Who's gonna pay for the (unnecessary) security ?

Liam Byrne

Since Bush didn't show up in Shannon over the weekend, I hope to God we - the taxpayers - don't have to foot the massive security bill ? :mad:

In fact, even if he did show up, why should we ?

Given that we're not allowed to take any notice of who's on the U.S. planes that pass through Shannon, I reckon we should've just left it....if he wants security, he can organise it himself, the low-life..... :mad:

Hellm0

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Since Bush didn't show up in Shannon over the weekend, I hope to God we - the taxpayers - don't have to foot the massive security bill ? :mad:

In fact, even if he did show up, why should we ?

Given that we're not allowed to take any notice of who's on the U.S. planes that pass through Shannon, I reckon we should've just left it....if he wants security, he can organise it himself, the low-life..... :mad:

Talk like that leads to rendition sir(of the extraordinary kind!)

Also I agree, though he can go to hell if he thinks he's bringing any of those armed merc Blackwater scum onto Irish soil.

Manic Moran

You're assuming that Ireland got nothing back out of the expense. Something I've learned over the years is that anything can be a training opportunity if you take the effort to review what just happened.

Your complaint is akin to saying that the Defense Forces spending lots of money on gunnery training is pretty pointless as there's not actually a real target on the end, or that a full-dress civil defense rehearsal is a waste of money because there was no actual disaster.

In this case, think of what had to happen in order to get the security in place? It's not just a case of "Garda Commissioner says get X many police and soliders in place and secure it", money vanishes, and it is done. Once the order is given, leadership and administration at all levels, from the transportation co-ordination to the lowest-level sergeant doing PCCs/PCIs on the soldiers. Oftentimes the people doing these functions are new at the job and had not been involved in such a scenario before. I'll be absolutely amazed if there were no lessons learned and new techniques or procedures developed as a result.

And given this, the next time there's a security operation, it will be faster, more efficient, and, yes, more cost-effective.

NTM

Liam Byrne

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're assuming that Ireland got nothing back out of the expense. Something I've learned over the years is that anything can be a training opportunity if you take the effort to review what just happened.

True - our security forces are probably now well-trained to protect someone who puts them to great expense and hassle and doesn't bother turning up....

If anything was to be "learned", it's probably akin to the people who ignored the boy who cried "wolf"......Bush has now not shown up twice.

So like that story, 3 strikes and you're out! Ignore him next time!

CptSternn

Thats total crap. I was at Shannon airport for the visit and there were no Irish anywhere near the buildings. The gards were standing around in masse out at the checkpoint and on every corner and round about up to the terminal.

At the terminal it was chock full of Americans in military uniform and other attire who did the actual protecting.

Or should I say 'would' have done the real work, since he never showed up.

Every cop from every part of Clare to Limerick was there, standing around, OUTSIDE the terminals in the roads up to the airport - the Defence Forces also were FAR away from any important areas.

The bush administration travels with over 5,000 security personnel. They have no need for local forces really.

If your implying that our police need more reasons to stand around for hours and get paid on their day off, well, then obviously you don't know about the police in the west either.

Diogenes

Manic Moran wrote: »

You're assuming that Ireland got nothing back out of the expense. Something I've learned over the years is that anything can be a training opportunity if you take the effort to review what just happened.

Your complaint is akin to saying that the Defense Forces spending lots of money on gunnery training is pretty pointless as there's not actually a real target on the end, or that a full-dress civil defense rehearsal is a waste of money because there was no actual disaster.

In this case, think of what had to happen in order to get the security in place? It's not just a case of "Garda Commissioner says get X many police and soliders in place and secure it", money vanishes, and it is done. Once the order is given, leadership and administration at all levels, from the transportation co-ordination to the lowest-level sergeant doing PCCs/PCIs on the soldiers. Oftentimes the people doing these functions are new at the job and had not been involved in such a scenario before. I'll be absolutely amazed if there were no lessons learned and new techniques or procedures developed as a result.

And given this, the next time there's a security operation, it will be faster, more efficient, and, yes, more cost-effective.

NTM

So if I have your logic clear.

"Many people are new on the job so they'll need to trained on the job, so next time, they'll know what to do"

To which the obvious question is; "won't there be many new people on the job next time as well, which means we'll have the same hoopla?"

Sorry but there isn't a single individual on the planet who requires the degree of security as the US President, suggesting that there are lessons to be learnt is suggesting that there is practical advise from a mission to Mars that you can apply to Dublin to Trim bus journey.

An absolute waste of taxpayers money and George Bush's administration should pay any country who's soil they sully.

Manic Moran

CptSternn wrote: »

Thats total crap. I was at Shannon airport for the visit and there were no Irish anywhere near the buildings. The gards were standing around in masse out at the checkpoint and on every corner and round about up to the terminal.

At the terminal it was chock full of Americans in military uniform and other attire who did the actual protecting.

That would be normal, sensible practise.

The outer cordon is going to be the one which does the vast majority of interfacing with the locals. It makes no small amount of sense that the local security forces do this.

The inner cordon should be manned by people who actually give a damn about what they're protecting.

"Many people are new on the job so they'll need to trained on the job, so next time, they'll know what to do"

To which the obvious question is; "won't there be many new people on the job next time as well, which means we'll have the same hoopla?"

Some of it, yes. And some of it will have been codeified after the last time. Your same argument can be made about any drill for any organisation.

Was this the most efficient use of Euro and manpower possible for that day? Probably no. Did the taxpayer get no benefit whatsoever out of this? Also, no.

NTM

Liam Byrne

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was this the most efficient use of Euro and manpower possible for that day? Probably no. Did the taxpayer get no benefit whatsoever out of this? Also, no.

So therefore, you're agreeing with me. Bush should pay for his own security.

While that's perfectly fair, what's worse is the arrogance of putting us to all this expense and then not even bothering to use it. I'm glad he didn't tarnish our tarmac, but to leave us landed with a bill like that for nothing shows the arrogance of the guy :mad:

Note that I'm not actually voicing my preference in this thread - that he shouldn't be allowed to use our airport - but if I use the airport, I have to pay. So should he.

I believe that everyone should pay their way, including taxes, but it's enough to make me want to avoid tax if it's being wasted on this guy.