Is privatised security wrong for the State?

From Daily Mail

The disaster of the G4S debacle begs an important question:  should major state events use private security firms, or should only the police and armed forces be responsible?

On Thursday, during a short debate on G4S and the Olympics, I asked the following question to the Home Secretary:

Robert Halfon (Harlow): Will my right hon. Friend review the use of private companies at all for state events such as the Olympics?

Theresa May (Home Secretary; Maidenhead, Conservative)

Given the numbers necessary for venue security for the Olympics, it was entirely right of LOCOG to look at working with a private sector contractor as large as G4S, as I have said. It was entirely appropriate for LOCOG to do that. Frankly, it would not be right to say that we should not use private sector contractors for venue security—they are used in a number of such events very effectively. I remind my hon. Friend that G4S will provide venue security personnel for the Olympic games.

Sebastian Coe, now confirms that the Olympic security will be covered by military personnel.  I have no problem with the army looking after the Olympics.  Better fully trained military than semi-trained security guards.

Most fair-minded people  have no objection with private companies contracted by Government for many areas of our public life. I am in favour of the private sector.  But, when it comes to our macro-security, is it better that law and order is owned and run by the State?

by Robert Halfon MP - Working Hard for Harlow