WASTE OF MONEY ON PORTLAOISE!!!

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

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.

So you think the prison service can secure portlaoise prison on their own? Please do elaborate.

This should be good :rolleyes:

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

So you think the prison service can secure portlaoise prison on their own? Please do elaborate.

This should be good :rolleyes:

I offer no analysis on who could provide the better service, but you said the POs couldn't do the army's job better than the army, and I agree, but secure prisons isn't a military task. It's not the army's job, even if they're tasked to do it. It's a job for a prison service, just maybe not the one we've got.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

I offer no analysis on who could provide the better service, but you said the POs couldn't do the army's job better than the army, and I agree, but secure prisons isn't a military task.

Why isn't it a military task exactly? Doesn't portlaoise prison come under the umbrella of ATCP? It did the last time I checked.

Donny5 wrote: »

It's not the army's job, even if they're tasked to do it

Talk about a contradiction in terms. Its the armys job to do it because we have been tasked to do it. Thats what the army does my friend. Follows orders wherther we want to do it or not. Or whether or not its an armys job.

During the bad winter 2 years ago why did the army collect doctors and nurses from their homes and bring them to work?

Why were soldiers out all across the country clearing roads and paths and bringing old and immobile civilians from their homes?

When the ambulance service strike why do the army provide support to the hospitals?

If the bin men ever strike again the army will be out collecting your rubbish.

Are any of the above-mentioned traditional army jobs?

No but we do them because we have been tasked to do them. And the good citizens of this country wont be complaining when we are called on again to do them. One of the armies many jobs is to lend assistance to other government and non government agencies. These jobs are done by the army every day of the week all through the year.

Donny5 wrote: »

.

Donny5 wrote: »

It's a job for a prison service, just maybe not the one we've got.

Maybe not the one we've got? What a copout. Whats the alternative? Only one option again, The Army. Until you or anyone else has a notion what they are even talking about or can present a reasonable alternative to the army seriously have a think before ye post.

If ye wanna seriously debate this, dont bring me your problems, bring me your solutions.

Donny5

ATCP is by it's very definition the military doing non-military tasks, and all your other examples are exceptional circumstances where troops are deployed as a stop-gap solution. If the Defence Forces were permanently clearing roads or ferrying medical staff around, I'd say that wasn't their job, either.

It's not a cop-out to say that maybe our Prison Service can't secure Portlaoise. It's a cop-out to say that they never could.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

ATCP is by it's very definition the military doing non-military tasks, and all your other examples are exceptional circumstances where troops are deployed as a stop-gap solution. If the Defence Forces were permanently clearing roads or ferrying medical staff around, I'd say that wasn't their job, either.

It's not a cop-out to say that maybe our Prison Service can't secure Portlaoise. It's a cop-out to say that they never could.

No-one so far, including yourself Donny can present a valid reason why this isn't a job for the army. Some people who have posted on this thread have spouted pure and utter bull**** citing a multitude of reasons for the defence forces not to be there without applying any logic at all to that reasoning.

Why are some people on this forum totally allergic to the idea of the army in portlaoise prison?

If the only maximum security prison in the country is getting the best security available for the cheapest rate out there, why is it a problem?

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

ATCP is by it's very definition the military doing non-military tasks

,

Way off bud, ATCP or its equivalent is one of the primary roles of ours and many other armed forces around the world. A Primary role. How can anything carried out under its auspices be described as a non-military task?

Donny5 wrote: »

and all your other examples are exceptional circumstances where troops are deployed as a stop-gap solution. If the Defence Forces were permanently clearing roads or ferrying medical staff around, I'd say that wasn't their job, either.

It's not a cop-out to say that maybe our Prison Service can't secure Portlaoise. It's a cop-out to say that they never could.

I have not said they could never do it, I have said that no-one outside of the army can (note: present tense) at the moment. All my posts regarding the prison service refer to them in the past or present tense. I, for one, and unlike some others who have posted on this topic, would not be so pretentious as to make predictions on the future capabilities of an organisation that i have a limited knowledge of.

No-one so far, including yourself Donny can present a valid reason why this isn't a job for the army. Some people who have posted on this thread have spouted pure and utter bull**** citing a multitude of reasons for the defence forces not to be there without applying any logic at all to that reasoning.

