WASTE OF MONEY ON PORTLAOISE!!!

KickstartHeart

Fenian Army wrote: »

I wouldn't slag the Brits off too much its not as if the defense forces prevented all escapes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yOwYh_NUDI

I'm not slagging anyone off.

I'm not suggesting the defence forces prevented all escapes.

John_D80

Portlaoise prison NEEDS an armed gaurd. The military presence acts as a huge deterrent to any attempted escape or assisted break-out. The alternative to the army doing this role is either privatisation (which lets face it is not even a remote possibility) or increasing the amount of PO's on duty 24/7, not to mention arming them!!! Both options would cost the state and taxpayer an awful lot more than having the army fulfil this role.

harley head

John_D80 wrote: »

Portlaoise prison NEEDS an armed gaurd. The military presence acts as a huge deterrent to any attempted escape or assisted break-out. The alternative to the army doing this role is either privatisation (which lets face it is not even a remote possibility) or increasing the amount of PO's on duty 24/7, not to mention arming them!!! Both options would cost the state and taxpayer an awful lot more than having the army fulfil this role.

Good point, when you look at it the shower inside the walls of Portlaoise
prison are more dangerous than ever the political boys were.

arybvtcw0eolkf

FANTAPANTS wrote: »

why privatise it no other country that i know has armed soldiers watching over scum.... the prison officers can do it .... not looking for a war on this mate but its money ill -spent were it could be pumped into temple streets kids hospital instead of scummers:):):)

Excellent idea for saving money - pay PO's probably triple what it costs the tax payer to provide the service by using the army.

You served in Portloaise?.

I bet you weren't feeling so high and mighty at the time when you were putting out your hand for the Portlaoise allowance eh

Maoltuile

John_D80 wrote: »

or increasing the amount of PO's on duty 24/7, not to mention arming them!!! Both options would cost the state and taxpayer an awful lot more than having the army fulfil this role.

Arming them isn't far-fetched, nor should it cost a whole lot (just give 'em surplus Steyrs )

There's one hell of a lot of old DF hands in the prison service who could be tasked to do it.

Rawhead

As a serving PO I can tell you that with the jellyfish that are the management in our job I would never ever carry a gun. They are trying to sack officers for cursing at the dirty lags, never mind shooting the bastards.
Its not the cost, lack of expertise or willingness to arm PO's that is the problem but the lack of educated, competent and brave leaders/managers.

Leave it to the PDF, they do a good job and it's not like they really have much else to do.

John_D80

Maoltuile wrote: »

Arming them isn't far-fetched, nor should it cost a whole lot (just give 'em surplus Steyrs )

I was referring to the fact that I believe it would cost so much more in terms or pay and overtime to have extra armed PO's in the prison.

John_D80

Rawhead wrote: »

........they do a good job and it's not like they really have much else to do.

Is this meant to be funny or are you actually serious? Or trolling even?

Zambia

Not many European countries use their army to police prisons.

In reality it should be phased out and the armed ability given to another non military body.

Privatisation (including armed )as nasty as it sounds should not be discounted.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Zambia wrote: »

Not many European countries use their army to police prisons.

In reality it should be phased out and the armed ability given to another non military body.

Privatisation (including armed )as nasty as it sounds should not be discounted.

Any suggestions? Im fairly sure private armed security firms will not be introduced here.

Zambia

Why not in essence they use the same raw material as the state. Why would they not be introduced? They exist all over Europe in essence its just a matter of regulation.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Regulation, in theory would not be a problem.

I would imagine the biggest problem would be the huge list of cons that could arise out of having private armed security companies operating in the state. They could obviously be used for quite a number of things here and could be quite a money spinner for the operators but I cant realistically see any Administration authorising the use of these companies.

As soon as something goes wrong it would give the Government such a headache that it would not be worth it to them to give them the green light.

minidazzler

Zambia wrote: »

Not many European countries use their army to police prisons.

In reality it should be phased out and the armed ability given to another non military body.

Privatisation (including armed )as nasty as it sounds should not be discounted.

Looking at the costs for one.

Soldier will get his basic pay + Portlaoise money which costs for arguments sake 50 euro extra a week per soldier. We'll presume there are 30 on PL Detail at all times (in rotating shifts) throughout the year. That's 1500 a week and 78000 a year.

Now, hire a private security firm to do it. The contract goes for tender, and to have 10 men on at all times, rotating the shifts, so having 40+ staff just for PL (relief staff included), you'll be paying each staff member €32000 a year given they are armed security in a prison. That's around 1.3 million euro, and that's just the staff on the walls, multiply it by 1.5 to get how much the company would be paid, and then add VAT on top of that. You're talking 3 million + euro a year when everything is called into play. And lets be fair, it would be granted to some TD's Buddy.


