Security at Bal

[Irish Marine]

I am glad to see that we have people who are into security but I am sure the aircorps intell community are alert at all times to various breaches.  Great points brought up.  I would close that in times of crises things would surely change.

[Lurk]

Should we be concerned about security? It appears that some of the new images on the site are taken inside hangars at Baldonnel. As far as I know it is illegal to take photographs within a military property without the permission of Defence Forces. I doubt if the Air Corps or Garda authorities have sanctioned these photos.

Just concerned.

[bucks]

It is definetly not the first time this has happened and it sure as hell wont be the last. Just look at the picture of the crashed Gazelle, its all over the net.

[Frank (Admin)]

HI Guys,

Any pictures taken by me of aircraft inside a hanger appearing on this this website were taken during an airshow or open day where the aircraft were laid out for people to look at and take photographs of.  

As far as I can remember there were no signs telling us photographs were not allowed and there was nobody chasing people around telling them not to take photographs, therefore you would assume it is ok to publish the photographs?

As for the photographs taken by other people, while I can't vouch for the circumstances under which they were taken, I can only assume that the person who took the photographs had permission to be in Baldonnel (if it was a day when there was no airshow being held), and if so they would have had an escort, and if the escort didn't tell them not to take photographs in the hangers you can only assume that it is then ok to publish these photographs also?

As a big supporter of the Air Corps I would definitely not post pictures that could be regarded as being a breach of security, and as far as I am aware there are no pictures on this site of the likes of say the inside of an ops room / control tower / radar room, etc, even though photographs of these places have appeared in various Defence Forces publications such as An Cosantoir, Defence Forces in Review, and so on.

I've even seen these places in various news reports and programmes on RTE.

I really can't see the harm of publishing photographs of an aircraft sitting in the corner of a hanger in Baldonnel.


Regards,

Frank.

[Lurk]

I dont want to be a spoil sport, and I beleive there is no harm in having photos available to supporters of the Air Corps, and enthusiasts. In saying that, the following is the law, whether we like it or not. It is an extract from the Defence Acts 1954, the governing legislation up to the present day.

268.—(1) If any person, without lawful authority, makes or attempts to make any sketch, drawing, photograph, picture, painting, model or note of any fort, battery, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months, and all sketches, drawings, photographs, pictures, paintings, models and notes and all tools and all materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.

     (2) If any person, without lawful authority, enters or approaches any fort, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot or any other Government property, occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof, with sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling materials or apparatus in his possession, with the intention of committing an offence under subsection (1) of this section, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months, and all tools and materials or apparatus for sketching, drawing, photographing, painting or modelling found in his possession shall be forfeited and may be destroyed, sold or otherwise disposed of as a Minister of State directs.

     (3) If any person trespasses on any fort, battery, field work, fortification or any military work of defence, aerodrome, barracks, post, magazine, munition factory, stores depot, vessel or any other Government property occupied or partly occupied by the Defence Forces or any portion thereof or any land reserved for or forming part thereof, whether any erection, fort, fortification or work of any kind is thereon or not, or any building or land reserved or set apart or used in connection with the administration, accommodation or training of any part of the Defence Forces, such person shall be guilty of an offence under this subsection and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or at the discretion of the court, imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months.

     (4) Any member of the Defence Forces or of the Garda Síochána may without warrant arrest any person who he has reasonable grounds to believe has committed an offence under this section and bring him before a Justice of the District Court to be dealt with according to law.

[FiannaFail]

Looks like one can take as many photos of Naval Service Ships. But not a DauphinII landing on one!! '>

problem is it says any Person

Not a Serving Member on Active duty/training/invited guest/

Thats what Airshows are all about

there's so many Legal loopholes (My other half is a solicitor (for the Chief state solicitors) and she said they would be thrown out of court for bringing a case like that) That a case would not proceed.

Don't worry about it Unless people starting posted Intricate Diagrams of The Base, Actual defensive positions and Positions and Strength of Security on the Base then there's nothing to worry about.

[Lurk]

All credit to your legal advisor, however the written law is specific. It states in my previous post what the specifics are. Any person means just that.  Permission is required, and the law can be applied if it is not. It can be dealt with not just under this section of the Defence Act 1954, but under another all encompassing section of the same Act.

Your quasi legal advice is dangerous advice to give to anyone, who as a result could be convicted of an offence. The State Solicitor and the DPP deal with offences after they have been committed, and not before.

On the subject of Airshows, there is an implied permission in law that allows a person to take photographs etc of aircraft that are provided for display. You will notice that on many occasions, Baldonnel Military Base itself, is isolated from the area to which the public have access. Perhaps your other half thought the issue related to airshows, and not the private facilities of the Air Corps?

The issue of Naval Ships is included under Government property occupied by the Defence Forces!