WASTE OF MONEY ON PORTLAOISE!!!

Rawhead

John_D80 wrote: »

Is this meant to be funny or are you actually serious? Or trolling even?

Sorry I forgot about all the wars we are fighting. Thank god we have a spare platoon to give us a dig out. As for the dig about going on strike, it's a bit rich coming from a outfit that pulled the tits out of the state with the deafness claims.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Rawhead wrote: »

Sorry I forgot about all the wars we are fighting. Thank god we have a spare platoon to give us a dig out. As for the dig about going on strike, it's a bit rich coming from a outfit that pulled the tits out of the state with the deafness claims.

Training and expertise still continues, dont be suggesting we do feck all because we are not a "war waging" nation. The lads are in there to support the likes of you. Your fellow PO's may need one of them one day.

The deafness claims were an expensive lesson for the Government and the DOD. It was a legitimate and long standing problem that the DF came up against. If the DOD had sanctioned and put up the money for the issue of hearing protection, none of the claims would have happened. They were consistently requested by personnel.

Im sure PO's need certain types of equipment too. As a PO, if you need a piece of equipment and if you suffer a loss or slight loss of an essential sense because of the lack of issue of the equipment, are you saying you would not look for compensation?

ChunkyLover_53

Rawhead wrote: »

Sorry I forgot about all the wars we are fighting. Thank god we have a spare platoon to give us a dig out. As for the dig about going on strike, it's a bit rich coming from a outfit that pulled the tits out of the state with the deafness claims.

The Deafness claims cost the State approx €320 million, the vast majority of claimants are long gone from the Army, it started about 20 years ago.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/army-deafness-saga-finally-nears-an-end-2029321.html

Prison Officers claimed €35 million in overtime alone in 2010

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfgbidkfqloj/rss2/

So over 10 years the cost of overtime outweighs the Deafness Claims.

Whos pulling the tits out of the state again?

On topic, Portlaoise is a waste of resources & manpower, if the crims or chuckys really want their mates out let them have 'em, in this day in age someone will put a bullet their way eventually

Kat1170

ChunkyLover_53 wrote: »

On topic, Portlaoise is a waste of resources & manpower, if the crims or chuckys really want their mates out let them have 'em, in this day in age someone will put a bullet their way eventually

Unfortunately innocent peoply sometimes get caught up in their crossfire :(

Maoltuile

Kat1170 wrote: »

Think that was cut to about €3.50 recently :o

€4.20, divided up:

Breakfast €1.05
Lunch €1.05
Dinner €2.10

Poccington

Drop the PO talk. This isn't the thread for it.

Maoltuile wrote: »

€4.20, divided up:

Breakfast €1.05
Lunch €1.05
Dinner €2.10

When you actually look at it, it's fairly laughable. As much as they are slated from time to time, it's a wonder chefs can put together any kind of meals on that kind of money.

As for Portlaoise, it's a waste of manpower and an example of the DF being used as nothing more than cheap labour.

Zambia

John_D80 wrote: »

This might take me a while but here goes.....



RDF? The RDF, to the best of my knowledge have not been involved in ATCP duties since the 1970's and have never been posted to portlaoise prison. One of the primary roles of the PDF however is ATCP.

My bad I meant PDF

John_D80 wrote: »

Why not? I thought this whole thread was about how the army doing this job is a waste of money. But now they are being called 'cheap labour'? Which is it? Are they a waste of money or cheap labour? To get an even remotely comparable level of security in the country's only high security prison would cost an exorbitant amount of money in wages alone, never mind the ancillary costs.

Dude you are the one calling them cheap labour and I agree. There was a time when the money was there why was it not done then.

John_D80 wrote: »

You my friend need to do your homework. And while you're at it, tell the OP to the same.

I dont need to do any homework fact remains it is a job for the prison service.

Money aside would you at least agree its the prison service job to Man and staff a Prison.

Maoltuile

Poccington wrote: »

When you actually look at it, it's fairly laughable. As much as they are slated from time to time, it's a wonder chefs can put together any kind of meals on that kind of money.

