Raiders steal tanker from army barracks

John Mongo · 29-05-2013 04:51PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

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.

In 2010, a member of the Naval Service was imprisoned in the Military Detention Centre in the Curragh for 3 months and discharged from the Defence Forces for texting the location of his ship to his girlfriend.

So, the Defence Forces can go a bit further than a note calling someone a "bold boy" if they need to.

ScumLord · 29-05-2013 06:13PM

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.

That's about the same across many industries too, if something goes wrong on a production line you don't immediately blame the guy on the line, you look at the situation in it's entirety to discover how the mistake happened and how it can be prevented in the future. Just firing the person there at the time won't fix the problem and will only lead to it recurring.

Wicklowrider · 29-05-2013 07:45PM

godwin wrote: »

lol @ the irish army , paid sand bags.

You mean like this: http://www.independent.ie/world-news/africa/crack-troops-rescue-hostages-from-gunmen-in-daring-raid-26019636.html

wish I had been a sandbag so

Boombastic · 29-05-2013 07:57PM

How much are we paying these 'soldiers' to be on 'duty'?

Wicklowrider · 29-05-2013 08:08PM

Boombastic wrote: »

How much are we paying these 'soldiers' to be on 'duty'?

Not a lot considering they work unlimited hours, are not protected by labour law, will without question approach and dismantle a live bomb, place their well being and life in danger in a heartbeat, drive your ambulance should the driver exercise his right to strike, protect your borders in emergency such as the foot and mouth crisis, secure your maximum risk prisons, deal with civil unrest and win the odd olympic medal in their spare time

Manic Moran · 30-05-2013 12:44AM

John Mongo wrote: »

In 2010, a member of the Naval Service was imprisoned in the Military Detention Centre in the Curragh for 3 months and discharged from the Defence Forces for texting the location of his ship to his girlfriend.

So, the Defence Forces can go a bit further than a note calling someone a "bold boy" if they need to.

Though true, it was also part of a plea deal which saw the State drop charges of drug possession and conspiracy to import drugs into the country. I think the Navy just wanted to be rid of him.

Jake Rugby Walrus666 · 30-05-2013 12:59AM

The soldiers on post/sentry duty here should be sent to prison by a military court for a crime they may or may not have committed. These men will promtly escape a high security stockade to the Dublin underground. Today still wanted by the government they survive as soldiers as fortune. If you have a problem. If no one else can solve it. And if you can find them. You might just be able to hire the B-Team.

30-05-2013 01:05AM

I couldn't help it! Dur de dur came out of mouth after reading ^^^ that!

ardle1 · 30-05-2013 03:04AM

Custom and excise seem to be taking over 'law' enforcement in this country (especially in border regions) and for that reason,,I feel they should be held fully accountable for what happened in Aiken Barracks,, and on a more eh 'comical' note,,and not denying we'r getting some laugh out of all these posts,, I keep picturing 3 soldiers running around the grounds of Aiken Barracks,eventully crashing into each other and falling to the (smelling of burning rubber) ground.

wexie · 30-05-2013 08:55AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though true, it was also part of a plea deal which saw the State drop charges of drug possession and conspiracy to import drugs into the country. I think the Navy just wanted to be rid of him.

Hmmm....those are some fairly important details to leave out, sound like he got off rather lightly rather that the harsh punishment implied.

CruelCoin · 30-05-2013 09:48AM

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.

You're
too

John Mongo · 30-05-2013 11:18AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though true, it was also part of a plea deal which saw the State drop charges of drug possession and conspiracy to import drugs into the country. I think the Navy just wanted to be rid of him.

All charges which the Sailor denied and the State has never proven.

wexie wrote: »

Hmmm....those are some fairly important details to leave out, sound like he got off rather lightly rather that the harsh punishment implied.

Again, the Sailor denied all those charges and they were dropped. He was charged with one offense and in turn was imprisoned and discharged.

I've seen lads who were considered bad apples being called in and told their service was no longer required and that was the end of their time in the Defence Forces.

Point being, if the Defence Forces feels it's warranted, the Defence Forces will get rid of you. The claim of it being near impossible to get rid of people in the DF, is just plain wrong.

TheDB · 30-05-2013 11:54AM

The drug trafficking charges were dropped as part of a plea deal. There is the high possibility that insider information was passed from members of the DF in the oil tanker case to the dissident gangs.

DipStick McSwindler · 30-05-2013 11:58AM

This post has been deleted.

Sugar Soap · 30-05-2013 01:20PM

During the Second World War the SAS in Africa was able to get men into German air bases, destroy aircraft on the ground and slip away again. Whatever else might be said of the Germans they were no slouches in the military stakes. An athletic person would easily get into a military installation undetected and approach a vehicle left in the open. Between the time the vehicle the vehicle burst through the gate and went out of sight would have been a matter of seconds. It would have seriously endangered the civilian population to start firing at it. Would the death of an innocent person be worth the recovery of a truck and some laundered fuel?

Morpheus · 30-05-2013 02:57PM

TheDB wrote: »

There is the high possibility that insider information was passed from members of the DF in the oil tanker case to the dissident gangs.

Is there? really?

So you also think that the tanker was driven into the barracks in secret?

That not one single civilian saw it go there and passed on the information?

that not one outside contractor was working in the barracks and saw it?

I suppose you also think that revenue and gardai passed information on too?

You really really haven't a f**king clue about the DF or what it means to those who serve, you see that one person was charged in relation to drug trafficking etc and then you think that theres a high possibility that we are passing information onto dissident gangs?

Yet its so anathema to members of the DF that I would not and could not for one second believe that there is even a LOW possibility that its happened in this way.

Whatever about a deserved slagging of the force for a mishap like this, and debating about what could have been done differently etc, its about probably the only department of govt left that deserves any shred of respect.

Prove it before you put your size 6 boots on and stamp all over the DF reputation in relation to passing secrets on to terrorist and criminal scum.

f**king armchair general springs to mind

NuckingFacker · 30-05-2013 09:01PM

Morpheus wrote: »

Is there? really?

So you also think that the tanker was driven into the barracks in secret?

That not one single civilian saw it go there and passed on the information?

that not one outside contractor was working in the barracks and saw it?

I suppose you also think that revenue and gardai passed information on too?

You really really haven't a f**king clue about the DF or what it means to those who serve, you see that one person was charged in relation to drug trafficking etc and then you think that theres a high possibility that we are passing information onto dissident gangs?

Yet its so anathema to members of the DF that I would not and could not for one second believe that there is even a LOW possibility that its happened in this way.

Whatever about a deserved slagging of the force for a mishap like this, and debating about what could have been done differently etc, its about probably the only department of govt left that deserves any shred of respect.

Prove it before you put your size 6 boots on and stamp all over the DF reputation in relation to passing secrets on to terrorist and criminal scum.

f**king armchair general springs to mind

Yeah- but not all soldiers are angels and the dissidents used to sign up members to get free training. Nice rant, but not much reality to back it up.

Riddle101 · 30-05-2013 09:11PM

Morpheus wrote: »

Is there? really?

So you also think that the tanker was driven into the barracks in secret?

That not one single civilian saw it go there and passed on the information?

that not one outside contractor was working in the barracks and saw it?

I suppose you also think that revenue and gardai passed information on too?

You really really haven't a f**king clue about the DF or what it means to those who serve, you see that one person was charged in relation to drug trafficking etc and then you think that theres a high possibility that we are passing information onto dissident gangs?

Yet its so anathema to members of the DF that I would not and could not for one second believe that there is even a LOW possibility that its happened in this way.

Whatever about a deserved slagging of the force for a mishap like this, and debating about what could have been done differently etc, its about probably the only department of govt left that deserves any shred of respect.

Prove it before you put your size 6 boots on and stamp all over the DF reputation in relation to passing secrets on to terrorist and criminal scum.

f**king armchair general springs to mind

There are bad eggs everywhere though. The idea that information could have been passed on from a member of the Defense Forces it not entirely unbelievable. It's certainly not something to completely dismiss either. Not saying this was was an inside job, maybe you're right and someone outside the Defense Force did. But that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen.

If this could happen
http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2008/0329/ireland/soldier-arrested-over-firearms-linked-to-criminal-activity-58966.html

Then who is to say there aren't others who could do similar stuff.

Morpheus · 31-05-2013 10:29AM

Riddle101 wrote: »

If this could happen
http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2008/0329/ireland/soldier-arrested-over-firearms-linked-to-criminal-activity-58966.html

Then who is to say there aren't others who could do similar stuff.

Fair point, however you will note that he had been AWOL for 59 days... i.e. he had gone missing from the army for 2 months prior to his arrest.

Also he wasnt asked to supply military weapons and explosives but to handle illegal weapons. Nonetheless, there are no infallible organisations, i personally took offence at your rubbish comment stating high probability of collusion without any reference to back it up.

Nodin · 31-05-2013 10:36AM

Sugar Soap wrote: »

During the Second World War the SAS in Africa was able to get men into German air bases, destroy aircraft on the ground and slip away again. Whatever else might be said of the Germans they were no slouches in the military stakes. An athletic person would easily get into a military installation undetected and approach a vehicle left in the open. Between the time the vehicle the vehicle burst through the gate and went out of sight would have been a matter of seconds. It would have seriously endangered the civilian population to start firing at it. Would the death of an innocent person be worth the recovery of a truck and some laundered fuel?

So it was the SAS or the Germans?

CruelCoin · 31-05-2013 04:18PM

Nodin wrote: »

So it was the SAS or the Germans?

I think what he meant to say was that although the Germans were quite well-equiped/trained troops, the SAS still managed to slip by them.

That said, it was a bunch of drug-dealing thugs who stole the truck, not crack troops like the SAS........

ScumLord · 31-05-2013 04:27PM

Sugar Soap wrote: »

During the Second World War the SAS in Africa was able to get men into German air bases, destroy aircraft on the ground and slip away again. Whatever else might be said of the Germans they were no slouches in the military stakes. An athletic person would easily get into a military installation undetected and approach a vehicle left in the open. Between the time the vehicle the vehicle burst through the gate and went out of sight would have been a matter of seconds.

Oh ya, I remember that mission in hidden & dangerous.

Conmaicne Mara · 31-05-2013 05:17PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

That said, it was a bunch of drug-dealing thugs who stole the truck, not crack troops like the SAS........

....oh really....

wexie · 31-05-2013 06:05PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

I think what he meant to say was that although the Germans were quite well-equiped/trained troops, the SAS still managed to slip by them.

That said, it was a bunch of drug diesel-dealing thugs who stole the truck, not crack troops like the SAS........

I do agree it's hardly a good comparison comparing these guys to the SAS.

At least I'd bloody well hope so. If we have ex-SAS troops laundering diesel summing aint right

Riddle101 · 31-05-2013 07:29PM

Morpheus wrote: »

Fair point, however you will note that he had been AWOL for 59 days... i.e. he had gone missing from the army for 2 months prior to his arrest.

Also he wasnt asked to supply military weapons and explosives but to handle illegal weapons. Nonetheless, there are no infallible organisations, i personally took offence at your rubbish comment stating high probability of collusion without any reference to back it up.

Actually it was TheDB that said that about high probability.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 31-05-2013 09:54PM

Boombastic wrote: »

How much are we paying these 'soldiers' to be on 'duty'?

The lads on duty that day would have been paid €55:66 for their 24hrs (Mon-Saturday (24 hrs).

Sundays and bank holidays the rate is €111:36 for a 24 hour shift.

[Before tax].

JJayoo · 31-05-2013 09:58PM

Maximus Attractive Whirlwind wrote: »

The lads on duty that day would have been paid €55:66 for their 24hrs (Mon-Saturday (24 hrs).

Sundays and bank holidays the rate is €111:36 for a 24 hour shift.

[Before tax].

Are they awake and on duty for the full 24 hours?

arybvtcw0eolkf · 31-05-2013 10:10PM

JJayoo wrote: »

Are they awake and on duty for the full 24 hours?

On the vast majority of duties yes, you're expected to remain alert for the duration of the duty.

You get the next day off to rest, so if for example you finish your shift at 09:00 Monday morning you 'rest off' until Tuesday morning.. But on operational duties this rest off period can be cut back to a 4 hour rest period.

Thats generally how things work.

And because a soldier is liable to work on Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays if a soldiers applies for leave the leave period must be inclusive of these days.

So if you're taking your two weeks in Santa Ponsa with the family (and who has the money for that these days!!) you can't break your leave ~ you must include the Sat & Sun even if you're not rostered for duty on those days.

dundalkfc10 · 31-05-2013 10:13PM

Maximus Attractive Whirlwind wrote: »

The lads on duty that day would have been paid €55:66 for their 24hrs (Mon-Saturday (24 hrs).

Sundays and bank holidays the rate is €111:36 for a 24 hour shift.

[Before tax].

They get paid just over €2 an hour, surely thats wrong

arybvtcw0eolkf · 31-05-2013 10:20PM

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

They get paid just over €2 an hour, surely thats wrong

Well its a little more complicated than I posted above.

Its a Security Duty Allowance (civilians would call it 'over time').

Its paid in addition to your weekly pay, so I guess you can say the OT works out at just over two euro an hour (mid week).

Raiders steal tanker from army barracks

Comments