• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Commissionaires

A

aesop081

Guest
Brihard said:

Most populous US base anywhere in the world.

November 5th, 2009. He killed 13 and wounded 29 that day.

He wasn't stopped by commissionaires with clipboards.

No one is dumb enough to attack large military bases eh,  zClassified  ?
 

Nemo888

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You know who would always screw around with his pass. Sometimes swiping on the outside of the gate in Startop, using a temp pass when he had his own ID. Russel Williams. Turn the screws on access control.  Don't take any bull because they have some bars.
 

zClassified

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
AmmoTech90 said:
Really?  If as you say there is no "proper armed protection", then anyone who has decided the benefits of stealing X, Y, or Z outweighs the cost of getting caught would not be dumb.  If they have guns and the protection does not, then who wins?  If they have more guns than the protection, then who wins?

If you think that anyone who is interested in acquiring military kit via illegal means is dumb then you might be looking in the mirror.

I think youre blowing what I stated out of proportion, I was saying that comparing to a guy with a clip board and pencil to maybe a mp arming the gate instead of a commissionaire. And a FYI the most common portion of theft is from internal employees. Hence the new policies on tool control passed long ago lol.
 

Nemo888

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I remember a million years ago some bank robbers tried to steal a payroll from Rockliffe. They were surrounded and took hostages.The story goes from one of the participants that the Army Officer in charge said he would count to ten.

All the bank robbers and some of the patrons were shot. A real bloodbath. After they threw all the robbers guns into a pile and no one ever really figured out what happened. A bit much over some payroll. Soldiers are not well suited for policing tasks.
 

zClassified

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
CDN Aviator said:
Most populous US base anywhere in the world.

November 5th, 2009. He killed 13 and wounded 29 that day.

He wasn't stopped by commissionaires with clipboards.

No one is dumb enough to attack large military bases eh,  zClassified  ?

I remember that as well, i believe he was a US soldier if I rememer correctly. By any means that was a hystorical statement, I am not slow in this field of work. You have to be prepared for any scenerio regardless if it is a miniscule chance of happening. If not, you're not doing your job correctly.



 
A

aesop081

Guest
zClassified said:
I remember that as well, i believe he was a US soldier if I rememer correctly.

He was. He was stopped by armed DoD police ( Not military policemen).


I am not slow in this field of work. You have to be prepared for any scenerio regardless if it is a miniscule chance of happening. If not, you're not doing your job correctly.

I don't care how prepared you think you are. Commissionaires are not adequate security.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,110
zClassified said:
I remember that as well, i believe he was a US soldier if I rememer correctly. By any means that was a hystorical statement, I am not slow in this field of work. You have to be prepared for any scenerio regardless if it is a miniscule chance of happening. If not, you're not doing your job correctly.

Cool story bro.

I'll be blunt. I am not comfortable as a Canadian soldier knowing that our bases are at best secured in the first line by you guys. You have no ability to defend against an armed threat, and one of our bases WILL get hit eventually. I've got no problem with commissionaires working as the desk dudes at access control and so on- you guys are just fine at that. But you are not 'security' in a sense that I would consider sufficient for a military installation. You are not armed, have not received appropriate tactical training, and not only are not capable of responding to a physical threat, but in fact have an explicit corporate policy against use of force- I did the commissionaire's course too.

I recognize that you are proud of your job, and good on you for that. But don't pretend to be what you're not.
 

zClassified

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Pretty crazy, I cant remember correctly off the top of my head. It was either he had postpartum stress or had some sort of east indian decent to say it politically correct.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
zClassified said:
Pretty crazy, I cant remember correctly off the top of my head. It was either he had postpartum stress or had some sort of east indian decent to say it politically correct.

Irrelevant.
 

zClassified

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Brihard said:
Cool story bro.

I'll be blunt. I am not comfortable as a Canadian soldier knowing that our bases are at best secured in the first line by you guys. You have no ability to defend against an armed threat, and one of our bases WILL get hit eventually. I've got no problem with commissionaires working as the desk dudes at access control and so on- you guys are just fine at that. But you are not 'security' in a sense that I would consider sufficient for a military installation. You are not armed, have not received appropriate tactical training, and not only are not capable of responding to a physical threat, but in fact have an explicit corporate policy against use of force- I did the commissionaire's course too.

I recognize that you are proud of your job, and good on you for that. But don't pretend to be what you're not.

I agree with you 100%, one day something will happen to a SQN or RCR (where ever the CMRE is posted) and the fingers will be pointed at some one. Any Tom Dick or Harry can drive on the base without questioning. The only time that you couldnt 9/11 occured. Which proves it takes a unfortunate situation to happen before some one says "hey maybe we should secure the base properly."
 
