# Defence forces to get 28.5% pay rise



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

It seems that some areas of the public sector face no pay issues.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/cri...ffort-to-stop-defence-forces-exodus-1.3243221

Either PDFORRA is the greatest TU ever or the government is expecting an invasion.

Makes a bit of a nonsense of all the talk of fiscal space.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

Marked forces; if they can't get or keep the right people at the current rates then they need to pay more. Just as long as it is targeted.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

Whats the market in soldiers. What do we need them for ? Who are we competing against to recruit soldiers, Mike Hoare ?

Its surprising that they can target 3 star privates, whatever they maybe, for pay rises but they cannot target nurses.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

They are losing officers and specialists, particularly in the intelligence sector. 
Those are the people which require extensive training and so need to be retained.


----------



## Itchy (4 Oct 2017)

There are no new pay measures for the DF outside the established pay talks. In fact, in comparison to other uniformed services members of our DF have lost ground; see here. The figures you are looking at (28.5%) are pre-LRA entry grade and post-LRA 1st point on the scale after completion of training.

The DF are the lowest paid of the entire public service. Whats more interesting is the fact that the Dept. have complete power over the pay and conditions of our forces without fear of recourse, yet their is no shame at the existence of the groups like the WPDF. I don't know if there are any other organisations whose loyalty to the state is more absolute than the DF, but it is interesting that the Taoiseach is looking to wield the same kind of power of other providers of "essential services" ATC, etc.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

Itchy said:


> I don't know if there are any other organisations whose loyalty to the state is more absolute than the DF,



Are you serious or is that a joke ? No one has systematically exploited the Irish taxpayer more effectively than members of the defence forces.

Army deafness claims.

_"claims brought by plaintiffs that they had never been issued with protection could not be disproven as there were no specific records kept for earplugs issued to each soldier"

"the B case with little actual impairment, was heard in the High Court and an award of £45,000 was made"

"the N case, the claimant received £24,720, notwithstanding the fact that the presiding judge found that the individual had persevered with a claim for loss of hearing that, on relatively clear evidential grounds, was unsustainable."_

All the above quotes from the then Minister of Defence Michael Smith see Dail record

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/dail1998050600018?opendocument&highlight=army deafness Michael Smith


----------



## Jim2007 (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Are you serious or is that a joke ? No one has systematically exploited the Irish taxpayer more effectively than members of the defence forces.



Disgraceful!  Would you be willing to join a naval boarding party at night on a ship that is resisting you, throwing brick, fish hooks etc down on you for their wages?  Everyday Irish men and Irish women put their lives at risk for this country, they deserve our thanks and respect, not this penny-pinching nonsense.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Oct 2017)

Jim2007 said:


> Disgraceful!  Would you be willing to join a naval boarding party at night on a ship that is resisting you, throwing brick, fish hooks etc down on you for their wages?  Everyday Irish men and Irish women put their lives at risk for this country, they deserve our thanks and respect, not this penny-pinching nonsense.



You make it sound like we live in Somalia, rather than a neutral republic in Western Europe.


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Oct 2017)

Jim2007 said:


> Disgraceful!  Would you be willing to join a naval boarding party at night on a ship that is resisting you, throwing brick, fish hooks etc down on you for their wages?  Everyday Irish men and Irish women put their lives at risk for this country, they deserve our thanks and respect, not this penny-pinching nonsense.



I'm not sure if I'd do it for any wages... probably we wouldn't want people signing up to the Defence Forces for remuneration package alone. What are they people with the fish hooks being paid???
I'm sure Defence Forces staff could earn more working for Blackwater or some shadowy mercenary group... I'm not sure that applies to accountants or IT staff.
They might get shot at a bit more and be expected to do a bit more shooting than they do today though.

If people are leaving because of the pay, essential people who have been trained at great expense... well then obviously something has to give and that needs to be addressed.

But I don't think the state can put a monetary value to encourage someone to risk their life in service of their country. That's about a sense of duty.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

Jim2007 said:


> Everyday Irish men and Irish women put their lives at risk for this country.



Can you provide some examples please. Of risk in a military sense. Beyond the everyday risk we all face from the usual hazards, traffic accidents, crime etc. Beyond the risk inherent in the wrong type of ear muffs. Of risk faced for the country.


----------



## michaelm (4 Oct 2017)

odyssey06 said:


> I'm not sure if I'd do it for any wages... probably we wouldn't want people signing up to the Defence Forces for remuneration package alone.


Me neither.  Irish Defence Forces are underfunded and often sent on misadventures by overeager ministers.  As we're non-aligned we shouldn't be wearing EUFOR hats abroad (only UN).  Continued use of Lariam is another black mark.  Morale must be terrible.  The pay is poor and should be improved.


----------



## Firefly (4 Oct 2017)

_The Government had already committed earlier this year to *pay restoration* for the Defence Forces_

It seems like the pay rises under benchmarking were a good thing!!

I can see an orderly line forming for others in the PS now. "Where's my restoration?".

Good news for us though, herself might be bringing home a few more bob


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Can you provide some examples please. Of risk in a military sense. Beyond the everyday risk we all face from the usual hazards, traffic accidents, crime etc. *Beyond the risk inherent in the wrong type of ear muffs*. Of risk faced for the country.


Lol 

17,000 sets of ear muffs.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

While the Irish Defense Forces are probably under-paid and under-funded it is laughable to suggest they are putting their lives at risk for this country on a daily basis. It is statistically one of the safest jobs in the country.


----------



## monagt (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> While the Irish Defense Forces are probably under-paid and under-funded it is laughable to suggest they are putting their lives at risk for this country on a daily basis. It is statistically one of the safest jobs in the country.



Not involved in Defence Forces but from 2015 Stats (Journal.ie Dec 29th 2015)

"The Defence Forces has released its stats for army operations over the past year, revealing the explosive ordnance disposal team were called out 145 times.
Bomb disposal comes under the army’s remit for providing aid to civil powers. 
Other examples from this year include:

130 prisoner escorts
11 explosives escorts
260 personnel were involved in the security operation for the royal visit in May"
Then there is: http://www.military.ie/overseas/    where they are in harms way + the Med rescue + Sea Rescue

There is probably more but they are the last line of Gov Support if Civil authorities overwhelmed.

Maybe there is more


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

I'm not saying they don't do anything but I think 2011 was the last time one was killed in a weapons exchange (I think it was a round from a Israeli artillery piece)?  Since the 1960's the most common cause of death while on duty has been car crash. Fishing, farming and construction are much more dangerous occupations.


----------



## SMAEL17 (4 Oct 2017)

Bomb disposal is the only truly risky operation, and even at that I'm sure that most callouts were to science rooms in schools, and bomb disposal is probably only a handful of army personnel.

I see the Irish Army as grown men playing around in the hills, spinning up and down the road, playing with old guns in the Curragh, jumping out of planes pretending to be training in case we have to invade a country in 1950, and generally enjoying walking around in the uniform. Every now and then they have to work for a few months in a row.

This is what they signed up for and this is what they're getting - Stop complaining and get on with it, or leave.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

SMAEL17 said:


> Bomb disposal is the only truly risky operation, and even at that I'm sure that most callouts were to science rooms in schools, and bomb disposal is probably only a handful of army personnel.
> 
> I see the Irish Army as grown men playing around in the hills, spinning up and down the road, playing with old guns in the Curragh, jumping out of planes pretending to be training in case we have to invade a country in 1950, and generally enjoying walking around in the uniform. Every now and then they have to work for a few months in a row.
> 
> This is what they signed up for and this is what they're getting - Stop complaining and get on with it, or leave.


There is an issue with retention in areas like military intelligence. Personally I think we should have a Coast Guard rather than a Navy (and we'd get EU funding for that). The Air Corp could be part of that so no need for a Army Air Corp. We should have a State Intelligence Service which would be make up of some current members of the Gardai, the Army and possibly the Department of Justice. The Ranger Wing could be under their control. 
If a country like Costa Rica, the same size as us but sandwiched between some unstable neighbours, can get by without an Army I don't see why we need one. The heart says yes, the head says no.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> The heart says yes, the head says no.



I am not sure which you mean by the heart and the head.

Logically I agree that the army should be abolished with a transfer of some elements as you outline. 

Emotionally, I would be proud of the country if we had the courage to forgo the illusory safety of a "defence" force. It would put us in a much stronger position to suggest that other countries should reduce their arms spending.


----------



## Itchy (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Are you serious or is that a joke ? No one has systematically exploited the Irish taxpayer more effectively than members of the defence forces.



I think that is an exceptionally unfair and disingenuous comment. I think any fair minded person would agree that your claim is wholly untrue and lacks any credible evidence. Comments from a Minister in the Dail without the context are just that. In the case of Army Deafness, there was significant lapse in the provision of safety equipment that resulted in widespread damages. All awards were made by the judiciary or settlements by the State Claims Agency. If there was false claims, your issues is with them. To suggest that there was an organisational wide effort to systematically exploit the taxpayer is just simply wrong. 

The thread is about pay and your misunderstanding of the facts behind a news article, lets not descend into wild conspiracy theories.



cremeegg said:


> Can you provide some examples please. Of risk in a military sense. Beyond the everyday risk we all face from the usual hazards, traffic accidents, crime etc. Beyond the risk inherent in the wrong type of ear muffs. Of risk faced for the country.



Again, the thread is about pay. There is no answer to this line of questioning. There is no equating risk (in the security sense) to reward in the PS, so what has this got to do with anything? How much risk do you think is satisfactory? Where do they need to go to justify what you think they are worth? This is not how policy is made. If you google your own question you may be able to satisfy your thirst. For further reading you might be interested in this book by Lt. Col. Dan Harvey http://irishacademicpress.ie/product/into-action-irish-peacekeepers-under-fire-1960-2014/




michaelm said:


> Me neither.  Irish Defence Forces are underfunded and often sent on misadventures by overeager ministers.  As we're non-aligned we shouldn't be wearing EUFOR hats abroad (only UN).  Continued use of Lariam is another black mark.  Morale must be terrible.  The pay is poor and should be improved.



Whatever your views on security policy, the underlying point is highlighted here. The DF do what they are told to do by the Gov. They do not choose to go to particular places, they do not choose to take Lariam, they are TOLD to. Having that absolute power and control requires you to exercise it responsibly and in the area of pay, the Dept. are currently, systematically exploiting every single member of the DF.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


> Not involved in Defence Forces but from 2015 Stats (Journal.ie Dec 29th 2015)
> 
> "The Defence Forces has released its stats for army operations over the past year, revealing the explosive ordnance disposal team were called out 145 times.
> Bomb disposal comes under the army’s remit for providing aid to civil powers.
> ...



