"cheap base?"
- Thread starter para
- Start date
S
Sharpey
Guest
Because that would just be using our/their heads!
H
Harry
Guest
Oh boy, don‘t shoot the messenger, PLEASE.
After 9/11, there was a National Op Order sent out regarding the protection of vital national interests and physical properties.
DND is one of the more visible and potential targets amongst many.
Keep in mind that in today’s CF/DND, everything has a cost and ever cost has to be approved and substantiated. At every installation, the person signing off on the Security Activities is also signing the cheque to pay it.
The problem with DND, if anyone with some TI will recall, is that we went with this warm fuzzy corporate image in the early ‘90‘s. Also at that time we went from ‘Threat Assessment’s to Risk Management‘ (If any one wants a dissertation on that on, drop me a line-not enough space here to rant). As part of that ‘Your Army-come see your tax dollars at work‘. Out of this came the ‘Open Base’ concept, and in a lot of cases, perimeter fences and security access gates came down. All based upon the RM principle of the cost to maintain such physical assets, verse what if any threat existed and what kind of loss the department could absorb in the quest for a more open and visible department.
In the RM model used, no one even considered whole sale terrorist activities as a reality in North America. Let alone Canada, even though Canada is identified in many intelligence circles that we partake in as one of the worlds best known Safe Havens for some of the worlds less desirables.
So, why not put MP’s at the gates. Simple economics and manning requirements. Most Land Force establishments reduced their primary MP manning levels during the’ 90’s by anywhere from half to reduced numbers under a third of their pre 1990 levels.
Most establishments maintain enough operational MP’s to conduct required law enforcement, security and related duties. Any long term extra curricular activities can be met for a short period, but then the impact upon primary duties becomes an issue, something has to be let go.
Most DND establishments had the additional expense of replacing and in some cases, rebuilding perimeter obstacles and controls. All of which is derived from local budgets. With this in mind some establishments have hired Commissionaires to man Access Control Points, but in other areas to curb costs, local service members conduct the duties. On a very few establishment with large MP presence from associated lodger and support elements, MP’s are present conducting various security duties.
So without drawing to much ire, it comes down to simple logistics, there are not enough Meatheads to go around. The duties they perform at the establishment level pretty much consume what meager warm body resources they have.
SECURITAS
and UBIQUE
PS: after 9/11, how much perimeter and access control had to be rebuilt in Pet?
After 9/11, there was a National Op Order sent out regarding the protection of vital national interests and physical properties.
DND is one of the more visible and potential targets amongst many.
Keep in mind that in today’s CF/DND, everything has a cost and ever cost has to be approved and substantiated. At every installation, the person signing off on the Security Activities is also signing the cheque to pay it.
The problem with DND, if anyone with some TI will recall, is that we went with this warm fuzzy corporate image in the early ‘90‘s. Also at that time we went from ‘Threat Assessment’s to Risk Management‘ (If any one wants a dissertation on that on, drop me a line-not enough space here to rant). As part of that ‘Your Army-come see your tax dollars at work‘. Out of this came the ‘Open Base’ concept, and in a lot of cases, perimeter fences and security access gates came down. All based upon the RM principle of the cost to maintain such physical assets, verse what if any threat existed and what kind of loss the department could absorb in the quest for a more open and visible department.
In the RM model used, no one even considered whole sale terrorist activities as a reality in North America. Let alone Canada, even though Canada is identified in many intelligence circles that we partake in as one of the worlds best known Safe Havens for some of the worlds less desirables.
So, why not put MP’s at the gates. Simple economics and manning requirements. Most Land Force establishments reduced their primary MP manning levels during the’ 90’s by anywhere from half to reduced numbers under a third of their pre 1990 levels.
Most establishments maintain enough operational MP’s to conduct required law enforcement, security and related duties. Any long term extra curricular activities can be met for a short period, but then the impact upon primary duties becomes an issue, something has to be let go.
Most DND establishments had the additional expense of replacing and in some cases, rebuilding perimeter obstacles and controls. All of which is derived from local budgets. With this in mind some establishments have hired Commissionaires to man Access Control Points, but in other areas to curb costs, local service members conduct the duties. On a very few establishment with large MP presence from associated lodger and support elements, MP’s are present conducting various security duties.
So without drawing to much ire, it comes down to simple logistics, there are not enough Meatheads to go around. The duties they perform at the establishment level pretty much consume what meager warm body resources they have.
SECURITAS
and UBIQUE PS: after 9/11, how much perimeter and access control had to be rebuilt in Pet?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
And another cheap thing that I noticed.
The Airborne museum in Pet has taken down the perimeter fence around the vehicle compound, for greater access for the public. WRONG!, so they can put a fence around a public school and that is only about a quarter complete. What is next, the great notional security fence at the front gate. I love the great wisdom of this base
Wake up and get the troops off the front gate
The Airborne museum in Pet has taken down the perimeter fence around the vehicle compound, for greater access for the public. WRONG!, so they can put a fence around a public school and that is only about a quarter complete. What is next, the great notional security fence at the front gate. I love the great wisdom of this base
Wake up and get the troops off the front gate
