Theresa May's Husband Does Not Own Shares in G4S, So Handing Them Sensitive Contracts Is Totally Fine

As long as he's not personally profiting from this bad thing, it's not so bad.

|
27 July 2016, 11:30am

Theresa May and her husband Philip (Photo by Hannah McKay)

This country! The government has only gone and handed the contract for a key government equality helpline for those who have faced discrimination on the grounds of their sex, race, or disability to god damn G4S, according to Buzzfeed News.

G4S: the controversial outsourcing company that faced criticism for its running of youth prisons.

G4S: the company that used immigrant detainees as a source of cheap labour.

G4S: the company whose security preparations for the 2012 Olympic games were "totally chaotic" and "an utter farce".

G4S: the company with a rap sheet longer than the amount of time they keep migrants locked away.

But you know the thing that really makes this bad? According to some guy on Twitter, Theresa May's husband owns shares in G4S.

It should now be obvious that Theresa May's bid for Prime Ministerial power has all been a giant swizz leading up to the handing over of a Government Discrimination Hotline contract to a company that her husband owns some shares in, so that he can smugly watch the tiny-printed numbers rise every morning in his copy of the FT.

Except nobody seems to have any evidence that Philip May owns any shares in G4S. The rumour was going around the internet for years, but the company has denied it albeit having let it fester for a bit. Despite this, the myth persists on social media, online comment sections and pub chats, resurfacing again today with the less important news that a helpline for people facing discrimination will now be run by a company with a history of bungling sensitive contracts and making the lives of vulnerable people miserable. The good news is, Theresa May's husband doesn't own shares in them, so it's fine!

There's a tendency out there, just short of conspiracy theory, to try and find what would be a decent impropriety story, not bother to find out if it's really true, and make that the focus. In doing so, the clear and obvious bad thing that is happening, not because of some corruption but due to the normal functioning of systems of government, can get a bit lost. Myths and innuendo about our probably not pig-fucking elite have a history, but I'm not sure what purpose is served here.

Don't get me wrong, I love a good conflict of interest story as much as the next person. Take, for instance, the actually substantiated story reported by the Independent with a headline that goes: "Theresa May's husband is a senior executive at a $1.4tn investment fund that profits from tax avoiding companies".

Or the time Theresa May defended Lincolnshire Police when they awarded a G4S a £200 million contract – a contract advised upon for the firm by one Tom Winsor, who just two years earlier had written an independent report on police reform for the government.

But fortunately in this case, while G4S is being handed another chance to hopefully not screw up some more lives, Theresa May's husband will not personally profit from this. So everything is fine.

@SimonChilds13

Some scandals on VICE:

Jobcentre Workers Could Be Hit By the Same Benefit Sanctions They Impose

The British Army's 'Overseas Study Tours' Are Luxury Trips to Meet Dictators

Just One London Police Officer Has Been Sacked for Assault in Nine Years