Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
WASTE OF MONEY ON PORTLAOISE!!!
Options
Comments
-
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.
I certainly am defensive, because its very difficult to read posts from people who have little or no basis of knowledge in the topic they are posting on. If you think the current status qou as you put it is not in the best interests of the state or its citizens, please by all means present a viable alternative and i will gladly consider your point.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.
So the newly hired PO's, that you would take on to fulfil this role wouldn't have to be paid wages or a pension? Wake up and do some research before you post again. To replace the portlaoise security element with the equivalent number of PO's would cost substantially more in wages and pensions than what it would cost to pay the army to do the job. And before you ask me to qoute the figures on DF/Prison service wages, look it up. Its all out there in the public domain.0 -
I certainly am defensive, because its very difficult to read posts from people who have little or no basis of knowledge in the topic they are posting on.
Well, that's very arrogant. I don't disregard your views just because I don't think you understand the topic, which I don't think you do. You have no factual basis for your views that the current situation is best other than that you like it. I don't hold any opinion about what we should do, but since this thread popped up, I'm trying to discern what the best course of action would be. So far, there's been people like FANTAPANTS, who doggedly wants to do away with DF involvement for cost-saving reasons (I think, I'm not too sure what his main view was), and people like you on the other side, who entertain no discussion of options other than the DF at all, offering you own "expertise" in the matter as your only argument.So the newly hired PO's, that you would take on to fulfil this role wouldn't have to be paid wages or a pension?
Of course they would, but we also would have less soldiers to pay, which would offset at least some of the cost, which is all I said.To replace the portlaoise security element with the equivalent number of PO's would cost substantially more in wages and pensions than what it would cost to pay the army to do the job.
This I don't accept, at least without actual projections. Certainly the payscales for POs are higher than for the DF, but the DF has a higher turnover than the Prison Service, which in turn leads to higher costs. We also provide expensive training to our soldiers that would not be required for prison perimeter guards.
Unless it was properly sounded out, disregarding the idea of making prison security a civil task sounds to me more like protectionism for the DF than any interest in the common good.0 -
Well, that's very arrogant. I don't disregard your views just because I don't think you understand the topic, which I don't think you do. You have no factual basis for your views that the current situation is best other than that you like it.
You want factual basis? Go and do even a small bit of research, familiarise yourself with the subject and offer a decent informed opinion please, instead of dismissing everything i post without offering a reasonable alternative to the issue being discussed.
All the information, documents and white papers I have read in relation to this are as freely available to you as they are to me.
In an ideal world the prison service as professional and capable as they are, would have the means and ability to do this job themselves but they dont. Simple as.I don't hold any opinion about what we should do,
Very easy to knock the opinions of others while not offering one of your own.people like you on the other side, who entertain no discussion of options other than the DF at all, offering you own "expertise" in the matter as your only argument.
I have presented my opinions based on knowledge, experience and a little research. You cannot say the same. I will gladly discuss options other than the DF with you but as you have said you dont hold any opinion.0 -
-
If you really believe this to be the case, then I'm talking to a brick wall. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Believe it to be the case? Do you think i imagined or dreamed spending days reading over endless pages of figures and documents.
Its not a belief, its fact. I have researched this topic for a presentation long before this thread ever materialised on boards.ie0 -
Advertisement
-
The British justice system is the closest comparison we have. They have done away with the military in the role of prison security in NI and they never had it on the mainland.
Do we even still need a platoon of soldiers on duty? The UK prison services deal with criminals and terrorists just as dangerous if not more so than we do. The recent introduction of patrol dogs in the prison service gives a level of force that never existed before. Advances in technology gives a level of surveillance that has to be seen to be believed.
I think the real question to be asked is whether we need an armed force at all?
If we do then I think the PDF should be left in place.0 -
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.
Just because the Army is the cheapest option they should not have to fill the role of other departments.
Most building starts on the groundYou're talking about building from the ground up here...
The idea is to change that the Army would of course train them.you are arming a service which has none of the technical know how nor understanding of how to deploy armed units.