Why are some people on this forum totally allergic to the idea of the army in portlaoise prison?

If the only maximum security prison in the country is getting the best security available for the cheapest rate out there, why is it a problem? Somebody please?

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

If the only maximum security prison in the country is getting the best security available for the cheapest rate out there, why is it a problem? Somebody please?

I think you're very defensive, John. I think you're struggling to justify the use of the DF in a position that is not a military role. Can you show that the Defence Forces do the job cheaper? Can you show the Defence Forces provide the best security available? These are your assertions, but they're just speculation on your part.

Zambia

John_D80 wrote: »

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.

I am saying give them the resources, training, weapons and equipment to do the job. Amend legislation to allow them to perform the task.

America has far more dangerous criminals and organised crime yet their Military does not man the walls of state prisons. The same could be said for the UK including the North of Ireland.

Rawhead

At the moment the current situation is the best. The army are doing a good job and it is the cheapest option.
The Prison Service has members with the skill sets needed. I know of former USMC, ARW, FFL, Royal Marines, Para's and numerous ex PDF members in our ranks. You are not setting up a counter terror unit here, just armed sentries.

Paying PO's extra allowances, staff shortages, firearms training and constitutional changes are all easy to remedy.
The problem lies with the prison service management. The whole point of an armed sentry is that the threat of deadly force exists. The prisoners would quickly become aware that prison management would have so many hurdles and protocols in the way of a PO actually firing his weapon that an escape would be worth attempting. The lags know the soldiers will open fire and that as long as they follow protocol they will be backed by superiors.
A PO would need his head examined to even think of volunteering to hold a weapon with the spineless yokes that wear suits in our job. I have known lads who have spent months writing reports for drawing their baton, never mind using it. Can you imagine a liberal lag lover like John Lonergan investigating some poor warder who shot a escaping lag.

YES the prison service should be in full control of security in all our prisons, but the reality is, the management neither want nor or they capable of the professionalism needed to guard Portlaoise properly.

Zambia

Well then you need to change the top level and if there is a Prison Officers representative body they need to get on that. If not you guys need a voice to air these grievances.

Quite frankly there has to be guidelines for the use of force and those expected to use it especially prison officers have to be backed as long as they stay within them.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

I think you're very defensive, John. I think you're struggling to justify the use of the DF in a position that is not a military role.

It is a military role, because there are no other resources available to the state to provide this level of security. A military role that I dont have to justify, because the DF have justified their role, in preventing escape attampts from portlaoise prison in the past and will do so again in the future if the situation arises.

And I am not struggling believe me, but I am starting to get more and more exasperated at the silly posts being continually churned out by people (ie: you) who have little or no comprehension of, the roles of the defence forces, the security situation in portlaoise prison, the regulstions governing the use of force (by both the DF and PS), the costs involved, the manpower/training/equiptment requirements to keep portlaoise prison secure.

Donny5 wrote: »

Can you show that the Defence Forces do the job cheaper?

Anyone with an internet connection and a lot of time on their hands can find out exactly what it costs the state to have the army in portlaoise prison, so go right ahead.

Donny5 wrote: »

Can you show the Defence Forces provide the best security available?

The defence forces provide the only security available.

Morpheus

Originally Posted by Donny5
Can you show the Defence Forces provide the best security available?

That has to be the silliest comment here... for the perceived threat and the historical nature of the escapes which have happened before there is NO OTHER FORCE IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL EQUIPPED AS THE DEFENCE FORCES.

Christ almighty, where do some of the posters here find the time to worry about such NON TOPICS.

There should be an icon for smashing your head against a wall.

Zambia

Morphéus wrote: »

That has to be the silliest comment here... for the perceived threat and the historical nature of the escapes which have happened before there is NO OTHER FORCE IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL EQUIPPED AS THE DEFENCE FORCES.

Exactly right no question what your opposition are suggesting is the prison service can be equipped to the required level and can look after a civilian prison with civilian prisoners.

Donny5

Morphéus wrote: »

That has to be the silliest comment here... for the perceived threat and the historical nature of the escapes which have happened before there is NO OTHER FORCE IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL EQUIPPED AS THE DEFENCE FORCES.