They've improved beyond measure in the past twenty years (I can remember back to when there was a prefab for a canteen in the Brugha!). Kudos are deserved, you even get a nice dessert these days

John_D80

Zambia wrote: »

My bad I meant PDF


Dude you are the one calling them cheap labour and I agree. There was a time when the money was there why was it not done then.

Yes the army certainly are cheap labour, they can do a better job at securing portlaoise prison than anyone for a lot less money. That includes the prison service or any private security firm. So why people cite expenditure as a reason for taking the army out of there is stupid when they cheaper and better than any alternative. In the defence forces you have the best possible value-for-money security on portlaoise. The cheapest just happens to be the best for once in this instance.

Zambia wrote: »

I dont need to do any homework fact remains it is a job for the prison service.

Money aside would you at least agree its the prison service job to Man and staff a Prison.

Yes actually you do need to do your homework quite a bit actually, or at the very least read the previous posts in this thread by serving PO's.

And money aside, as you put it, It is the job of the state to use whatever resources it deems nessecary (not just the prison service) to secure its prisoners and ensure the continued safety of its citizens.

How can you possibly say that this is a job for the prison service when despite the fact that they are a very hardworking and professional outfit they do not have the resources, training, weapons or equipment to do the job that the army do in portlaoise prison. Not to mention the constitutional mandate to provide this level of security.

What can the prison service do to counter an armed escape/assisted breakout attempt? I have seen PO's in 'action' and trust me, they do their job very very well. Scarily well in fact. But they could not do the armies job any more than the army could do theirs.

Portlaoise prison today is home to some of the most dangerous and influential criminals in Ireland whose equally dangerous acquaintances have the means at their disposal to attempt a serious breakout, and you think for one second that the Prison service alone could prevent it? Seriously? When the the bad guys come knocking they wont be polite about it. Should the PO's ask them nicely to stop shooting?

The simple fact is that having the army in portlaoise has in the past and will continue in the future to prevent and most importantly deter escape attempts, and as a result, save lives. Whether its the lives of the PO's and GS gaurding the prison or innocent civilians.

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

I have seen PO's in 'action' and trust me, they do their job very very well. Scarily well in fact. But they could not do the armies job any more than the army could do theirs.

In fairness, no-ones asking the P.O.s to run Platoon-in-Attacks in the Glen or go secure some African border. They're suggesting they secure a prison. Surely it's more of a stretch to claim prison security as a military task than one for the Prison Service.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

In fairness, no-ones asking the P.O.s to run Platoon-in-Attacks in the Glen or go secure some African border. They're suggesting they secure a prison. Surely it's more of a stretch to claim prison security as a military task than one for the Prison Service.

So you think the prison service can secure portlaoise prison on their own? Please do elaborate.

This should be good :rolleyes:

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

So you think the prison service can secure portlaoise prison on their own? Please do elaborate.

This should be good :rolleyes:

I offer no analysis on who could provide the better service, but you said the POs couldn't do the army's job better than the army, and I agree, but secure prisons isn't a military task. It's not the army's job, even if they're tasked to do it. It's a job for a prison service, just maybe not the one we've got.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

I offer no analysis on who could provide the better service, but you said the POs couldn't do the army's job better than the army, and I agree, but secure prisons isn't a military task.

Why isn't it a military task exactly? Doesn't portlaoise prison come under the umbrella of ATCP? It did the last time I checked.

Donny5 wrote: »

It's not the army's job, even if they're tasked to do it

Talk about a contradiction in terms. Its the armys job to do it because we have been tasked to do it. Thats what the army does my friend. Follows orders wherther we want to do it or not. Or whether or not its an armys job.

During the bad winter 2 years ago why did the army collect doctors and nurses from their homes and bring them to work?

Why were soldiers out all across the country clearing roads and paths and bringing old and immobile civilians from their homes?

When the ambulance service strike why do the army provide support to the hospitals?

If the bin men ever strike again the army will be out collecting your rubbish.

Are any of the above-mentioned traditional army jobs?

No but we do them because we have been tasked to do them. And the good citizens of this country wont be complaining when we are called on again to do them. One of the armies many jobs is to lend assistance to other government and non government agencies. These jobs are done by the army every day of the week all through the year.

