Civilians used to guard Military camps.....
Discussion
In the wake of the terrible attack in Antrim this weekend, do you think the continued use of Civilian Armed Guard forces instead of regular 'professional' Forces Personnel had any affect on the situation?
It has been said that no fire was returned by the local guard force due to "....that people should have fired into a closely packed group including my five soldiers...?"
however it has also been said that the victims were approached at close quarters and were fired upon even when lying injured on the ground.
- Did the murdering terrorists believe the target was softer than if the Army had provided its own armed guards?
- Did the civilian guards respond with the tenacity and decisiveness that might be expected of regular troops?
It has been said that no fire was returned by the local guard force due to "....that people should have fired into a closely packed group including my five soldiers...?"
however it has also been said that the victims were approached at close quarters and were fired upon even when lying injured on the ground.
Guam said:
One wonders if the weapons they had were even loaded (I have good reason for this speculation).
Cheers
What good reason is that?Cheers
The only time I did gate guard without a loaded weapon was when I'd never been shown how to use one and they gave me a pick axe handle.
I must admit I was surprised to hear they walked over to the guys on the ground and shot them again without being fired upon by the gate guard, I mean ffs I nearly shot the sunblest man delivering bread because he stooped down a bit too quick in his van.
My personal opinion is that you cannot beat a 'tooled up' guard as a deterrent. It shows a presence. A civvy bloke is a high viz jacket doesn't hold quite the same authority.
However, now we are going across to civvy guards, it does take the workload away from us uniforms.
I'm not going to get into discussing 'our' arrangements where I am (for obvious reasons), but put it this way, I sleep easy in my bed at night
However, now we are going across to civvy guards, it does take the workload away from us uniforms.
I'm not going to get into discussing 'our' arrangements where I am (for obvious reasons), but put it this way, I sleep easy in my bed at night
Cara Van Man said:
My personal opinion is that you cannot beat a 'tooled up' guard as a deterrent. It shows a presence. A civvy bloke is a high viz jacket doesn't hold quite the same authority.
However, now we are going across to civvy guards, it does take the workload away from us uniforms.
I'm not going to get into discussing 'our' arrangements where I am (for obvious reasons), but put it this way, I sleep easy in my bed at night
Yeah, your week old socks on the front gate would kill any one not already hardened to them I'm told However, now we are going across to civvy guards, it does take the workload away from us uniforms.
I'm not going to get into discussing 'our' arrangements where I am (for obvious reasons), but put it this way, I sleep easy in my bed at night
This is arse.
To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
308mate said:
This is arse.
To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
Ok. An example.To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
To mount the guarding of a fair sized station, you need to draw on your manpower resources.
This means manning 2 main gates with at least 2 personnel, 24 hours a day. Each pair can only do a stint of an hour a time. Therfore we are already at 8 personnel. On top of this, you need to mount patrols (internal & external). Other duties need to be covered, i.e. opening other gates, stewarding contractors etc.
So, for a guard shift you are looking at in the region of 15 people (including a guard commander) for a day shift and approximately the same for a night shift.
Thats 30 people taken out of their primary duties for (depending on the system a station uses) about a 3 week period.
Then throw into this time lost for training.
Do this once every year and that's a lot of manhours, opposed to training a civvy, and paying him about half the wage the serviceman gets.
It's all about the money.
Cara Van Man said:
308mate said:
This is arse.
To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
Ok. An example.To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
To mount the guarding of a fair sized station, you need to draw on your manpower resources.
This means manning 2 main gates with at least 2 personnel, 24 hours a day. Each pair can only do a stint of an hour a time. Therfore we are already at 8 personnel. On top of this, you need to mount patrols (internal & external). Other duties need to be covered, i.e. opening other gates, stewarding contractors etc.
So, for a guard shift you are looking at in the region of 15 people (including a guard commander) for a day shift and approximately the same for a night shift.
Thats 30 people taken out of their primary duties for (depending on the system a station uses) about a 3 week period.
Then throw into this time lost for training.
Do this once every year and that's a lot of manhours, opposed to training a civvy, and paying him about half the wage the serviceman gets.
It's all about the money.
I don't get it either - a complete false economy. Or in this case worse, it's cost the lives of 2 men serving their country.