The Security aspect.

The soldiers detailed to PL are there for a few weeks at a time and then rotated out, so there is no time for anyone to find out who they are, and blackmail them to do something they shouldn't.

You have a private security firm, they're gonna have the same old boys, getting the same old wages, all of whom would live within 30 miles of Portlaoise and who could with time be identified and easily targeted for blackmail to either take stuff in or look the other way. And besides that, who decides who is hired and put on the wall? You would have a list of wannabe rambo's as long as your arm applying for the job, the Garda, Army and Jailer rejects would show up in droves and a lot of them would end up getting hired.


And having jailers do it would have more issues than a Private Security firm. Procuring weapons, picking staff, putting them through psychometric tests, weeding out the weirdo's, training them in weapons handling. And then they have the same security issues to deal with, as they currently do, but now they have weapons. And you'd have to pay the PO's extra allowances, probably far more than the army, just because it's not part of what they signed up for.

The system currently in place is pretty damn cheap and probably the safest with the constant rotation. Though, maybe one thing to do which I don't know is currently done, is to ensure that the brother of any soldier on the wall is not in the prison.

Disclaimer: I am neither a soldier nor a jailer, just looking at this from a logical point of view

Zambia

minidazzler wrote: »

You're talking 3 million + euro a year when everything is called into play. And lets be fair, it would be granted to some TD's Buddy.

Sorry that should be a thing of the past by now if the state cat stop that all of this falls flat.


The Security aspect.

minidazzler wrote: »

The soldiers detailed to PL are there for a few weeks at a time and then rotated out, so there is no time for anyone to find out who they are, and blackmail them to do something they shouldn't.

The staff should be trained to protect this information the PO's I assume do.

minidazzler wrote: »

You have a private security firm, they're gonna have the same old boys, getting the same old wages, all of whom would live within 30 miles of Portlaoise and who could with time be identified and easily targeted for blackmail to either take stuff in or look the other way. And besides that, who decides who is hired and put on the wall? You would have a list of wannabe rambo's as long as your arm applying for the job, the Garda, Army and Jailer rejects would show up in droves and a lot of them would end up getting hired.

If the state has proper vetting for security licences and security companies this should not be an issue. Lets face it the Garda have not recruited in years and the Army does not have the space to take up all decent candidates. Many of your "rejects" could be perfectly capable staff.

You cant not do something because you are in mortal fear of hiring idiots.

minidazzler wrote: »

And having jailers do it would have more issues than a Private Security firm. Procuring weapons, picking staff, putting them through psychometric tests, weeding out the weirdo's, training them in weapons handling. And then they have the same security issues to deal with, as they currently do, but now they have weapons. And you'd have to pay the PO's extra allowances, probably far more than the army, just because it's not part of what they signed up for.

They are Prison Officers it what they do. This extra money for changing Shoelace colour in the civil service has to go to.

minidazzler wrote: »

The system currently in place is pretty damn cheap and probably the safest with the constant rotation.
Disclaimer: I am neither a soldier nor a jailer, just looking at this from a logical point of view

Logically the Army are not prison guards for the state they have their own jobs to attend to.

John_D80

Zambia wrote: »

Not many European countries use their army to police prisons.

In reality it should be phased out and the armed ability given to another non military body.

Privatisation (including armed )as nasty as it sounds should not be discounted.

The OP's original point and the thread topic is that its a waste of money having the army guard portlaoise prison. So your solution is to spend more money on a private security firm to do the job that the DF do very very well for a relative pittance?

It would cost an absolute fortune by comparison. The DF dont get paid shift allowance, night duty allowance, weekend pay or overtime. At least some of which would be demanded by any private security firm. And in fairness they would be entitled to it.

Even outside of the financial aspect its not even an arguable point in my eyes. The defence forces have more training for this role and more experience than anyone else. The DF at times operate under conditions and work pracrices that would be considered medieval by some but they do it because its their duty and its what they have been told to do. In the DF you have a well trained force that is always dependable and will never strike or even threaten to (PO's take note ). They'd be cheap at twice the price considering the service they provide.

Zambia

John its a prison the fact remains it should not be the RDF's job to do it.

The army should not be used as cheap labour for other Government departments.

The initial point that its a waste of money housing them well you dont really have an option there.

John_D80

This might take me a while but here goes.....

Zambia wrote: »

John its a prison the fact remains it should not be the RDF's job to do it.