Donny5 wrote: »

.

Donny5 wrote: »

It's a job for a prison service, just maybe not the one we've got.

Maybe not the one we've got? What a copout. Whats the alternative? Only one option again, The Army. Until you or anyone else has a notion what they are even talking about or can present a reasonable alternative to the army seriously have a think before ye post.

If ye wanna seriously debate this, dont bring me your problems, bring me your solutions.

Donny5

ATCP is by it's very definition the military doing non-military tasks, and all your other examples are exceptional circumstances where troops are deployed as a stop-gap solution. If the Defence Forces were permanently clearing roads or ferrying medical staff around, I'd say that wasn't their job, either.

It's not a cop-out to say that maybe our Prison Service can't secure Portlaoise. It's a cop-out to say that they never could.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

ATCP is by it's very definition the military doing non-military tasks, and all your other examples are exceptional circumstances where troops are deployed as a stop-gap solution. If the Defence Forces were permanently clearing roads or ferrying medical staff around, I'd say that wasn't their job, either.

It's not a cop-out to say that maybe our Prison Service can't secure Portlaoise. It's a cop-out to say that they never could.

No-one so far, including yourself Donny can present a valid reason why this isn't a job for the army. Some people who have posted on this thread have spouted pure and utter bull**** citing a multitude of reasons for the defence forces not to be there without applying any logic at all to that reasoning.

Why are some people on this forum totally allergic to the idea of the army in portlaoise prison?

If the only maximum security prison in the country is getting the best security available for the cheapest rate out there, why is it a problem?

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

ATCP is by it's very definition the military doing non-military tasks

,

Way off bud, ATCP or its equivalent is one of the primary roles of ours and many other armed forces around the world. A Primary role. How can anything carried out under its auspices be described as a non-military task?

Donny5 wrote: »

and all your other examples are exceptional circumstances where troops are deployed as a stop-gap solution. If the Defence Forces were permanently clearing roads or ferrying medical staff around, I'd say that wasn't their job, either.

It's not a cop-out to say that maybe our Prison Service can't secure Portlaoise. It's a cop-out to say that they never could.

I have not said they could never do it, I have said that no-one outside of the army can (note: present tense) at the moment. All my posts regarding the prison service refer to them in the past or present tense. I, for one, and unlike some others who have posted on this topic, would not be so pretentious as to make predictions on the future capabilities of an organisation that i have a limited knowledge of.

No-one so far, including yourself Donny can present a valid reason why this isn't a job for the army. Some people who have posted on this thread have spouted pure and utter bull**** citing a multitude of reasons for the defence forces not to be there without applying any logic at all to that reasoning.

Why are some people on this forum totally allergic to the idea of the army in portlaoise prison?

If the only maximum security prison in the country is getting the best security available for the cheapest rate out there, why is it a problem? Somebody please?

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

If the only maximum security prison in the country is getting the best security available for the cheapest rate out there, why is it a problem? Somebody please?

I think you're very defensive, John. I think you're struggling to justify the use of the DF in a position that is not a military role. Can you show that the Defence Forces do the job cheaper? Can you show the Defence Forces provide the best security available? These are your assertions, but they're just speculation on your part.

Zambia

John_D80 wrote: »

How can you possibly say that this is a job for the prison service when despite the fact that they are a very hardworking and professional outfit they do not have the resources, training, weapons or equipment to do the job that the army do in portlaoise prison. Not to mention the constitutional mandate to provide this level of security.

I am saying give them the resources, training, weapons and equipment to do the job. Amend legislation to allow them to perform the task.

America has far more dangerous criminals and organised crime yet their Military does not man the walls of state prisons. The same could be said for the UK including the North of Ireland.

Rawhead

At the moment the current situation is the best. The army are doing a good job and it is the cheapest option.
The Prison Service has members with the skill sets needed. I know of former USMC, ARW, FFL, Royal Marines, Para's and numerous ex PDF members in our ranks. You are not setting up a counter terror unit here, just armed sentries.