Of course they're the best equipped military in the State, but SMAAWs and MRVs aren't required to guard a prison, and if soldiers are the best option for securing a prison, then why isn't that standard practice elsewhere?

Fenian Army

I don't think the criminals in there today are as organised, intelligent, effective and motivated as the provos were... can't imagine the crims flying a helicopter into the jail or blowing holes in the wall or orchestrating breakouts like the "great escape" from the h-blocks.

The defense forces were there mainly to stop that type of thing, maybe they are redundant today?

Rawhead

LOGICALLY the prison service should be able to provide security up to and including lethal force if needed. We must be the only developed western state that uses the military for a obvious civilian role.

REALISTICALLY this is Ireland and we don't do logic. Here is why the prison service wouldn't be able provide armed security.
-The minister decides the Prison Service will take over Portlaoise fully.
-Army provides list of criteria for doing job. Staffing levels, staff criteria, SOP etc, etc.
-Prison Service says thank you very much and starts to "amend" the criteria to suit its need.
-Union gets look at criteria and says "whats this about needing to be physically fit and having both eyes?"
-Criteria now amended to allow one eyed, alcoholic morbidly obese officers apply to keep union happy.
-Management gets a look and says "Whats this with only 1 Governor on the unit?"
-Criteria now amended to increase management levels to 2:1.
-Finance gets a look and says "far to many staff"
-Criteria now amended to half the number of staff(management levels remain the same)
-The rules of engagement are examined. Management soil trousers when they realise that guns kill people.
-New RoE are drawn up that state you can only open fire if the moon is in it's 3rd phase, the escaping prisoners name is Reginald Barrington von Murphy and he's wearing yellow socks.

I know this is a military forum and I could go on and on but the whole point is that the army are doing a good job and we should just leave them at it.

Rawhead

Donny5 wrote: »

Of course they're the best equipped military in the State, but SMAAWs and MRVs aren't required to guard a prison, and if soldiers are the best option for securing a prison, then why isn't that standard practice elsewhere?

It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Zambia

Rawhead wrote: »

I know this is a military forum and I could go on and on but the whole point is that the army are doing a good job and we should just leave them at it.

The passport office is not doing that great a Job could they step in there to?

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

Of course they're the best equipped military in the State, but SMAAWs and MRVs aren't required to guard a prison, and if soldiers are the best option for securing a prison, then why isn't that standard practice elsewhere?

Soldiers are the best option for securing portlaoise, which isn't any old prison. And by the way SMAAW's and MRV's aren't being used to guard portlaoise so to even mention these pieces of equipment is really grabbing at straws.

What the hell is standard practice when you are dealing with professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists?

Standard practice? Get a grip buddy will ya?

Rawhead

Zambia wrote: »

The passport office is not doing that great a Job could they step in there to?

I know, you know, the army knows, the prison service knows, the fecking dogs in the street know that having a platoon of soldiers guarding a civilian prison is wrong.
The problem is that to change the whole mindset and management of the prison service is just to much work. I actually question if we even need armed patrols anymore. The NI prison service has more terrorists locked up than us and they don't use the military anymore.

Rawhead

Zambia wrote: »

Yes the issue of Protecting a prison is an Irish Problem no other country has this unique issue.

:rolleyes:

You obviously don't do sarcasm.

Zambia

Rawhead wrote: »

The problem is that to change the whole mindset and management of the prison service is just to much work.

This has to happen in more departments than just the Prison Service. The HSE for one but we digress.

Cant just give up an say its all just to hard.

Zambia

Rawhead wrote: »

You obviously don't do sarcasm.

My bad I need the Sarky = :rolleyes:

OS119

John_D80 wrote: »

...What the hell is standard practice when you are dealing with professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists?

call me a bluff old conservative if you must, but i thought standard practice when dealing with civil criminals was the civil police and justice system....

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

Soldiers are the best option for securing portlaoise, which isn't any old prison. And by the way SMAAW's and MRV's aren't being used to guard portlaoise so to even mention these pieces of equipment is really grabbing at straws.

