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

Garda shot. why ?

Options
  • 28-01-2013 4:53pm
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭


    I'm new so go easy on me if this has been talked about previously.

    In the town I live in I frequently see the Army and Garda giving armed protection to Banks (and other financial institutions) receiving money.

    Why is this ?

    Is it a case of tax payers money being used to move around the money of private financial institutions ?

    The Garda that was killed recently was protecting money in a local credit union.

    Are the financial institutions not responsible for their own money and business practices ?

    Why is it accepted that the Garda and the Army move their money for them at our expense ?

    Should the Garda not be there for the tax payer rather than the Banks ?

    Can the Banks not afford to employ the services of private companies for the purposes of moving money ?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 14,653 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Citizens pay tax, companies pay tax..both are entitled to the protection of the State and its bodies ie. Gardai etc. It's the public's money that is being moved at te end of the day.

    You seem to be bordering on a bit of a rant about bankers etc here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,675 ✭✭✭whippet


    fangee wrote: »

    Is it a case of tax payers money being used to move around the money of private financial institutions ?

    correct me if I am wrong but don't these organisations pay for the protection !!


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    whippet wrote: »
    correct me if I am wrong but don't these organisations pay for the protection !!

    I'm fairly sure that Garda protection is covered by the tax they pay. Same way as individual Garda protection is covered by the tax an individual pays.

    It's just a more visible example of this Garda protection


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,088 ✭✭✭aaakev


    P_1 wrote: »

    I'm fairly sure that Garda protection is covered by the tax they pay. Same way as individual Garda protection is covered by the tax an individual pays.

    It's just a more visible example of this Garda protection
    Im pretty sure if you dont pay tax the guards will still help you....


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    aaakev wrote: »
    Im pretty sure if you dont pay tax the guards will still help you....

    I'm sure they would, same way the Gardaí would also still protect a business if they don't pay tax.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6 los3112


    It was understanding that banks and private financial institutions now pay for the services of the defence forces and Gardai


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,695 ✭✭✭ForeRight


    What about all the innocent people who are being held up, traumatised and terrorised by these criminals.

    Ever think that the guards may be there to protect them also. Usually the presence of an army jeep or Garda car will be enough to prevent these lads taking out weapons and sticking a gun in an innocent workers face.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,278 ✭✭✭markpb


    I know it's a bit old but I doubt much has changed:
    The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, has signed a new agreement with the banking industry concerning costs to gardaí providing cash escorts.
    The agreement, which will see close to full recovery of the costs of escorts, will be signed by the Tánaiste, the Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy and Paul O'Connor of the Irish Banking Federation at Garda Headquarters in Phoenix Park.
    The previous arrangement saw the annual contribution by the banks of a flat payment towards garda cash escort costs, regardless of expenditure.

    (link)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    I know it's a bit old but I doubt much has changed:

    Quote:
    The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, has signed a new agreement with the banking industry concerning costs to gardaí providing cash escorts.
    The agreement, which will see close to full recovery of the costs of escorts, will be signed by the Tánaiste, the Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy and Paul O'Connor of the Irish Banking Federation at Garda Headquarters in Phoenix Park.
    The previous arrangement saw the annual contribution by the banks of a flat payment towards garda cash escort costs, regardless of expenditure.


    "close to full recovery". Yeah. Interesting. So they were getting it for nothing up to this point ? Any of the previous posters suggesting that they pay for it in their tax care to comment ?

    I'm not saying that I know for sure but it doesn't surprise me one bit.

    Thanks for the above link Markpb


  • Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    fangee wrote: »
    I know it's a bit old but I doubt much has changed:

    Quote:
    The Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Michael McDowell, has signed a new agreement with the banking industry concerning costs to gardaí providing cash escorts.
    The agreement, which will see close to full recovery of the costs of escorts, will be signed by the Tánaiste, the Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy and Paul O'Connor of the Irish Banking Federation at Garda Headquarters in Phoenix Park.
    The previous arrangement saw the annual contribution by the banks of a flat payment towards garda cash escort costs, regardless of expenditure.


    "close to full recovery". Yeah. Interesting. So they were getting it for nothing up to this point ? Any of the previous posters suggesting that they pay for it in their tax care to comment ?