Paying PO's extra allowances, staff shortages, firearms training and constitutional changes are all easy to remedy.
The problem lies with the prison service management. The whole point of an armed sentry is that the threat of deadly force exists. The prisoners would quickly become aware that prison management would have so many hurdles and protocols in the way of a PO actually firing his weapon that an escape would be worth attempting. The lags know the soldiers will open fire and that as long as they follow protocol they will be backed by superiors.
A PO would need his head examined to even think of volunteering to hold a weapon with the spineless yokes that wear suits in our job. I have known lads who have spent months writing reports for drawing their baton, never mind using it. Can you imagine a liberal lag lover like John Lonergan investigating some poor warder who shot a escaping lag.

YES the prison service should be in full control of security in all our prisons, but the reality is, the management neither want nor or they capable of the professionalism needed to guard Portlaoise properly.

Zambia

Well then you need to change the top level and if there is a Prison Officers representative body they need to get on that. If not you guys need a voice to air these grievances.

Quite frankly there has to be guidelines for the use of force and those expected to use it especially prison officers have to be backed as long as they stay within them.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

I think you're very defensive, John. I think you're struggling to justify the use of the DF in a position that is not a military role.

It is a military role, because there are no other resources available to the state to provide this level of security. A military role that I dont have to justify, because the DF have justified their role, in preventing escape attampts from portlaoise prison in the past and will do so again in the future if the situation arises.

And I am not struggling believe me, but I am starting to get more and more exasperated at the silly posts being continually churned out by people (ie: you) who have little or no comprehension of, the roles of the defence forces, the security situation in portlaoise prison, the regulstions governing the use of force (by both the DF and PS), the costs involved, the manpower/training/equiptment requirements to keep portlaoise prison secure.

Donny5 wrote: »

Can you show that the Defence Forces do the job cheaper?

Anyone with an internet connection and a lot of time on their hands can find out exactly what it costs the state to have the army in portlaoise prison, so go right ahead.

Donny5 wrote: »

Can you show the Defence Forces provide the best security available?

The defence forces provide the only security available.

Morpheus

Originally Posted by Donny5
Can you show the Defence Forces provide the best security available?

That has to be the silliest comment here... for the perceived threat and the historical nature of the escapes which have happened before there is NO OTHER FORCE IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL EQUIPPED AS THE DEFENCE FORCES.

Christ almighty, where do some of the posters here find the time to worry about such NON TOPICS.

There should be an icon for smashing your head against a wall.

Zambia

Morphéus wrote: »

That has to be the silliest comment here... for the perceived threat and the historical nature of the escapes which have happened before there is NO OTHER FORCE IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL EQUIPPED AS THE DEFENCE FORCES.

Exactly right no question what your opposition are suggesting is the prison service can be equipped to the required level and can look after a civilian prison with civilian prisoners.

Donny5

Morphéus wrote: »

That has to be the silliest comment here... for the perceived threat and the historical nature of the escapes which have happened before there is NO OTHER FORCE IN THE COUNTRY AS WELL EQUIPPED AS THE DEFENCE FORCES.

Of course they're the best equipped military in the State, but SMAAWs and MRVs aren't required to guard a prison, and if soldiers are the best option for securing a prison, then why isn't that standard practice elsewhere?

Fenian Army

I don't think the criminals in there today are as organised, intelligent, effective and motivated as the provos were... can't imagine the crims flying a helicopter into the jail or blowing holes in the wall or orchestrating breakouts like the "great escape" from the h-blocks.

The defense forces were there mainly to stop that type of thing, maybe they are redundant today?

Rawhead

LOGICALLY the prison service should be able to provide security up to and including lethal force if needed. We must be the only developed western state that uses the military for a obvious civilian role.

REALISTICALLY this is Ireland and we don't do logic. Here is why the prison service wouldn't be able provide armed security.
-The minister decides the Prison Service will take over Portlaoise fully.
-Army provides list of criteria for doing job. Staffing levels, staff criteria, SOP etc, etc.
-Prison Service says thank you very much and starts to "amend" the criteria to suit its need.
-Union gets look at criteria and says "whats this about needing to be physically fit and having both eyes?"
-Criteria now amended to allow one eyed, alcoholic morbidly obese officers apply to keep union happy.
-Management gets a look and says "Whats this with only 1 Governor on the unit?"
-Criteria now amended to increase management levels to 2:1.
-Finance gets a look and says "far to many staff"
-Criteria now amended to half the number of staff(management levels remain the same)
-The rules of engagement are examined. Management soil trousers when they realise that guns kill people.
-New RoE are drawn up that state you can only open fire if the moon is in it's 3rd phase, the escaping prisoners name is Reginald Barrington von Murphy and he's wearing yellow socks.