Morphéus said that the DF is the best equipped force in the country, and I agree, but seeing as we only use small arms at Portlaoise, that's not all that relevant, is it? As you say, mentioning just how well the DF are equipped is grabbing at straws.

John_D80 wrote: »

What the hell is standard practice when you are dealing with professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists?

Standard practice? Get a grip buddy will ya?

Surprisingly, other countries have also managed to incarcerate professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists, and yet they somehow manage to do it without a military guard.

Morpheus

Donny5 wrote: »

Morphéus said that the DF is the best equipped force in the country, and I agree, but seeing as we only use small arms at Portlaoise, that's not all that relevant, is it? As you say, mentioning just how well the DF are equipped is grabbing at straws.

Surprisingly, other countries have also managed to incarcerate professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists, and yet they somehow manage to do it without a military guard.

Now wait a second, you either misunderstood what I was saying, or you are picking and choosing your argument...

What i meant was, that the defence forces are the best equipped force in the country for guarding a maximum security prison which has had a number of escapes and attempted escapes which involved the use of firearms and explosives. I didnt mean that we should hang around the walls in scorpions and man the towers with javelins.

Why is this? Because as was so eloquently stated by previous posters, to review the security arrangements, then plan, tender for and procure arms, house, train and then deploy armed prison officers, has such HUGE logistical and cost ramifications both for the service itself and ultimately the tax payer as to make it totally a non runner.

You're talking about building from the ground up here... you are arming a service which has none of the technical know how nor understanding of how to deploy armed units. Think logically about it, the army is cheap, cost effective and not really shackled by anything other than their own ROE when it comes to shooting escaping lags.

Your argument is a non runner. its too cost prohibitive to replace the army units.

also, we may now be ahead of the curve:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-07/news/30485067_1_command-and-control-custody-operation


also these other countries have an armed guard, we dont, and for the cost reasons alone which I alluded to above, this is never going to happen in the current health and safety and economic environment which Ireland languishes in.

John_D80

Fenian Army wrote: »

I don't think the criminals in there today are as organised, intelligent, effective and motivated as the provos were... can't imagine the crims flying a helicopter into the jail or blowing holes in the wall or orchestrating breakouts like the "great escape" from the h-blocks.

The defense forces were there mainly to stop that type of thing, maybe they are redundant today?

I agree in theory but the dissident threat is not gone away, far from it in fact.

The frequency that army EOD teams are neutralising dissident explosive devices is so high that its rarely even reported in the news.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

Morphéus said that the DF is the best equipped force in the country, and I agree, but seeing as we only use small arms at Portlaoise, that's not all that relevant, is it? As you say, mentioning just how well the DF are equipped is grabbing at straws.

Yes they are but to bring up SMAAW's and MRV's as you did in relation to Prison Security is a bit silly on your part and succeeded only in making a joke of your point to be honest.

Donny5 wrote: »

Surprisingly, other countries have also managed to incarcerate professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists, and yet they somehow manage to do it without a military guard.

Yes but in most instances they have an armed presence provided by an appropriately trained and equipped element of their own prison service. We do not.

testicle

FANTAPANTS wrote: »

I dont think the army in the north guarded the h- block so why do we still have the army looking over these scum??:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Of course they did. The Prison Guard Force were British Army.

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

Yes they are but to bring up SMAAW's and MRV's as you did in relation to Prison Security is a bit silly on your part and succeeded only in making a joke of your point to be honest.

If you think so. I still think you're very defensive on this issue for whatever reason. You're certainly very dismissive of anything other than the status quo.

John_D80 wrote: »

Yes but in most instances they have an armed presence provided by an appropriately trained and equipped element of their own prison service. We do not.

I'm aware of that, but the question is whether we should migrate that role to the prison service. The financial question is a big one, and the figures quoted earlier don't include the wages and pensions of the soldiers stationed of Portlaoise. Surely if we gave that responsibility to a civil body, we could downsize the Army by a Company without a loss of military capabilities, which would offset some the cost of new hires and training for the Prison Service.

The bigger issue seems to be the assertion that the Prison Service as is simply couldn't perform the role due to bungling bureaucracy. I don't know how true that is, but that certainly sounds like a state of affairs that should be tackled now, irrespective of whether or not the Prison Service takes on an armed role.