DIS cuts

#2
RUSI tells us we are a soft touch for terrorism so the government decide to slash intelligence provision.

To$$ers (Govt not RUSI)
 
#3
devexwarrior said:
RUSI tells us we are a soft touch for terrorism so the government decide to slash intelligence provision.

To$$ers (Govt not RUSI)
No, not Govt, try the to$$ers who want to cut back on the number of buildings in use in London... Defence Management Board or something... :roll:

At least those now speaking out were true "professionals" when they were in, unlike those running the show now. :x
 
#6
Well someone has to pay the "Free2 legal aid bill for the non-residents who are being held in one of of fine hotels such as wormwood scrubs or belmarsh.

I mean "Free" legal advise is not cheap for the tax payers.
 
#7
romach said:
Well someone has to pay the "Free2 legal aid bill for the non-residents who are being held in one of of fine hotels such as wormwood scrubs or belmarsh.

I mean "Free" legal advise is not cheap for the tax payers.
WTF :?
 
#10
Bit more to this than meets the eye folks. In termsof context i will admit to being DIS until quite recently. The situation is that OWOB has to close as it is in dire need of very expensive refuribhsment. At the same time the MOD is shedding 25% of all London jobs to cut costs and free up space in MB for the DIS and others to move in. The posts moving are mainly those that dont need to be in London for day to day effect - in other words niche roles that while vital can be done at a distance. At the same time there is a clearing out of the 'dead wood'. Those of you who work with DIS will be aware of the "variety" of posts that exist, and how some are very much cold war legacy posts that we would struggle to justify retention of now. At the same time there are a lot of vacant posts that havebeen empty for years which are being chopped - in other words we're not losing anywhere near the numbers this guy suggests.

The former DCDI quoted in the report is seriously out of date - he is at least 3 - 4 DCDI's ago and the DIS has changed beyond recognition since then - the ways of working are different and the need to all be in one central London office is no longer there. For those of you advocating retention of the OWOB, ask yourself if you'd rather the billion plus needed to bring it up to scratch is better spent on the OWOB or troops in the field?

This is a real non story, driven by a dinosaur with no current knowledge of what the DIS is doing and who doesnt know the reality of todays environment. PROSPECT will scream at anything and I pay little attention to them as they are absolute unionista jobsworths. These proposals are militarily led, and have the support of those that matter.

I would pay little attention to it.
 
#13
At least Jim30's consistent in peddling the corporate line. Unlike his successors the DCDI quoted was a career intelligence analyst - and he went on to be the special investigator for the Intelligence and Security Committee so he's not as out of the loop as Jim infers. For those with longish memories he's the one they sacked for suggesting that perhaps the dodgy dossier on Saddam's WMD would have benefitted from a sensiible int input rather than cutting and pasting somebody's thesis from the web.
 
#14
Really Old - nice to know that I don't know what I'm talking about. Heaven forbid that I should possibly know something about issues which were having a daily impact on my job.

The old DCDI is now out of date, he hasn't been a member of the building for years and has shown zero understanding of the rationale for the changes. But what do I know, after all its only my organisation we're talking about?
 
#15
I have to agree with Old, and Jim certainly seems to be peddling the corporate line. Gordon Corera's article on the BBC website is very accurate and the Prospect comments are similarly not over the top and a pretty fair assessment of the situation - at present DIS is well respected in the community and the cuts are likely to have an adverse affect on the capability of a well respected all source analysis organisation (Cabinet Office Assessment being the only other notable one) to carry out its task.

Not sure what a "cold war legacy post" is but there is a great variety of posts within the organisation, and as far as I am aware none of these deserve to be in inverted commas!
 
#16
Ooh - Spookfight :D

Don't see many of them.... 8O
 
#17
Jerry_Morsetapper said:
I have to agree with Old, and Jim certainly seems to be peddling the corporate line. Gordon Corera's article on the BBC website is very accurate and the Prospect comments are similarly not over the top and a pretty fair assessment of the situation - at present DIS is well respected in the community and the cuts are likely to have an adverse affect on the capability of a well respected all source analysis organisation (Cabinet Office Assessment being the only other notable one) to carry out its task.

Not sure what a "cold war legacy post" is but there is a great variety of posts within the organisation, and as far as I am aware none of these deserve to be in inverted commas!
Can You post Your credentials so that we can see Your authority on the claims You make about Corera. Not much, just say if You work in MoD or with DIS - the same disclosure Jim made. That way Opsec and Persec remain uncompromised.
 