This is not a point in favour , the idea is to keep the lags inside not who should be able to shoot them. I know the PDF ROE and not one person has been able to tell me how they would justify shooting an unarmed lag escaping if sued in civil court. I have seen no exemption for the army in use of force legislation.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.
Everything has a cost. If your logic is sound we should replace the entire Prison service with the army. Then we can save a fortune and do away with the higher paid PO's entirely.Your argument is a non runner. its too cost prohibitive to replace the army units.
shuddersalso, we may now be ahead of the curve:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-07/news/30485067_1_command-and-control-custody-operation
Then the enviroment has to change.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.0 -
oooh....
I did say shooting escaping lags.... thats not what I meant and I retract the statement, I was thinking of an armed group carrying out a prison break. Ah well Ive said it now, I did of course not mean that the army would be able to shoot unarmed crims escaping, they would im sure, be able to engage anyone attacking the location under their protection. my bad.
In a hypothetical situation of a properly run prison service, with fully trained, responsible, professional armed units, properly funded and efficiently managed, I dont agree that the army should be there. However our economy wont allow this to happen, it would quickly degenerate to a farce. Thats why I believe the army should be there. Yes the environment should change, but how will it change? where will the money come from?
Firing a company or a platoon of soldiers wouldnt even cover the start up costs involved plus there is plenty more work for the unit involved in protecting this facility even if they were removed from it. Typical irish reasoning - fire the soldiers as theyre not needed any more for this role, pay for PO's to be armed... the real situation? move the soldiers to other units which are understaffed at best - the DF is the most efficient Dept in the govt over the last 15 years. start firing senior members of other depts if you REALLY want to save cash. Health, Finance, NAMA, all over paid and for sweet FA in return. Youd quickly have your cash then.0 -
In a hypothetical situation of a properly run prison service, with fully trained, responsible, professional armed units, properly funded and efficiently managed, I dont agree that the army should be there. However our economy wont allow this to happen, it would quickly degenerate to a farce. Thats why I believe the army should be there. Yes the environment should change, but how will it change? where will the money come from?
Governments find the money I mean they find the money for setting up review panels and purchasing e voting machines.
You cant say we are so sure we are going to fail we have decided not to try. Once upon a time the money was there yet they sat on their hands.0 -
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.
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.
Not really, alot of the civil support role is simply parish pump politics, which is why there are still Victorian barracks, they support local communities financially.
If you done away with the civil support role, there would be mass redundences, barracks would close and local business leaders would do their nut.
Example, there is no need for a squad of soldiers to protect a CIT van, (the vehicle they use to protect it is totally unfit for purpose to start with).
Nowadays CIT cash containers have tracking devices, smart water etc. Only a complete moron would try to rob one. If someone robs one, the money self destructs and the robber gets sprayed with smart water, which has a unique code, the box also has a tracking device.
So why the hell are soldiers still providing an escort ? Like it was still the 1970s.
Answer..local parish pump politics. The problem is this civilian support role and parish pump politics and the triple lock is stopping the army from being an army who's first role is as a fighting force.0 -
Advertisement
-
cruasder777 wrote: »Not really, alot of the civil support role is simply parish pump politics, which is why there are still Victorian barracks, they support local communities financially.
If you done away with the civil support role, there would be mass redundences, barracks would close and local business leaders would do their nut.
Example, there is no need for a squad of soldiers to protect a CIT van, (the vehicle they use to protect it is totally unfit for purpose to start with).
Nowadays CIT cash containers have tracking devices, smart water etc. Only a complete moron would try to rob one. If someone robs one, the money self destructs and the robber gets sprayed with smart water, which has a unique code, the box also has a tracking device.
So why the hell are soldiers still providing an escort ? Like it was still the 1970s.
Answer..local parish pump politics. The problem is this civilian support role and parish pump politics and the triple lock is stopping the army from being an army who's first role is as a fighting force.
Most of the devices you mention deal with the detection of a crime after it has occurred, they do not prevent robberies, especially by armed criminals where there is a very serious threat to life during the course of these robberies. Armed protection for these CIT's whether by the army or GS do reduce the number of potential armed robberies and do act as a deterrent.
