Army 'should be first choice' for security at major public events
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Britain's armed forces, rather than private companies, should be used to protect future major public events in the wake of the G4S Olympic security fiasco, MPs suggest today.
In a report examining the failure of G4S to recruit and train enough security guards, the Home Affairs Select Committee concludes that the army should be considered as provider from the outset. The report also calls for G4S to give up its £57m management fee and pay people it trained but failed to use.
"Because of the actions of the MoD, Home Office and Locog, London enjoyed a safe and secure Games," said the committee's chair, Keith Vaz.
"In the planning of future major events, the military might more appropriately be considered first choice rather than a back-up."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments