Garda house sitters.

jimmycrackcorm

Good job Enda on the ministerial mercs - now perhaps someone could explain why we have to have Gardai house-sitters also. What's the rationale now for even having Gardai do this job or even have to pay for private security services such as on the scholarstown road?

I don't know who lives there but I seriously doubt he/she is in any more danger than any other citizen....

redmca2

Liam Cosgrave

Gave up being Taoiseach in 1977 I think ....... That's a hell of a lot house sitting!!!

seamus

I agree it's ridiculous having security for a guy who hasn't been Taoiseach in 34 years. Even Bertie doesn't need/deserve one at this stage.

Ask any of the Gardai and they'll tell you that when they're assigned to this work, it's an excuse to get bladdered at night and use the daytime shift to sleep off their hangover.

ANXIOUS

I feel that the Brian cowen and Bertie. Still need this protection made available to them.

jimmycrackcorm

Whatever about needing protection Gardai should not be required. They could use the same security that your local Centra / Spar do.

ilovesleep

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Whatever about needing protection Gardai should not be required. They could use the same security that your local Centra / Spar do.

Or they can get themselves a dog

Bertie and Brian belong in prison if you ask me. There would be plenty of security in mountjoy for them

bmaxi

I'd agree Ahern still needs protection. Quite apart from the fact a lot of people would cheerfully beat the crap out of him, what about all the cash he has lying around, him having no bank account and all?

ilovesleep

bmaxi wrote: »

I'd agree Ahern still needs protection. Quite apart from the fact a lot of people would cheerfully beat the crap out of him, what about all the cash he has lying around, him having no bank account and all?

Can he not pay for his own security?

angelfire9

seamus wrote: »

I agree it's ridiculous having security for a guy who hasn't been Taoiseach in 34 years. Even Bertie doesn't need/deserve one at this stage.

Ask any of the Gardai and they'll tell you that when they're assigned to this work, it's an excuse to get bladdered at night and use the daytime shift to sleep off their hangover.

Excuse me?? :eek:

I sincerely doubt any Garda will tell you that being on protective duty means that they are either drunk or asleep at work!

seamus

angelfire9 wrote: »

I sincerely doubt any Garda will tell you that being on protective duty means that they are either drunk or asleep at work!

There's a great anecdote going around Garda circles which has attained myth/legend status at this point relating to a young Garda who was on duty at Cosgrave's place.

The Garda had a rough night and is sitting the chair, taking forty winks, head slumped down, chin resting on his chest, hands placed onto his lap.

The local super is passing by and decides to drop in to see how things are going. Upon opening the door, he spots the Garda in sleep position and screams at him, "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?!".

No movement from the young Guard, not even a twitch. Five seconds pass, the super explodes, "WAKE UP AND ANSWER ME!".

Still no movement. A second or two passes more, and suddenly the young Guard stirs to life, slowly moving his hand up his forehead and quietly saying, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son...."

"Good afternoon Sir, what can I do for you?".

angelfire9

seamus wrote: »

There's a great anecdote going around Garda circles which has attained myth/legend status at this point relating to a young Garda who was on duty at Cosgrave's place.

The Garda had a rough night and is sitting the chair, taking forty winks, head slumped down, chin resting on his chest, hands placed onto his lap.

The local super is passing by and decides to drop in to see how things are going. Upon opening the door, he spots the Garda in sleep position and screams at him, "WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING?!".

No movement from the young Guard, not even a twitch. Five seconds pass, the super explodes, "WAKE UP AND ANSWER ME!".

Still no movement. A second or two passes more, and suddenly the young Guard stirs to life, slowly moving his hand up his forehead and quietly saying, "In the name of the Father, and of the Son...."

"Good afternoon Sir, what can I do for you?".

Having heard the story doesn't make it true you know
I notice no sympathy for the poor sods who have to patrol these houses in every weather known to man
Freezing cold, pouring rain, roasting hot they still have to be there

I find it offensive to imply that anyone who does these duties is a drunkard or an idiot

seamus

angelfire9 wrote: »

I find it offensive to imply that anyone who does these duties is a drunkard or an idiot

I didn't say that.

I have little doubt in the general professionalism of the Garda force, but you're fooling yourself if you think that many members don't consider this kind of thing (especially sitting outside the house of a very popular man in his nineties) to be an opportunity to put their feet up and take it easy. They're still people, not automatons.

That's why it's a waste of resources. I'm sure the members would rather be off doing something more interesting.

senordingdong

I was of the understanding that these posts were almost a punishment, for a Garda that had a commited an indiscretion.
The boredom would be torture I imagine.

I agree they should be scrapped though.

OhNoYouDidn't

There was a time when former Taoiseagh and Ministers for Justice legitimatly required 24 hour protection.

I think that time has passed. However, with the increase in dissident activity, are we really willing to take that chance?

Lapin

angelfire9 wrote: »

I find it offensive to imply that anyone who does these duties is a drunkard or an idiot

While its true that they are not all drunken sots, the Gardai on duty at the United States embassy a few years back didn't do much for the image.:o

seamus

Instead of guessing it should just be a simple matter of asking the Gardai how many incidents have reported by the Gardai on duty at these posts - incidents which required Garda intervention to save the occupant(s) from injury or harm.

With an increase in dissident activity, I still don't see the need to wrap our Taoisigh up in tinfoil. Our political system isn't polarised enough for there to be significant risk to our head of state and we're not engaged in any serious military action overseas. Enda Kenny walks to work ffs. At worst he might get an earbashing from an angry German.

Bertie is no doubt liable to get some abuse from passers-by, but I really don't think it warrants Garda protection unless the Gardai can tell us that they're constantly having to arrest people trying to get at him.

Sponge Bob

Garrett did away with his static security many years ago. I posted this elsewhere on boards.

Why do ex taoiseachs get static garda security 24/7 on their homes. which costs us twice what the bloody car does.

I refer to Cowen Ahern, Bruton, Reynolds, and Cosgrave here. I also understand it applies to certain ex ministers of justice too. How much does that cost every year ?? Garrett Fitzgerald requested removal of this wasteful perk and his wish was granted. Fair play Garrett. Garrett also requested a Ford Galaxy car not a Merc...much easier to get in and out of at his age. However the main cost is the 2 Garda Drivers not the car itself.

This issue was reviewed a number of times in the past but this wasteful practice still continues.

Speaking at the AGSI conference in Galway, Pat Byrne said it takes an average of 5 Gardaí to keep one post open on a 24-hour basis.

No change out of €300k a year.....EACH.... And we have to pay for their drivers who are not on 24/7 call

Ahern and Reynolds cost €175k each in Chauffeuring costs in 2009 and them both based in Dublin . It woulda been cheaper to hire the Monk and his skanger limos

That parasite Ahern cost around €300k Static + €175k Car + His €200k Leinster House office + his TD salary + his pension + expenses in 2009 alone The bulk of €1m spent maintaining that thing.

There is no reason why these security arrangements should apply to any of them save perhaps for Ahern and Cowen ....and that only because they destroyed the country on their watch and should fear the wrath of the victims.....us !!

MagicSean

seamus wrote: »

Instead of guessing it should just be a simple matter of asking the Gardai how many incidents have reported by the Gardai on duty at these posts - incidents which required Garda intervention to save the occupant(s) from injury or harm.

With an increase in dissident activity, I still don't see the need to wrap our Taoisigh up in tinfoil. Our political system isn't polarised enough for there to be significant risk to our head of state and we're not engaged in any serious military action overseas. Enda Kenny walks to work ffs. At worst he might get an earbashing from an angry German.

Bertie is no doubt liable to get some abuse from passers-by, but I really don't think it warrants Garda protection unless the Gardai can tell us that they're constantly having to arrest people trying to get at him.

Reporting incidents that occurred while there was a visible Garda presence would not be very useful.

oppenheimer1

seamus wrote: »

Instead of guessing it should just be a simple matter of asking the Gardai how many incidents have reported by the Gardai on duty at these posts - incidents which required Garda intervention to save the occupant(s) from injury or harm.

With an increase in dissident activity, I still don't see the need to wrap our Taoisigh up in tinfoil. Our political system isn't polarised enough for there to be significant risk to our head of state and we're not engaged in any serious military action overseas. Enda Kenny walks to work ffs. At worst he might get an earbashing from an angry German.