A

aesop081

Guest
zClassified said:
The guy went bananas either way.

It doesn't matter. It shows that yes, someone will target large military bases full of soldiers.

If Ft. Hood did not have actual, armed, security, it would have been worse.

 

dogger1936

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I personally enjoyed German base security. It was provided by Siemens with armed uniform guards at all gates. Total gate coverage around the base and roaming security with dogs. We had a few lads jump the fence on the way back from town. The dogs tracked them to the shacks. Luckly the guard and dog didn't see them coming over or it would have been worse.

Base security on many posts are hurting from more than unarmed guys. Regardless what the guy at the front gate is armed with...you can still just walk 10 feet to the right or left of the gate. I found it stupid in Petawawa at the front gate with no mag or bullets (but weapon) for 12 hr shifts when half the base you can walk and drive across anyway.

Infrastructure needs to be addressed prior to a few c-7's being added.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,479
Points
1,110
dogger1936 said:
Infrastructure needs to be addressed prior to a few c-7's being added.

I don't disagree that a long term solution requires infrastructure- but the quickest, most immediate 'target hardening' - the deterrent that will make the opportunist go for another target - will be the visible presence of weapons in the hands of those who clearly know how they're used. You can fix that in hours, whereas putting buildings up would take quite a considerable period of time.
 

dogger1936

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Brihard said:
I don't disagree that a long term solution requires infrastructure- but the quickest, most immediate 'target hardening' - the deterrent that will make the opportunist go for another target - will be the visible presence of weapons in the hands of those who clearly know how they're used. You can fix that in hours, whereas putting buildings up would take quite a considerable period of time.

We have base full of engineers; I'm certain a wire fence could be erected. No point of armed people who sit at the front gate while people walk across the south side with impunity.

A fence would be a good start point. I.E Gagetown, Petawawa.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,460
Points
1,360
dogger1936 said:
We have base full of engineers; I'm certain a wire fence could be erected. No point of armed people who sit at the front gate while people walk across the south side with impunity.

A fence would be a good start point. I.E Gagetown, Petawawa.

Uppark Camp in Kingston, Jamaica is surrounded by a big fence with concertina wire on top.  As well, MPs patrol the perimeter as well as man all access points.  They will also stop and question people and check id's of people on base who look like they shouldn't be there.  It would be quite easy to erect a nice wire fence around the base and a task like this could be easily accomplished by engineers.  Nothing fancy is needed, just some simple razor wire.
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Stymiest said:
Uppark Camp in Kingston, Jamaica is surrounded by a big fence with concertina wire on top.  As well, MPs patrol the perimeter as well as man all access points.  They will also stop and question people and check id's of people on base who look like they shouldn't be there.  It would be quite easy to erect a nice wire fence around the base and a task like this could be easily accomplished by engineers.  Nothing fancy is needed, just some simple razor wire.

You know how big Petawawa is, right? Unless they didn't bother fencing off the training area, and just built it around the "garrison" parts..
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,460
Points
1,360
Yes, I am kind of posted to Pet, I am talking about fencing off the garrisoned parts, realistically their is no way they could fence off the actual training area.
 

jeffb

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
3
Points
330
The reality is that short of eliminating some access points onto the base in Pet, and less access is precisely what Pet doesn't need, securing the base would actually be quite tough. The base has become a blending of civilian and military over the years. Consider the side towards the river with the Golf Course, marina and campground. Running concertina wire across the top of the hill would ruin on the best views on a base in Canada (the Normandy Officers Mess). Wire is only a deterrent and security can only be provided with patrols and over watch. Without these things wire is defeated by a guy yanking back and forth until it gives way. Even if the securing of the Garrison in Pet was your only concern, the provision of 24 hour gate and roving picket security would require a far greater force then is realistically available.

I think a more realistic security system would see MP's acting as a QRF to any incident and expanded surveillance. Random spot checks, not during rush hour of course, on the gate would help as well.

Funnily enough, much of the training area has more fencing then the garrison. There is a fence running the entire length of Hwy 17 largely so people don't wander into the impact area and has very little to do with security.
 

Sythen

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
0
Points
0
jeffb, definitely agree with you to some extent. I think it goes back to what guys were saying earlier about infrastructure. Expanding the main entry to 4 lanes would be a good start... At least as far as the turn off at McDonald's, as that's where a sizable amount of the traffic is... In my ~4 years in Pet, I never once saw someone in the little gate.. In the larger building on the side some old guy sleeping, but never in the hut checking ID..
 
Top