Puggit said:
Cara Van Man said:
308mate said:
This is arse.
To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
Ok. An example.To the man in the street (me), the obvious question is: With a barrack full of soldiers, why are civvy being employed to guard the gate?!
Surely the best trained people for that are the soldiers themselves.
A couple of camo'd up lads with automatics is a proper deterrent. And its good practise, surely?
Explain to the layperson, why this is not so.
To mount the guarding of a fair sized station, you need to draw on your manpower resources.
This means manning 2 main gates with at least 2 personnel, 24 hours a day. Each pair can only do a stint of an hour a time. Therfore we are already at 8 personnel. On top of this, you need to mount patrols (internal & external). Other duties need to be covered, i.e. opening other gates, stewarding contractors etc.
So, for a guard shift you are looking at in the region of 15 people (including a guard commander) for a day shift and approximately the same for a night shift.
Thats 30 people taken out of their primary duties for (depending on the system a station uses) about a 3 week period.
Then throw into this time lost for training.
Do this once every year and that's a lot of manhours, opposed to training a civvy, and paying him about half the wage the serviceman gets.
It's all about the money.
I don't get it either - a complete false economy. Or in this case worse, it's cost the lives of 2 men serving their country.
- not all places
I understand the reasosn for civvy guarding. Its about cost and about not having the overhead of the military doing it.
Yes, it probably takes about an average of one month a year worth of work time for military personel to do the task ( assuming having to do it twice a year, some training both times, a visit to the range, some time off in lieu sue to 7 x 24 shifts for the week)
This impacts their normal 'day jobs'. However, having been in the RAF for 12 years, guarding was always regarded as both a normal overhead and also 'another s
t duty' that was part of military life.
HOWEVER, and heres a big issue. For many RAF service personel, their week of Gate Guard duties and associated training was actually their main exposure to 'real service life'. It was for me the only time I'd get to go fire a weapon FFS!! So it had much worth. Obviosuly, in recent years, many RAF personel have much more extended 'real forces' experience with detachments, especially when attached to an active squadron. Many RAF personel however dont have this exposure. To the extent, that some of my former collegues on hearing they've drawn the short straw and have to go to Afghanistan, have complained bitterly about it to the extent of slapping in their notice, because quite frankly they didnt join up to 'go to wars etc'......
So i think the level of guarding is detriorated by using civvy guards, as anyone doing the same duty day in day out is going to become dulled by the insessant bordom of the duty, and also the experiances of those serving personel is also denegrated by not having to do this most basic of service task.
At the end of the day, service personell have been replaced because its cheaper. I suggest this cost saving has lowered the overall effectiveness of having trained military personel doing the task. Has cost cutting played a part in this attack, from the planning by the terrorists to the response by the guards?
Yes, it probably takes about an average of one month a year worth of work time for military personel to do the task ( assuming having to do it twice a year, some training both times, a visit to the range, some time off in lieu sue to 7 x 24 shifts for the week)
This impacts their normal 'day jobs'. However, having been in the RAF for 12 years, guarding was always regarded as both a normal overhead and also 'another s
t duty' that was part of military life.HOWEVER, and heres a big issue. For many RAF service personel, their week of Gate Guard duties and associated training was actually their main exposure to 'real service life'. It was for me the only time I'd get to go fire a weapon FFS!! So it had much worth. Obviosuly, in recent years, many RAF personel have much more extended 'real forces' experience with detachments, especially when attached to an active squadron. Many RAF personel however dont have this exposure. To the extent, that some of my former collegues on hearing they've drawn the short straw and have to go to Afghanistan, have complained bitterly about it to the extent of slapping in their notice, because quite frankly they didnt join up to 'go to wars etc'......
So i think the level of guarding is detriorated by using civvy guards, as anyone doing the same duty day in day out is going to become dulled by the insessant bordom of the duty, and also the experiances of those serving personel is also denegrated by not having to do this most basic of service task.
At the end of the day, service personell have been replaced because its cheaper. I suggest this cost saving has lowered the overall effectiveness of having trained military personel doing the task. Has cost cutting played a part in this attack, from the planning by the terrorists to the response by the guards?
Edited by Tony*T3 on Monday 9th March 16:22
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff