberside, Grayson puts the "asylum market" (G4S' words, not mine) in the important context of wider privatisation in the UK. 

Below is a short extract from Grayson's article:

"The UK is amongst the most intensively covered by private security with one private guard to every 170 people compared with one police employee to every 382 citizens -figures comparable to Hungary and Serbia. Germany on the other hand has much lighter private security with one private guard for every 484 citizens and one police employee for every 326 citizens. The private security business in the UK is worth £3.97 billion annually. Across Europe this is a very powerful lobby for privatising and marketising state functions. Just three companies have 46 per cent of the market in the UK. Just three companies have 56 per cent of the market across the EU. Published data from the EU does not directly name them but itwould be strange indeed if G4S and SERCO were not amongst them."

Please take a moment to read the whole article here.

According to Grayson, policies that affect asylum seekers have continually been used as trial-runs for wider policy-making. The government's obsession with making 'guinea pigs' out of asylum seekers is testament to the extent to which they have been dehumanised, demonised and deconstructed in the media. It seems like they've created a perfect scapegoat; with real lives and experiences obscured an obscene caricature, the asylum seeker is forced to be both invisible and grossly overexposed. When an individual is so heavily obstructed by layers of institutionalised prejudice and preconceptions, it is little wonder that much of the inflammatory press and political coverage goes unquestioned and almost unnoticed.

G4S awarded £203 million pound contract

Today, the inevitable did happen. G4S, Serco and Reliance Security were all awarded their proposed contracts for asylum seekers' social housing across the country. G4S' final contract for Midlands and the East of England, North West, and Yorkshire and Humberside, amounts to a shocking £203 million.

These five-year contracts will put three multi-national security companies in charge of providing accommodation for asylum seekers who are awaiting decisions from the UKBA. Regardless of obvious arguments about the problems of privatisation (arguable relevant to many other issues in contemporary Britain such as the NHS and our motorway network), this outsourcing of critical housing provision crucially ignores the charges and criticisms made against G4S over the past months.

Unsurprisingly, the awarding of this contract comes prior to a potential court case against G4S. The investigation into the death of Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan asylum seekers who died whilst being deported by G4S guards, has been ongoing for 17 years. Recently, a senior judge declared that the decision on whether the G4S guards will be charged is imminent. This incident, alongside a huge portfolio of complaints of racial and physical abuse, led to G4S' deportation contract with the government being terminated in September 2011. It seems that the government - and G4S - will not allow this horrific record to interfere with 'business' once again.

Faced with another frightening demonstration of profit being put before people, big business are once again set to turn the asylum system into a profitable market. The logic is inevitable: profits will soar as equality plummets. As capitalism seeps into some of the most critical support sectors, we're set to see a system where service users are exploited for the financial benefit of multi-national corporations.

It's not difficult to see the changes. I challenge every reader of this blog to note every time they spot the G4S logo on a daily basis. Cash collection, property management, detention centres, event security, prisons, police services, and now housing; their web is ever-expanding.

As the NHS bill passes through parliament, David Cameron introduces ideas to privatise the roads and the publication of the budget looms on the horizon, the fabric of England's public services is set to change dramatically. Unfortunately, damage control is not enough.

Whilst campaigning groups are reeling against defeat, it is important that pressure on the government and private companies does not stop. G4S may have been awarded the contract, but the final decision on the Jimmy Mubenga case is still to be revealed. Just because the government have decided that G4S are the right "provider" for asylum seekers' social housing, this does not mean that we should follow suit.