Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think these stewards at the pageant should have been treated better

181 replies

enimmead · 05/06/2012 08:36

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

"A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.

Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told the Guardian they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday."

Ok - so it's the Guardian but it seems these people were bussed in as part of the new deal programme to get work experience, had to camp out.

"Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.

The firm said it had spent considerable resources on training and equipment that stewards could keep and that the experience was voluntary and did not affect jobseekers keeping their benefits.

The woman said that people were picked up at Bristol at 11pm on Saturday and arrived in London at 3am on Sunday. "We all got off the coach and we were stranded on the side of the road for 20 minutes until they came back and told us all to follow them," she said. "We followed them under London Bridge and that's where they told us to camp out for the night ? It was raining and freezing."

A 30-year-old steward told the Guardian that the conditions under the bridge were "cold and wet and we were told to get our head down [to sleep]". He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor."

Maybe they had to wait under the bridge after the long coach trip but it does not sound very good.

OP posts:
yellowraincoat · 05/06/2012 13:56

The Guardian is hardly renowned for printing bullshit, is it? It has a reputation for checking its facts.

Thumbwitch · 05/06/2012 14:00

Just asking because I've seen various things on FB etc. blaming the Queen for using workfare for her jubilee - which is a touch ridiculous anyway, quite sure she doesn't arrange her own crowd control - but didn't realise it was actually contracted out, not supplied by the council.

Afaik, councils were duty bound to take the lowest contract bid, regardless of how unfeasible it appeared - or that's what happened when my mum was a local councillor anyway - even when they knew that the contractor was seriously undercutting the real cost of the venture, they still had to take the lowest bid. Madness.

Nancy66 · 05/06/2012 14:07

yellow - are you serious?

the Guardian prints more retractions and corrections than any other national newspaper.

yellowraincoat · 05/06/2012 14:11

Minor corrections, sure.

It doesn't exactly print massive stories and then go "woops, sorry."

Nancy66 · 05/06/2012 14:15

Yes it does!

In fact I think they've also printed more front page apologies than any other newspaper.

ChickenLickn · 05/06/2012 14:17

£1.5 million could pay quite a lot of jubilee workers a very very decent wage.

Who signed it off?

Oh here you go. Boris Johnson. Must be one of his donors I expect, £1.5 million better off, like Emma Harrison. Don't forget he is a Tory.

www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/mayoral-decisions/md1005

enimmead · 05/06/2012 14:18

Unlike the DM which hides its retractions on the website somewhere with no chance to comment.

Do you think there is no truth in this story?

OP posts:
yellowraincoat · 05/06/2012 14:18

Tell me which story wasn't true, Nancy66. None of the major ones.

ChickenLickn · 05/06/2012 14:19

Thats not from the Guardian, its from the Mayor of London's website.

StuckintheBellJar · 05/06/2012 14:20

I can understand why people don't want to believe this. I however, do. This is what the Tories do - they hate the poor.

ChickenLickn · 05/06/2012 14:20

Id like to see Boris Johnson making a front page apology.

Nancy66 · 05/06/2012 14:22

enimmead - it would not be advisable to allow comments on apologies or legal retractions.

yellowraincoat - the guardian have printed many good stories, however it's not correct to say they are known for their accuracy. I can assure you that in the industry the reverse is true.

yellowraincoat · 05/06/2012 14:23

Well Nancy, my partner, who works in the industry, is sitting right beside me and has just said the opposite.

So take your snooty assurances and stick em.

Dawndonna · 05/06/2012 14:24

Empirical evidence Nancy?

ChickenLickn · 05/06/2012 14:25

£1.5 MILLION of our public funds for THIS ??!

Nancy66 · 05/06/2012 14:30

your partner is entitled to his view - my 20+ years in the industry makes me believe the opposite.

anyhow, to repeat, your statement about the Guardian not making mistakes on major stories is inaccurate.

enimmead · 05/06/2012 14:31

So the Guardian has retracted stories in the past.

Therefore this story is made up.

Confused
OP posts:
Nancy66 · 05/06/2012 14:32

No. that's not what i said. Very Guardian-esque of you.

yellowraincoat · 05/06/2012 14:33

I haven't seen any evidence from you Nancy.

You don't work for the Mail do you?

Oh...

edam · 05/06/2012 14:35

Nancy - I also have 20 years in journalism and, like yellowraincoat's partner, disagree with you. The Guardian is considerably more careful than, for example, the Mail. Which sets out with an agenda and twists the story to fit that agenda - and will kill the story if you can't make it fit.

Nancy66 · 05/06/2012 14:38

Off the top of the my head:

The recent front page apology to The Sun for reporting that they had accessed Fraser Brown's medical records

the apology to rupert murdoch for claiming his reporters were door stepping Lord leveson

The apology to News of the World for saying their reporters deleted Milly Dowler's voice mail messages

the front page apology to Tesco for the inaccurate reporting over tax avoidance.

.....i'm sure you can google for others

Nancy66 · 05/06/2012 14:39

Edam - The Guardian does this too - just in the opposite direction.

yellowraincoat · 05/06/2012 14:39

The company have apologised, so it seems to be true.

Northernlurker · 05/06/2012 14:40

The Guardian has as much of an agenda as any other paper.

edam · 05/06/2012 14:40

Balls, Nancy. And I've written for both of them.

Swipe left for the next trending thread