#18
jim30 said:
Really Old - nice to know that I don't know what I'm talking about. Heaven forbid that I should possibly know something about issues which were having a daily impact on my job.

The old DCDI is now out of date, he hasn't been a member of the building for years and has shown zero understanding of the rationale for the changes. But what do I know, after all its only my organisation we're talking about?
Doesn't know what he's talking about because he's no longer in the job, is the standard put down by No.10 and the MoD whenever any ex CGS or CDS dares to criticise current policy. It seems you've taken a leaf out of their little book of spin.

If that 'excuse' is to have any foundation, then it also applies to yourself. Not so? Remember your first line in your first post, "In termsof context i will admit to being DIS until quite recently." So, out of the job, out of the knowledge loop.

That's enough of the jovial banter. Irrespective of my two previous paragraphs, jim30 is on the right track, but - I fear - been sucked into accepting the party line. The 'wars' we are fighting need greater intelligence input (as long as its used properly) not less. DIS needs expanding not cut-backs. In effect, jim30's reasons are valid, but are just an excuse for an ill-advised money saving cutback.
 
#19
Okay, I'll take the bait and run with it. Without compromising PERSEC, I'm only a couple of months out, not the best part of a decade and I'll be going back soon :)
The problem with DIS is that it has some bits that are very very good and much needed which aren't resourced properly, while it has other bits that are not terribly useful now, struggle to justify any current retention and which are frankly occupied by dinosaurs. The DIS used to be the place where retired officers went to die quietly, on a nice pension and not do much except go in late and then go home early. I can think of many examples of these people, who while nice chaps don't have much to do and earn an obscene amount to do it. These are the posts which are going, these are the posts which frankly should have gone a long time ago. As an example my colleauge used to come in a 9.30, go for lunch from 12-1.30 and be gone by 4 with a coffee break and get paid over £35k for the privelege (plus pension). There are a lot of little empires like that out there still.

The previous CDI upset a lot of the old and bold by initiating radical change and asking some difficult questions about what they actually do. The current CDI has continued this process. I've been lucky to have wide exposure to the organisation, and can see that frankly a lot of it is very niche work, which keeps people - particularly passed over SO2's in posts that with the best will in the world don't need to be filled full time. Far better to designate certain capabilities a reserve role, and fill them through reserve forces augmentation - as already happens to a degree at the moment.

I don't swallow the corporate line - I am a huge cynic of much of what MOD does, and will not hesitate in saying so. I do believe though that the move to MB is a good thing - that the people already there have noticed masively positive differences in their relationships with their customers (dire phrase but accurate) and are saying how much they wish it had happened years ago. The ones whining are the old and bold who tend to lurk in their offices, do asl ittle as possible (and I say that having tried on many occasions to get work out of some desks) and dont like the idea that they may be open to greater scrutiny. The move won't impact significantly on the ability to work as these people can recieve information wherever they may be.

As for the cutting of posts, there are still plenty of vacant posts that are gapped or never filled. What a lot of this is doing is wiping those posts out. Yes gaps in some areas will occur, that is known and accepted, but if we've managed in the past, why should formalising long known issues be a problem now? We have to accept that DIS is going through the same process now as much of MOD went through in the past.
 
#20
As I said jim30, your reasons are real and justified. I don't quibble your comments in that sense. Here's my perspective for what it's worth.

A 'true' reforming CDI - past, present and future - will look at his staff, look at his workload, look at where the resources need to be reduced and where increased, and then make the tough decisions that improve and build on the organisation.

Ridgeway started the ball rolling, by gathering information on what, frankly, should have been plain to see and acted upon years ago. But materially did very little. Didn't want to rock the boat too much - so hardly a radical reformer then.

So what's Peach up to? Is he looking at the opportunity to free up badly needed resources within his department and reallocate them to those in desperate need? I mean, does he say, "right that position is now redundant, lets allocate the manpower to this position where all hands are on the pump. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll get rid of the dead wood and invite a performer into the hot seat."? That's reforming.

All I've heard is cost cutting taking place. "Oh, that guys not doing much, the desk seems a little unnecessary, let's strike it off the establishment completely and save a fee bob!"
 

Similar threads

Top