Report of the Independent Review Group of the Defence Forces

Pretty sure anyone who served has stories about things that when they happened were "banter" but these days should get you kicked out or worse. Reading tweets from ex and still serving saying they never saw anything makes me question them.

One incident I remember was two female privates having buckets of water pored over them as an impromptu wet t-shirt competition, the person poring the water was a captain.

My sister joined the reserve in 06. Went to recruit camp in Kilworth, the stories she told me about NCO's claiming female recruits for themselves was disgusting. She was lucky one of the cadre made sure everyone was aware he would not let anyone "claim" her as he was a friend of mine.

But then again he didn't do much for the other females on camp.

The President is absolutely right to. Although a political issue now, UnahÉ has a unique position concerning the DF as Supreme Commander and is perfectly entitled to express anger and dismay at the treatment of servicemen and women.

I must say there is a sense of momentum building here, even ahead of the Statutory Inquiry, to immediately address and redress these offences.

I don't think that it is at all credible for Seán Clancy to have said he only became aware of the true extent of the problem over the past year after the Women of Honour came forward.

Because its not just about the Women of Honour. He was Senior Staff Officer AC Personnel, Senior Staff Officer AC Support, GOC Air Corps for 2 years and D/CoS Support for 2 years, all of which had senior levels of responsibility for HR issues and welfare of service personnel.

When it comes to the assaults with toxic chemicals in the Air Corps that Dohvolle has described above, I just don't accept that he wasn't aware of it. Its not possible.

And I think he and some other general and command staff are going to have to fall on their sabres over this, in order to begin a systemic rebuilding of trust and conduct in the DF.

Thats true Sparky. And if so, it might be time for an appointment from outside the State. As far as I can see, any EU citizen with the requisite military career achievement would be eligible.

Although perhaps because of the upcoming reorganisation of the general staff structure, it might be best to appoint the first Chief of Defence from outside the State and in the meantime appoint a transitional Chief of Staff to see out the role. In that regard I would agree with Roadmaster and appoint Maj. Gen. Maureen O'Brien until her retirement in approximately 3 years.

That ought to be more than enough time to legislate for the necessary changes to DF command.

They did it for AGS without issue

The government can appoint an Inspector General to sort out the DF. It is provided for in the Defence Acts 1954-2015

The Inspector-General.

14.—(1) The Government may, whenever they think fit, by order under this subsection declare that there shall be an Inspector-General of the Defence Forces, and whenever any such order is made and is in force there shall be an Inspector-General of the Defence Forces.

(2) The Government may by order under this subsection revoke any order made under subsection (1) of this section.

(3) The Inspector-General of the Defence Forces shall be an officer of the Permanent Defence Force and shall be appointed by, and hold office during the pleasure of, the President.

(4) The Inspector-General of the Defence Forces shall be charged with the performance of such duties as the Government may from time to time assign to him.

And I'm sure the ordinary ranks feel so unbelievably loyal to the current commanders and general staff, what with how they've protected their more physically vulnerable comrades from debasing assaults, harassment and retaliation for simply living their lives.......

We are talking about this through the prism of the current structures. Those structures are about to be completely changed. So current conventions can be binned.

Service personnel will be loyal to those in authority who protect them, trust them, advocate for them, empower them.

No one is advocating for battalion level commanders to be parachuted in and take over, those are the sort of positions that need corporate knowledge, I'm talking about a Chief and/or Vice Chief of Defence with a transformational mindset, with command experience in a true 21st Century force and instincts honed in a truly integrated service with a strong reserve element and excellent human resource management practices.

DF members won't be told to be loyal to such a commander, they won't have to be. It might be the first time in their careers that they can have genuine faith in what their organisation is about.

Interesting how Army sources claim Mellet & Clancy didnt have "Experenice" to be COS

Id say there are plenty in defence forces senior managmemt looking at ways to throw people under the bus to advance there carrers out of this

Mellet for the craic should write an article in the times suggesting he belives the army should be redudced in size to he transformed in to a marine corps under the Navy

Going my all the articles in the papers and journos that normally dont comment on the defence forces righting articles there seams a sense of blood in the water and scalp wanted

I don't have the document to hand ATM (read it yesterday) but it also picks up on the (perceived) two class system between officers and enlisted persons. I definitely find that younger officers currently are more grounded than some of the older ones but you definitely see the elitist attitude amongst some of them.

I always find it odd that DF leadership material makes reference to leadership examples from past wars, with officers refusing to eat until their men are fed, then the Naval Service have their dinner served to them by enlisted persons in formal attire, what message does that convey?!

Never heard of any gang bangs in any of my trips, but definitely knew of officers and NCO's mainly at bn hq who enjoyed the company of females for the duration of the trip.

Saying that on one trip two privates found out they were bedding the same female which led to much hilarity in the canteen.

The DF has a number of very specific problems that need addressing, but it is not out of control, by any stretch.

What would you suggest this Inspector General actually do anyway?

Katie Hannon discussion on RTE 1 now about the abuse and bullying, shocking stuff

By describing the simple fact that the legislation requires an I.G. to be appointed with a Military rank, so he or she would have to be of rank OF-9 (4 Star General or full Admiral) to be anything but subordinate to the incumbent Defence Forces Chief of Staff.

AGS have commenced an investigation into predatorial behaviour in the DF following receipt of 26 complaints covering 50 years, with more anticipated.

No doubt a good few of these allegations are against former members, but will be interesting to see if theres a uptick in early retirements among certain cohorts.

The I.G could be appointed with a rank equal to the COS. In any event, even if the I.G. had a lower rank than the COS it wouldn't of itself make him subordinate. It might make him lower in rank but would not necessarily give the COS operational control over his activities. The Provost martial can arrest the Chief of Staff or other officers senior to him. They can't order him not to. An I.G> does what the government tells him. So does the Chief. All the government has to do is prescribe exclusive functions for each and there is no subordination.

A bit like putting the fox on the committee to review security in the hen-house.

It doesn't matter, the DoD is part of the Defence Structure.

We do not yet know, whether or if the Department itself was involved in ignoring, blocking or otherwise obstructing or failing complainants over the decades long duration of these allegations.

Despite the recency of McCrum's appointment as Sec Gen, she is the Chief Executive of the Department now and may well have to account for and represent her Department for actions in the past. Thats just the way corporate responsibility works.

And so, for these reasons and others, it is improper that she or any Officer of the DoD would be represented on any group or body investigating the allegations or having anything to do with advocating for complainants.

If you want a sanity check, chair it with a retired judge or senior counsel. Get representation on it from the professional fields of HR, counselling, human rights law, advocacy etc.

Not having a controlling vote is one thing, not being able to influence proceedings and get the inside track about what her Department may be facing, corporately, is another.

Its a clear conflict of interest, I can't be persuaded otherwise and I think her appointment will be withdrawn or otherwise ended sooner rather than later. If for no other reason than the refusal of complainants to engage with the body so long as she remains on it.

Finished? How would you describe that manifesting itself?