Raiders steal tanker from army barracks

Sunnyisland · 28-05-2013 07:47PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If the problem with the Irish army were as trivial as this story there wouldn't be a problem.

Clearly there are serious questions to ask that have little (directly) to do with this event: if it is accepted that this country has adapted a policy of non-belligerence, if it is accepted that there is an EU framework for multinational (pan European) security, and if it is accepted that the Irish Army cannot seriously mount a defence against attack and would be reliant upon that EU security forces anyway, then why the Hell are we pretending we still need the Irish army in its current form?

This question of the Irish army is bigger than the Aiken debacle.

As the op is about the tanker being stolen I have said my piece as for the rest of your post I would be more likely to agree espeicially the bold.

My name is URL · 28-05-2013 07:53PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If the problem with the Irish army were as trivial as this story there wouldn't be a problem.

Clearly there are serious questions to ask that have little (directly) to do with this event: if it is accepted that this country has adapted a policy of non-belligerence, if it is accepted that there is an EU framework for multinational (pan European) security, and if it is accepted that the Irish Army cannot seriously mount a defence against attack and would be reliant upon that EU security forces anyway, then why the Hell are we pretending we still need the Irish army in its current form?

This question of the Irish army is bigger than the Aiken debacle.

How would you change things?

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 08:01PM

My name is URL wrote: »

How would you change things?

Largely replace the army's 'first response' service with a volunteer service to be manned by local volunteers, "conscripts" and a core staff, merging some of the army's territorial monitoring activities with the Coast Guard.

There would then have to be a process of consultation with EU authorities in terms of establishing Ireland's Common Security & Defence Policy obligations in law.

Riddle101 · 28-05-2013 08:03PM

The Army definitely need to review their security. But of course I guess the army never expected someone would actually try and steal for them like that, so it seems like a good idea actually. They were caught off guard, and those guys who robbed them took advantage of that, but also exposed the army's security flaws.

Dyr · 28-05-2013 09:05PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Largely replace the army's 'first response' service with a volunteer service to be manned by local volunteers, "conscripts" and a core staff, merging some of the army's territorial monitoring activities with the Coast Guard.

There would then have to be a process of consultation with EU authorities in terms of establishing Ireland's Common Security & Defence Policy obligations in law.

Ye could hire in hundreds of little lads from bali or somewhere for cheap, they'd be like yellow pack ghurkas, after 15 years service they get a passport for them and the family and a council house in Mullingar provided they're willing to liberate the town from the pahvee occupation forces

Local-womanizer · 28-05-2013 10:10PM

It's amazing the knowledge people here have of the DF and their SOPs....

How many incidents do you see like this, especially in recent years, and yet people are calling for them to be disbanded.

I don't see the same cries when army EOD teams are diffusing IEDs week in week out around the country. Or when they step in to help the council in clearing roadways and footpaths in towns and cities in times of heavy snow, or transporting HSE staff to isolated paitents during heavy floods. Nevermind assisting the Fire service when gorse fires were nearly burning down people's homes. People are happy for them to secure the country's highest security prisioners in Portloais.Surely I've no need to go into the DFs extensive overseas service which they have been commended for their professionalism by other militaries they served alongside. Or those who have given their lives in service for the country.

But sure fcuk all that, lets just put the organisation's 10,000 members down over 1 incident.....

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 10:13PM

Local-womanizer wrote: »

But sure fcuk all that, lets just put the organisation's 10,000 members down over 1 incident.....

Most people are not calling for the Defence Forces to disband.

And those who are calling for its disintegration - which is a different thing - are not doing so because of one incident.

CruelCoin · 28-05-2013 10:35PM

Cienciano wrote: »

How much of our budget do you reckon we should put into the defence forces? Bearing in mind that a modern fighter get costs about 1 eight of out entire budget. A nuclear sub is about 3 times our entire budget.
Go on, tell us what services you would cut in order to get our army up to scratch. All in case someone "invades our island".

I would raise it to EU average levels in terms of % of total revenues.
That's hardly a ballbreaker.

Were we to shed some of our welfare state trappings, this would be easily possible.

Local-womanizer · 28-05-2013 10:44PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Most people are not calling for the Defence Forces to disband.

And those who are calling for its disintegration - which is a different thing - are not doing so because of one incident.

Provide examples of other notable incidents other than this to have taken place in recent years, and ones that are only limited to the Ireland.

There are some stupid suggestions here by people regarding what to do with the DF. Mandatory service being one. What makes a military like ours motivated and disciplined is the fact it's made up of volunteers.