This has to be a wind-up.

A bit of craic when some farmer finds an old grenade.

Escorting some yahoo to prison or a container of fertiliser to the train station.

And watching whilst MI5/MI6 etc guard the British Royal Family.

The Irish Armed Forces would be up there with the Qatari Blue Movie Appreciation Society in terms of relevance.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> No one has systematically exploited the Irish taxpayer more effectively than members of the defence forces.






Itchy said:


> I think that is an exceptionally unfair and disingenuous comment. I think any fair minded person would agree that your claim is wholly untrue and lacks any credible evidence.



I think my comment is very reasonable and supported by the evidence I have quoted. You disagree, but you have quoted no evidence to support your opinion.




Itchy said:


> Again, the thread is about pay. There is no answer to this line of questioning. There is no equating risk (in the security sense) to reward in the PS, so what has this got to do with anything?



I would completely agree with you here. My comments deriding the risks faced by the Irish Defence Forces were in response to a poster who seems to think that they run great risk on a nightly basis. This is of course not relevant as you suggest, and is a distraction from the question of pay, and a 28.5% pay rise.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> A bit of craic when some farmer finds an old grenade.


 The Irish Army actually has a really good reputation internationally for bomb disposal. The IRA gave them plenty of practice and the drug dealers are keeping them fresh.


----------



## monagt (4 Oct 2017)

IMHO the army is like Fire Insurance, you need it & don't want to have to use it


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


> IMHO the army is like Fire Insurance, you need it & don't want to have to use it



There is another similarity with insurance. You run the risk that when you do need it you discover that it won't protect you.


----------



## monagt (4 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> This has to be a wind-up.
> A bit of craic when some farmer finds an old grenade.
> Escorting some yahoo to prison or a container of fertiliser to the train station.
> And watching whilst MI5/MI6 etc guard the British Royal Family.
> The Irish Armed Forces would be up there with the Qatari Blue Movie Appreciation Society in terms of relevance.



I do not agree with that, they guard vital Installations, Airports, including the Houses of the Oireachtas, provide security to money convoys, etc.


----------



## Jim2007 (4 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> You make it sound like we live in Somalia, rather than a neutral republic in Western Europe.



Everyday the navy contacts boardings.  You do not know what is awaiting you when you do - illegal fishing, usually not a big deal, unless someone decides to be stupid and tries to prevent you from boarding, drugs etc... then you may very well encounter people carrying arms.


----------



## Itchy (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Emotionally, I would be proud of the country if we had the courage to forgo the illusory safety of a "defence" force. It would put us in a much stronger position to suggest that other countries should reduce their arms spending.



Your real issue seems to be with Irish security policy. No need to denigrate the people who enact current policy.

I personally don't understand the hate towards the organisation.

There are two factors here; making policy and enacting policy. Having no credible air defence capability is Gov policy. It is not the DF fault that resources are supplied elsewhere for other tasks. The fact that there are Armed Guards on watchtowers in Portlaoise Prison is Gov policy. The efficacy of Gov Policy should not be used to bash the service implementing the policy. Now if those Guards are asleep on the watchtowers that is a DF issue and you can comment on how useless or otherwise our DF are.

When they are tasked, they do the best job they can with what they have, same as nurses, AGS, Fire service etc. Except the one difference with those services is that they are not subject to the Defence Act. The Gov is exploiting members in terms of pay & conditions because they can. It is FLASE to take the line of the OP.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

Itchy said:


> Your real issue seems to be with Irish security policy.



What security policy ?



Itchy said:


> No need to denigrate the people who enact current policy.



I was denigrating those who successfully sued state for €300 million, for largely illusory suffering.



Itchy said:


> I personally don't understand the hate towards the organisation.



I don't hate the organisation. I have nothing but contempt for the individuals who saw an opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and exploited it as far as possible.



Itchy said:


> There are two factors here; making policy and enacting policy. Having no credible air defence capability is Gov policy.



We have no credible security policy full stop. Nor perhaps do we need one. We are fortunate in the relative lack of threat to our military security.



Itchy said:


> The Gov is exploiting members in terms of pay & conditions because they can. It is FLASE to take the line of the OP.



By giving them a 28.5% pay rise. You cannot seriously think that is exploitation.


----------



## Itchy (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I was denigrating those who successfully sued state for €300 million, for largely illusory suffering.
> 
> I don't hate the organisation. I have nothing but contempt for the individuals who saw an opportunity to enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and exploited it as far as possible.



The courts didnt think it was illusory at the time and awarded the money. Then it evolved into a class action. It was twenty years ago. 




cremeegg said:


> We have no credible security policy full stop. Nor perhaps do we need one. We are fortunate in the relative lack of threat to our military security.



Well thanks for your security assessment, hopefully the Minister for Defence is reading this. If the situation is as you say, perhaps then there is a case to give full TU status to the DF Representative associations, the full application of the working time directive, overtime, removal of the restriction on the right to strike, full access to the Labour Court and WRC. 



cremeegg said:


> By giving them a 28.5% pay rise.



There's no 28.5%. There is the LRA.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2017)

Itchy said:


> Well thanks for your security assessment, hopefully the Minister for Defence is reading this. If the situation is as you say, perhaps then there is a case to give full TU status to the DF Representative associations, the full application of the working time directive, overtime, removal of the restriction on the right to strike, full access to the Labour Court and WRC.



Yes just before they are all made redundant.



Itchy said:


> There's no 28.5%. There is the LRA.



Perhaps not. You can to believe whatever you wish, irrespective of the evidence, The Irish Times reported this morning that a 3 star private is getting a raise from €21,000 to €27,000. You can believe that is not a 28% pay rise if you if you wish.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The Irish Times reported this morning that a 3 star private is getting a raise from €21,000 to €27,000. You can believe that is not a 28% pay rise if you if you wish.


 It's not a great rate of pay though, is it... but then again they must retire after 21 years service. NCO's and officers can serve for longer if they wish. They get their pension from the age of 50. What's that worth?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


> I do not agree with that, they guard vital Installations, Airports, including the Houses of the Oireachtas, provide security to money convoys, etc.



Like many people, I travel a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army at Dublin Airport.

And like many people, I walk around Dublin a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army outside the Dail etc (where there are Gardai).

The money conveys are paid for by the banks as I understand it.


----------



## Itchy (4 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Perhaps not. You can to believe whatever you wish, irrespective of the evidence, The Irish Times reported this morning that a 3 star private is getting a raise from €21,000 to €27,000. You can believe that is not a 28% pay rise if you if you wish.



I'm not disputing the maths, I'm disputing the claim. But unfortunately it seems like you wont believe it until its published in the IT.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> While the Irish Defense Forces are probably under-paid and under-fundued it is laughable to suggest they are putting their lives at risk for this country on a daily basis. It is statistically one of the safest jobs in the country.



If I may, I think the point may be that they are preparing, or prepared to, put their lives at risk for the sake of the country when called upon.
No-one knows when or if that will ever occur, but history tells us, it probably will at some point.
Last point, soldiers traveling to war-torn areas as UN peace-keepers are putting their lives out there and front.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jadotville

Regardless of the outcome, they put themselves forward to the job most of us wouldn't dream of (after the age 14 when we understood that war is crap).

But they do it, and they should be appropriately remunerated. Just as long as it doesn't use up 50% of the tax take.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Like many people, I travel a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army at Dublin Airport.
> 
> And like many people, I walk around Dublin a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army outside the Dail etc (where there are Gardai).
> 
> The money conveys are paid for by the banks as I understand it.



Why do you want to see the army so much? Is it the uniform?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (4 Oct 2017)

TheBigShort said:


> Why do you want to see the army so much? Is it the uniform?



I think that your condition is known as "psychological projection".


----------



## Itchy (4 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Like many people, I travel a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army at Dublin Airport.
> 
> And like many people, I walk around Dublin a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army outside the Dail etc (where there are Gardai).
> 
> The money conveys are paid for by the banks as I understand it.



Gordon, again with regard to pay this is a nonsensical argument.  I regularly walk the streets of Dublin and I don't see the Garda National Surveillance Unit, I dont see Garda Motorcycle Escort bikes driving around?? So what? If you spend any time in Portlaoise Prison you will see them. Pop by around dinner time on Christmas Day and I guarantee you will see them.

This narrative that they dont do anything for me in my everyday life is ridiculous and disingenuous. The security of the state and its citizens has to be paramount otherwise everything else is for nought. The reality is they are out there doing the job assigned to them. Now if they are deployed or employed incorrectly that is a Government decision but when they are deployed to do a task they do it well.

I just dont think its right that over 200 DF families are on Family Income Supplement. I dont think that its right, that the right to take any action and stand up for yourself is denied to them and then exploited to such an extent that the wives and partners have to club together to make any kind of noise about it. I dont think its right that the DF are excluded from a public sector pay discussions and deals are done with other more militant unions in order to get one over the DF.



Purple said:


> While the Irish Defense Forces are probably under-paid and under-funded it is laughable to suggest they are putting their lives at risk for this country on a daily basis.



The only thing thats laughable is the brazenness with which you can sit behind your computer and type that uninformed comment safe in the knowledge that its somebody else's son or daughter next. Utterly shameful.


----------



## Leper (5 Oct 2017)

Great! Close down the army and while we're at it sell whatever ships our navy has and pawn them off at a few hundred thousand euro less than they are worth again and what do we need our Air Corps for so close down Baldonnel and build houses there. The FCA will protect dear old Ireland and how we will all sleep more soundly in Ireland. We don't miss the army until we need it. If my memory serves me right the army provided protection for road money transfers within our banking system at the expense of the taxpayer. Our post-offices were occupied by our army back in the 1970's when the IRA were robbing us for their payments to arms dealers and also to finance their beliefs that they could bomb the north into a united Ireland.

Let's take the issue of hearing damage and the compensation claims. These claims were small compared to the average weekly litigation payout of each Maternity Consultant to upstanding women and men of Ireland. Our Defence Forces are getting a raise in their wages in excess of 20%. But, 20% of a small amount will still be a small amount.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

Itchy said:


> The only thing thats laughable is the brazenness with which you can sit behind your computer and type that uninformed comment safe in the knowledge that its somebody else's son or daughter next. Utterly shameful.