I know this is a military forum and I could go on and on but the whole point is that the army are doing a good job and we should just leave them at it.

Rawhead

Donny5 wrote: »

Of course they're the best equipped military in the State, but SMAAWs and MRVs aren't required to guard a prison, and if soldiers are the best option for securing a prison, then why isn't that standard practice elsewhere?

It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Zambia

Rawhead wrote: »

I know this is a military forum and I could go on and on but the whole point is that the army are doing a good job and we should just leave them at it.

The passport office is not doing that great a Job could they step in there to?

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

Of course they're the best equipped military in the State, but SMAAWs and MRVs aren't required to guard a prison, and if soldiers are the best option for securing a prison, then why isn't that standard practice elsewhere?

Soldiers are the best option for securing portlaoise, which isn't any old prison. And by the way SMAAW's and MRV's aren't being used to guard portlaoise so to even mention these pieces of equipment is really grabbing at straws.

What the hell is standard practice when you are dealing with professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists?

Standard practice? Get a grip buddy will ya?

Rawhead

Zambia wrote: »

The passport office is not doing that great a Job could they step in there to?

I know, you know, the army knows, the prison service knows, the fecking dogs in the street know that having a platoon of soldiers guarding a civilian prison is wrong.
The problem is that to change the whole mindset and management of the prison service is just to much work. I actually question if we even need armed patrols anymore. The NI prison service has more terrorists locked up than us and they don't use the military anymore.

Rawhead

Zambia wrote: »

Yes the issue of Protecting a prison is an Irish Problem no other country has this unique issue.

:rolleyes:

You obviously don't do sarcasm.

Zambia

Rawhead wrote: »

The problem is that to change the whole mindset and management of the prison service is just to much work.

This has to happen in more departments than just the Prison Service. The HSE for one but we digress.

Cant just give up an say its all just to hard.

Zambia

Rawhead wrote: »

You obviously don't do sarcasm.

My bad I need the Sarky = :rolleyes:

OS119

John_D80 wrote: »

...What the hell is standard practice when you are dealing with professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists?

call me a bluff old conservative if you must, but i thought standard practice when dealing with civil criminals was the civil police and justice system....

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

Soldiers are the best option for securing portlaoise, which isn't any old prison. And by the way SMAAW's and MRV's aren't being used to guard portlaoise so to even mention these pieces of equipment is really grabbing at straws.

Morphéus said that the DF is the best equipped force in the country, and I agree, but seeing as we only use small arms at Portlaoise, that's not all that relevant, is it? As you say, mentioning just how well the DF are equipped is grabbing at straws.

John_D80 wrote: »

What the hell is standard practice when you are dealing with professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists?

Standard practice? Get a grip buddy will ya?

Surprisingly, other countries have also managed to incarcerate professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists, and yet they somehow manage to do it without a military guard.

Morpheus

Donny5 wrote: »

Morphéus said that the DF is the best equipped force in the country, and I agree, but seeing as we only use small arms at Portlaoise, that's not all that relevant, is it? As you say, mentioning just how well the DF are equipped is grabbing at straws.

Surprisingly, other countries have also managed to incarcerate professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists, and yet they somehow manage to do it without a military guard.

Now wait a second, you either misunderstood what I was saying, or you are picking and choosing your argument...

What i meant was, that the defence forces are the best equipped force in the country for guarding a maximum security prison which has had a number of escapes and attempted escapes which involved the use of firearms and explosives. I didnt mean that we should hang around the walls in scorpions and man the towers with javelins.