To "disintegrate" the DF and concentrate their efforts into first aid, emergency response, why not just let the current services do that, as that is what they are supposed to do anyway.

And to hand over the responsibility of the defence of our country to that of another country is laughable. Think about it, why would a foreign soldier give a sh/te about Ireland? Never mind this crap of letting the EU battlegroup to take care of us, we are part of the battlegroup.

No doubt the government needs to reevaluate how it allocates the defence budget to make the DF more effective, but the deficienes in defence are hardly the fault of the majority of soldier, sailor or airman in the DF. I mean after all the barrack closures and cuts these people still carry on without a complaint while the public call for their jobs daily

CruelCoin · 28-05-2013 10:46PM

John Mongo wrote: »

Of course people will be disciplined.

Receiving a note in their personal file, to the effect of "bold boy" doesn't count.

Firing a civil servant is next to impossible, this will be no different.

My name is URL · 28-05-2013 10:56PM

Local-womanizer wrote: »

How many incidents do you see like this, especially in recent years, and yet people are calling for them to be disbanded.

People here would call for An Post to be disbanded if they once received their neighbor's post.

NuckingFacker · 28-05-2013 11:10PM

Err, the "same" lads had a lorry lifted by customs, allowed it to be seized, then took it back at gunpoint as it was being driven to a secure location - they stopped it, fecked out the driver and drove it off. The are highly organised, very dangerous and do not have much fear of the State bodies.

Embarrassing for the Army alright, but they are playing with the big boys when it comes to fuel laundering gangs and our defence forces tend to need a letter from the boss before they get given a round of ammunition, let alone "dare" to fire it at anyone/anything.

If they had shot at the truck, whoever fired would spend the rest of his life in enquiries, filling out forms and generally getting bent over the sofa by the health and Safety brigade. Not to mention the bill for cleaning up any spilt fuel, let alone 30,000 litres...

The soldiers on duty probably weighed up the options and decided new gates and a months blushes would be easier in the long run.. I probably would too, in their shoes.

Cody Pomeray · 28-05-2013 11:45PM

Local-womanizer wrote: »

Provide examples of other notable incidents other than this to have taken place in recent years, and ones that are only limited to the Ireland.

You don't seem to get it.

This incident, and others like it, are not the reason why the Irish army should be disintegrated. One might argue that this incident is symptomatic of a wider problem with the forces, of course.

To "disintegrate" the DF and concentrate their efforts into first aid, emergency response, why not just let the current services do that, as that is what they are supposed to do anyway.

They can continue to subscribe to the forces in a voluntary capacity - after all - that is what makes the forces so motivated and disciplined, you think.

And to hand over the responsibility of the defence of our country to that of another country is laughable.

It's a practical reality under the EU Battlegroups framework. The Irish State cannot defend itself, the improbability of an attack notwithstanding.

Just calling a spade a spade.

Cienciano · 29-05-2013 12:23AM

CruelCoin wrote: »

I would raise it to EU average levels in terms of % of total revenues.
That's hardly a ballbreaker.

Were we to shed some of our welfare state trappings, this would be easily possible.

Our expenditure on defence is .6%. EU average is 2%.
You think it would be a good idea to more than triple our defence budget in the biggest recession in our history?
I'd love to see Michael Noonan announce that in the Budget! He should actually use the words "it's hardly a ballbreaker" and explain it's incase the island is invaded

Manic Moran · 29-05-2013 12:42AM

For someone to be successfully charged, even in the Army, there has to be a demonstrable failure. Failing to secure the entire perimeter of the barracks when it's just yourself and Paddy on duty (or whatever) is not really a chargeable offense.

I would expect a re-evaluation of security measures and just what people are supposed to be securing, but absent evidence of negligence or wrongdoing on the part of a specific individual,there's not much to be done there.

Cody Pomeray · 29-05-2013 01:27AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

For someone to be successfully charged, even in the Army, there has to be a demonstrable failure. Failing to secure the entire perimeter of the barracks when it's just yourself and Paddy on duty (or whatever) is not really a chargeable offense..

I don't see why negligence shouldn't have to meet the same test in military law as it would in a court of civil jurisdiction; there would be numerous ways of dealing with this case under Irish military law

One charge could come under Section 166 of the Defence Act (1954) as amended by the Criminal Justice Act (1990) whereby any officer or man "who negligently performs a military duty imposed on him is guilty of an offence". This offence is punishable by any penalty up to and including dismissal for an officer, or up to and including imprisonment not exceeding 2 years for a man.