    I'm not saying that I know for sure but it doesn't surprise me one bit.

    Thanks for the above link Markpb

    Yes -Tax is paid to the state, the state supplies certain care to it's citizens and businesses. This includes Garda, Army, Ambulance, etc. coverage.

    Do you feel that this money should be transported without state assistance?

    Garda service is there for the safety of the citizens of the state (in this case, the person moving the money).

    What I would be more interested in finding out is why there was no Army patrol with this money? Do the Army only cover cash transports over a certain value?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Wendolene


    fangee wrote: »
    I'm new so go easy on me if this has been talked about previously.

    In the town I live in I frequently see the Army and Garda giving armed protection to Banks (and other financial institutions) receiving money.

    Why is this ?

    I think this is the case for cash transits in most ( if not all ) towns and cities in the country.
    fangee wrote: »
    Is it a case of tax payers money being used to move around the money of private financial institutions ?

    Well, that money is processed by financial institutions for, and on behalf of, the citizens of this country. It is in our interests that this money processing is performed, and those are the institutions that do it for us. As it's really our money - not the money of the financial institutions - it deserves to be protected from those who would seek to acquire it by illegitimate or illegal means. That protection is provided by the Gardai and the Army.
    fangee wrote: »
    The Garda that was killed recently was protecting money in a local credit union.

    Are the financial institutions not responsible for their own money and business practices ?

    Again, it's not just their money - it's ours. As processors of our money, they have certain responsibilities to ensure that the processing of relevant transactions is done reliably.

    Moreover, the physical transportation of cash relating to those transactions is a concern for the State ( for, and on behalf of its citizens ) as well as the financial institutions themselves.
    fangee wrote: »
    Why is it accepted that the Garda and the Army move their money for them at our expense ?

    Should the Garda not be there for the tax payer rather than the Banks ?

    Can the Banks not afford to employ the services of private companies for the purposes of moving money ?

    The State entrusts the protection of our cash-in-transit to the Gardai and the Army to ensure that it is not stolen, and subsequently used by those who have no legitimate or legal claim to that money. To that end, the Gardai and the Army are very much there for the tax payer.

    The services provided by the Gardai and Army are paid for, in part, by the financial institutions. The State has also, in recent years, sought to levy increased payments from the financial industry to cover more of the cost of cash-in-transit protection.

    Private companies are used to move money - Brinks, G4S, etc. - but the security protection detail is provided by the Gardai and Army.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    Wendolene wrote: »
    I think this is the case for cash transits in most ( if not all ) towns and cities in the country.



    Well, that money is processed by financial institutions for, and on behalf of, the citizens of this country. It is in our interests that this money processing is performed, and those are the institutions that do it for us. As it's really our money - not the money of the financial institutions - it deserves to be protected from those who would seek to acquire it by illegitimate or illegal means. That protection is provided by the Gardai and the Army.



    Again, it's not just their money - it's ours. As processors of our money, they have certain responsibilities to ensure that the processing of relevant transactions is done reliably.

    Moreover, the physical transportation of cash relating to those transactions is a concern for the State ( for, and on behalf of its citizens ) as well as the financial institutions themselves.



    The State entrusts the protection of our cash-in-transit to the Gardai and the Army to ensure that it is not stolen, and subsequently used by those who have no legitimate or legal claim to that money. To that end, the Gardai and the Army are very much there for the tax payer.

    The services provided by the Gardai and Army are paid for, in part, by the financial institutions. The State has also, in recent years, sought to levy increased payments from the financial industry to cover more of the cost of cash-in-transit protection.

    Private companies are used to move money - Brinks, G4S, etc. - but the security protection detail is provided by the Gardai and Army.

    Wow. Who do you work for ?

    I've been trying to find information on this for days but to no avail.

    Thanks for your post but I still don't feel it's right that the tax payer contributes in any way.

    I think financial institutions make obscene profits and can well afford to pay for private security.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,278 ✭✭✭markpb


    fangee wrote: »
    I still don't feel it's right that the tax payer contributes in any way.