 Next? How many Irish troops have been killed in combat in the last 50 years? The people who build houses are more at risk. I'm not saying they are well paid. I'm not saying that they are unskilled. I'm not saying they don't do a good job. I am saying that the argument that they are putting their lives at rick for the security of the State is, by any realistic empirical measure, nonsense.



Leper said:


> Great! Close down the army and while we're at it sell whatever ships our navy has and pawn them off at a few hundred thousand euro less than they are worth again and what do we need our Air Corps for so close down Baldonnel and build houses there. The FCA will protect dear old Ireland and how we will all sleep more soundly in Ireland.


You're a great man for the hyperbole Leper!  
In most countries a Coast Guard does what our Navy does. and locked Switzerland and Austria have bigger Navy's than us. Our army is no realistic deterrent from attack by any force which would realistically attack us. Why do we have it? What is it for?
As I said, my heart says yes; they have distinguished themselves all over the world with the UN, but my head says no; we could carry out the same State security function better by integrating them into the police and a State intelligence service.


----------



## monagt (5 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Like many people, I travel a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army at Dublin Airport. And like many people, I walk around Dublin a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army outside the Dail etc (where there are Gardai). The money conveys are paid for by the banks as I understand it.





Gordon Gekko said:


> Like many people, I travel a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army at Dublin Airport.
> And like many people, I walk around Dublin a reasonable amount and I've never seen the army outside the Dail etc (where there are Gardai).
> The money conveys are paid for by the banks as I understand it.



Airport - Yes, you would not have seen them
Dail - Yes,  you would not have seen them.
Money Convoys - Yes would not have seen them, you probably have seen normal cash transfers


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


> Airport - Yes, you would not have seen them
> Dail - Yes,  you would not have seen them.
> Money Convoys - Yes would not have seen them, you probably have seen normal cash transfers


Are you sure they are at the Airport? I was told by someone working there that they are not on site as a matter of course.


----------



## monagt (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Next? How many Irish troops have been killed in combat in the last 50 years? The people who build houses are more at risk. I'm not saying they are well paid. I'm not saying that they are unskilled. I'm not saying they don't do a good job. I am saying that the argument that they are putting their lives at rick for the security of the State is, by any realistic empirical measure, nonsense.
> 
> You're a great man for the hyperbole Leper!
> In most countries a Coast Guard does what our Navy does. and locked Switzerland and Austria have bigger Navy's than us. Our army is no realistic deterrent from attack by any force which would realistically attack us. Why do we have it? What is it for?
> As I said, my heart says yes; they have distinguished themselves all over the world with the UN, but my head says no; we could carry out the same State security function better by integrating them into the police and a State intelligence service.



Combat killed/realistic deterrent........ This is a hard one to answer so I will leave it.
The people who build houses are more at risk - no builder is ever asked to deliberately put themselves in harm's way.

They exist as an arm of the state and to support civil authorities when needed.

The Police are a civil force.......... different in many ways from an Army, different training, different attitudes to situations.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

Yet another sacred cow in this great country of ours.

The reality is Texas Hold'em in the barracks and pints in Blackbird/The Rathmines Inn.

But the apologists would have us believe that they're fighting Al Qaeda in the Afghani caves.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


> Combat killed/realistic deterrent........ This is a hard one to answer so I will leave it.


 It's not a hard one to answer. There have been less than half a dozen. 


monagt said:


> The people who build houses are more at risk - no builder is ever asked to deliberately put themselves in harm's way.


So what? Gardai are, Fire crews are, Coast Guards are. They are far more likely to be injured or die in the line of duty. 



monagt said:


> They exist as an arm of the state and to support civil authorities when needed.


 Yes. So what?



monagt said:


> The Police are a civil force.......... different in many ways from an Army, different training, different attitudes to situations.


 Agreed. Again, so what?


----------



## monagt (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Are you sure they are at the Airport? I was told by someone working there that they are not on site as a matter of course.



Maybe in modern communication & travel times they have been moved away though I doubt it. 
The 7/24/365 Ranger Wing in the Curragh is only 12 mins away and I am sure there are more based in Dublin.


----------



## monagt (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> It's not a hard one to answer. There have been less than half a dozen.
> So what? Gardai are, Fire crews are, Coast Guards are. They are far more likely to be injured or die in the line of duty.
> Yes. So what?
> Agreed. Again, so what?


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


>


Use your words.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (5 Oct 2017)

In order to foster Irish/Emariti relations, perhaps the Army could undertake a cultural exchange programme with the Abu Dhabi Indigenous Blue Movie Appreciation Society?

They might get ideas on how to fill their day and where to put all their money...


----------



## monagt (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Use your words.



Nah - I'm speechless


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2017)

Leper said:


> Let's take the issue of hearing damage and the compensation claims. These claims were small compared to the average weekly litigation payout of each Maternity Consultant to upstanding women and men of Ireland.



Is this true or did you just make it up ? I consider it most unlikely to be true, but I am open to becoming better informed, if of course you didn't just make it up.

The army deafness debacle cost the taxpayer in excess of €300m http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/army-deafness-saga-finally-nears-an-end-26625717.html.

I have no idea what the average weekly litigation payout of each maternity Consultant is.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Is this true or did you just make it up ? I consider it most unlikely to be true, but I am open to becoming better informed, if of course you didn't just make it up.
> 
> The army deafness debacle cost the taxpayer in excess of €300m http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/army-deafness-saga-finally-nears-an-end-26625717.html.
> 
> I have no idea what the average weekly litigation payout of each maternity Consultant is.


If Leper is right then it's over €300 million or €15.6 billion a year. Jasus lads, that's where all the money is going! Let's sort that one out and problem solved for Ireland Inc.!


----------



## AlbacoreA (5 Oct 2017)

> The most recent figures given by Mr O'Dea to Fine Gael's Jim O'Keeffe also reveal that 10 solicitors' firms earned more than €1.8m from the legal saga with Patrick V Boland and Son of Newbridge, Co Kildare, earning a grand total of €16.2m.
> 
> One of the legal beneficiaries is the current chairman of the Planning and Payments Tribunal, Alan Mahon, who acted as a barrister in a large number of the claims lodged before he was appointed to the tribunal in 2002.
> 
> ...



Legal costs a third of the money.


----------



## AlbacoreA (5 Oct 2017)

Obviously we need some level of Defense force. The point is that conditions are poor and they can't retain staff. 



> Despite accelerated recruitment the combined strength of the Army, Naval Service and Air Corps is just over 9,100 instead of the desired establishment strength of 9,500.
> 
> In the past three years over 12pc of officers - lieutenant, captain and commandant ranks - have left the organisation, taking with them essential skill sets which, on average, require between two and five years to develo



http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ps-are-effectively-working-9to5-35544502.html

The numbers don't look that bad to me. It seems the issue is in the specific specialist roles that are leaving.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

AlbacoreA said:


> It seems the issue is in the specific specialist roles that are leaving.


 Yes, and if we have defense forces we should at least make sure that they are fit for purpose for the real threats that we face. We are not going to be invaded but we do need a strong intelligence and counter-terrorist service (though personally I'd rather see that as a entity in itself taking some of the duties of the Gardai and the army).


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2017)

I have always thought Tolstoy had it right on armies. From War and Peace.

_“According to the biblical tradition the absence of work -- idleness -- was a condition of the first man's state of blessedness before the Fall. The love of idleness has been preserved in fallen man, but now a heavy curse lies upon him, not only because we have to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow, but also because our sense of morality will not allow us to be both idle and at ease. Whenever we are idle a secret voice keeps telling us to feel guilty. If man could discover a state in which he could be idle and still feel useful and on the path of duty, he would have regained one aspect of that primitive state of blessedness. And there is one such state of enforced and irreproachable idleness enjoyed by an entire class of men -- the military class. *It is this state of enforced and irreproachable idleness that forms the chief attraction of military service, and it always will.”*_


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> I have always thought Tolstoy had it right on armies. From War and Peace.
> 
> _“According to the biblical tradition the absence of work -- idleness -- was a condition of the first man's state of blessedness before the Fall. The love of idleness has been preserved in fallen man, but now a heavy curse lies upon him, not only because we have to earn our bread by the sweat of our brow, but also because our sense of morality will not allow us to be both idle and at ease. Whenever we are idle a secret voice keeps telling us to feel guilty. If man could discover a state in which he could be idle and still feel useful and on the path of duty, he would have regained one aspect of that primitive state of blessedness. And there is one such state of enforced and irreproachable idleness enjoyed by an entire class of men -- the military class. *It is this state of enforced and irreproachable idleness that forms the chief attraction of military service, and it always will.”*_


If you didn't have to look that up then I'm very impressed!


----------



## Itchy (5 Oct 2017)

Purple said:


> Next? How many Irish troops have been killed in combat in the last 50 years? The people who build houses are more at risk. I'm not saying they are well paid. I'm not saying that they are unskilled. I'm not saying they don't do a good job. I am saying that the argument that they are putting their lives at rick for the security of the State is, by any realistic empirical measure, nonsense.



What does it matter how many are killed in Combat? How many people need to die and in what circumstance that will justify their worth to you? And what has it got to do with justifying fair treatment in the negotiation of pay? 

In 2003 Sgt. Derek Mooney (a member of the Army Ranger Wing) died in a road crash when his vehicle overturned in Liberia due to bad roads. Some time later, following the accident the ARW conducted an operation to rescue 35 hostages who were being beaten and raped by Government of Liberia forces. So if he had died in alternate circumstances he would have earned some respect? How would you have liked him to die? Give me a break. He was there, doing the job he signed up for and lost his life for it. 

Empirical evidence (All of this is meaningless in the pay discussion, but just to indulge the free flowing arrogance):

The DF and the Gardai have been in existence roughly the same length of time, since the foundation of the state. The Garda Roll of Honour has 88 names on it with Garda Tony Golden being the latest and the first entry being made in 1922. The DF Roll of Honour has 86 names on it, with the first name entered on it in 1960. So statistically, the DF have lost the same amount of people in the half the time, so you could say its twice as dangerous as being a Garda. 

The UN mission in Lebanon has been in existence for 39 years. In that time there have been over 250 fatalities. 47 Irish families have lost a loved one, more than any other nation that has contributed. That is 19% of all fatalities. Ireland contribute over 300 of the 9000 troops to that mission or 3% of all troops. A disproportionate price? On average the mission in UNIFIL loses 6.4 soldiers per year (this is just the average, most events have multiple casualties). Ireland should suffer 19% of those so Ireland is due to lose 1.2 soldiers per year on average. So if you are one of the 600 who visit Lebanon each year??

None of this matters other than in the context of a know nothing spouting ill-informed, generic "empirical" evidence. None of it matters when you're the one standing in body armour, helmet holding your rifle, listening to the Israeli drone flying overhead and staring the Israeli tank pointing its barrel across the fence. "Thank god im not on the farm, all those accidents"...

No one is saying it Afghanistan. No one is saying its South Sudan. But because its not - you think you have a right to denigrate, minimise, belittle and begrudge families who have given more in the service of the state than we could ask of anyone. Everyone who signs up knows the risks. Everyone knows what could happen. But they still do it. Some of the crew members of R116 were ex-DF. They could have left the DF and been bus drivers or do the taxis but they didnt. They came from a culture of service, of something bigger than themselves.


----------



## cremeegg (5 Oct 2017)

Itchy said:


> Empirical evidence (All of this is meaningless in the pay discussion,



Agreed, why do you keep bringing it up?



Itchy said:


> you think you have a right to denigrate, minimise, belittle and begrudge families



Excuse me. I have certainly denigrated the army deafness claims. Beyond that I have no idea where this comes from.



Itchy said:


> Everyone who signs up knows the risks. Everyone knows what could happen. But they still do it.



So why are you moaning on their behalf.



Itchy said:


> They came from a culture of service, of something bigger than themselves.



Do they really? I think that the come from a culture of marching about in uniforms, playing with guns, and most of all a deep seated need to follow orders. But hey thats just my opinion.


----------



## Purple (5 Oct 2017)

Itchy, this seems to be very personal for you or else you are getting your knickers in a twist about a reasonable innocuous discussion. 



Itchy said:


> you think you have a right to denigrate, minimise, belittle and begrudge families who have given more in the service of the state than we could ask of anyone


 
I'm not denigrating anyone. I'm pointing out the hyperbole and Bull that is "spouted" about the realistic risks faced by our armed forces. 
It is ironic that you are so scathing of empirical evidence and then so grossly misuse it in your own post. The Irish Army suffered some heavy losses in the 60's in the Congo. Using those losses to exaggerate the risks faced by currently serving members is will, not good.


----------



## Itchy (6 Oct 2017)

Purple, firstly I think you have misinterpreted my post and, secondly, its innocuous to you but there is actually a serious discussion to be had around these issues. Unfortunately, the level of discussion has descended into the comments thread on thejournal or a politics.ie thread, we even have some Tolstoy poetry. 

Its important for people to have a real and solid discussion around security issues and while its very difficult to change some peoples perception bias, I personally hope that there are some readers of the thread that will recognise some of the inane arguments used to do down what is, if you actually see the wood for the trees, is a good, quality and effective organisation that is being damaged and I think we will have to pay for it in the long run. I think the pay issue is a large contributor to that and the information presented by the OP is not in context so its no harm pointing that out even though the real motivation was to look for a cheap cut off them. Conor Lally is an excellent security analyst, I would really recommend you read his stuff for some knowledge in this area. Hes not a frequent IR analyst though. 

Its an internet forum after all, if you cant call out a few talking heads whats the point?!


----------



## cremeegg (6 Oct 2017)

Itchy said:


> Unfortunately, the level of discussion has descended into the comments thread on thejournal or a politics.ie thread, we even have some Tolstoy poetry.



The quote was from Leo Tolstoy the novelist. The poet was Aleksey, his cousin.



Itchy said:


> Its important for people to have a real and solid discussion around security issues



Sure. Why not start your own thread about security issues. I started this one about defence forces pay.



Itchy said:


> a good, quality and effective organisation



Have you any evidence or argument to support this or is it just a "perception bias"



Itchy said:


> we will have to pay for it in the long run.



I am sure you are right there.



Itchy said:


> real motivation was to look for a cheap cut off them.



Taxpayers will have to fork out for a 28.5% pay rise, so hardly cheap



Itchy said:


> Its an internet forum after all, if you cant call out a few talking heads whats the point?!



Well if you can't argue your corner like the rest of us, what indeed is the point.


----------



## monagt (6 Oct 2017)

Does anyone on this thread earn €21k or less and on fixed term contract?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


> Does anyone on this thread earn €21k or less and on fixed term contract?



I did once...


----------



## monagt (6 Oct 2017)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I did once...


On a fixed term contract?
I believe that the contract may not be renewed after the 5 or 8 years (Don't know actual durations) unlike other public service.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (6 Oct 2017)

monagt said:


> On a fixed term contract?
> I believe that the contract may not be renewed after the 5 or 8 years (Don't know actual durations) unlike other public service.



Yes; I was on a 3.5 year fixed term contract and paid buttons when I was a trainee chartered accountant.


----------



## Itchy (6 Oct 2017)

cremeegg said:


> The quote was from Leo Tolstoy the novelist. The poet was Aleksey, his cousin.



The way you used it was poetic!



cremeegg said:


> Sure. Why not start your own thread about security issues. I started this one about defence forces pay.



Pay IS a security issue. That's why the Guards got their way. I just don't think thats what the DF should have to do but there does not seem to be any other way that works?



cremeegg said:


> Have you any evidence or argument to support this or is it just a "perception bias"



I'll see if I can dig up an IT headline for you



cremeegg said:


> I am sure you are right there.



I think so



cremeegg said:


> Taxpayers will have to fork out for a 28.5% pay rise, so hardly cheap



Its a bargain for the taxpayer! Credit to DPER where its due.

Isn't it interesting that every other PS union are happy the fact that the DF are getting 28.5%? I mean they haven't even used it as leverage to increase their own take. Their members must be in awe of the top class representation of PDFORRA. 



cremeegg said:


> Well if you can't argue your corner like the rest of us, what indeed is the point.



Tolstoy isn't an argument!


----------



## cremeegg (5 Dec 2017)

Some good news at last from the defence forces. From a recent Irish Independent report

_PDFORRA revealed today that some 2,840 members left the Defence Forces in the last five years – that’s over 30% of the total enlisted personnel.

Over 1,000 members purchased their discharge – paying a sum of €300 – in those five years, the association said._

Men being forced into soldering to earn a living is as distressing as women being forced into prostitution. It is wonderful to see that the improving economic situation is allowing so many to escape.


----------



## Purple (5 Dec 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Men being forced into soldering to earn a living is as distressing as women being forced into prostitution. It is wonderful to see that the improving economic situation is allowing so many to escape.


LOL 

We need to look at the our defense and security needs as a country. That includes a "Home Office" style department which looks after policing and prisons and a intelligence service which reports to the department of the Taoiseach. I see no need for a conventional army, a proper Civil Defense would make more sense and I certainly see no need for a Navy; a Coast Guard would make much more sense and would be eligible for EU funding.


----------



## cremeegg (20 Dec 2017)

Purple said:


> We need to look at the our defense and security needs as a country.



Absolutely.



Purple said:


> I see no need for a conventional army, a proper Civil Defense would make more sense and I certainly see no need for a Navy; a Coast Guard would make much more sense and would be eligible for EU funding.



Agreed absolutely.

It is nice (not) to see that Leo has done the exact opposite.

Ireland has joined Pesco, the EUs new mini-nato, without any discussion and committing to increased defence expenditure. The really depressing thing is that FF are behind him on this.


----------



## Itchy (20 Dec 2017)

cremeegg said:


> Agreed absolutely.



The adults have a different opinion obviously.

PESCO will be an excellent opportunity for our DF for capability development and allow Ireland to contribute and participate in R&D, in line with its interests. Some of the initial projects that Ireland will be involved in will be Cyber security, Maritime surveillance, EU Military Training and disaster relief. Ireland cannot be compelled to cooperate in any area under PESCO. If Ireland wishes to participate in any area, it will notify the Council of the EU who will vote to approve us joining. Once we join we will have binding obligations to meet the terms of that particular area. If Ireland would like to withdraw from a particular project, they notify the Council of the EU and they vote to approve. Our Security and Defence policy will drive our participation not the other way around. Its an enhaced cooperation measure like any other (EMU, Schengen etc.). I havent seen anywhere that our Defence spending will increase as a result of this measure. Certainly, the 3 year spending forecast through 2019 published by DPER shows a flat projection of defence spending (€847m), in real terms a decrease.

While a positive move for Ireland, any investment made cannot be capitalised on in the current environment of self-defeating and culturally ruinous HR policies. That is the real waste of resources.

Maybe the new EU army will offer minimum wage?


----------



## Purple (20 Dec 2017)

Itchy said:


> The adults have a different opinion obviously.


Now now, no need to be rude.



Itchy said:


> PESCO will be an excellent opportunity for our DF for capability development and allow Ireland to contribute and participate in R&D, in line with its interests. Some of the initial projects that Ireland will be involved in will be Cyber security, Maritime surveillance, EU Military Training and disaster relief. Ireland cannot be compelled to cooperate in any area under PESCO. If Ireland wishes to participate in any area, it will notify the Council of the EU who will vote to approve us joining. Once we join we will have binding obligations to meet the terms of that particular area. If Ireland would like to withdraw from a particular project, they notify the Council of the EU and they vote to approve. Our Security and Defence policy will drive our participation not the other way around. Its an enhaced cooperation measure like any other (EMU, Schengen etc.). I havent seen anywhere that our Defence spending will increase as a result of this measure. Certainly, the 3 year spending forecast through 2019 published by DPER shows a flat projection of defence spending (€847m), in real terms a decrease.


 I agree, though I'd question what R&D we can offer but if we have an Army it should engage with our neighbours. 



Itchy said:


> While a positive move for Ireland, any investment made cannot be capitalised on in the current environment of self-defeating and culturally ruinous HR policies. That is the real waste of resources.


 It is a real waste of resources. I'm still of the opinion we should get rid of it but if we want an Army it should be a proper one.



Itchy said:


> Maybe the new EU army will offer minimum wage?


 The basic salary for a private (excluding allowances, pension and perks) is €410 a week or €10.50 an hour based on a 39 hour week so I don't think they would like to take a pay cut.


----------



## Leo (21 Dec 2017)

Purple said:


> though I'd question what R&D we can offer



A few Irish companies already operate in this space, with some contracting directly to the US military for R&D in ares such as software, bio-tech, optics, X-Ray and medical devices.


----------



## Purple (21 Dec 2017)

Leo said:


> A few Irish companies already operate in this space, with some contracting directly to the US military for R&D in ares such as software, bio-tech, optics, X-Ray and medical devices.


Yes, I'm aware of that, but I don't see too much scope for Ireland to get involved with communal projects considering how many other EU countries have significant defense sectors (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Holland, Germany etc.).


----------



## Leo (21 Dec 2017)

Purple said:


> Yes, I'm aware of that, but I don't see too much scope for Ireland to get involved with communal projects considering how many other EU countries have significant defense sectors (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Holland, Germany etc.).



Ah yeah, we're a long way off participating in the likes of Euro fighter projects, but more access to even smaller components of such projects would be welcome.


----------



## Itchy (21 Dec 2017)

Purple said:


> It is a real waste of resources. I'm still of the opinion we should get rid of it but if we want an Army it should be a proper one.



Exactly and it goes for any public good. If we get rid, it has to be based on sound reasoning because it cannot be restored easily. If we keep, it has to be resourced to achieve what it is tasked to do. 

In my view, the value and worth we have for our society is reflected by how we treat the weakest in it. Similarly, the value and worth we have for our democracy is reflected by how we treat those we task to protect it.



Purple said:


> The basic salary for a private (excluding allowances, pension and perks) is €410 a week or €10.50 an hour based on a 39 hour week so I don't think they would like to take a pay cut.



Assumption => "39 hour week"



Purple said:


> Yes, I'm aware of that, but I don't see too much scope for Ireland to get involved with communal projects considering how many other EU countries have significant defense sectors (France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Holland, Germany etc.).





Leo said:


> Ah yeah, we're a long way off participating in the likes of Euro fighter projects, but more access to even smaller components of such projects would be welcome.



Not necessarily. Any larger scale manufacturer has tiered levels of suppliers e.g. Airbus don't manufacture the aircraft's weather radar or the nose cone it goes in but they do attach it to the aircraft. So we will never have a "defence industry" but Irish-owned, dual-use technology can be valuable.  Timoney based in Navan currently manufacture suspension systems and do R&D in the land systems category. We have R&D and manufacturing technology in the field of Aircraft composites in the west of Ireland while there is maritime R&D going on in Cork and a shipbuilding company SafeHaven Marine operating in this space. Not to mention cyber security, medical training etc. There is huge potential for high-value added work to come to Ireland, as a result of our involvement in this programme.  Thats just the commercial element of it.


----------



## Purple (2 Jan 2018)

Itchy said:


> Assumption => "39 hour week"


What's their average working week over a year? I would be very surprised if it's more than 39 hours.



Itchy said:


> Not necessarily. Any larger scale manufacturer has tiered levels of suppliers e.g. Airbus don't manufacture the aircraft's weather radar or the nose cone it goes in but they do attach it to the aircraft. So we will never have a "defence industry" but Irish-owned, dual-use technology can be valuable. Timoney based in Navan currently manufacture suspension systems and do R&D in the land systems category. We have R&D and manufacturing technology in the field of Aircraft composites in the west of Ireland while there is maritime R&D going on in Cork and a shipbuilding company SafeHaven Marine operating in this space. Not to mention cyber security, medical training etc. There is huge potential for high-value added work to come to Ireland, as a result of our involvement in this programme. Thats just the commercial element of it.


What extra access will be get? At the moment we are struggling to supply tier 1 and 2 suppliers to the aerospace primes and most of that is in the civilian market. Will this really make a difference?
I know that Timoney do some work in the defense sector but most of their work is in civilian applications. Éire Composites are working away in Galway but again that is mostly civilian applications where, in reality, everything starts with Bombardier in Belfast. I don't know much about SafeHaven Marine other than that they make really cool looking boats.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Sep 2018)

It seems that after taking millions from the taxpayer in the great Army Deafness gravy train, our heroic defenders have a new wheeze.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/hea...iers-blame-drug-for-destroyed-lives-1.3612484

I wonder how much this will cost us.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2018)

cremeegg said:


> It seems that after taking millions from the taxpayer in the great Army Deafness gravy train, our heroic defenders have a new wheeze.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/hea...iers-blame-drug-for-destroyed-lives-1.3612484
> 
> I wonder how much this will cost us.


...and if you complain to the army it just falls on deaf ears.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Sep 2018)

cremeegg said:


> It seems that after taking millions from the taxpayer in the great Army Deafness gravy train, our heroic defenders have a new wheeze.



Yeh, because people who could have protective hearing equipment but weren't given it shouldn't be compensated for loss of hearing through their employers negligence?



cremeegg said:


> I wonder how much this will cost us.



Did you actually read the article? The drug was taken off the market in 2016. Other armed forces around the world stopped administering it. It continues to be given to Irish soldiers abroad. It has links to hallucinations and possibly sucicide.

Whatever it costs the State I doubt if you will need to pay one extra cent. It certainly wont cost anymore than it has cost its victims.


----------



## cremeegg (28 Sep 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Yeh, because people who could have protective hearing equipment but weren't given it shouldn't be compensated for loss of hearing through their employers negligence?



Ah, No ! Thats not what happened.


----------



## TheBigShort (28 Sep 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Ah, No ! Thats not what happened.



Eh, actually it was.
Without wanting to re-hash the whole saga, I suspect your position is of the flood of subsequent claims made on foot of a High Court judgement relating to minor hearing loss which I believe is not objectively measurable?
But the initial case(s) as I recall were for loss of hearing.
In the end, if someone feels they have suffered an injury through negligence of another party they are fully entitled to pursue compensation.
Let the courts decide thereafter.
Id be interested in hearing how much you had to pay out? I didn't pay one cent.


----------



## Jim2007 (28 Sep 2018)

cremeegg said:


> It seems that after taking millions from the taxpayer in the great Army Deafness gravy train, our heroic defenders have a new wheeze.



And what have you ever done for your country that entitles you to criticise them?  They are who are actually willing to die for the country and the likes of you and are just as entitled as one else to claim compensation if the court allows it.


----------



## Itchy (30 Sep 2018)

cremeegg said:


> It seems that after taking millions from the taxpayer in the great Army Deafness gravy train, our heroic defenders have a new wheeze.
> 
> https://www.irishtimes.com/news/hea...iers-blame-drug-for-destroyed-lives-1.3612484
> 
> I wonder how much this will cost us.



Victim blaming at its finest. Pathetic.


----------



## Itchy (1 Oct 2018)

For 2017:

Compensation paid to soldiers €1.7m 
Compensation per soldier employed €185
Comp as a % of total pay 0.4%

Compensation paid to Gardai €6.5m
Compensation per Garda employed €479
Comp as a % of total pay 0.6%

Compensation paid to Prison Officers €1.9m
Comp per PO employed €596
Comp as a % of total pay 0.82%

Cost of compensation paid to prisoners on remand (PoR) €1.5m
Comp per PoR €407

CAG Annual report 2017: Vote 20 Garda, Vote 21 Prisons, Vote 36 Defence


----------



## cremeegg (1 Oct 2018)

Jim2007 said:


> And what have you ever done for your country that entitles you to criticise them?  They are who are actually willing to die for the country and the likes of you and are just as entitled as one else to claim compensation if the court allows it.



Well calling out these obscene greedy chancers is a start


----------



## cremeegg (1 Oct 2018)

Itchy said:


> For 2017:
> 
> Compensation paid to soldiers €1.7m
> Compensation per soldier employed €185
> ...



The Army deafness scam was not perpetrated in 2017. So I don’t see what 2017 figures have to do with anything. But I think you know this and are deliberately trying to mislead.


----------



## cremeegg (1 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I suspect your position is...



As usual you know everyone’s position better than they do themselves.

My position is as set out in the Dail by Michael Smith Minister for Defence at the time.

I will attempt to summarize but please go to the source to see for your self. The link to the Dail record is given post 6 of this thread.

They were given ear protection, they suffered no hearing loss. They were paid tens of thousands each in compensation. Amounting to a bill to the taxpayer in the hundreds of millions.


----------



## cremeegg (1 Oct 2018)

Itchy said:


> Victim blaming at its finest. Pathetic.


The tax payers were the only victims in this whole con.


----------



## cremeegg (1 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Id be interested in hearing how much you had to pay out? I didn't pay one cent.



Well I could look over my tax returns for the years in question if I wanted to know the exact amount.

If you didn’t pay tax at the time, for whatever reason, then you may have avoided making any direct contribution to the scammers. However even non taxpayers suffered from the diversion of public funds to these chancers.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Well calling out these obscene greedy chancers is a start



That you brought this topic back to life on foot of an article that relates to alleged serious and tragic consequences of the administration of medicine, deemed necessary during the course of their duties, to label these soldiers "obscene greedy chancers" only leaves me to conclude that you are an obscene sick puppy.



cremeegg said:


> The Army deafness scam was not perpetrated in 2017. So I don’t see what 2017 figures have to do with anything. But I think you know this and are deliberately trying to mislead.



Says the guy who brought this topic back linked to events not related to army deafness claims.



cremeegg said:


> As usual you know everyone’s position better than they do themselves.



I said "I suspect". That is, I believe or consider to be, without confirmation of the truth or facts.
But im all ears to let me know that you think differently.



cremeegg said:


> They were given ear protection, they suffered no hearing loss. They were paid tens of thousands each in compensation. Amounting to a bill to the taxpayer in the hundreds of millions.



This is again a total misrepresentation. The initial claims were made on foot claims for loss of hearing. Subsequent claims were made on tinnitus (ringing in the ear) which I understand is difficult if not impossible to measure accurately. Meaning it is not easily determined if someone is, or is not suffering, from the condition.
Without wanting to rehash the whole episode, it was established that protective hearing equipment was available but it is disputed the responsibility of administering it was effective or ineffective (not much point in buying protective equipment if no-one takes responsibility to make sure it is used).
If you need anymore read the legal argument.

But back to your latest gripe - the administration of an anti-malarial drug called Lariam. What do you know about it? If anything at all?



cremeegg said:


> The tax payers were the only victims in this whole con.



Soldiers are taxpayers too. What evidence have you got that it was a con? And how does that relate to this recent issue?



cremeegg said:


> Well I could look over my tax returns for the years in question if I wanted to know the exact amount.



What have your tax returns got to do with it? You didn't hand over a single extra cent in tax because of this.
As much as you would like to think that your taxes pay for everything (a common gripe on this site), your individual tax contributions pay for diddly-squat. Maybe a half years salary of one school teacher? Or a years supply of toilet roll for a school?
You certainly didn't pay anything for the army deafness claims.
The total cost was circa €300m and was paid out over ten years, or €30m a year. Considering the tax base of workers, employers, VAT, CT, CGT etc, we are probably talking about 3million tax contributors.  So it probably 'cost' about €10 a year,  or €0.19c per week on average.  But between 1992 and 2002 the country underwent the biggest tax reform ever where taxes on income were being cut, FDI was creating jobs etc, the €300m paid out to soldiers and in legal fees probably ended up in consumption, investments, savings etc. This helping to stimulate the economy further in a time of increasing confidence.
So its actually possible, although it was not on the government agenda, that €300m was simply re-directed into an area that the government didn't account for. But in doing so its possible it helped stimulate the economy by providing much need spending power to low-income workers, indirectly boosting demand and creating jobs.

Its possible you owe the soldiers for taking a stand and pointing out a wrong.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> you are an obscene sick puppy.



 Cheers.



TheBigShort said:


> your individual tax contributions pay for diddly-squat.



Thanks. Again !



TheBigShort said:


> The total cost was circa €300m



So in fact right up there with ppars (just €200m) and the other great public service black holes.



TheBigShort said:


> But back to your latest gripe - the administration of an anti-malarial drug called Lariam. What do you know about it? If anything at all?



Good question.

Lariam was prescribed, ordered, as a malaria preventative, for Irish soldiers, traveling to affected areas.

Now some are suggesting that this caused them to suffer from a variety of general vague illnesses and they are looking for compo.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Now some are suggesting that this caused them to suffer from a variety of general vague illnesses and they are looking for compo.



If this is shown to be true do you not think that they, or their families, are entitled to seek some form of redress?


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2018)

Lariam was prescribed, ordered, (see I am taking your point about the Defence Act on board) as an anti malarial.

Did the hierarchy of the defense forces act on the best medical advice at the time in choosing this drug. Did they make an informed decision based on its anti malarial  properties balanced with the risk of any known side effects. Was this kept under review as new drugs were developed and possible issues with Lariam emerged.

Or did they just keep lashing out the old stuff because they were too lazy or stupid to change when questions arose about possible side effects.

How does our public service operate.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Or did they just keep lashing out the old stuff because they were too lazy or stupid to change when questions arose about possible side effects.



And if they did, and some suffered the possible side effects, leading to commit suicide in some instances, do you think they or their families are entitled to seek some form of redress?


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> And if they did, and some suffered the possible side effects, leading to commit suicide in some instances, do you think they or their families are entitled to seek some form of redress?



Redress from whom, the tax payer ? Let those responsible in the army pay first. Let their pensions be taken before the taxpayer is asked to foot the bill. 

Redress for whom, those who suffered side effects, or just anyone who makes a claim. As in the deafness case where those who suffered no hearing loss received payouts.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Redress from whom, the tax payer ?



From those they perceive to be negligent, namely their employer, the State. Which is funded by the taxpayer. 
Do you think they are entitled to seek some form of redress if they believe that they have suffered as a consequence of negligence or any other malpractice?


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2018)

I've taken Lariam for malaria prevention a number of times. So have quite a few people I know.
Thankfully none of us, of anyone any of us know, has suffered  and adverse effects.
That said it was not for prolonged periods.

If people have become ill due to the negligence of their employer then they deserve compensation. If the employer acted in good faith then I don’t see how they are to blame.


On the broader issue of PPE, if employees are issued with PPE and trained in the use of that PPE but continuously refuses to use it then the employer should not, in my opinion, be responsible for the consequences.


----------



## Ceist Beag (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg I really think you are wrong on this one. The concerns about Lariam have been raised many many times. You should watch the Prime Time episode dedicated to it from a couple of years back. I think those affected are perfectly entitled to pursue this avenue if they feel they have a case.
Would you willingly take Lariam if you were in their position, knowing the concerns that were raised? Would you feel you have a case if you suffered after taking it? And if they are entitled to redress then of course it is the State, as their employer, who should pay. I have no idea what you mean by suggesting pensions be taken from army personnel - that's just nonsense. If an employee takes a case against his employer do you expect the CEO to pay for it out of his pension or would you expect the company to pay for it?


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> cremeegg I really think you are wrong on this one.



Maybe I am. 

But before deciding that I am wrong let us review the previous episode. 

The army deafness debacle resulted in soldiers who had been issued PPE, who suffered no loss of hearing, being compensated to the tune of tens of thousands of Euro. 

The legal profession collected in the region of €100 million as part of the whole mess. 

So you will understand that I am a little sckeptical this time around. 

There are a few things that disturb about the Lariam issue particularly.  

Like deafness, the side effects claimed for for Lariam cannot be objectively tested. 

Unlike the deafness debacle, where the army was negligent in its record keeping the suggestion here is that the army knowingly issued a drug with adverse side effects. As I said above either the army hierarchy acted on the best medical advice at the time or it did otherwise. If it did otherwise I think the individuals who took that decision should be held to account personally. 

And the prospect of another €100 million to the lawyers upsets me. Indeed it makes me question the morality of paying taxes to feeds the sharks.


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> If it did otherwise I think the individuals who took that decision should be held to account personally.


Unless of course they are now retired. Once someone retired they cannot be held to account for anything they did while working. It's the Irish way.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> As in the deafness case where those who suffered no hearing loss received payouts.



You are comparing apples and oranges. The problem with the army deafness was that it was impossible to measure accurately if hearing loss was suffered, or the effects of tinnitus. All that could be established was that they were exposed to conditions (failure to effectively administering protective hearing equipment) in an environment (military training) that plausibly could lead to someone suffering tinnitus. 

Regarding the administration of Lariam, firstly no compensation has been awarded. Legal argument and medical evidence will need to support any claims. I would imagine that some evidence will need to be supported by medical reports identifying patterns of behavior or treatment for depression etc in addition to scientific evidence that suggests a pattern of similar effects over pro-longed usage.


----------



## Ceist Beag (2 Oct 2018)

See the thing is cremeegg, you may have valid concerns but to go calling people "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case is in the land of Donald Trump! BTW I just checked and the Prime Time report was back in 2013, see this report on it.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> See the thing is cremeegg, you may have valid concerns but to go calling people "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case is in the land of Donald Trump! BTW



To say that “everyone involved may not have had a valid claim” hardly cuts it. I refer you again to the links in post 6 of this thread.

The rise of Trump ( digression alert, but you did make that comparison) was caused in large part by voters valid concerns being ignored by the establishment. Well I have concerns about the vast sums paid out on the army deafness claims and these concerns were ignored. Now it seems possible that further vast sums will be paid out, possibly where everyone concerned may again not have a valid claim.

If enough other people are equally concerned we may end up with our own Trump. However that is unlikely as after all its only the governments money. Nothing to do with the rest of us.

Of course maybe this time the establishment will resist payments in the abscence of valid claims thus averting the rise of an Irish Trump.


----------



## Ceist Beag (2 Oct 2018)

Stop muddying the waters by mixing the issues cremeegg. We're no longer talking about the deafness claims, we're now talking about the potential Lariam claims. So post 6 of this thread is no longer relevant. You are calling the people in the latest Lariam story "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case.
You have absolutely no evidence of this, merely a concern based on the previous deafness cases. Therefore your description of these people is emotive and unsubstantiated, kind of like the statements the orange character tweets regularly.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Now it seems possible that further vast sums will be paid out, possibly where everyone concerned may again not have a valid claim.



Where did you get this notion from? Your own comment is inconclusive - "_may again not " _suggesting you accept that may indeed have valid claims. 
Either there is a valid claim or not. That will be decided through the claims and courts process. 
The payments in army deafness cases were made on foot of legal argument determining that that the claimants did have a valid claim. 

 It has already been stated by other posters that Lariam was taken without side effects. 
Critical to all of this will be evidence of pro-longed use and/or continued administration of a drug after it was known (if at all) to Army hierarchy of its potential dangers. 
Once that is established, medical histories of claimants combined with their usage of the drug will also be critical.


----------



## Purple (2 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Where did you get this notion from? Your own comment is inconclusive - "_may again not " _suggesting you accept that may indeed have valid claims.
> Either there is a valid claim or not. That will be decided through the claims and courts process.
> The payments in army deafness cases were made on foot of legal argument determining that that the claimants did have a valid claim.
> 
> ...


I think the cost of the process and the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there is a culture if "if in doubt, pay out" is the source of much of the cynicism around this and similar issues.


----------



## cremeegg (2 Oct 2018)

Ceist Beag said:


> Stop muddying the waters by mixing the issues cremeegg. We're no longer talking about the deafness claims, we're now talking about the potential Lariam claims. So post 6 of this thread is no longer relevant.



I would think that the army deafness scandal certainly provides a lens through which it is perfectly reasonable to view the Lariam case as it unfolds. We should try to learn from experience.




Ceist Beag said:


> You are calling the people in the latest Lariam story "obscene greedy chancers" on the basis that you are concerned that not everyone involved may have a valid case.
> You have absolutely no evidence of this, merely a concern based on the previous deafness cases. Therefore your description of these people is emotive and unsubstantiated, kind of like the statements the orange character tweets regularly.



The phrase "obscene greedy chancers" was intended to refer to those who profited from the army deafness scam, even though they were issued with ear protection and suffered no hearing loss. I think under the circumstances it is a reasonable characterisation. 

As to the Lariam situation, I think that every "obscene greedy chancer" who ever wore a uniform will gravitate to this scam as well. Does it matter if Lariam was ever issued to them, based on the deafness scam, it would seem not. Does it matter if their suffering can be objectively established, same answer. Does it matter if any suffering they did experience can be linked to any Lariam, they may or may not have taken, same again.

Compensation was paid in the deafness scandal to people who *were* issued ear protection, who suffered *no* hearing loss. I fear we are in for a repeat. I hope I am wrong.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

Purple said:


> I think the cost of the process and the impression, rightly or wrongly, that there is a culture if "if in doubt, pay out" is the source of much of the cynicism around this and similar issues.



I don't doubt it. But ultimately it was the courts that decided the claims were valid. They did this through legal argument. 
If anyone jumped on the bandwagon to claim money then they are fraudulent. However, it is not possible to determine who was fraudulent and who was genuine, by virtue of the medical evidence. 
So what do we do - if in doubt pay out (meaning fraudulent claims get paid at a cost to taxpayer) or if in doubt dont pay out (meaning genuine claims get no redress)? 

As for tying the army deafness to the Lariam case, it has no bearing. These are two separate issues. The detail and substance of claims will greatly differ. For instance, there should at least be evidence from clinical trials available from the producer which may support or not the claimants accusations.


----------



## TheBigShort (2 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> I would think that the army deafness scandal certainly provides a lens through which it is perfectly reasonable to view the Lariam case as it unfolds. We should try to learn from experience.



It has no bearing. It is a totally different situation, different claim, different basis, different context etc. 



cremeegg said:


> As to the Lariam situation, I think that every "obscene greedy chancer" who ever wore a uniform will gravitate to this scam as well



Your inherent prejudice is all too apparent. You are declaring this issue a "scam" without anything to back that assertion up other than your perceived view that the army deafness claims were all a scam, so therefore this must be a scam too.


----------



## Itchy (2 Oct 2018)

https://www.independent.ie/life/i-t...ere-ruined-by-antimalarial-drug-37361772.html

"The problems with Lariam are no secret. The drug is either *not used or is treated as a medication of last resort* by the military in France, Germany, the US, Canada and Australia.

In advice to doctors in 2013, manufacturers Roche said the most common neuropsychiatric reactions to it included abnormal dreams, insomnia, anxiety and depression. *The manufacturer said hallucinations, psychosis, suicide, suicidal thoughts and self-endangering behaviour had also been reported.*

A report commissioned by the Department of Defence on the drug and delivered the same year remains under wraps. *The department has refused to publish it,* saying it is "legally privileged".

Despite the mounting number of lawsuits and harrowing stories of ruined lives, Lariam *remains *one of three drugs currently prescribed to personnel on duty in malarial regions. The others are Malarone and Doxycycline.

In reality though, for many missions, Lariam appears to have been the only sanctioned option."

Today as we speak Lariam is still the primary anti-malarial prescribed for DF personnel. I cant understand how our DoD has concluded differently to the French, German, US, Canadian and Australian militaries and the MANUFACTURER! The Departments actions speak for themselves. Not understanding the issue is no reason to blame the victim. That says more about the commentator than the victims.

In relation to army deafness in response to the "evidence" of Michael Smith that is quoted in post 6, Francis Fitzgerald in reply to the Minister at the time said:

"I question some aspects of the State's strategy and some of the underlying assumptions that may be directing thinking on the matter. There has been a tendency to rubbish the cases and to stereotype claimants. There has been great concern about ambulance chasing solicitors who are dealing with the matter in an opportunistic way. While I accept there is a problem, we cannot stereotype all solicitors or lawyers dealing with the matter.

The matter has been left to the courts and when this has not produced the desired results, judicial decisions have been queried. Whatever we may wish to assume, we cannot dismiss the claimants involved. Leaving aside the Irish situation, there is adequate global evidence of hearing disability being caused in the manner described by many claimants."

She could well be speaking to the perversion of the issue that is still being trotted out today.


----------



## cremeegg (3 Oct 2018)

Another mini compo arranged for our heroes has just been announced. 

Still this one will only cost in the region of €120,000, so no biggie. 

There doesn’t seem to be any provision for lawyers to wet their beaks. I wonder.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2018)

Troops in the Golan Heights stuck there for an extra 2 weeks due, it seems, to incompetence by Army management. 
When was the last time someone was sacked for incompetence from the Defence Forces?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Another mini compo arranged for our heroes has just been announced.
> 
> Still this one will only cost in the region of €120,000, so no biggie.
> 
> There doesn’t seem to be any provision for lawyers to wet their beaks. I wonder.



I take then it you are still peddling the Lariam issue as a scam?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Purple said:


> Troops in the Golan Heights stuck there for an extra 2 weeks due, it seems, to incompetence by Army management.
> When was the last time someone was sacked for incompetence from the Defence Forces?



I think an investigation into what occurred has been called for.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I take then it you are still peddling the Laraim issue as a scam?


Vague symptoms which cannot be objectively verified. 

Legal firms touting for potential litigants. 

A history of huge payouts for heroes,  some despite evidence that no harm occurred. 

All without any evidence as to the cause of any harm which might have occurred. 

Yes I think that lots of our heroes who were prescribed Lariam will be down to the four goldmines to see what they might get out of it.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I think an investigation into what occurred has been called for.


You can be sure that a) the Minister will be blamed and b) nobody will face any real sanction.


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2018)

Purple said:


> You can be sure that a) the Minister will be blamed and b) nobody will face any real sanction.



In my opinion the taxpayer is likely to be severely scantioned.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

cremeegg said:


> Vague symptoms which cannot be objectively verified.



I will take this that you do consider it a scam. Despite @Itchy post above which suggests that tests of the drug have objectively verified side effects of the ones being suffered you still continue your unsubstantiated nonsense. 

And as for the 'cost to the taxpayer', it is the taxpayer that puts in place the legal mechanisms for redress in the first place. Perhaps we could shut down the courts, save the 'taxpayer' a packet?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Purple said:


> You can be sure that a) the Minister will be blamed and b) nobody will face any real sanction.



a) the Minister will probably be blamed by opposition politicians and media hacks looking for a headline to feed the baying sheep

b)  The prospect that our defence communications systems are simply inadequate, in a time of increasing military tensions between Israel and Syria is probably too boring a story. 

 And if communications systems were compromised in any way, well that means more dosh to be spent on upgrading the systems - but I suspect the 'taxpayer' wont be happy about that either.


----------



## Purple (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> The prospect that our defence communications systems are simply inadequate, in a time of increasing military tensions between Israel and Syria is probably too boring a story.


 What, they can't organise a flight?


----------



## RETIRED2017 (4 Oct 2018)

Good job they can't organise a fight,


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Purple said:


> What, they can't organise a flight?



Im sure they can.


----------



## Leo (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> b)  The prospect that our defence communications systems are simply inadequate, in a time of increasing military tensions between Israel and Syria is probably too boring a story.
> 
> And if communications systems were compromised in any way, well that means more dosh to be spent on upgrading the systems - but I suspect the 'taxpayer' wont be happy about that either.



What's the allegation in relation to compromise of the comms system?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> What's the allegation in relation to compromise of the comms system?



There is none that im aware of. Im just suggesting that an investigation as to what has happened has been called for, so before jumping to conclusions as to whose head should be on the block, it may emerge that communications systems or system processes are simply inadequate for dealing with the task in hand. 
It may have something to do with such systems being unsuitable, or outdated, for use in militarized zones, or it perhaps it was a systems failure waiting to happen. 
Systems failures happen all the time in all sorts of organisations.


----------



## Leo (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> it may emerge that communications systems or system processes are simply inadequate for dealing with the task in hand.



I think you may be over complicating it, and you seem to have jumped to a conclusion of them being under-equipped for some reason. It's being stated it was a 'bureaucratic error', and that someone filled in the wrong operation name on the paperwork submitted to the Lebanese authorities required to obtain the transit visa. Visa rejected so paperwork had to be completed again.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> I think you may be over complicating it, and you seem to have jumped to a conclusion of them being under-equipped for some reason. It's being stated it was a 'bureaucratic error', and that someone filled in the wrong operation name on the paperwork submitted to the Lebanese authorities required to obtain the transit visa. Visa rejected so paperwork had to be completed again.



I haven't jumped to any conclusion, thats my point. I dont know if its a clerical error, senior management error, Ministerial error, IT error, or a scam to extract more money from the taxpayer.

If what is being reported is true, it appears to be a clerical error. If its a clerical error, then the systems applied need to be reviewed to identify the flaw in the system that allowed the error to occur.

If that is the case, we are a long way from "another mini compo arranged for our heroes" as was suggested by another poster.


----------



## Leo (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I haven't jumped to any conclusion, thats my point. I dont know if its a clerical error, senior management error, Ministerial error, IT error, or a scam to extract more money from the taxpayer.



Even before the reason was released, this was always most likely to be clerical error, but you felt it more plausible that their communications systems were outdated or had been compromised. That's right up with the moon landing was faked type fabrication. 



TheBigShort said:


> If what is being reported is true, it appears to be a clerical error. If its a clerical error, then the systems applied need to be reviewed to identify the flaw in the system that allowed the error to occur.



The flaw was a diplomat filling in the wrong name on the paperwork, nothing to do with military communications systems.



TheBigShort said:


> If that is the case, we are a long way from "another mini compo arranged for our heroes" as was suggested by another poster.



They're already getting a compo payment, and the families are wheeling their 'distraught' children out in front of the media looking for more, likening it to Christmas being cancelled.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> Even before the reason was released, this was always most likely to be clerical error, but you felt it more plausible that their communications systems were outdated or had been compromised. That's right up with the moon landing was faked type fabrication.



I didn't think it more plausible, I merely suggested it as a possibility. You're rabbit paws are obviously grinding for a good digging.



Leo said:


> The flaw was a diplomat filling in the wrong name on the paperwork, nothing to do with military communications systems.



Yep, great, im with you all the way. It wasnt a communications systems error (I merely suggested it may have been, hence not jumping to conclusions before an investigation is carried out). Its not a clerical error, instead its a diplomat error. 
We are still along way from "another mini compo arranged for our heroes", arent we?



Leo said:


> They're already getting a compo payment, and the families are wheeling their 'distraught' children out in front of the media looking for more, likening it to Christmas being cancelled.



Perhaps Im wrong, perhaps this is a conspiracy between the diplomat and the families to extract compo from the taxpayer?


----------



## Leo (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't think it more plausible, I merely suggested it as a possibility. You're rabbit paws are obviously grinding for a good digging.



No, just pointing out your predilection to blame lack of government funding ahead of the far more obvious cause. You even repeated this as a likely cause without suggesting much in the way of alternatives.



TheBigShort said:


> Its not a clerical error, instead its a diplomat error.



It's still a clerical error, we're a long way removed from the times when the definition of clerical error only applied to such mistakes when made by clerks or secretaries.  



TheBigShort said:


> We are still along way from "another mini compo arranged for our heroes", arent we?



The commitment to payment of compo, and families demanding more would suggest the opposite.



TheBigShort said:


> Perhaps Im wrong, perhaps this is a conspiracy between the diplomat and the families to extract compo from the taxpayer?



That's an even longer shot than the military communications system being compromised and not fit for purpose.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> No, just pointing out your predilection to blame lack of government funding ahead of the far more obvious cause.



I didn't blame anything or anyone. Quite clearly I suggested that an investigation was to occur before jumping to conclusions.

The predilection of some posters to blame soldiers for receiving compensation for grievances experienced seems to have passed you by.



Leo said:


> The commitment to payment of compo, and families demanding more would suggest the opposite.



No it doesn't. The soldiers have been away from their families on duty. Obviously looking forward to returning home, and in particular those with small children, being told that they will have to wait another two weeks is a genuine source of grievance.

Whats the going rate if an airline cancels or delays a flight that anyone is booked on?

http://www.aviationreg.ie/air-passenger-rights/delay.210.html

Presumably anyone affected by flight cancellations or delays will seek their compensation?

Reading the above, a flight only has to be delayed 3 hrs before the compo claims start kicking in. The longer the delays the greater the compo.
The rates of compensation for private citizens exceed those of public sector workers in the army. In fact, the soldiers are getting a pittance compared to what a private citizen, who books a flight with a private airline would get for a two week delay.

But im guessing you are going to tell me that private citizens dont claim compensation for delays to their flights against those who are charged with providing those flights?


----------



## Leo (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> I didn't blame anything or anyone. Quite clearly I suggested that an investigation was to occur before jumping to conclusions.



If you had left it there it would be one thing, but you went into detail over two posts suggesting military communications systems were underfunded and were inadequate, had been compromised or both. 



TheBigShort said:


> The predilection of some posters to blame soldiers for receiving compensation for grievances experienced seems to have passed you by.



It hasn't, I just didn't comment on it. 



TheBigShort said:


> No it doesn't. The soldiers have been away from their families on duty. Obviously looking forward to returning home, and in particular those with small children, being told that they will have to wait another two weeks is a genuine source of grievance.



So you are arguing that a government commitment to pay €1,000 compensation per person is somehow not compensation? 



TheBigShort said:


> Whats the going rate if an airline cancels or delays a flight that anyone is booked on?
> ...
> But im guessing you are going to tell me that private citizens dont claim compensation for delays to their flights against those who are charged with providing those flights?



No, but it makes no sense to conflate the rights afforded to a private citizen to compensation when a commercial entity fails to deliver as per the terms and conditions of a legal contract contract to that of serving military when issues such as this arise. Those signing up for service agree to the terms of such service, and the limitations they impose on a number of freedoms and entitlements enjoyed by private citizens. So consumer protection for flight delays are of no relevance.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> you went into detail over two posts suggesting military communications systems were underfunded and were inadequate, had been compromised or both.



No I didn't. I _suggested _that IT communications failure _may _be a cause, along with other posters suggesting that it is a compensation scam or that someone short be sacked. 



Leo said:


> So you are arguing that a government commitment to pay €1,000 compensation per person is somehow not compensation?



Not at all. It is compensation.



Leo said:


> when a commercial entity fails to deliver as per the terms and conditions of a legal contract contract to that of serving military when issues such as this arise. Those signing up for service agree to the terms of such service, and the limitations they impose on a number of freedoms and entitlements enjoyed by private citizens.



When a State entity fails to deliver as per the terms and conditions of a legal contract ( for ease of reference can we agree that the terms of the soldiers deployment to Golan Heights was breached, resulting in an extra two weeks service away from home?).

Those signing up for service agree to the terms of such service (I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that the terms here - six months deployment to Golan Heights has been breached).
Soldiers may sign up to terms that limit their freedoms and entitlements otherwise enjoyed by private citizens. All the more reason that they are adequately compensated when those terms are broken. 
Realistically, we should be grateful that these soldiers have signed up to such limitations. If they had the same rights and entitlements as private citizens do when their flights are delayed or cancelled  the compensation package would be a lot higher.


----------



## Firefly (4 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> Even before the reason was released, this was always most likely to be clerical error, but you felt it more plausible that their communications systems were outdated or had been compromised.



Don't forget it could very well have been due to:

"The System"
Under investment
Lack of training
Poor equipment
Poor working conditions

But obviously never, ever due to human error.


----------



## Leo (4 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> But obviously never, ever due to human error.



It can occasionally accepted as human error when it's a figure of authority making the mistake, just not someone on the lower rungs.


----------



## Leo (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Those signing up for service agree to the terms of such service (I dont think it takes a rocket scientist to figure that the terms here - six months deployment to Golan Heights has been breached).



What in the Defence acts or individual contracts as signed by these soldiers states that these deployments are for 6 months and only 6 months? Not one of those complaining have stated the t&cs of their contract were breached in any way. It would make no sense for the Defence Forces tie themselves to such limitations via t&cs when you hear stories of what some of these soldiers can face on assignment.


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Firefly said:


> Don't forget it could very well have been due to:
> 
> "The System"
> Under investment
> ...




?? But it was human error according to Leo??

It was a clerical error. 

What it wasn't, was a scam or "another mini compo arranged for our heroes". 
It shouldn't be hard to agree that much, should it?


----------



## TheBigShort (4 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> What in the Defence acts or individual contracts as signed by these soldiers states that these deployments are for 6 months and only 6 months? Not one of those complaining have stated the t&cs of their contract were breached in any way. It would make no sense for the Defence Forces tie themselves to such limitations via t&cs when you hear stories of what some of these soldiers can face on assignment.



Dont be daft. The limitations are not set in legislation. They are set in terms of service for UNDOF. 
Irish commits to providing peace-keepers. Depending on when, how, where etc, Ireland commits to a certain amount of troops.
Those troops will be told in advance for how long they will be redeployed. Thats why their families had an expectation of their arrival home - the length of service in Golan was agreed. As this infantry arrives home, another infantry will replace them - these troops will know in advance how long this foreign tour of duty is to last.

Do you seriously think that soldiers head off to militarized zones without their families knowing beforehand how long they will be away? 
Seriously, you should read up on some of what they do abroad, where they go, what they have to do before bemoaning any compensation they might get

https://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0830/640292-golan-heights/


----------



## cremeegg (4 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> other posters suggesting that it is a compensation scam or that someone *short* be sacked.



There's a thought.


----------



## Leo (5 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Dont be daft. The limitations are not set in legislation. They are set in terms of service for UNDOF.
> Irish commits to providing peace-keepers. Depending on when, how, where etc, Ireland commits to a certain amount of troops.



Contract and working conditions aren't set in legislation? Seriously?

There are no such terms under UNDOF. Deployments under UN missions are agreed between the defence forces and the UN, there are no terms under these agreements that tie the deployments of individual soldiers or rotations to fixed dates or duration. The terms applying to Irish soldiers are those in their contracts of employment. 



TheBigShort said:


> Those troops will be told in advance for how long they will be redeployed. Thats why their families had an expectation of their arrival home - the length of service in Golan was agreed. As this infantry arrives home, another infantry will replace them - these troops will know in advance how long this foreign tour of duty is to last.



In general, they are told the expected return dates, but their terms are in line with standard military practice in that when on active deployment, the situation is fluid and many things can and do change.



TheBigShort said:


> Do you seriously think that soldiers head off to militarized zones without their families knowing beforehand how long they will be away?
> Seriously, you should read up on some of what they do abroad, where they go, what they have to do before bemoaning any compensation they might get



I know very well what they do, our last two heads of security are former officers with long service histories and lots of stories to tell, and I know a couple of others who have done multiple UN stints.  

Where did I bemoan this compensation?


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2018)

Leo said:


> In general, they are told the expected return dates, but their terms are in line with standard military practice in that when on active deployment, the situation is fluid and many things can and do change.



Yes, in the context of their duties as soldiers, not in the context of clerical errors in Dublin. 
Cop on, they were told that they would be going home end of September. There was nothing in terms of role as soldiers preventing them from leaving. Another infantry is ready to replace them. 
They have a genuine grievance having to stay two weeks longer than was scheduled for no reason relating to their roles and duties as soldiers. 
This is not a compensation scam, the amounts payable are derisory considering what it would cost to compensate a private citizen held up for two weeks abroad. 

Do you actually have a point to make?


----------



## Leo (5 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Cop on, they were told that they would be going home end of September. There was nothing in terms of role as soldiers preventing them from leaving. Another infantry is ready to replace them.



So I'm daft because you think the terms of UN deployments somehow guarantee return dates or specific duration of deployments? What made you think they would be covered at that level? 

And now *I* need to cop on?  



TheBigShort said:


> not in the context of clerical errors in Dublin.



It hasn't been confirmed the clerical error was made in Dublin. There are suggestions it was made in the Lebanese embassy, but those have not been confirmed.



TheBigShort said:


> Do you actually have a point to make?



I've made a couple already. Read back through the thread if you need a recap?


----------



## Leo (5 Oct 2018)

TheBigShort said:


> Where did I ever state that?



In post #138. You even suggested that I was daft for thinking it was otherwise. It was only yesterday, but in case you can't recall or read back:



TheBigShort said:


> Dont be daft. The limitations are not set in legislation. They are set in terms of service for UNDOF.





TheBigShort said:


> Im not sure where the return dates or specific duration of deployments are set, but I would hazard a guess that there is a written agreement or understanding between Dept of Defence and PDFORRA?



So now you're not sure, but you're finally on the right track. Now my assumption is that if the terms of any such agreement were breached, the PDFORRA representatives who have spoken over the recent days might have mentioned that, rather than focus as they are on the inconvenience caused and families and children being disappointed. They'd surely make a much better case were they able to do so.



TheBigShort said:


> Yes, because you are trolling.



Where have I made an offensive or made an attempt to provoke? Disagreeing and correcting errors is not trolling.[/QUOTE]


----------



## TheBigShort (5 Oct 2018)

You have not corrected anything, instead have been corrected.

You incorrectly suggested that I had jumped to a conclusion about being under-resourced - I didn't.

You incorrectly stated that I thought it more plausible that their communications systems were outdated or compromised - I didn't.

You incorrectly stated that I had a 'predilection to blame lack of government funding' - I didn't.

You incorrectly suggested that I was arguing a €1,000 compensation per person is somehow not compensation - I argued no such thing.

As for calling you daft, it was in the context of your question asking what in the Defence Acts or individual contracts states that deployments are for six months only.
That was a daft question in my opinion.

You have stated that soldiers are told the expected dates of return. I would assume that their families are told too?
Here is some material about family support for families with serving members abroad

http://www.military.ie/overseas/family-support/

Somewhat more nuanced in recognizing the issues of members serving abroad and their families at home than your previous 'observations'


Leo said:


> They're already getting a compo payment, and the families are wheeling their 'distraught' children out in front of the media looking for more, likening it to Christmas being cancelled.





Leo said:


> The commitment to payment of compo, and families demanding more would suggest the opposite.



So im only interested in one thing. That this compensation payment for members of the Irish defence forces serving abroad, who are unduly delayed on return home to their families through matters unrelated to their commitment to serve as soldiers, is fair and reasonable.
It certainly does not amount to a scam or anything like it.


----------

