The G4S response to our statement dated 23 May 2017 is appallingly and regrettably deceptive. For a company that claims to "takes it human rights responsibilities seriously", it is shocking that it has chosen to repeat the misleading public framing that led the UK National Contact Point (UK NCP) itself to critically state in July 2016 that G4S has been "selective and misleading" in its response to their serious findings. In order to correct the record on behalf of G4S, we do strongly suggest that G4S' Corporate Director, Debbie Walker, closely read Paragraphs 23-27 of the UK NCP Follow-Up statement published on 7 July 2016 (bolded and italicised by LPHR for emphasis)…

24….the UK NCP notes that G4S’s public response to the UK NCP’s findings and recommendations was an early opportunity to signal the seriousness of its intention to address them. It is disappointing that G4S did not take this opportunity.

25. For the avoidance of doubt, the UK NCP re-iterates that its Final Statement found actions of G4S to be inconsistent with its obligation under Chapter IV, Paragraph 3 of the OECD Guidelines to address [adverse human rights] impacts it is linked to by a business relationship. This finding was unqualified…

27. The UK NCP additionally notes its observation in Paragraph 76. of the Final Statement that: 'Until G4S publicly communicates the actions it is taking to address the [adverse human rights] impacts it is linked to by the contracts referred to in the complaint, the UK NCP considers that its actions are not consistent with its obligation under Chapter IV, Paragraph 3 of the OECD Guidelines to address [adverse human rights] impacts it is linked to by a business relationship.

G4S' acutely concerning approach to selectively and misleadingly represent the UK NCP's findings has been illustrated by LPHR in a comparison table, which sets out the text of the UK NCP’s Conclusions, extracted directly from the UK NCP’s Follow-Up Statement, against the text of G4S’ Statement dated 7 July 2016 on those conclusions.