The reason that in this day and age, soldiers are still providing escorts, is that in 2011 according to the CSO, there were 38 instances of complete morons doing exactly what you say doesn't happen because of the devices now placed in the boxes.0 -
Most of the devices you mention deal with the detection of a crime after it has occurred, they do not prevent robberies, especially by armed criminals where there is a very serious threat to life during the course of these robberies. Armed protection for these CIT's whether by the army or GS do reduce the number of potential armed robberies and do act as a deterrent.
The reason that in this day and age, soldiers are still providing escorts, is that in 2011 according to the CSO, there were 38 instances of complete morons doing exactly what you say doesn't happen because of the devices now placed in the boxes.
Those devices obviously stop cash in transit robberies, who in their right mind would target a cash box with a tracker device, where the money self destructs if the box is opened and they robbers get sprayed with smart water ?
Those they do are going to be total idiots who get quickly caught, security vans have become so hard to rob serious gangsters have moved into drugs importation, as it carries far less risk.
http://www.smartwater.com/Media-Centre/Success-Stories-2/January-2009/G4S-cash-in-transit-attacks-down-24-.aspx
Tell me why in NI soldiers dont protect CIT vans.0 -
The other problem having the military proving CIT escorts and Portlaoise cover is that it gives across a message that this is such a lawless and dangerous country that the civil powers have lost control.
Lets be realistic here and call a spade a spade, if the army had better things to be doing then I'm sure they would. This is not a dig at anyone, it's the reality of being a military in a neutral country.
The only places you see soldiers escorting CIT and guarding prisons is in the likes of Bogota and Mexico, no developed western nation does this.0 -
What country do you live in Rawhead?
Ireland is not a neutral country and will remain so until there is a referendum.
you display an astounding lack of knowledge about the way the army works here, the army do exactly as they are asked to.f the army had better things to be doing then I'm sure they would
If the E Bde's experience of trying to get the 106 Bn spun up for deployment to the Leb is anything to go by, the defence forces were under SEVERE pressure to try to provide their every training need to get the soldiers ready, they managed it but it drained every available drop of free resources that could be found.
The reality is that the DOD is the most efficient, cost effective and reliable department in govt, it may not be perfect but its as close to running like a well oiled machine as you will find in ireland. There are a lot of tasks they would probably prefer not to do which would free up training resources, but at the end of the day, every task given to them, every cutback that they face, all opposition that springs up, they quietly and resolutely take it in their stride.
How many developed western nations have a history where hardline terrorist elements with very powerful weapons took money from banks, post offices etc and thought nothing about shooting police or soldiers? now how many of those country have a history of an armed police force and an armed prison officer force? We dont, so we have to improvise. It may not be right, but thats the way of the world in Ireland.0 -
The other problem having the military proving CIT escorts and Portlaoise cover is that it gives across a message that this is such a lawless and dangerous country that the civil powers have lost control.
Lets be realistic here and call a spade a spade, if the army had better things to be doing then I'm sure they would. This is not a dig at anyone, it's the reality of being a military in a neutral country.
The only places you see soldiers escorting CIT and guarding prisons is in the likes of Bogota and Mexico, no developed western nation does this.
Personally speaking, my Unit and indeed the rest of the Brigade are upto their tits since the start of the year and that's without taking into account CIT's. Anyone currently serving in 2 Eastern Bde will know just how busy the Bde has been so far this year.
People need to get this concept of the DF deciding what tasks they'll do, out of their head. The DF doesn't pick and choose what tasks they'll carry out. The Government at the time will task the DoD, who in turn will direct the DF to carry out the tasks. Being an organisation filled with soldiers, in turn we will have to carry out those tasks regardless of how much we dislike them because that's what soldiers do.
I'm no major fan of the calibre of Officer in the DF but seriously, the General Staff isn't meeting and saying "Do you know what chaps? I think we shall send the chaps out shovelling snow!"
We do what we're told to do, not what we want to do.0 -
As for CIT's, the DF being used is down to cheap labour and the fact that we have a limited number of armed members of the AGS in this country.
Same goes for Portlaoise, no armed Prison Service and not enough AGS lads to plug the gap.0
Advertisement