Bertie is no doubt liable to get some abuse from passers-by, but I really don't think it warrants Garda protection unless the Gardai can tell us that they're constantly having to arrest people trying to get at him.

Why would you want to wrap a taoiseach up in tinfoil? They're hardly wanted as a packed lunch.

seamus

k_mac wrote: »

Reporting incidents that occurred while there was a visible Garda presence would not be very useful.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBn5G7Y2RA

OK, I am being a little facetious because you have something of a valid point. However, the kind of person who thinks that assualting a former Taoiseach will solve anything isn't going to be an elite assassin or even a savvy criminal, waiting for their moment to strike.
They're going to be whackjobs with some bizarre agenda, who either won't have considered that there's Garda protection or won't care.

If the Gardai can tell us that there hasn't been a single incident of any note at a former Taoiseach's house in the last five years - no nutjobs, no crazies, nothing - then we can be 99% sure that there's no danger.
On the other hand, if there's been a relatively steady stream of people turned away from the houses, then protection is a valid concern.

Little Alex

I always remember an uncle of mine that I used to work for years ago saying (of a former president being entitled to perpetual 24-hour protection): "the only reason anyone would shoot that aul bollocks would be to save the state some money".

Succinctly put, I thought.

bamboozle

angelfire9 wrote: »

Having heard the story doesn't make it true you know
I notice no sympathy for the poor sods who have to patrol these houses in every weather known to man
Freezing cold, pouring rain, roasting hot they still have to be there

I find it offensive to imply that anyone who does these duties is a drunkard or an idiot

you do realise these gardai are being paid to do this? and its not as if they're on foot patrol, easy money for them. Given a choice of keeping an eye on a large house in a leafy suburb or being on duty in certain areas of dublin or limerick i'm sure i know what most gardai would be opting for.

OhNoYouDidn't

ilovesleep wrote: »

Can he not pay for his own security?

Why should he have to?

We as a state have made a decision that certain people need a level of protection. That includes certain politicians and judges. Some retired politicians also were felt to be at risk over their role in the troubles. You are saying that people who are considered at risk as a result of their state jobs should have to pay for their own protection?

There is a legitimate question over whether that risk is still there though. But as a concept, its daft to expect them to fund their own protection as a result of their public lives.

caseyann

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I feel that the Brian cowen and Bertie. Still need this protection made available to them.

For what? What do any of them need protection for at all?
The mind boggles,how self important of them :rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't

seamus wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdBn5G7Y2RA

OK, I am being a little facetious because you have something of a valid point. However, the kind of person who thinks that assualting a former Taoiseach will solve anything isn't going to be an elite assassin or even a savvy criminal, waiting for their moment to strike.
They're going to be whackjobs with some bizarre agenda, who either won't have considered that there's Garda protection or won't care.

If the Gardai can tell us that there hasn't been a single incident of any note at a former Taoiseach's house in the last five years - no nutjobs, no crazies, nothing - then we can be 99% sure that there's no danger.
On the other hand, if there's been a relatively steady stream of people turned away from the houses, then protection is a valid concern.

Bang on. The decision to remove Gardaí protection should be on a risk assesment basis and no other.

OhNoYouDidn't

caseyann wrote: »

For what? What do any of them need protection for at all?
The mind boggles,how self important of them :rolleyes:

Nutters.

Dissidents.

Loyalists.

Its not like no Irish politicians have ever been gunned down, now is it... Google Kevin O'Higgins.

Sponge Bob

The last politician gunned down was a Senator. Senators got no 24 hour protection thereafter

OhNoYouDidn't

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The last politician gunned down was a Senator. Senators got no 24 hour protection thereafter

Eddie Fullerton was the last Irish politican gunned down, a councellor.

But the states role in that is a thread to itself.

caseyann

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Nutters.

Dissidents.

Loyalists.

Its not like no Irish politicians have ever been gunned down, now is it... Google Kevin O'Higgins.

Yeah and loyalists give a **** about our government body you are having a laugh.
On Sunday, 10 July 1927, O'Higgins was assassinated at the age of 35 long time ago! Different world.I would say we have an amazing history for no assassination attempts on our mafia elitists.
And what was the reason for his attack? While very sad someone should die like that.
Still hasnt happened in that long.
Dissidents have no more interest in attacking their own government than the Chinese man around the corner does.

