Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

G4S apologises to LGBT Lib Dem group after demanding to see banner

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Has no one learned yet that G4S is a waste of space? Incompetence at every turn.

    1. Think L Thomas works for them or is a shareholder?

      1. Oh yes, because that MUST be the explanation…..

        1. For the record I don’t think they did anything wrong here, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are generally useless.

  2. Sorry… I don’t understand….

    They asked to know what was written on a banner. They were told. They let the LGBT+ Liberal Democrats in without a fuss. What’s the problem?

    I think this is a case of people wanting to be offended when really there is no reason to be. Chill out.

    1. “LGBT+ Liberal Democrats were quizzed [emotive] by G4S staff on Tuesday morning over what was written on one of their banners. It simply showed the name and rainbow logo of the group….and it was quickly permitted through security”

      “Security staff ask attendees a question. Question is answered. Attendees allowed in”. Oh the humanity!!!

    2. Very simply, the problem is, L Thomas, that a private security company is not qualified or provided with any right to determine what is or is not said by candidates, representatives or witnesses say verbally or in writing at a conference, meeting or lecture. Now, Do. You. Understand. This?

      1. So are you suggesting if a banner said “God Hates Fags”, they should let those people in?

      2. Actually, you are wrong. I worked in security for more than ten years, and it all depends on the contractual agreement.
        As we do not know what the contractual agreement was, we do not know who’s responsibility this was, whether it was G4S conforming to common political event guidelines (lets remember that G4S provides security to all kinds of political events where protest is considered a “threat”), a specific request from the organizers themselves, or them acting on their own initiative.
        Security companies are like any other, they can be asked to carry out all kinds of tasks depending on the contract.

        1. What BlokeToys said.

  3. Once and for all, please, PN; learn what an apology actually is; a private company saying “WE APOLOGISE IF…” is not an example of one.

  4. I doubt G4S “took it upon themselves”.

    The LGBT libdem group might want to consider whether their party leadership actually shares their views on freedom of expression.

    1. The BBC covered it and the party leadership did not like what G4S did either http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24132680/

    2. It’s actually more likely that G4S did exactly that. They are a primary security contractor for the government, they are involved in political events all year throughout the country, and one of their roles at all of these events is likely to be to prevent disruption and prevent protests.
      It’s likely that they do this as routine, in an attempt to prevent people coming in to disrupt the event.
      People don’t seem to understand that security companies do more than just check bags and block doorways. They are tasked with all kinds of things, from preventing and dealing with protest, to planning evacuation routes and procedures, to maintaining crowd safety.
      It seems that too many people here don’t understand this job, and so something that is pretty common for a political event is made to look like some form of totalitarian censorship – and lets remember that there was no censorship here, they were let through.
      This is standard operating procedure for such a company.

  5. I have a lot of experience in the security business.
    G4S provides security to many political events and functions, a part of their job would be to prevent disruption and remove protesters.
    This would likely be a basic aspect of their job at an event like this, unless the event has specifically asked for a change of procedures.
    At any political event there is a risk of protest and disruption, that’s a fact. G4S was clearly acting on that remit and doing what they believe was expected of them.
    There is no story here, unless the over reaction of those attending who don’t seem to understand what a security company is there for is in itself a story?

  6. Storm in a teacup much?

  7. crazydiamond 18 Sep 2013, 6:20pm

    These guys will be on the minimum wage and will have been given instructions. Come on! Give them a break. No-one got murdered….

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all