Why is this? Because as was so eloquently stated by previous posters, to review the security arrangements, then plan, tender for and procure arms, house, train and then deploy armed prison officers, has such HUGE logistical and cost ramifications both for the service itself and ultimately the tax payer as to make it totally a non runner.

You're talking about building from the ground up here... you are arming a service which has none of the technical know how nor understanding of how to deploy armed units. Think logically about it, the army is cheap, cost effective and not really shackled by anything other than their own ROE when it comes to shooting escaping lags.

Your argument is a non runner. its too cost prohibitive to replace the army units.

also, we may now be ahead of the curve:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-07/news/30485067_1_command-and-control-custody-operation


also these other countries have an armed guard, we dont, and for the cost reasons alone which I alluded to above, this is never going to happen in the current health and safety and economic environment which Ireland languishes in.

John_D80

Fenian Army wrote: »

I don't think the criminals in there today are as organised, intelligent, effective and motivated as the provos were... can't imagine the crims flying a helicopter into the jail or blowing holes in the wall or orchestrating breakouts like the "great escape" from the h-blocks.

The defense forces were there mainly to stop that type of thing, maybe they are redundant today?

I agree in theory but the dissident threat is not gone away, far from it in fact.

The frequency that army EOD teams are neutralising dissident explosive devices is so high that its rarely even reported in the news.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

Morphéus said that the DF is the best equipped force in the country, and I agree, but seeing as we only use small arms at Portlaoise, that's not all that relevant, is it? As you say, mentioning just how well the DF are equipped is grabbing at straws.

Yes they are but to bring up SMAAW's and MRV's as you did in relation to Prison Security is a bit silly on your part and succeeded only in making a joke of your point to be honest.

Donny5 wrote: »

Surprisingly, other countries have also managed to incarcerate professional career criminals, heads of criminal gangs, murderers and terrorists, and yet they somehow manage to do it without a military guard.

Yes but in most instances they have an armed presence provided by an appropriately trained and equipped element of their own prison service. We do not.

testicle

FANTAPANTS wrote: »

I dont think the army in the north guarded the h- block so why do we still have the army looking over these scum??:mad::mad::mad::mad:

Of course they did. The Prison Guard Force were British Army.

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

Yes they are but to bring up SMAAW's and MRV's as you did in relation to Prison Security is a bit silly on your part and succeeded only in making a joke of your point to be honest.

If you think so. I still think you're very defensive on this issue for whatever reason. You're certainly very dismissive of anything other than the status quo.

John_D80 wrote: »

Yes but in most instances they have an armed presence provided by an appropriately trained and equipped element of their own prison service. We do not.

I'm aware of that, but the question is whether we should migrate that role to the prison service. The financial question is a big one, and the figures quoted earlier don't include the wages and pensions of the soldiers stationed of Portlaoise. Surely if we gave that responsibility to a civil body, we could downsize the Army by a Company without a loss of military capabilities, which would offset some the cost of new hires and training for the Prison Service.

The bigger issue seems to be the assertion that the Prison Service as is simply couldn't perform the role due to bungling bureaucracy. I don't know how true that is, but that certainly sounds like a state of affairs that should be tackled now, irrespective of whether or not the Prison Service takes on an armed role.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

If you think so. I still think you're very defensive on this issue for whatever reason. You're certainly very dismissive of anything other than the status quo.

I certainly am defensive, because its very difficult to read posts from people who have little or no basis of knowledge in the topic they are posting on. If you think the current status qou as you put it is not in the best interests of the state or its citizens, please by all means present a viable alternative and i will gladly consider your point.

Donny5 wrote: »

I'm aware of that, but the question is whether we should migrate that role to the prison service. The financial question is a big one, and the figures quoted earlier don't include the wages and pensions of the soldiers stationed of Portlaoise. Surely if we gave that responsibility to a civil body, we could downsize the Army by a Company without a loss of military capabilities, which would offset some the cost of new hires and training for the Prison Service.

So the newly hired PO's, that you would take on to fulfil this role wouldn't have to be paid wages or a pension? Wake up and do some research before you post again. To replace the portlaoise security element with the equivalent number of PO's would cost substantially more in wages and pensions than what it would cost to pay the army to do the job. And before you ask me to qoute the figures on DF/Prison service wages, look it up. Its all out there in the public domain.