John Bruton strolled along Stephens green there a few weeks ago alone.And he didnt look like he was thinking **** i might be attacked.
Nutters can get anyone,by that logic we should all have Garda protection!

OhNoYouDidn't

caseyann wrote: »

Yeah and loyalists give a **** about our government body you are having a laugh.
On Sunday, 10 July 1927, O'Higgins was assassinated at the age of 35 long time ago! Different world.I would say we have an amazing history for no assassination attempts on our mafia elitists.
And what was the reason for his attack? While very sad someone should die like that.
Still hasnt happened in that long.
Dissidents have no more interest in attacking their own government than the Chinese man around the corner does.

John Bruton strolled along Stephens green there a few weeks ago alone.And he didnt look like he was thinking **** i might be attacked.
Nutters can get anyone,by that logic we should all have Garda protection!

But you and I don't know what the threat to individual politicians is. Thats the job of Special Branch to asses. Politicians don't have protection for the craic, there was a reason they were assigned either Branch bodyguards or a static unifirmed prescence at their home.

caseyann

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But you and I don't know what the threat to individual politicians is. Thats the job of Special Branch to asses. Politicians don't have protection for the craic, there was a reason they were assigned either Branch bodyguards or a static unifirmed prescence at their home.

Show the reports and the proof they are needed.I highly doubt they are.And so long as they dont prove it,i will stick to what i believe.
They have it for self importance that is in their head.That they are anything like Politicians of yester years.

OhNoYouDidn't

caseyann wrote: »

Show the reports and the proof they are needed.I highly doubt they are.And so long as they dont prove it,i will stick to what i believe.
They have it for self importance that is in their head.That they are anything like Politicians of yester years.

You want me to post Special Branch files onto the internet? Will you get a grip.

Someone somewhere took a security decision to give politicians police protection round the clock. It isn't a vanity project.

I would assume that the risk has changed and this can be revisted, but that is the only grounds we should look at his.

caseyann

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You want me to post Special Branch files onto the internet? Will you get a grip.

Someone somewhere took a security decision to give politicians police protection round the clock. It isn't a vanity project.

I would assume that the risk has changed and this can be revisted, but that is the only grounds we should look at his.

I beg to differ with the not vanity project.I believe it very much is same as their high pay and thinking 14 grand is something when cutting their own wages,along with the car stuff and garda protection.

I do agree how ever someone should re-evaluate it and do a written report and prove they are needed.

Raging_Ninja

Didn't somebody shoot at the home of Michael McDowell a few years ago? And weren't dissidents caught following cabinet ministers around the place, as if to stage a kidnapping?

Many people are angry these days. It only takes one nutjob to do something.

DonalK1981

seamus wrote: »

I agree it's ridiculous having security for a guy who hasn't been Taoiseach in 34 years. Even Bertie doesn't need/deserve one at this stage.

Ask any of the Gardai and they'll tell you that when they're assigned to this work, it's an excuse to get bladdered at night and use the daytime shift to sleep off their hangover.

Just an opinion, but I reckon that slimeball Dertie needs one!

seamus

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Someone somewhere took a security decision to give politicians police protection round the clock. It isn't a vanity project.

How do we know that for sure though?

Not very scientific, but a quick google for headlines like "man arrested at Taoiseach's house" turns up nothing, zilch.

In fact, I can't remember such an incident myself, I would assume that someone being arrested for a serious attempt on the Taoiseach would be headline news.
Or perhaps they don't report it for fear of copycats.

OhNoYouDidn't

caseyann wrote: »

I beg to differ with the not vanity project.I believe it very much is same as their high pay and thinking 14 grand is something when cutting their own wages,along with the car stuff and garda protection.

I do agree how ever someone should re-evaluate it and do a written report and prove they are needed.

What written report do you expect?

"Politican x needs 24 hour protection because of y?"

Anti-terrorist police don't tend to advertise who is most worthy of a bullet.

Will you think before you type.

GSF

Mary Harney being attacked while performing her duties is another case to remember.

hinault

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You want me to post Special Branch files onto the internet? Will you get a grip.

Someone somewhere took a security decision to give politicians police protection round the clock. It isn't a vanity project.