All that would be required in order to bring a successful case against a member of the Defence forces in that scenario is the establishment of some negligent duty. It seems reasonable to suggest that the duty could not, indeed, be one which is beyond the reasonable apprehension of the accused, but it could perfectly well constitute a "minor" negligence - like failing to accord due attention to CCTV, for example. I use the word "minor" liberally, considering the geographic location of this barracks, and the vulnerability which it may face from dissidents.

On the other hand, there is yet an even simpler, more foolproof,and less burdensome manner of dealing with such an individual; Irish law provides the Minister for Defence or any Officer acting with the Minister's authority to simply direct that the man or officer in question be discharged from the forces, in accordance with Section 73 of the 1954 Act.

So it certainly seems as though possibilities for discharge and punishment are readily available; the interesting question is whether or not any such remedy will be sought. I'm sure the previous cases of items being stolen from military possession would help answer that.

CruelCoin · 29-05-2013 01:32AM

Cienciano wrote: »

Our expenditure on defence is .6%. EU average is 2%.
You think it would be a good idea to more than triple our defence budget in the biggest recession in our history?
I'd love to see Michael Noonan announce that in the Budget! He should actually use the words "it's hardly a ballbreaker" and explain it's incase the island is invaded

We could take a bloated service such as the health service, shake the ****e out, and turn another one into something fit for purpose, rather than a shiny honour generating toy.

Manic Moran · 29-05-2013 01:45PM

Yes, but in order to meet the 'negligence' standard, it must be shown that the troop did not act in the manner expected of him. If there were no CCTV cameras covering the motor pool, for example, or if the troop were on one of his mandated hourly door lock checks (or whatever his duties were), then how could it be negligence if he didn't see anything on CCTV? If he did his best and the place just wasn't resourced, I can't see a charge sticking.

Ash.J.Williams · 29-05-2013 01:54PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, but in order to meet the 'negligence' standard, it must be shown that the troop did not act in the manner expected of him. If there were no CCTV cameras covering the motor pool, for example, or if the troop were on one of his mandated hourly door lock checks (or whatever his duties were), then how could it be negligence if he didn't see anything on CCTV? If he did his best and the place just wasn't resourced, I can't see a charge sticking.

you just described a minimum wage, zero qualifications, zero experience just out of school security job i had when i was 18.

Cody Pomeray · 29-05-2013 01:56PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yes, but in order to meet the 'negligence' standard, it must be shown that the troop did not act in the manner expected of him. If there were no CCTV cameras covering the motor pool, for example, or if the troop were on one of his mandated hourly door lock checks (or whatever his duties were), then how could it be negligence if he didn't see anything on CCTV?

It is a tautology that if it wasn't negligence then it wasn't negligence. My point is that the threshold appears to be pretty low, there doesn't even have to be a charge in order to dismiss a man from the army, just a "reason prescribed".

godwin · 29-05-2013 02:10PM

lol @ the irish army , paid sand bags.

DipStick McSwindler · 29-05-2013 02:14PM

This post has been deleted.

Fratton Fred · 29-05-2013 02:24PM

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If the problem with the Irish army were as trivial as this story there wouldn't be a problem.

Clearly there are serious questions to ask that have little (directly) to do with this event: if it is accepted that this country has adapted a policy of non-belligerence, if it is accepted that there is an EU framework for multinational (pan European) security, and if it is accepted that the Irish Army cannot seriously mount a defence against attack and would be reliant upon that EU security forces anyway, then why the Hell are we pretending we still need the Irish army in its current form?

This question of the Irish army is bigger than the Aiken debacle.

so we'll just ask the rest of Europe to fight and die on our behalf because we don't want to pay for a defence force?

Sounds reasonable, as long as they do it quietly of course, wouldn't want all those Germans making a row whilst they die now would we.

Ash.J.Williams · 29-05-2013 02:28PM

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Unfortunately many regular informed posters on the military forum aren't being listed to. ManicMoran, your wasting your time dealing with these people their IQ's are far to low to comprehend a sensible situation/debate.

Back to our Trenches we go.

"listened"

fullstop · 29-05-2013 02:31PM

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Unfortunately many regular informed posters on the military forum aren't being listed to. ManicMoran, your wasting your time dealing with these people their IQ's are far to low to comprehend a sensible situation/debate.

Back to our Trenches we go.