    Perhaps it's cheaper to share the costs of deterring people from stealing it than have to investigate a robbery, recover the money, bring people to court and put them in jail after it's stolen. There's also the risk that large sums of money could cause havoc in the wrong hands, e.g. used by gangs to buy arms, used by drug dealers to buy drugs, etc.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭Tyron Jara



    What I would be more interested in finding out is why there was no Army patrol with this money? Do the Army only cover cash transports over a certain value?

    That has been on my mind! Wouldnt it make sense to have army patrols witht hem especially being close to the border? I mean in cork they always have armed soldiers guarding the vans as well as the gardai. So whats happened here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 218 ✭✭carav10


    fangee wrote: »
    I'm new so go easy on me if this has been talked about previously.

    In the town I live in I frequently see the Army and Garda giving armed protection to Banks (and other financial institutions) receiving money.

    Why is this ?

    Is it a case of tax payers money being used to move around the money of private financial institutions ?

    The Garda that was killed recently was protecting money in a local credit union.

    Are the financial institutions not responsible for their own money and business practices ?

    Why is it accepted that the Garda and the Army move their money for them at our expense ?

    Should the Garda not be there for the tax payer rather than the Banks ?

    Can the Banks not afford to employ the services of private companies for the purposes of moving money ?

    The Military & Gardai do not transfer the cash, they protect those that do.

    Do you happen to know of companies that provide legal private armed protection??? I don't....

    Therefore the citizens who take on the responsibility of transferring the cash deserve the armed protection of either our Military or Gardai don't you think??

    Think I've wasted 2mins of typing in response to such a ridiculous post new or not Fangee! I get a little bit irritated at all this 'wasting tax payers money' debates especially after this situation. And no, I don't work for either, just have serious respect for the people who carry out this work and deserve better.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    markpb wrote: »
    Perhaps it's cheaper to share the costs of deterring people from stealing it than have to investigate a robbery, recover the money, bring people to court and put them in jail after it's stolen. There's also the risk that large sums of money could cause havoc in the wrong hands, e.g. used by gangs to buy arms, used by drug dealers to buy drugs, etc.

    Still don't get it. So can there be a case made for every cash handling business ?

    Private business's have to provide their own initial security costs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭666irishguy


    fangee wrote: »
    Still don't get it. So can there be a case made for every cash handling business ?

    Private business's have to provide their own initial security costs.

    Whats not to get? If you have hundreds of thousands or millions of euro being transferred in cash, it is surely just common sense on the part of the state to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands as part of maintaining basic law and order. As somebody already said, the taxpayer would end up paying more if it was robbed and spent on drugs or arms. If you want the banks to provide the same level of security themselves without any taxpayer involvement, you just to have ask yourself whether you would rather some cowboy who did a course and got a handgun to be acting as security or people who are trained and disciplined? By your logic the guards shouldn't even bother investigating a bank robbery since it would be a private companies own security problem.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    carav10 wrote: »
    The Military & Gardai do not transfer the cash, they protect those that do.

    Do you happen to know of companies that provide legal private armed protection??? I don't....

    Therefore the citizens who take on the responsibility of transferring the cash deserve the armed protection of either our Military or Gardai don't you think??

    Think I've wasted 2mins of typing in response to such a ridiculous post new or not Fangee! I get a little bit irritated at all this 'wasting tax payers money' debates especially after this situation. And no, I don't work for either, just have serious respect for the people who carry out this work and deserve better.

    I'm aware of supply and demand so I reckon there would be a few companies willing to handle the transfer of money.

    I think everybody deserves the protection of Gardai but not in the case of monies being moved Nationally.

    It's less to do with wasting tax payers money but more the feeling I get when I see financial institutions getting what I perceive to be special treatment. they are not struggling for profit.

    It also has nothing to do with respecting the people who carry out the work.

    I just don't think it's fair.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Wendolene


    fangee wrote: »
    Wow. Who do you work for ?

    I've been trying to find information on this for days but to no avail.

    I don't work for the State or any financial institution or for anyone connected with cash-in-transit, if that's what you mean ?

    TBH, that info isn't special. I do no more than read the newspapers.

    There was some debate and reporting about what the financial institutions pay a few years ago after a cash-in-transit robbery was attempted.

