Hacker News Reader

Comment by Traster | Hacker News Reader

G4S provides the security for the court, so it's up to G4S to decide if it's appropriate and safe to waive the standard procedures for securing a potential dangerous criminal who is a flight risk. I don't know how you expect these things to be handled.

View on HN

G4S, being a private company, only have incentive to increase profits, not do what would be the right thing. I would expect these things to be handled directly by an accountable person. Otherwise, before we know it, everyone is wheeled into court "Hannibal Lector"-like.

G4S being a private company working for government increase their profits by providing the services that the government are willing to pay them for. If they're not incentivized to do the right thing then that's down to the government asking for the wrong thing. In this case, they're incentivized to keep the public safe - which is what they are doing.

G4S, and other court staff, regularly misunderstand the rules. Every week there's a barrister or journalist complaining on twitter about the rules not being followed.

How would I expect this to be handled? I would expect the court to say what they want and for G4S (who serve the court) to accommodate that.

When you book a decorator, do you let them decide what needs decorating?

When you book a security firm, surely you give them details about what you want them to do. They may advise you, but you decide.

That's what we expect. And when it comes to court systems the appointed representative in positions of authority should decide what's required of hired help.

When I hire a decorator I ask them to paint a wall a specific colour, but I don't get to pick which paint brushes he uses. If you tell a security firm to keep them public safe, you let them make the judgement of what is safe.

G4S, though, has little incentive to address issues like audio quality in the glass box.

> potential dangerous

that is ridiculous. How is he dangerous?

He is dangerously well informed.

He has a history of releasing classified documents unredacted putting people's lives in danger. Do you think he'd be willing to do that again? I suspect so.

From inside the courtroom?

We're talking about whether he has to sit in a bulletproof box, or next to his lawyers like any other accused person. Your argument against this is that he's "dangerous" because he released unredacted documents (a disputed version of events, by the way). I don't follow the logic here, can you explain?

> releasing classified documents unredacted putting people's lives in danger

This claim has been refuted (by the US gov).

Do you think it's fair to let a private company decide these things?

It's the bailiffs decision not the guard dogs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com