Are you being ironic with the IQ statement?!

Morpheus · 29-05-2013 02:58PM

fullstop wrote: »

Are you being ironic with the IQ statement?!

What we mean is it seems that some of the posters here are unfamiliar with the army and how it works and what goes in the day to day work a soldier does, the rules he is beholden to, what goes on behind the scenes in a barracks or the investigations and court martial process.

Some with a military background are trying to inform everyone here with insights into this.

some interesting debate has been had.

But every so often another head pops over the parapet and some troll comes out with a retard of a comment like paid sandbags etc.

These people are just people at the end of the day, no human system in history is infallible, we don't know ALL of the facts, in fact I would easily say we can guess/surmise/infer about 30% of the facts and from that very limited viewpoint, through an open letterbox view, some here are suggesting that the ENTIRE defence forces are useless fat wasters,well if thats what you want to call them then don't be surprised if members come on here and tell YOU that you are quite possibly mad and probably a little bit dumb due to your poisoned and immoveable viewpoint, even when presented with half decent arguments. Not everyone, but some.

Embarrassing, yes, the end of the road, the straw that broke the camels back, the reason the DF should be disbanded so we can spend their paltry budget on first line emergency responders? seriously?

Look, they do a f**king good job to the best of their ability under the kinds of laws conditions and statutes that nobody here Id warrant and certainly nobody outside of a ranked service, could possibly imagine, with fewer rights than other public sector and private sector workers, with no privileged right to union membership or way to complain against draconian revenue cuts in an inherently DANGEROUS ENVIRONMENT.

Still they get up and go to work and to the best of their ability they put their shoulder to the wheel and keep pushing because its in their contract of work.

show some respect, or at least educate yourself about the people you denigrate with feckless comments like that.

Cody Pomeray · 29-05-2013 03:27PM

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Unfortunately many regular informed posters on the military forum aren't being listened to.

But ManicMoran is because he's making coherent points.
Make a coherent point and someone will listen. Don't come here and shout wah wah I know more than you and then not demonstrate anything of value to the debate, and expect respect.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so we'll just ask the rest of Europe to fight and die on our behalf

Yes, absolutely. That is already an agreed principle. Not only will the CDSP allow for "the rest of Europe" fighting and dying on behalf of other Europeans, but on behalf of non Europeans too, and there have been plenty of examples of that.

However,the EDSP consists both of military and civilian operations, and I am suggesting that Ireland's proven skills lie in the latter, not the former.

It is inevitable that any foreign incursion into Ireland would require "the rest of Europe" to fight and die on our behalf. That was never seriously up for debate.

Dr Turk Turkelton · 29-05-2013 03:57PM

IrishFeeney92 wrote: »

Unfortunately many regular informed posters on the military forum aren't being listened to. ManicMoran, your wasting your time dealing with these people their IQ's are far to low to comprehend a sensible situation/debate.

Back to our Trenches we go.

Afternoon nap outdoors?

hatz7 · 29-05-2013 04:02PM

I'll just say this is a great story.

Firstly, nobody got hurt, the importance of this cannot be underestimated. In fairness to the folk that carried it out, they are the only ones in the country that have taken back what the government took off them.
If this was a film, somebody would die at the end, always happens.But nobody was hurt, so this can be entered into the 'hall of fame' victories for the underdog.

This type of operation fits into our historical modus operandi (give me a bit of lee way with that if you don't mind) There is many a tale, poem, story all around Ireland regaling, we'll....call it 'reclaiming' people and property, down through the centuries. This is a possible 21st century version of those tales.

Somebody, somewhere, will now have to be employed! yes, job creation! to install some new gates.(sweet contract too, gates to be completed in time for the 2016 commemorations, cost 200 million euros, them lads might of done it once, but they won't get through these new gates I'll tell you!

Make no mistake, there will be a committee, to report to a tribunal. The lads are delighted, overtime all around, and when it comes to December's budget, the Defence Department will have a stronger negotiating position.No cuts for them. Some other department will have to feel the pinch though.

Our poor leaders have lost face, they will spent a fortune now to make us believe that they didn't.That's the point where the story does show glimpses of...we all know.

gobnaitolunacy · 29-05-2013 04:09PM

You are sh*tting me? You make it sound like some delightful 1950s style 'Whisky Galore' comedy romp.

Taxpayers money, out of the pockets of you and I, is going to fund repairing the gate and mopping up the mess after those fuel laundering b*stards.

Raiders steal tanker from army barracks

Comments