Garda shot. why ?

fangee · 28-01-2013 4:53pm #1

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 ?

Witcher · 28-01-2013 5:01pm

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.

whippet · 28-01-2013 5:02pm

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 !!

P_1 · 28-01-2013 5:05pm

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

aaakev · 28-01-2013 5:07pm

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....

P_1 · 28-01-2013 5:16pm

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.

los3112 · 28-01-2013 5:19pm

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

ForeRight · 28-01-2013 5:27pm

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.

markpb · 28-01-2013 5:28pm

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)

fangee · 28-01-2013 5:36pm

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

28-01-2013 5:45pm

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?

Wendolene · 28-01-2013 5:49pm

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.

fangee · 28-01-2013 5:59pm

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.

markpb · 28-01-2013 6:05pm

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.

Tyron Jara · 28-01-2013 6:11pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

carav10 · 28-01-2013 6:11pm

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.

fangee · 28-01-2013 6:14pm

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.

666irishguy · 28-01-2013 6:24pm

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.

fangee · 28-01-2013 6:26pm

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.

Wendolene · 28-01-2013 6:26pm

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.

carav10 · 28-01-2013 6:30pm

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!

markpb · 28-01-2013 6:35pm

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.

Wendolene · 28-01-2013 6:45pm

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 ???

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.

Wendolene · 28-01-2013 6:51pm

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

, 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."

Manic Moran · 28-01-2013 6:53pm

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.

Sierra Oscar · 28-01-2013 7:41pm

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?

Mr Simpson · 28-01-2013 7:46pm

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.

fangee · 28-01-2013 7:48pm

666irishguy wrote: »

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.

Stheno · 28-01-2013 7:50pm

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

fangee · 28-01-2013 7:52pm

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.

Daroxtar · 28-01-2013 8:26pm

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

666irishguy · 28-01-2013 8:30pm

fangee wrote: »

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.

How does that work? It's of no public interest when it is being privately protected, yet as soon as it is stolen it becomes public interest. As a state wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to do all you can not to have it stolen in the first place? They are not getting special treatment either. The only thing special is the special nature of the situation. Banks are the only people moving such large volumes of cash and that is of special interest to the state to ensure it does not become available to the wrong person in a country where private security firms that are armed are not allowed to operate and up to quite recently there were heavily armed paramilitaries who would have more than enough firepower to take out a two or three man privately armed security team. I use the term cowboy because what else do you call what is essentially a hired gun with no initiative other than financial reward to accomplish a task, mercenary perhaps? Do you think that any bank robber isn't going to just shoot the van up right away to kill the now armed security and take their guns and the cash now that they do not have to worry about the attention that would be on them if they shot a guard or the fact that they would be riddled by the army? You seem to forget that the Guards are not only there to ensure the delivery of the cash, but the safety of the delivery men, who like every other citizen in the country deserve to be able to carry out their jobs safely thanks to the state maintaining law and order. In this particular situation maintaining law and order and ensuring their safety involves sending soldiers or Guards to accompany them.

28-01-2013 8:45pm

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.

fangee wrote: »

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.

Right, "cash in transit" escorts are done at all levels, from single shops, to special events and major bank transfers. It's done all over the world with police. Some countries police forces even have their own trucks for it.

And your attitude to this seems to be the same as the Mahon Point thread. Why are the Gardaí doing it? To act as a deterrent to criminals. The same way we patrol housing estates, colleges, streets. Protection of life and property. Private property.

Should we stop patrolling the streets just because somebody is robbing peoples private property?

No. Because theft is against the law. The laws of this country that we uphold. The laws that some have paid the ultimate sacrifice to uphold. That is all.

Wendolene · 28-01-2013 8:45pm

fangee wrote: »

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.

The only issue with that is that protecting cash-in-transit is not what a bank does. It's not its "core competency" ... to use that awful cliche.

The physical transportation of the money is already outsourced to private security companies, but the crux of the issue is the risk to the money whilst in transit.

The State takes the opinion - back up by very real, obvious experience - that the risk to money whilst in transit is likely to be attended by a violent, armed threat.