I would assume that the risk has changed and this can be revisted, but that is the only grounds we should look at his.

I think the Cosgrave government enacted the Special Criminal Courts to deal with the subversive issue.

I'd say there are a fair few criminals who have been processed through those courts who would like to exact retribution.

i think the former Taoisigh should be protected.

OhNoYouDidn't

seamus wrote: »

How do we know that for sure though?
Not very scientific, but a quick google for headlines like "man arrested at Taoiseach's house" turns up nothing, zilch.

In fact, I can't remember such an incident myself, I would assume that someone being arrested for a serious attempt on the Taoiseach would be headline news.
Or perhaps they don't report it for fear of copycats.

Its self evident. One of the roles of Branch is to protect politicians. Logically, at some point, and I assume its as a result of the war in the 6 counties, a decision was taken to offer protection to certain public figures.

I agree it should be looked at again, and would be shocked it it hadn't, but the idea that Cosgrave is sitting in Knocklyon and thinks he has 'made it' because a copper is in a hut in his garden is daft. He introduced a raft of draconian legislation targeting paramilitaries, thats why he was looked after in retirement.

caseyann

GSF wrote: »

Mary Harney being attacked while performing her duties is another case to remember.

Poor aul sour puss :rolleyes:

angelfire9

Michael McDowell probably needs the protection to be fair....

Reports of device find at McDowell's office 28 March 2006 13:23 There are reports that an army bomb disposal ...

SHOT FIRED AT McDOWELL'S HOUSE; Window smashed in minister's holiday home.

As far as i remember there were attempts on his house in Dublin as well

GSF

caseyann wrote: »

Poor aul sour puss :rolleyes:

So you think throwing paint over people is ok because you disagree with them?

caseyann

GSF wrote: »

So you think throwing paint over people is ok because you disagree with them?

I dont think it entails a Garda protection she wants body guards pay for them herself.She isnt at risk of death from paint being thrown over her.
Just sorry i wasnt there to laugh

angelfire9

caseyann wrote: »

I dont think it entails a Garda protection she wants body guards pay for them herself.She isnt at risk of death from paint being thrown over her.
Just sorry i wasnt there to laugh

Three Points:
1) Mary Harney no longer gets Garda protection it only extends to former Taoisigh and Ministers for Justice

2) While she was a minister she was entitled to protection just as every other minister in Government was and the fact that she was attacked kinda proves why it was neccessary!

3)Condoning Violence is NEVER funny!

seamus

GSF wrote: »

So you think throwing paint over people is ok because you disagree with them?

It is worth remembering though that Harney was attacked by another elected politician. Doesn't really support the point that politicians need protection from the some members of the public.

caseyann

angelfire9 wrote: »

Three Points:
1) Mary Harney no longer gets Garda protection it only extends to former Taoisigh and Ministers for Justice

2) While she was a minister she was entitled to protection just as every other minister in Government was and the fact that she was attacked kinda proves why it was neccessary!

3)Condoning Violence is NEVER funny!

Point one: She should have never got it!None of them should!

Point two:She should have never got it!None of them should!

Point 3: Paint is not violence it doesnt harm you,just embarrassing

GSF

caseyann wrote: »

Point 3: Paint is not violence it doesnt harm you,just embarrassing

Try going to an A&E with paint in your eyes if you are so sure of that.

caseyann

GSF wrote: »

Try going to an A&E with paint in your eyes if you are so sure of that.

Ah i am sure the other politician made sure not to get it in her eyes!
Who cares seriously you avoided everything else i said.So i assume you have no back up against the whole Mary should be protected,she already ate through the funds of the country and lives of people.

angelfire9

caseyann wrote: »

Point one: She should have never got it!None of them should!

Point two:She should have never got it!None of them should!

Point 3: Paint is not violence it doesnt harm you,just embarrassing

And you are qualified to provide a threat assessment on what basis exactly?

And throwing Paint at someone is a violent action

The councillor was convicted of Criminal Damage & Assault

Then again as a representative of Eirigi it is hardly surprising that she resorted to violence isn't that what Eirigi are famous for :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

I had a good laugh at Harney getting paint chucked over her, the Photoshop thread that resulted was great too.


I think former leaders do need some protection.