G4S Whistleblower Tells All To Sky News
Updated: 5:51pm UK, Thursday 12 July 2012
Read the transcript of Sky News' interview with a G4S whistleblower.
WHISTLEBLOWER: Erm, from when I started working there I just saw alot of unprofessionalism especially with the training staff. I feel being a professional - in my - having a professional, professional past, I just, I like to remain a professional, I just, I can see so many loopholes of security for this up and coming event. There seems to be a very slack approach to security training - erm - they seem to have a zero fail policy so if a potential security officer comes on a specific course then if they don't make that grade they're not sent home - they are then put in a lower role - er - one of those lower roles being a security guard, which I feel isn't the bottom of the security tree at all, it's near the top and it seems to be that they're demoting people who don't make the grade on one course to a - what I think - is a, you need a more capable potential officer to run that job.
DAVID BOWDEN: I mean you've been there some time though - what kind of things are not happening? What kind of things are the trainees, should you think, be picking up that they're not picking up?
WHISTLEBLOWER: Erm, they're given a very short time span to achieve their training - erm - one of the situations where we have metal detectors on the entry points of the venues, in amongst the training team we have a number of pretend IEDs - improvised explosive devices - decommissioned weapons and toy weapons to use in simulations including knives and anything that is going to be some sort of leathal weapon. During the training we are planting these on students and going through the metal detectors which aren't being seen by x-ray operators. They're also not being picked up - large metallic items being hidden on people are not being picked up by physical searches as well so from the experience i can see the training is completely insufficient and the people who are making these mistakes are still getting a tick in the box at the end of the day, getting sent around the corner to collect their uniform and sent home and told to wait for an email for your start date to start work.
DAVID BOWDEN: So just to clarify this, potentially, what you're saying is, that if i wanted to walk in with a gun on my person somewhere or with some kind of explosive device or even any kind of big metal object, these are not being picked up by at least some of the trainees?
WHISTLEBLOWER: Yeah, I think if you walked through into one of the Olympic venues with a lethal capability on you then you have a 50% - in my view, you have a 50% chance of getting through that screening procedure and getting into the venue.
DAVID BOWDEN: How on earth is this happening? Are they simply poor quality candidates, is the training wrong, or the combination of both?
WHISTLEBLOWER: I think it's a combination of both - erm - I do understand that G4S and associated companies who are recruiting are giving east London and east Londoners employment - and I think that is a great idea - I'm all for giving British personnel and British people and foreign people work who reside in the UK, i think that is a fantastic idea, but what i'm not happy with is the quality of training they're receiving and the zero - what seems to me to be a zero fail policy...i don't think they're up to the job. The percentage of potential candidates coming through - my personal view is i would employ 10% of them coming through as security personnel for this event.
DAVID BOWDEN: This is horrifying stuff isn't it? You're saying that you've got a 50 - 50 chance in your view of being able to smuggle something into the games that could cause a lot of damage, even deaths and that you would only hire - if you were in charge - one in 10 of the people who are going to be responsible for the security?
WHISTLEBLOWER: That's correct yeah...99% of the personnel coming through have no security background, no security employment background, erm, and are completely unaware as we teach on certain subjects many people have language problems so they can't communicate with the client i.e. the personnel coming in to view the games and a complete lack of confidence. I understand many of these people would be - may have - been out of work for sometime and to be put into work in this position in a high profile position like security for the Olympics I think is extraordinary.
DAVID BOWDEN: Who do you blame for this - is this G4S, the Government, Locog, who has messed up here?
WHISTLEBLOWER: I think it's a combination of all and I think they haven't, personally I think G4S took on far too much initially. Their initial screening process was far too strict so they were actually down personnel as it stood - a couple of weeks ago they were still 24,000 security personnel down for, not just the Olympic park, but for all venues in the UK. So, what seems to be the case is they've sub-contracted out recruitment agencies to employ security staff. During the training initally in April or May time the courses were very small numbers. Some classes were only 20, 30 strong. As it stood when I left the position they were getting classes in that were around averaging 150 to 200 so you can see that they're starting to panic and I believe, personally, that they are cutting corners on vetting and just seem to be recruiting anybody who's interested.
DAVID BOWDEN: So basically, they've panicked, realised they're falling far short of the numbers they need and are just pushing people through the system.
WHISTLEBLOWER: Exactly yeah.
DAVID BOWDEN: Have you mentioned this, did you mention this at anytime while you were working for them?
WHISTLEBLOWER: Erm - the trainers, from what I saw, the trainers when we weren't in lessons they would all be discussing how useless they - how useless the potential security officers are. There was a number of occasions where they're told, because it is a secure training area, they're told not to use mobile phones but one good thing that I saw was if people were pulling out mobile phones and deemed to be filming or - as they call hostile reconaissance - where there that be through media or any extreme reason they were ejected from site and they obviously will have no longer potential of being employed as a security officer.
That's not to say that it wasn't going on...I think if they - I mean obviously we, we found out that we'd won the bid for the Olympics in plenty of time. If they had recruited and vetted personnel from day one of finding out that they'd won the contract to secure the Olympics then i think there would be no problem. I just feel that because they are, one they've taken on too much, they've realised that they need all this personnel, that this is going to be their downfall I would think. The potential for "an incident" - whatever that may be - is, is very high in my opinion.