RDF? The RDF, to the best of my knowledge have not been involved in ATCP duties since the 1970's and have never been posted to portlaoise prison. One of the primary roles of the PDF however is ATCP.

Zambia wrote: »

The army should not be used as cheap labour for other Government departments.

Why not? I thought this whole thread was about how the army doing this job is a waste of money. But now they are being called 'cheap labour'? Which is it? Are they a waste of money or cheap labour? To get an even remotely comparable level of security in the country's only high security prison would cost an exorbitant amount of money in wages alone, never mind the ancillary costs.

Which brings us onto your next point.....

Zambia wrote: »

The initial point that its a waste of money housing them well you dont really have an option there.

You're dead right. If the cost of housing a security element in portlaoise prison is examined we are left with only one viable option to provide that security.

I would be very surprised to learn if you are currently or have ever served in the DF as you obviously dont know the security requirements involved.

So without compromising operational security I will attempt to counter this statement. Regardless of who is gaurding the prison, they will have to be accomodated, whether its over a period of days or even hours. There must at all times be a standby element ready to deploy in the event of a serious incident. I'm sure the PO's must have a similar arrangement for smaller scale incidents. If you want to save money by leaving these guys in an unheated room with no electricity or whatever or better yet leave them out in the rain with no accomodation then go right ahead. A private security firm or the prison service wouldn't be too long complaining about it, whereas the Army will shut up and get on with it because they are told to. The DF involvement in securing the prison goes far beyond the guys on the wall and on the roof as it would and must do for anyone you propose to replace them. But to say that its a drain to accomodate them is madness when it would cost substantially more to house and accomodate their replacements is misguided in the extreme.

And remember you are dealing with an organisation that has consistently met and exceeded its expectations of cost saving and energy efficency! The prison service or any security firm cannot make that claim as easily.

No where else in the public sector and certainly not in the private sector will you find an organisation that will feed a man for 24 hrs on 5 euro a day (roughly).


You my friend need to do your homework. And while you're at it, tell the OP to the same.

Kat1170

John_D80 wrote: »

No where else in the public sector and certainly not in the private sector will you find an organisation that will feed a man for 24 hrs on 5 euro a day (roughly).

Think that was cut to about €3.50 recently :o

Manic Moran

FANTAPANTS wrote: »

aghhhhhhh you must be 1 of the pump up whores that have a say in the country prob on 200,000 euro a year piss off spa

Right, red card for that one.

galwaycyclist

John_D80 wrote: »

RDF? The RDF, to the best of my knowledge have not been involved in ATCP duties since the 1970's and have never been posted to portlaoise prison. One of the primary roles of the PDF however is ATCP.

Hmmm off topic but I think the Air India disaster would be in there as an occasion when the FCA was activated in an ATCP role. But I digress

Rawhead

John_D80 wrote: »

Is this meant to be funny or are you actually serious? Or trolling even?

Sorry I forgot about all the wars we are fighting. Thank god we have a spare platoon to give us a dig out. As for the dig about going on strike, it's a bit rich coming from a outfit that pulled the tits out of the state with the deafness claims.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Rawhead wrote: »

Sorry I forgot about all the wars we are fighting. Thank god we have a spare platoon to give us a dig out. As for the dig about going on strike, it's a bit rich coming from a outfit that pulled the tits out of the state with the deafness claims.

Training and expertise still continues, dont be suggesting we do feck all because we are not a "war waging" nation. The lads are in there to support the likes of you. Your fellow PO's may need one of them one day.

The deafness claims were an expensive lesson for the Government and the DOD. It was a legitimate and long standing problem that the DF came up against. If the DOD had sanctioned and put up the money for the issue of hearing protection, none of the claims would have happened. They were consistently requested by personnel.

Im sure PO's need certain types of equipment too. As a PO, if you need a piece of equipment and if you suffer a loss or slight loss of an essential sense because of the lack of issue of the equipment, are you saying you would not look for compensation?

ChunkyLover_53

Rawhead wrote: »

Sorry I forgot about all the wars we are fighting. Thank god we have a spare platoon to give us a dig out. As for the dig about going on strike, it's a bit rich coming from a outfit that pulled the tits out of the state with the deafness claims.

The Deafness claims cost the State approx €320 million, the vast majority of claimants are long gone from the Army, it started about 20 years ago.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/army-deafness-saga-finally-nears-an-end-2029321.html

Prison Officers claimed €35 million in overtime alone in 2010

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfgbidkfqloj/rss2/

So over 10 years the cost of overtime outweighs the Deafness Claims.

Whos pulling the tits out of the state again?

