Why don't they give the army something different to wear to the olympics? Watch

Jack93o
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by Foghorn Leghorn)
Why spend money on something they don't need. The camo they are wearing is their standard uniform anyway plus they all have big I.D badges on them.
(Original post by blu tack)
Because it's unnecessary, would cost a fortune, and it's too short notice.
Like I said, G4S can pay for them just like they're already paying to bring in these troops. Getting new uniforms is a relatively small cost to the amount already needed to pay for the housing of the troops and their wages.
0
reply
ATCAdam
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by Jack93o)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18966360

With more troops being deployed, the army will have a very large presence in and around the olympic park/venues. So why not give them something different to wear instead of their usual army camouflage attire?

That way, they'll blend right in to the olympics and they'll look alot more friendly to people. I was just hearing a while ago on the news that there were concerns that the olympic park will look too militarized because of these troops, so why not just dress them up to look exactly like the other G4S security staff? You'd barely be able to tell them apart. Seems like a no brainer to me.
You seem like a no brainer to me

It's a couple of days before the games opening ceremony where do you propose they magic these new 'uniforms' from and with what money?

So they look exactly like G4S! I don't think so.... the whole reason they are there is because of the private security debacle so why pay them any favours by blending in with them.

They aren't there to look pretty they are there to get the job done, which others before them have failed to do.
0
reply
blu tack
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
(Original post by Jack93o)
Like I said, G4S can pay for them just like they're already paying to bring in these troops. Getting new uniforms is a relatively small cost to the amount already needed to pay for the housing of the troops and their wages.
It's unnecessary and is too short notice. And why spend money when it's not necessary, even if someone else is paying?
0
reply
laura1234
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
because they are working there for the army. I think it adds more authority as well, seeing someone in an army uniform. I'd take someone in an army uniform more seriously that someone in a G4S polo shirt.
1
reply
Glow in the dark
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by Jack93o)
Why? the original plans were to have G4S supply most of the security workers anyway, and they obviously wouldn't be in army uniforms.

And I don't think will affect safety at all, I just think they should change their clothing to present a more welcoming and friendly atmosphere to vistors, this won't affect their ability to do the job.
It probably won't, but wearing known uniform would probably detour any idiots from starting anything in the first place before the problem was addressed and contained in my opinion. I'd just feel more safe physically seeing they were there

I think your making a bigger deal than it really is to be honest, it's hardly going to give the visitors a heart attack seeing the army in uniform, just seems more professional and authoritative to me. Plus the fact that it would have just put more pressure on the organisers to organise the additional clothing/ money etc, it all just seems a little unnecessary
0
reply
Feefifofum
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by Jack93o)
Like I said, G4S can pay for them just like they're already paying to bring in these troops. Getting new uniforms is a relatively small cost to the amount already needed to pay for the housing of the troops and their wages.
Regardless of who was going to meet the costs, tell me you understand that designing, manufacturing, and delivering many thousands of uniforms with less than three days before the opening ceremony is simply impossible?
0
reply
ATCAdam
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by ilovecatsforlife)
The army would be useless if a suicide bomb went off...
Yeah useless compared to ill-trained security guards....
1
reply
simibean
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
So people know that they are the army, and it costs less
0
reply
callum9999
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
Surely the uniforms already exist/have been paid for? The only reasons the uniforms wouldn't be around is if G4S knew in advance they weren't going to train enough people.

Though I do agree with the others that if they aren't around, it's not a big deal, I personally feel much more comfortable when I'm abroad and I don't see soldiers patrolling or armed police everywhere (I know we have some but I've probably seen 2 (obviously) armed British police officers in my whole life!).
0
reply
Sw3ensterFM
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
Your comments just reinforce my point. A gun is more intimidating than a military uniform, yet everyone takes the presence of them for granted.
0
reply
cid
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by ilovecatsforlife)
The army would be useless if a suicide bomb went off...so this whole 'deterrent' thing doesn't really work. Terrorists will still commit their crimes regardless...the army are simply a replacement for G4S, nothing more and nothing less.
:

Except how many G4S staff have been in an IED attack? How many G4S staff have experienced performing a task in a dangerous situation? How many G4S staff have been required to perform life saving first aid and triage possibly moments after the catastrophe or attack that caused them?

Whilst some of the Military blokes will be just as inexperienced as the G4S staff there will be men there present with a set of skills that will make them especially useful if (God forbid) the worst happens.

People do not realise soldiers are not just used for offence, i would feel far safer as a spectator with a military presence, however i would prefer just to not be anywhere near London during this
0
reply
TheHansa
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
If they gave them a more 'welcoming' uniform it would make them look like unprofessional private security personel, if people can see that they are soldiers they can go to them for help more easily.
0
reply
Foghorn Leghorn
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by Jack93o)
Like I said, G4S can pay for them just like they're already paying to bring in these troops. Getting new uniforms is a relatively small cost to the amount already needed to pay for the housing of the troops and their wages.
But there's no need they look fine as it is.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by ilovecatsforlife)
The army would be useless if a suicide bomb went off...
Yeah, hundreds of men and women trained in combat first aid, with the ability to work in spite of high stress levels and with clearly defined, well-known and well-practised chains of command would be the worst people to have around should something go wrong... :rolleyes:

Get your head out of the clouds. This is actually the best case scenario, whether people like to see it as such or not.
2
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by standreams)
The military personnel conducting security checks last night were friendly, smiley and welcoming, as well as being incredibly efficient. Why waste thousands of Pounds on new uniform to solve a problem which doesn't exist? They don't (as far as I can see) have arms on them, and they have bright pink London 2012 lanyards on....hard to look threatening in bright pink.

The Olympic Park does not look like a military base I assure you.

Also, I didn't see ANY G4S security staff last night- just Army and Royal Navy personnel (no RAF but I'm sure they're there too).
I was there too, and was glad to know who was a service man or woman instead of G4S security. Far more polite than most airports.
0
reply
MancStudent098
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
Frankly I'd feel a bit insulted if I got drafted in as part of the biggest troop deployment since Iraq and then got told "I'm sorry, but we're embarrassed about having the military here, could you dress up as a G4S security guard please".
1
reply
VickyTink
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
Everyone knwos about the G4S problems, so are likely to look down at the staff their. Wearing the military uniform makes them intimidating enough to make you think if you're doing anything wrong and besides, as others have said, they're all really friendly.

With everyone worrying about terror threats during the games, it brings some comfort to know there are trained people around anyway! I feel safer cause they're in uniform, it's a psychological thing I know, but it works.
0
reply
green.tea
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
I personally think polo shirts with a british army logo would give a better impression. Us brits dont mind seeing the army in uniform because the impression we have of them is disciplined professionals but foreigners may be taken aback. It'd kinda communicate that the troops there were in a different mode. The army has different uniforms for different stuff anyway so im sure they could find something more appropriate than green camouflage in what i assume is a largely grey concrete area. It wouldnt be a bad idea for them to have a uniform for this type of role anyway that is identifiable as army but that also communicates the capacity in which the army is there.
1
reply
Jack93o
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#39
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#39
(Original post by ATCAdam)
You seem like a no brainer to me

It's a couple of days before the games opening ceremony where do you propose they magic these new 'uniforms' from and with what money?

So they look exactly like G4S! I don't think so.... the whole reason they are there is because of the private security debacle so why pay them any favours by blending in with them.

They aren't there to look pretty they are there to get the job done, which others before them have failed to do.
Haha you're funny aren't you :lol:

Tbh I had this question since the day it was announced that the army would be brought in which was what? two weeks ago?

and besides, although the people didn't turn up for work, I'm sure G4S already had their uniforms in place so just use those, no need to make them.
2
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by Jack93o)
Haha you're funny aren't you :lol:

Tbh I had this question since the day it was announced that the army would be brought in which was what? two weeks ago?

and besides, although the people didn't turn up for work, I'm sure G4S already had their uniforms in place so just use those, no need to make them.
1- the Armed Forces were going to be involved in the security of the Olympics from day 1, the scale has altered, that's all.
2- you still haven't said what possible benefit this might give. What's the point? Will a different uniform help them work better? The G4S staff would have been given a uniform solely because they didn't have anything themselves and need to look part of 'the team'. The 'new team' already has a uniform.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (26)
7.03%
They might tell the bully (35)
9.46%
I don't think they'd understand (56)
15.14%
It might lead to more bullying (144)
38.92%
There's nothing they could do (109)
29.46%

Watched Threads

View All