Enter your email address and subscribe to DAILY news updates for FREE!:

The big G4S emergency services purge



Have you noticed how the emergency services in the UK are now helping each other out, for example, the fire brigade and police are doing paramedics jobs in areas where there aren't enough ambulances because of cuts and have you noticed how the police are being privatised left right and centre? Well, good old Theresa May's (our unelected PM) husband has shares in G4S and it's G4S buying out or emergency services. 

Your G4S police state Ambulance.

Soon all our G4S owned emergency services will be mixed together as one whole service and as well as all being just one service trained to be police, paramedic and fire brigade they will know all our details which could be used against us and I'm not just talking about our crime or health records, I'm talking about Theresa May's famous snoopers charter.

Your G4S Fire Brigade


We are basically becoming a police state under an unelected PM Theresa May (dictator) who has a personal agenda of helping her husband's company of turning us into a smart country (Big Brother/1984) where everything will be on a database including everything you look at on the net including porn and your political views which will be used against you. 

Image result for g4s police
G4S police

Apparently, the Parliamentary watchdogs don’t think that’s Theresa May's husband being a shareholder in G4S is a serious conflict of interest but the rest of us should not be so blinkered. G4S are taking on more and more Police roles, as the Met Police budget shrinks Theresa Mays husband picks up more business. How can this not be a conflict of Interests?

Who is G4S?

The BBC's Africa correspondent Andrew Harding: "South African authorities say the situation at the maximum security Mangaung Prison is shocking and out of control"
The staff at one of South Africa's most dangerous prisons, run by British firm G4S, have been accused of "shocking" abuses and of losing control.

The South African government has temporarily taken over the running of Mangaung prison from G4S and launched an official investigation.
It comes after inmates claimed they had been subjected to electric shocks and forced injections.

G4S says it has seen no evidence of abuse by its employees.
The BBC has obtained leaked footage filmed inside the high-security prison, in which one can hear the click of electrified shields, and shrieking. It also shows a prisoner resisting a medication.

Researchers at the Wits Justice Project at Wits University in Johannesburg say they have collected accounts of electric shocks and beatings from almost 30 prisoners during a year-long investigation.

"Some said they would pass out when the shocks became too intense," said Ruth Hopkins, a journalist with the Wits Justice Project.

She said inmates also complained about suffering broken limbs and other serious injuries.
One former prisoner told the BBC electric shocks were used as "torture", while a sacked security guard said water was thrown over inmates to increase the impact of the charge.
A lawyer for some of the prisoners has condemned a culture of impunity amongst prison staff, according to the BBC's Africa correspondent Andrew Harding.

Image result for g4s fire brigadeG4S has blamed an upsurge of violence at the prison on a labour dispute, our correspondent adds. More than 300 guards there were sacked this month after going on an unofficial strike.

Nontsikelelo Jolingana, the acting national commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, told the BBC her department had launched a formal investigation into the claims of abuse.

The South African prison authorities announced last month they were temporarily taking over the running of the prison near Bloemfontein, in the central Free State province, after the private security contractor "lost effective control of the facility".
Andy Baker, regional president of G4S for Africa, said administering and prescribing injections was not the domain of G4S staff, but of a separate medical staff.
When asked about allegations of electric shocking and beatings, he told the BBC there had "never been an abuse of this type or nature" to his knowledge.

But he said: "If anything specific is brought to us that is a specific case you have my commitment and the rest of our organisation's commitment that we'll investigate fully and completely


In an attempt to justify its work servicing Israeli prisons and checkpoints, G4S has released what it calls an “independent review,” absolving the company of complicity in war crimes committed by Israel.

G4S’s desperation to shore up its failing reputation in the wake of boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign (BDS) successes against the company across Europe, South Africa and the US is evident, not just on the content of the report, but also in the choice of authors.

The report, “Human Rights Review of G4S Israel: Human Rights Report and Legal Opinion,” is co-authored by two academics who both have a strong and visible pro-Israel stance.

Guglielmo Verdirame, who wrote the legal section of the report, is the professor of international law at King’s College, London.

In November 2012, as Israel was coming to the end of its eight-day assault on Gaza, Verdirame wrote an article for BBC Online in which he defends Israel’s vicious, sustained attack on a refugee population in legal terms.

Three weeks earlier, he had presented the same arguments, justifying Israel’s right to “self-defense” against the stateless Palestinians, to a Zionist Federation event titled “Knowledge Seminar for Israel Advocates,” which took place in London.

The seminar was publicised as being “aimed at grass-roots activists … to help fill in any gaps in core knowledge surrounding Israel, in order to help them to be able to advocate for Israel more effectively.”

The core knowledge being provided by Verdirame to pro-Israel activists was on the subject of “the use of force by Israel under international law.” His talk attempted to give legal sanction to Israel’s attacks, not just on Gaza, but against Lebanon, Syria and in the Sinai.

Verdirame was no doubt invited to speak by the Zionist Federation because of his impeccable pro-Israel credentials. In September 2011, he had chaired a UK Lawyers for Israel roundtable discussion on the implications of the Palestinian bid for recognition as a state. On its website, UK Lawyers for Israel states that its aim is to “invoke laws and regulations to support Israel and oppose its enemies.”

Blame and outrage
The report’s other author, no doubt as carefully selected by G4S for the job as Verdirame, is Hugo Slim, a senior research fellow at the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict.

Slim, at the end of Israel’s three-week massacre in Gaza which took place during December 2008 and January 2009 and resulted in more than 1,400 Palestinian dead, wrote an opinion piece for the website Open Democracy. In this, the Oxford academic chosen by G4S to write the human rights section of its report, questions the “disproportionate degree of outrage” the suffering of the Palestinians “seems to provoke.”

In September 2013, Slim was writing in outrage himself to his local newspaper, The Oxford Times, and to The Lancashire Telegraph, over advertisements both papers had carried for the charity Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP).

The letters, both identical, condemn the MAP adverts for using a graphic which transposes Israel’s apartheid wall in the occupied West Bank onto a street in Oxford.

Slim writes: “It is facile and misleading to pretend that checkpoints are as outrageous in Jerusalem as they would be in Oxford. The need for security for Israeli civilians is clear and Israel has the right to protect its citizens from indiscriminate Palestinian attacks.”

He goes on to blame the Palestinians for what he claims is their role in not providing adequate medical care to the West Bank, leading to the need for Palestinians to cross checkpoints and seek medical help elsewhere. Blaming the Palestinians for their own occupation and the desperate consequences of it is a theme Slim takes up in his human rights review for G4S.

Zionist pedigree
The choice of Slim and Verdirame by G4S to author a report on its activities in the West Bank and Israel makes a mockery not only of the report’s conclusions but also of a company which thinks it can get away with hiring blatantly prejudiced academics to make those conclusions.

The full report has not even been released to the public. However, a selective 16-page summary of it was released online just one day before G4S’s annual general meeting last week.

In concluding that “there is no case against G4S on the grounds of complicity with alleged war crimes committed by Israel,” the G4S-commissioned report ignores the UN Global Compact, to which G4S is a signatory.

The compact requires that business enterprises should “comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognised human rights wherever they operate.” It adds that businesses should seek to honour internationally recognised human rights and treat the risk of causing or contributing to gross human rights abuses as a legal compliance issue.

Unsurprisingly, given the Zionist pedigree of its authors, the report claims that G4S’s work — in providing security systems to Israeli prisons where Palestinians, including children, are held without charge or trial, and in providing body scanners at the checkpoints which restrict Palestinian freedom of movement — is actually beneficial to the Palestinians.

For example, Slim writes about the “potentially positive impact of scanning equipment” at the checkpoints. “Scanners,” he says, “reduce the risks to people’s dignity and privacy from invasive personal search.”

Similarly, the provision of closed circuit television and remote locking systems in the Israeli prisons where organizations such as Amnesty International and Unicef have documented torture, lead, according to Slim, to a “de-confliction of prison space” which is “understood to create a safer environment for prisoners.”

Defending settlers
The report does not mention, of course, the death from torture in February 2013 of 33-year-old Palestinian Arafat Jaradat, who was killed in Israel’s Megiddo prison. G4S-installed systems in that prison notably failed to create a “safer environment” for the father of two.

Nevertheless, the G4S report seems to be saying that Palestinians should be grateful for the company’s role in their imprisonment and for their daily humiliation at checkpoints.

The report becomes even more farcical when it gives the “good reasons why engagement and association with the government of Israel are ethical for G4S.”

These reasons are contained in a section headed “Palestinian Responsibility for Human Rights Risks.”

In this section, Slim, true to the previous form, demands that the world recognises that the Palestinians — dispossessed, occupied and oppressed — are to blame, perhaps more than Israel, for their situation.

He writes: “Many of G4S’s critics overlook the high level of Palestinian responsibility for the conflict and its security dynamics … Israeli systems of detention and movement restrictions … may be imperfect but they are not inherently wrong and they arise partly in response to Palestinian actions.”

The report then goes on to defend G4S’s work in the illegal Israeli settlements, where the company provides security for supermarkets, post offices, kindergartens and police stations.

Having dismissed the human rights of Palestinians, Slim writes: “A good case can be made that G4S equipment is being responsibly used to protect Israeli settlers who also have human rights as individuals and rights to protection of civilians in an armed conflict.”

Far from credible
For a human rights review, Slim’s report is overtly political. He even brings in the Zionist’s favourite cry of “delegitimization,” writing that the campaign against G4S and other companies is a “key part of a wider strategy by the Palestinian solidarity movement to delegitimize the State of Israel.”

And yet, despite the known pro-Israel biases of the authors and the ridiculous prejudices contained in the report, this review was presented to G4S shareholders as a credible and independent review of the firm’s work in Israel and the occupied West Bank.

Throughout the annual general meeting, G4S chief executive, Ashley Almanza, and chairperson, John Connolly, referred to the report and its two authors as “respectable,” “independent” and “credible.”

By doing so, they undermined still further the credibility of their own company.

In one extraordinary exchange with a campaigner who, like other campaigners at the meeting, had bought a share in G4S in order to attend, Connolly appeared to claim that the legal opinion contained in the G4S report carried more validity than rulings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The board was told by the campaigner: “According to the ICJ, the wall is illegal and therefore the provision of services to it is a breach of international law.”

To which Connolly replied: “We have taken professional legal advice which is contained in our report, and that contradicts your analysis. The report hasn’t found G4S’s involvement in any breaches of human rights.”

G4S on the ropes
The scale of G4S’s denial and its contempt for international law and Palestinian human rights is breathtaking. But its presentation of this report, and its na├»ve expectation that the report will be taken seriously, is indicative of the extent to which the company is on the ropes over its Israeli contracts.

Just three days before the annual general meeting, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development announced that it would be investigating G4S for possible breaches of Palestinian human rights as a result of its Israeli prison contracts.

This was followed by a declaration from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that it was liquidating its entire stake in G4S.

The G4S board faced a grilling at its annual general meeting from campaigners, including representatives of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, the Stop G4S coalition and War on Want.

And while G4S continues to work with and for the Israeli occupation, these campaigners will continue to pile on the pressure. No amount of phoney reports will stop that.

Disqus for Ste Matthew Murray

Powered by Blogger.