On topic, Portlaoise is a waste of resources & manpower, if the crims or chuckys really want their mates out let them have 'em, in this day in age someone will put a bullet their way eventually

Kat1170

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

On topic, Portlaoise is a waste of resources & manpower, if the crims or chuckys really want their mates out let them have 'em, in this day in age someone will put a bullet their way eventually

Unfortunately innocent peoply sometimes get caught up in their crossfire :(

Maoltuile

Kat1170 wrote: »

Think that was cut to about €3.50 recently :o

€4.20, divided up:

Breakfast €1.05
Lunch €1.05
Dinner €2.10

Poccington

Drop the PO talk. This isn't the thread for it.

Maoltuile wrote: »

€4.20, divided up:

Breakfast €1.05
Lunch €1.05
Dinner €2.10

When you actually look at it, it's fairly laughable. As much as they are slated from time to time, it's a wonder chefs can put together any kind of meals on that kind of money.

As for Portlaoise, it's a waste of manpower and an example of the DF being used as nothing more than cheap labour.

Zambia

John_D80 wrote: »

This might take me a while but here goes.....



RDF? The RDF, to the best of my knowledge have not been involved in ATCP duties since the 1970's and have never been posted to portlaoise prison. One of the primary roles of the PDF however is ATCP.

My bad I meant PDF

John_D80 wrote: »

Why not? I thought this whole thread was about how the army doing this job is a waste of money. But now they are being called 'cheap labour'? Which is it? Are they a waste of money or cheap labour? To get an even remotely comparable level of security in the country's only high security prison would cost an exorbitant amount of money in wages alone, never mind the ancillary costs.

Dude you are the one calling them cheap labour and I agree. There was a time when the money was there why was it not done then.

John_D80 wrote: »

You my friend need to do your homework. And while you're at it, tell the OP to the same.

I dont need to do any homework fact remains it is a job for the prison service.

Money aside would you at least agree its the prison service job to Man and staff a Prison.

Maoltuile

Poccington wrote: »

When you actually look at it, it's fairly laughable. As much as they are slated from time to time, it's a wonder chefs can put together any kind of meals on that kind of money.

They've improved beyond measure in the past twenty years (I can remember back to when there was a prefab for a canteen in the Brugha!). Kudos are deserved, you even get a nice dessert these days

John_D80

Zambia wrote: »

My bad I meant PDF


Dude you are the one calling them cheap labour and I agree. There was a time when the money was there why was it not done then.

Yes the army certainly are cheap labour, they can do a better job at securing portlaoise prison than anyone for a lot less money. That includes the prison service or any private security firm. So why people cite expenditure as a reason for taking the army out of there is stupid when they cheaper and better than any alternative. In the defence forces you have the best possible value-for-money security on portlaoise. The cheapest just happens to be the best for once in this instance.

Zambia wrote: »

I dont need to do any homework fact remains it is a job for the prison service.

Money aside would you at least agree its the prison service job to Man and staff a Prison.

Yes actually you do need to do your homework quite a bit actually, or at the very least read the previous posts in this thread by serving PO's.

And money aside, as you put it, It is the job of the state to use whatever resources it deems nessecary (not just the prison service) to secure its prisoners and ensure the continued safety of its citizens.

How can you possibly say that this is a job for the prison service when despite the fact that they are a very hardworking and professional outfit they do not have the resources, training, weapons or equipment to do the job that the army do in portlaoise prison. Not to mention the constitutional mandate to provide this level of security.

What can the prison service do to counter an armed escape/assisted breakout attempt? I have seen PO's in 'action' and trust me, they do their job very very well. Scarily well in fact. But they could not do the armies job any more than the army could do theirs.

Portlaoise prison today is home to some of the most dangerous and influential criminals in Ireland whose equally dangerous acquaintances have the means at their disposal to attempt a serious breakout, and you think for one second that the Prison service alone could prevent it? Seriously? When the the bad guys come knocking they wont be polite about it. Should the PO's ask them nicely to stop shooting?

The simple fact is that having the army in portlaoise has in the past and will continue in the future to prevent and most importantly deter escape attempts, and as a result, save lives. Whether its the lives of the PO's and GS gaurding the prison or innocent civilians.

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

I have seen PO's in 'action' and trust me, they do their job very very well. Scarily well in fact. But they could not do the armies job any more than the army could do theirs.

In fairness, no-ones asking the P.O.s to run Platoon-in-Attacks in the Glen or go secure some African border. They're suggesting they secure a prison. Surely it's more of a stretch to claim prison security as a military task than one for the Prison Service.