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

I certainly am defensive, because its very difficult to read posts from people who have little or no basis of knowledge in the topic they are posting on.

Well, that's very arrogant. I don't disregard your views just because I don't think you understand the topic, which I don't think you do. You have no factual basis for your views that the current situation is best other than that you like it. I don't hold any opinion about what we should do, but since this thread popped up, I'm trying to discern what the best course of action would be. So far, there's been people like FANTAPANTS, who doggedly wants to do away with DF involvement for cost-saving reasons (I think, I'm not too sure what his main view was), and people like you on the other side, who entertain no discussion of options other than the DF at all, offering you own "expertise" in the matter as your only argument.

John_D80 wrote: »

So the newly hired PO's, that you would take on to fulfil this role wouldn't have to be paid wages or a pension?

Of course they would, but we also would have less soldiers to pay, which would offset at least some of the cost, which is all I said.

John_D80 wrote: »

To replace the portlaoise security element with the equivalent number of PO's would cost substantially more in wages and pensions than what it would cost to pay the army to do the job.

This I don't accept, at least without actual projections. Certainly the payscales for POs are higher than for the DF, but the DF has a higher turnover than the Prison Service, which in turn leads to higher costs. We also provide expensive training to our soldiers that would not be required for prison perimeter guards.

Unless it was properly sounded out, disregarding the idea of making prison security a civil task sounds to me more like protectionism for the DF than any interest in the common good.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

Well, that's very arrogant. I don't disregard your views just because I don't think you understand the topic, which I don't think you do. You have no factual basis for your views that the current situation is best other than that you like it.

You want factual basis? Go and do even a small bit of research, familiarise yourself with the subject and offer a decent informed opinion please, instead of dismissing everything i post without offering a reasonable alternative to the issue being discussed.

All the information, documents and white papers I have read in relation to this are as freely available to you as they are to me.

In an ideal world the prison service as professional and capable as they are, would have the means and ability to do this job themselves but they dont. Simple as.

Donny5 wrote: »

I don't hold any opinion about what we should do,

Very easy to knock the opinions of others while not offering one of your own.

Donny5 wrote: »

people like you on the other side, who entertain no discussion of options other than the DF at all, offering you own "expertise" in the matter as your only argument.

I have presented my opinions based on knowledge, experience and a little research. You cannot say the same. I will gladly discuss options other than the DF with you but as you have said you dont hold any opinion.

Donny5

John_D80 wrote: »

I have presented my opinions based on knowledge, experience and a little research.

If you really believe this to be the case, then I'm talking to a brick wall. We'll have to agree to disagree.

John_D80

Donny5 wrote: »

If you really believe this to be the case, then I'm talking to a brick wall. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Believe it to be the case? Do you think i imagined or dreamed spending days reading over endless pages of figures and documents.

Its not a belief, its fact. I have researched this topic for a presentation long before this thread ever materialised on boards.ie

Rawhead

The British justice system is the closest comparison we have. They have done away with the military in the role of prison security in NI and they never had it on the mainland.
Do we even still need a platoon of soldiers on duty? The UK prison services deal with criminals and terrorists just as dangerous if not more so than we do. The recent introduction of patrol dogs in the prison service gives a level of force that never existed before. Advances in technology gives a level of surveillance that has to be seen to be believed.
I think the real question to be asked is whether we need an armed force at all?
If we do then I think the PDF should be left in place.

Zambia

Morphéus wrote: »

Why is this? Because as was so eloquently stated by previous posters, to review the security arrangements, then plan, tender for and procure arms, house, train and then deploy armed prison officers, has such HUGE logistical and cost ramifications both for the service itself and ultimately the tax payer as to make it totally a non runner.

Just because the Army is the cheapest option they should not have to fill the role of other departments.

Morphéus wrote: »

You're talking about building from the ground up here...

Most building starts on the ground

Morphéus wrote: »

you are arming a service which has none of the technical know how nor understanding of how to deploy armed units.

The idea is to change that the Army would of course train them.

Morphéus wrote: »

Think logically about it, the army is cheap, cost effective and not really shackled by anything other than their own ROE when it comes to shooting escaping lags.

This is not a point in favour , the idea is to keep the lags inside not who should be able to shoot them. I know the PDF ROE and not one person has been able to tell me how they would justify shooting an unarmed lag escaping if sued in civil court. I have seen no exemption for the army in use of force legislation.

Morphéus wrote: »

Your argument is a non runner. its too cost prohibitive to replace the army units.

Everything has a cost. If your logic is sound we should replace the entire Prison service with the army. Then we can save a fortune and do away with the higher paid PO's entirely.

Morphéus wrote: »

also, we may now be ahead of the curve:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-07/news/30485067_1_command-and-control-custody-operation

shudders

Morphéus wrote: »

also these other countries have an armed guard, we dont, and for the cost reasons alone which I alluded to above, this is never going to happen in the current health and safety and economic environment which Ireland languishes in.

Then the enviroment has to change.

Morpheus

oooh....

I did say shooting escaping lags.... thats not what I meant and I retract the statement, I was thinking of an armed group carrying out a prison break. Ah well Ive said it now, I did of course not mean that the army would be able to shoot unarmed crims escaping, they would im sure, be able to engage anyone attacking the location under their protection. my bad.

In a hypothetical situation of a properly run prison service, with fully trained, responsible, professional armed units, properly funded and efficiently managed, I dont agree that the army should be there. However our economy wont allow this to happen, it would quickly degenerate to a farce. Thats why I believe the army should be there. Yes the environment should change, but how will it change? where will the money come from?

Firing a company or a platoon of soldiers wouldnt even cover the start up costs involved plus there is plenty more work for the unit involved in protecting this facility even if they were removed from it. Typical irish reasoning - fire the soldiers as theyre not needed any more for this role, pay for PO's to be armed... the real situation? move the soldiers to other units which are understaffed at best - the DF is the most efficient Dept in the govt over the last 15 years. start firing senior members of other depts if you REALLY want to save cash. Health, Finance, NAMA, all over paid and for sweet FA in return. Youd quickly have your cash then.

Zambia

Morphéus wrote: »

In a hypothetical situation of a properly run prison service, with fully trained, responsible, professional armed units, properly funded and efficiently managed, I dont agree that the army should be there. However our economy wont allow this to happen, it would quickly degenerate to a farce. Thats why I believe the army should be there. Yes the environment should change, but how will it change? where will the money come from?

Governments find the money I mean they find the money for setting up review panels and purchasing e voting machines.

You cant say we are so sure we are going to fail we have decided not to try. Once upon a time the money was there yet they sat on their hands.

cruasder777

Donny5 wrote: »

If you think so. I still think you're very defensive on this issue for whatever reason. You're certainly very dismissive of anything other than the status quo.



I'm aware of that, but the question is whether we should migrate that role to the prison service. The financial question is a big one, and the figures quoted earlier don't include the wages and pensions of the soldiers stationed of Portlaoise. Surely if we gave that responsibility to a civil body, we could downsize the Army by a Company without a loss of military capabilities, which would offset some the cost of new hires and training for the Prison Service.

The bigger issue seems to be the assertion that the Prison Service as is simply couldn't perform the role due to bungling bureaucracy. I don't know how true that is, but that certainly sounds like a state of affairs that should be tackled now, irrespective of whether or not the Prison Service takes on an armed role.

Not really, alot of the civil support role is simply parish pump politics, which is why there are still Victorian barracks, they support local communities financially.

If you done away with the civil support role, there would be mass redundences, barracks would close and local business leaders would do their nut.

Example, there is no need for a squad of soldiers to protect a CIT van, (the vehicle they use to protect it is totally unfit for purpose to start with).

Nowadays CIT cash containers have tracking devices, smart water etc. Only a complete moron would try to rob one. If someone robs one, the money self destructs and the robber gets sprayed with smart water, which has a unique code, the box also has a tracking device.

So why the hell are soldiers still providing an escort ? Like it was still the 1970s.

Answer..local parish pump politics. The problem is this civilian support role and parish pump politics and the triple lock is stopping the army from being an army who's first role is as a fighting force.