Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "Permanent" Defence Forces

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    The "Permanent" Defence Forces

    In reading an article about the up coming Data Retention act, I noticed a link to the below article which is a draft Memorandum of Understanding between Industry and Government Organisations.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/20070201/Draft-memorandum

    My questions is; the document is signed "The Permanent Defence Forces" is this commonly used on governmental documents?

    If so would this lead to an issue in the future, where by reservists are legally removed from performing activities as the documents only relate to the "Permanent" defence forces?

    And why would the such documents be simply signed "The Defence Forces"?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    I can't get the link to work
    "Fellow-soldiers of the Irish Republican Army, I have just received a communication from Commandant Pearse calling on us to surrender and you will agree with me that this is the hardest task we have been called upon to perform during this eventful week, but we came into this fight for Irish Independence in obedience to the commands of our higher officers and now in obedience to their wishes we must surrender. I know you would, like myself, prefer to be with our comrades who have already fallen in the fight - we, too, should rather die in this glorious struggle than submit to the enemy." Volunteer Captain Patrick Holahan to 58 of his men at North Brunswick Street, the last group of the Four Courts Garrison to surrender, Sunday 30 April 1916.

    Comment

    • #3
      Originally posted by Vickers View Post
      I can't get the link to work
      it works for me?

      Comment

      • #4
        OK. Works now
        "Fellow-soldiers of the Irish Republican Army, I have just received a communication from Commandant Pearse calling on us to surrender and you will agree with me that this is the hardest task we have been called upon to perform during this eventful week, but we came into this fight for Irish Independence in obedience to the commands of our higher officers and now in obedience to their wishes we must surrender. I know you would, like myself, prefer to be with our comrades who have already fallen in the fight - we, too, should rather die in this glorious struggle than submit to the enemy." Volunteer Captain Patrick Holahan to 58 of his men at North Brunswick Street, the last group of the Four Courts Garrison to surrender, Sunday 30 April 1916.

        Comment

        • #5
          Originally posted by johnflan View Post
          My questions is; the document is signed "The Permanent Defence Forces" is this commonly used on governmental documents?
          Yes

          If so would this lead to an issue in the future, where by reservists are legally removed from performing activities as the documents only relate to the "Permanent" defence forces?
          Yes

          And why would the such documents be simply signed "The Defence Forces"?
          Protecting the mini empires within the DF and ensuring the RDF would never be more than "dad's army"
          Without supplies no army is brave.

          —Frederick the Great,

          Instructions to his Generals, 1747

          Comment

          • #6
            Originally posted by johnflan View Post
            My questions is; the document is signed "The Permanent Defence Forces" is this commonly used on governmental documents?

            If so would this lead to an issue in the future, where by reservists are legally removed from performing activities as the documents only relate to the "Permanent" defence forces?

            And why would the such documents be simply signed "The Defence Forces"?
            This is not new, previous examples of this are the sections of the Defence Acts that refer to overseas service [they specifically mention Permanent Defence Force and this means that the RDF cannot legally serve overseas].

            That being said, my understanding of this MOU [a quick reading by the way] is that it allows certain government agencies access to electronic information held by internet service providers. I cannot see a situation where the RDF would be requiring information directly from service providers. So I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill

            Comment

            • #7
              My point really has nothing to do with that particular document.

              I was simply querying the implications of documents in general being signed with " The Permanent Defence Forces" line.

              Comment

              Previous template Next
              Working...
              X

              We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.

              By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.

              I Agree