    I *think* ( albeit hazily ) that one of the robbers may have been shot by armed Gardai, and the story rumbled on for a little while as the then Minister for Justice raised the issue of getting the finacial institutions to cover more of the cost of cash-in-transit protection ... *I think*.
    fangee wrote: »
    Thanks for your post but I still don't feel it's right that the tax payer contributes in any way.

    I think financial institutions make obscene profits and can well afford to pay for private security.

    I see your point, but I think it's important to recognise that the State has a duty of care towards its citizens and their assets. It also has a duty to ensure that criminal elements do not get a free pass to our money to fund activities which have a tangibly detrimental effect on us all.

    This is as much about defending the legitimate assets and interests of ordinary citizens as it is about protecting banks. Consequently, the State takes the opinion ( and I happen to agree ) that it should act on our behalf ... and that costs money ... as it does in every other way in which the State acts on our behalf ( provides schools, hospitals, etc. ).

    I would be very concerned if any private institution had sole responsibility for protecting our money though. That's a recipe for cost-cutting and that will facilitate a huge increase in robbery. It's vitally important that the State retains a considerable role in cash-in-transit protection because ... to be perfectly honest about it ... I wouldn't trust the banks to do it in a reliable way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 218 ✭✭carav10


    fangee wrote: »
    I'm aware of supply and demand so I reckon there would be a few companies willing to handle the transfer of money.

    I think you're missing the point....

    there are no private companies or people that would be legally allowed shoot at armed criminals in this country to protect the people transferring the money. As far as I'm aware it's illegal to shoot at someone unless you're in the Military or Gardai and then it has to be with extremely good reason....

    See where I'm coming from?! Armed protection can only be supplied by the Gardai or Military, nobody else!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,278 ✭✭✭markpb


    fangee wrote: »
    I just don't think it's fair.

    I suspect if you were moving hundreds of thousands of euro around the country, the Gardai would offer some protection to you too - it's not something limited to financial institutions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Wendolene


    fangee wrote: »
    I'm aware of supply and demand so I reckon there would be a few companies willing to handle the transfer of money.

    There are - Brinks and G4S, to name just two. I'm sure there are others - I just can't think of their names right now.
    fangee wrote: »
    I think everybody deserves the protection of Gardai but not in the case of monies being moved Nationally.

    Seriously ??? :confused: OP, are you just trolling ?
    fangee wrote: »
    It's less to do with wasting tax payers money but more the feeling I get when I see financial institutions getting what I perceive to be special treatment. they are not struggling for profit.

    You seem stuck on the notion that it's the financial institutions getting special treatment. They're not. It's our money that's getting "special treatment", as you put it.

    There's a very real risk to our physical money. Consequently, financial institutions put it big fancy safes with elaborate protection mechanisms, in buildings with other elaborate protection mechanisms.

    However, when you move money, the risk profile changes utterly. Cash-in-transit ( that would be your cash and mine ) is very vulnerable when it's being moved. That's where the Gardai and Army step in.

    If that vulnerability didn't exist ... if criminal gangs didn't want to steal our cash ... then there would be no need. But they do, so there is.
    fangee wrote: »
    It also has nothing to do with respecting the people who carry out the work.

    I just don't think it's fair.

    Fair ??? Is it "fair" that criminal gangs be given a free pass to steal our money. Is it "fair" that the resultant acceleration in robberies would fund ever-more dangerous criminal activity, threatening the citizens of this state ? Is it "fair" that the State would send out a message that its citizens money is fair game for anyone who can present a big enough threat ?

    There's a much bigger issue here than just giving the banks a poke in the eye. Wake up to it, OP.


  • Registered Users Posts: 176 ✭✭Wendolene


    markpb wrote: »
    I suspect if you were moving hundreds of thousands of euro around the country, the Gardai would offer some protection to you too - it's not something limited to financial institutions.

    I'm sure they'd have a few preliminary, probing questions about the provenance and legitimacy of the few hundred €k first :D, but yes, I'm sure they'd protect it too.

    "What's that? You withdrew the money from a branch of the Northern Bank ? On a Sunday ? ... Ah, grand so."


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,285 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    fangee wrote: »
    Are the financial institutions not responsible for their own money and business practices ?

    Why is it accepted that the Garda and the Army move their money for them at our expense ?

    Should the Garda not be there for the tax payer rather than the Banks ?

    Can the Banks not afford to employ the services of private companies for the purposes of moving money ?

    Private companies in Ireland tend not to be authorised to be armed out and about in public. When's the last time you saw a Securicor employee with a Glock on his hip? As long as that monopoly on being legally armed for the purposes of defense and security remains with the State alone, it is unrealistic to expect private companies to do the job without State involvement.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,472 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    whippet wrote: »
    correct me if I am wrong but don't these organisations pay for the protection !!

    That is pretty much the case with banks, I would imagine it is the same for credit unions.

    Banks to pay 90% garda escort costs

    Would you rather we have armed private security companies?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,332 ✭✭✭Mr Simpson


    Tyron Jara wrote: »

    That has been on my mind! Wouldnt it make sense to have army patrols witht hem especially being close to the border? I mean in cork they always have armed soldiers guarding the vans as well as the gardai. So whats happened here?

    To the best of my knowledge, there was no cash and transit van involved. Just local detectives escorting Credit Union Staff to the bank in Dundalk. Apparently the credit union was robbed in similar circumstances last year.

    Rte are saying there was nearly €45,000 being transported but the raiders left €40,000 behind.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    Whats not to get? If you have hundreds of thousands or millions of euro being transferred in cash, it is surely just common sense on the part of the state to ensure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands as part of maintaining basic law and order. As somebody already said, the taxpayer would end up paying more if it was robbed and spent on drugs or arms. If you want the banks to provide the same level of security themselves without any taxpayer involvement, you just to have ask yourself whether you would rather some cowboy who did a course and got a handgun to be acting as security or people who are trained and disciplined? By your logic the guards shouldn't even bother investigating a bank robbery since it would be a private companies own security problem.

    Why use the term "cowboy" when there are plenty of such firms that exist Internationally.

    My logic doesn't suggest "the guards shouldn't even bother investigating a bank robbery since it would be a private companies own security problem" as I'm suggesting they should not receive special treatment just the same as any other business owner.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    fangee wrote: »
    Why use the term "cowboy" when there are plenty of such firms that exist Internationally.

    Private security firms cannot legally be armed here, so the banks pay for the army/gardai to provide that protection


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 786 ✭✭✭fangee


    Wendolene wrote: »
    I don't work for the State or any financial institution or for anyone connected with cash-in-transit, if that's what you mean ?

    TBH, that info isn't special. I do no more than read the newspapers.

    There was some debate and reporting about what the financial institutions pay a few years ago after a cash-in-transit robbery was attempted.

    I *think* ( albeit hazily ) that one of the robbers may have been shot by armed Gardai, and the story rumbled on for a little while as the then Minister for Justice raised the issue of getting the finacial institutions to cover more of the cost of cash-in-transit protection ... *I think*.



    I see your point, but I think it's important to recognise that the State has a duty of care towards its citizens and their assets. It also has a duty to ensure that criminal elements do not get a free pass to our money to fund activities which have a tangibly detrimental effect on us all.

    This is as much about defending the legitimate assets and interests of ordinary citizens as it is about protecting banks. Consequently, the State takes the opinion ( and I happen to agree ) that it should act on our behalf ... and that costs money ... as it does in every other way in which the State acts on our behalf ( provides schools, hospitals, etc. ).

    I would be very concerned if any private institution had sole responsibility for protecting our money though. That's a recipe for cost-cutting and that will facilitate a huge increase in robbery. It's vitally important that the State retains a considerable role in cash-in-transit protection because ... to be perfectly honest about it ... I wouldn't trust the banks to do it in a reliable way.

    Thanks for the post. It's nice to hear a reasoned argument.

    The only thing I'll say is on your final point. I would trust the bank best positioned to take care of my money.

    In other words I'd vote with my feet and therefore expect competition would be fierce relating to the security a bank would provide.

    I think the cost cutters would not last long in the business.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭Daroxtar


    The Credit union run was being provided free by the Guards in Dundalk as peace of mind for the staff who were held up last year as far as I'm aware. The staff were not well paid bank officials, they were like many other Credit union workers, volunteers from the local community looking after the money of the people in the community. It makes this crime even more dispicable. I really hope the bastards spend the rest of their useless lives rotting in jail over this


Advertisement