Private security companies are staffed by ordinary private civilians, and as such, will not be authorised to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defence or defence of the cash-in-transit. There are many reasons for this - many historical, and still relevant in our society today.

So, that leaves the State with a decision. If it's not willing to arm private citizens employed by security companies, then who can be authorised to provide an armed protection detail to cash-in-transit ? That's where the Gardai / Army come in.

However, the competition forces you mention are simply not quick or reactive enough to ensure the protection of our money whilst in transit. That requires an immediate, reactive, organised and orderly response - and competition forces on private institutions are simply not that.

Before you'd get a chance to vote with your feet, several cash-in-transit robberies would have been carried out, several criminal gangs would have become wealthier and emboldened, insurance costs to banks would rise ... and guess who'd end up having to bear those costs ... not to mention the awful cost to society of having even-more invigorated criminal activity.

Trusting a bank to adequately perform tasks outside its core competency is a recipe for cost-cutting. The cheapest bidder will win that business, and with it will bring a whole world of undesireable factors into the equation. For instance, low-paid security employees would represent an increased insider risk to the cash-in-transit.

Then, after all that, the Gardai are left with an increased crime rate to deal with after the fact, which would probably include a higher murder rate. Competition forces won't help with that.

28-01-2013 8:47pm

Daroxtar wrote: »

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.

Can back that up with evidence please.

markpb · 28-01-2013 8:50pm

fangee wrote: »

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

What do you mean - you'd leave a bank because their cash was robbed in transit?

fangee · 28-01-2013 9:03pm

Wendolene wrote: »

The only issue with that is that protecting cash-in-transit is not what a bank does. It's not its "core competency" ... to use that awful cliche.

The physical transportation of the money is already outsourced to private security companies, but the crux of the issue is the risk to the money whilst in transit.

The State takes the opinion - back up by very real, obvious experience - that the risk to money whilst in transit is likely to be attended by a violent, armed threat.

Private security companies are staffed by ordinary private civilians, and as such, will not be authorised to carry weapons for the purpose of self-defence or defence of the cash-in-transit. There are many reasons for this - many historical, and still relevant in our society today.

So, that leaves the State with a decision. If it's not willing to arm private citizens employed by security companies, then who can be authorised to provide an armed protection detail to cash-in-transit ? That's where the Gardai / Army come in.

However, the competition forces you mention are simply not quick or reactive enough to ensure the protection of our money whilst in transit. That requires an immediate, reactive, organised and orderly response - and competition forces on private institutions are simply not that.

Before you'd get a chance to vote with your feet, several cash-in-transit robberies would have been carried out, several criminal gangs would have become wealthier and emboldened, insurance costs to banks would rise ... and guess who'd end up having to bear those costs ... not to mention the awful cost to society of having even-more invigorated criminal activity.

Trusting a bank to adequately perform tasks outside its core competency is a recipe for cost-cutting. The cheapest bidder will win that business, and with it will bring a whole world of undesireable factors into the equation. For instance, low-paid security employees would represent an increased insider risk to the cash-in-transit.

Then, after all that, the Gardai are left with an increased crime rate to deal with after the fact, which would probably include a higher murder rate. Competition forces won't help with that.

The first time I've had my head turned on the matter.

I'm not saying I've changed my mind but you put up excellent reasoning.

It's not so clear cut in my mind now.

Fundamentally it angered me to see the Gardai working for the financial institutions at what most likely would be the expense of us the Public. At least in the very short term.

I am now swaying. Thanks. But in a good way.

fangee · 28-01-2013 9:04pm

markpb wrote: »

What do you mean - you'd leave a bank because their cash was robbed in transit?

If I felt a bank did not have the security in place to protect my money then I would not bank with them.

Wendolene · 28-01-2013 9:11pm

fangee wrote: »

The first time I've had my head turned on the matter.

I'm not saying I've changed my mind but you put up excellent reasoning.

It's not so clear cut in my mind now.

Fundamentally it angered me to see the Gardai working for the financial institutions at what most likely would be the expense of us the Public. At least in the very short term.

I am now swaying. Thanks. But in a good way.

Well, you're welcome

I guess the crux of what I'm saying is that viewing the Gardai as solely working for the financial institutions doesn't take the whole situation into account. There are other, extremely important societal issues at play here too, and I regard them as compelling of a state to act.

WilcoOut · 28-01-2013 10:56pm

fangee wrote: »

Fundamentally it angered me to see the Gardai working for the financial institutions at what most likely would be the expense of us the Public.

Gardai dont work for financial institutions - they work for the community, they work for me

when G4S pick up the days takings at my job, the gardai make sure it gets to the bank who we bank with - in turn my wages goes into my pocket and not the pocket of some coked up gangster or some twisted provo

im glad they do, i want them to do it and i thank them for doing it

Operator · 29-01-2013 5:33pm

Iv had some experience in relation to these escorts for several years, both in the Defence Forces and the Gardai. I think the point that people are missing in relation to the cash escorts is that, the purpose of protecting the cash is not for the direct benefit of the banks or taxpayers, it is to prevent large somes of cash being stolen by terrorists and used for the subversion of state power. The requirements were imposed on financial instituitions and they are required to cover some of the cost.

It probably not obvious now but it is a legacy from the troubles.

meathstevie · 30-01-2013 5:54am

carav10 wrote: »

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!

Although you're right in saying that so far the Irish state has not licenced private security companies to provide services involving the use of firearms or any other weaponry for that matter you may be slightly mistaken in your belief that the only persons in the state who can lawfully fire at someone are Gardai and soldiers.

Irish legislation and European treaties Ireland has signed up to enacted an absolute protection for the right to life and as a consequence a persons' right to defend their life.

In essence this means that a person who believes that their life is in danger due to unlawful violence or an immedeate treath of unlawful violence is entitled to defend themselves by any reasonable and proportionate means at the time.

Although Ireland doesn't legislate for the private possession of firearms for self defence purposes and firearms licence applications on those grounds will be categorically turned down it does not exclude the possibility that a firearm held by a civilian for sporting or pest control puposes can in extreme circumstances end up being used in self defence or defence of another.

There's no point trying to discuss what's legal and what's not because every individual case will be subject to investigation and ultimately nobody but the courts will decide if someone acted lawfully or not.

The only difference between an individual and state organisation like the Gardai or the Defence Forces is that their members can sometimes be forced to use lethal force to protect themselves and others as the state goes about it's job of actively challenging extremely violent criminals.

carav10 · 30-01-2013 1:55pm

meathstevie wrote: »

Although you're right in saying that so far the Irish state has not licenced private security companies to provide services involving the use of firearms or any other weaponry for that matter you may be slightly mistaken in your belief that the only persons in the state who can lawfully fire at someone are Gardai and soldiers.

Irish legislation and European treaties Ireland has signed up to enacted an absolute protection for the right to life and as a consequence a persons' right to defend their life.

No, I'm aware of this alright but I don't think it would be grounds for the situation referred to in the conversation going on here where it's about providing armed 'defensive' rather than 'offensive' protection. And I think although could be completely wrong, that in a case where a civilian fires to defend their life, they have to prove that their life was in danger in the first place. But again, could be wrong and a completely different conversation :-)

meathstevie · 01-02-2013 2:42pm

carav10 wrote: »

No, I'm aware of this alright but I don't think it would be grounds for the situation referred to in the conversation going on here where it's about providing armed 'defensive' rather than 'offensive' protection. And I think although could be completely wrong, that in a case where a civilian fires to defend their life, they have to prove that their life was in danger in the first place. But again, could be wrong and a completely different conversation :-)

Same rule applies to military and police in any civilised country; firearms are carried as a tactical option but their actual use will need to be fully justified on a case per case basis and when all is said and done it will always boil down to the following : was it a life or death decission to open fire.

If the answer is yes than all is good ( from a legal point of view ) if not than the soldier/police officer will face some serious charges.

Manic Moran · 03-02-2013 6:13pm

fangee wrote: »

If I felt a bank did not have the security in place to protect my money then I would not bank with them.

In the case of cash in transit, none of them do, as they are legally prohibited from guarding it with firearms. hence the police and army involvement.
That leaves it down to under your bed.

Garda shot. why ?

Comments