- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Does somebody has number on the size of the police force and/or the total number of reserve and regs in Vancouver?
Chawki Bensalem said:Does somebody has number on the size of the police force and/or the total number of reserve and regs in Vancouver?
hank011 said:Glad I joined the Air Force and dont have to do anything dangerous. I have to get my car detailed this afternoon. Sure is hard being so short on personnel, we have a curling day tomorrow. Too bad about the manning issues in the Army...damn I spilled my coffee on my keyboard. I'm going home for the day...this is too stressful. ;D
hank011 said:Glad I joined the Air Force and dont have to do anything dangerous. I have to get my car detailed this afternoon. Sure is hard being so short on personnel, we have a curling day tomorrow. Too bad about the manning issues in the Army...damn I spilled my coffee on my keyboard. I'm going home for the day...this is too stressful. ;D
Maybe you missed the rest of the thread. The general idea is that the "Canadian Forces" is short of pesonnel because of Afghanistan. Last time I checked 90% of our deployed force is hard ARMY. The posts here seem to suggest that only an infantry platoon can accomplish security for the olympics, it is only a part of the package. The Navy and the Air Force will be used in any role so I totally disagree that we are understrength.George Wallace said:And this bit of drivel is supposed to be.........what? 'Air Force' isn't going to make any difference when they start looking for 'desk jockey's' to screen people entering an olympic site. It won't stop you from walking the perimeter of an Olympic site at 0300 hrs. It won't stop you from serving food to Olympic athelets. Get used to it. You are just as likely to get a tasking as anyone else in the CF.
hank011 said:Maybe you missed the rest of the thread. The general idea is that the "Canadian Forces" is short of pesonnel because of Afghanistan. Last time I checked 90% of our deployed force is hard ARMY. The posts here seem to suggest that only an infantry platoon can accomplish security for the olympics, it is only a part of the package. The Navy and the Air Force will be used in any role so I totally disagree that we are understrength.
As for the "Air Force" part, it makes all the difference. The Army has its organizational structure and we are not a part of it. The 500 series trades in Tac Hel can attest to that. The Army excludes the other two elements at all costs.
It also illustrates the absurdity of how numbers are calculated in the military. "Combat Arms" is not the same thing as "Army" or "CF" so just because we dont have enough infanteers doesnt mean we dont have enough personnel.
As a former AVS tech I have seen both sides of that argument and I totally believe you. There are units however(that must go un-named) that run 24/7 on a 7-3 7-4 shift just to launch one plane a day. They do not have enough personnel as well but its because such a schedule requires five times as many people most of whom watch movies and sleep. No two units are the same.cdnaviator said:Maybe you should spend some time in my squadron and come tell us we are not short of personel. Maybe your unit is doing just fine but i know that in my comunity, were are in the serious hurt locker for both 500 series and aircrew.
dglad said:Why is there this automatic assumption that large numbers of military personnel will be required for the 2010 Olympics? The exact numbers, skillsets, equipment, etc. required will depend on the security estimates done, and the plans developed therefrom. There may be several thousand personnel required...or several hundred. There will certainly be no request for more resources than the CF can provide. Conversely, if and when the CF is committed, it will provide what it is tasked to provide. And if that means pulling people from behind desks, wheels of trucks, or wherever, to do it, so be it. As for transporting, feeding, and housing them...well, that's what we DO, no? This really is mostly sound and fury, and probably originally a product of some fuzzy attempt to raise further concerns about the "impact" of the Afghanistan mission.
We'll be given a mission that's within our capabilities to deliver, and we'll deliver it.
I agree exactly. We have police to do jobs like this, it is one of the things that the police do.dglad said:Why is there this automatic assumption that large numbers of military personnel will be required for the 2010 Olympics
It wont affect Afghanistan, thats just tabloid style headlines. We will be there for one simple reason...MONEY. We are slave labour to keep costs down. The last olympics, the G-8 summit, the ice storm, Manitoba floods(the stuff we are proud of). Every one was manned by CF personnel working side by side with people who are making overtime, double time, triple time whilst the CF member got honourable mention. You think they will pay overtime to an OPP officer when they can get an MP to do the same for free?dglad said:Why is there this automatic assumption that large numbers of military personnel will be required for the 2010 Olympics? The exact numbers, skillsets, equipment, etc. required will depend on the security estimates done, and the plans developed therefrom. There may be several thousand personnel required...or several hundred. There will certainly be no request for more resources than the CF can provide. Conversely, if and when the CF is committed, it will provide what it is tasked to provide. And if that means pulling people from behind desks, wheels of trucks, or wherever, to do it, so be it. As for transporting, feeding, and housing them...well, that's what we DO, no? This really is mostly sound and fury, and probably originally a product of some fuzzy attempt to raise further concerns about the "impact" of the Afghanistan mission.
We'll be given a mission that's within our capabilities to deliver, and we'll deliver it.
hank011 said:It wont affect Afghanistan, thats just tabloid style headlines. We will be there for one simple reason...MONEY. We are slave labour to keep costs down. The last olympics, the G-8 summit, the ice storm, Manitoba floods(the stuff we are proud of). Every one was manned by CF personnel working side by side with people who are making overtime, double time, triple time whilst the CF member got honourable mention. You think they will pay overtime to an OPP officer when they can get an MP to do the same for free?
It may seem kinda negative but watching NB Power employees make 250-500 an hour alongside a CF lineman making 500 a week opens the eyes rather quickly. If you have stars in your eyes then you wont notice.
A good point except if we apply that theory to the 2010 Olympics(NGO to steal an acronym), why not just contract out to Erinys or Halliburton? The answer remains at money. The Federal contribution to the Olympics will invariably be in the form of security and they get better bang for their buck providing those of us who work on a "fixed income" than those who get paid overtime.pbi said:Turn this pay thing around for a second. What about the members of a local volunteer fire dept, serving on the front lines in a disaster situation in their community, who are being paid very little or maybe nothing for day after day? Put them next to a platoon of soldiers. How do the civvies feel next to somebody who gets free meals, free medical care, free quarters, free transport to "the workplace", field operations allowance, and a pretty good paycheque to boot? If you look at it that way, doesn't it make this carping about those overpaid Quebec Hydro guys seem a bit selfish and weak? It's all relative. This paycheque envy is IMHO pretty pointless and should really be beneath us. We are NOT poorly rewarded by any realistic standard (by "reward" I include all entitlements we receive, from medical care over and above Provincial Health to relocation costs to educational reimbursements to our allowances and our basic paycheques.) and we shouldn't winge about it.
Cheers
DJB