Army abuse trial collapses

Small anecdote, neither here nor there but back in the late eighties, early nineties two RMP NCOs appeared at my place of work with the intention of taking into custody one of my staff who we shall call Bob. Leaving them outside at the door, I briefly spoke with Bob - and the upshot was that in the absence of any authority to be on the premises I asked them to remove themselves which they did - in fairness without any hostility or Bob... to the public road outside the premises to wait for Bob to leave.

How that would've worked I don't know as the Bob would have driven from the premises... car chase? Road block?

It didn't arise though as I spoke at length with Bob, still subject to military law, and he sensibly agreed to surrender himself to the monkeys in the car. Being a decent chap I accompanied him at his request to the monkey car and saw him off. One of them even thanked me for my forbearing and assistance.

According to Bob, he had posted a captured weapon to his home address from Kuwait/Iraq but the delivery driver had to leave it with a neighbour who somehow discovered what it was and called the police/RMP. I never saw Bob again but I don't know what the outcome was. Silly Bob
 
I think the standards of police training (as far as law and procedure are concerned) are sufficient to cover a working officer in anything that they are most likely to encounter on a day-to-day basis, so that they are equipped to recognise whether or not an offence exists and if so whether sufficient grounds exist for an arrest (or otherwise).

It is not possible to train an officer to a standard where they have a full knowledge of everything conceivable. Even a top flight QC would be useless without Butterworths and Archbold near at hand. Anything out of the ordinary will usually be of a nature where the officer has time to seek advice.

Where the police do go wrong (in civpol, at least) is in continuation and refresher training, much of which now takes place as CBT packages undertaken whenever an individual officer is able to fit it in during his/her normal working day.

Lamentable.
 
Would you merge all three service police organisations into one and call them Military Police or simply Service Police?
I doubt very much whether any shortcomings that may exist arise from the existence of three service organisations. They are already about as 'joint' as it is possible to be. Combining by no means guarantees increased efficiency or professionalism.

I used to think that it might and then along came Police Scotland.
 
Actually, there's a potential problem with my last....and that is one of perception amoungst the rest of the military. Maybe the way to address that, so the RMP are policing with consent in the way the HO PCs do, is to simply change the title of the individual.
So,
a Private (who is essentially a recruit) Is known as a Police Probationer,
a l/cpl becomes Constable
a cpl becomes a senior constable
a sjt becomes a police sjt
a s/sjt becomes a senior police sjt
WOs police warrant officers

Officers
2 lt = junior inspector
lt = inspector
capt = chief inspector
Maj = supt
Lt/col = ChSupt

and the rest is as HO constabularies

By changing the appointment, it may change the perception and mindset.....nothing ventured, nothing gained
 
It's only relatively recently that civpol recruits haven't been required to learn definitions and acts and section verbatim. I was at Hendon in '89, and during my 22 weeks basic training, that was a significant part of our training and ongoing assessment process.

I also refer again to the fact that there were 2 ex-RMP in my intake of something like 180 recruits and they didn't do any better or worse than anyone else.

May I just say that despite my jolly jape anti-primate banter, I'm not having a pop at individuals here, more the training and system that those individuals have to work in. It's that system that I think is greatly flawed and that needs to be addressed.

I love the idea made by another c/s that RMP/military provost of whatever flavour, should not be a direct entry thing. However, I'd add a proviso to that and say that direct entry could be considered by HO police officers but they would be required to pass Ph1 and Ph2 infantry training then RMP specific continuation/familiarisation training before appointment....soldiers first an'all that.
That would be me!! One of the best recruiting tools the RMP had in the early 90s was the introduction of the Auxiliary Military Police (AMP) scheme in Germany, utilising soldiers from other units within the various garrisons. These came on a short attachment as AMP to their local Pro Coy (undertaking security patrols, mortar baseplate checks, etc), saw what went on within RMP and decided to formally transfer. At one point we had enough Irish Guards/Light Infantry on attachment to my unit that they could have deployed as a complete section!
 
By changing the appointment, it may change the perception and mindset.....nothing ventured, nothing gained
I think that it would have the opposite effect. The whole organisation of the services relies on and functions under a recognised rank structure. It is also inherent within the manuals of military law.

I really cannot see what it would achieve. Arbitrarily introducing another (non military) rank structure, separate from the existing one would serve only to confuse things utterly. It would probably even cause many to question jurisdiction. This would especially be the case when military only offences or matters were being dealt with.
 
Last edited:
Would you merge all three service police organisations into one and call them Military Police or simply Service Police?
Personally, I'd have a common syllabus which mirrors HO police training. Once the police officer has completed police training, they can then exercise their option to serve with their preferred armed service or even the RAF ^^

I think that the term RMP has some real pedigree and it would be a mistake to lose it, hence my suggestion that it does a gentle re-brand to Royal Military Police Constabulary. Silmilarly, RN Police Constabulary and the fookin snowdrops, sorry, RAF Police Constabulary.

I know it sounds really 'tree huggy', but this sort of re-branding and re-framing is done in organisations all the time and to good effect.

(Listening for the cries of 'it's change, we don't do change, it'll never work, what would my granny think? etc)
 
Sounds like an unholy breeding experiment involving RPs and PCSOs.

How long did that scheme last?
It was in the early 90s when the PIRA ASU was running around NW Europe. It was set up in the response to the murders of Cpl Ismailia (and his child), Maj Dillon-Lee, the Australian tourists in Roermond, the bombing of Quebec Bks in Osnabruck and numerous other incidents and murders. In 247 (Berlin) Pro Coy an AMP was always paired with an RMP but in 101, 110, 111, 114 and 115 back down in the Zone the AMP patrolled in pairs. I can't speak for elsewhere but in Berlin it worked well and the spin-off was a spike in VTs on attachment.

ETA: I think there was something less formal set up in UK at the same time because when I was posted from Berlin to 150 at Catterick in 1992 I seem to recall Garrison Security Patrols. They used to come into the Duty Room for briefing but were not formally attached.
 
Last edited:
I think that it would have the opposite effect. The whole organisation of the services relies on and functions under a recognised rank structure. It is also inherent within the manuals of military law.

I really cannot see what it would achieve. Arbitrarily introducing another (non military) rank structure, separate from the existing one would serve only to confuse things utterly. It would probably even cause many to question jurisdiction. This would especially be the case when military only offences or matters were being dealt with.
There's a difference between rank and appointment is there not. I'm not suggesting abandoning the existing rank structure, merely attaching a professional appointment title to the rank which is in keeping with the office of police officer.

For example, a Maj in the RAMC could be your RMO, but she's still a Maj. There's loads of similar comparisons within the military.
 
It was in the early 90s when the PIRA ASU was running around NW Europe. It was set up in the response to the murders of Cpl Ismailia, Maj Dillon-Lee, the Australian tourists in Roermond, the bombing of Quebec Bks in Osnabruck and numerous other incidents. In 247 (Berlin) Pro Coy an AMP was always paired with an RMP but in 101, 110, 111, 114 and 115 back down in the Zone the AMP patrolled in pairs. I can't speak for elsewhere but in Berlin it worked well and the spin-off was a spike in VTs on attachment.
Right. So less of a Military Police function and something more like an off-camp stag, then?
 
Right. So less of a Military Police function and something more like an off-camp stag, then?
Pretty much. but it exposed the Corps to those who might not have had that positive impact.
 
For example, a Maj in the RAMC could be your RMO, but she's still a Maj. There's loads of similar comparisons within the military.
Yes, but what real purpose would it serve? Why would it enhance efficiency and/or professionalism compared to the existing arrangements (if that is what is being discussed)?
 
It was in the early 90s when the PIRA ASU was running around NW Europe. It was set up in the response to the murders of Cpl Ismailia (and his child), Maj Dillon-Lee, the Australian tourists in Roermond, the bombing of Quebec Bks in Osnabruck and numerous other incidents and murders. In 247 (Berlin) Pro Coy an AMP was always paired with an RMP but in 101, 110, 111, 114 and 115 back down in the Zone the AMP patrolled in pairs. I can't speak for elsewhere but in Berlin it worked well and the spin-off was a spike in VTs on attachment.

ETA: I think there was something less formal set up in UK at the same time because when I was posted from Berlin to 150 at Catterick in 1992 I seem to recall Garrison Security Patrols. They used to come into the Duty Room for briefing but were not formally attached.
We had dual crewed AMP patrols in Fally, they wore red berets with their own capbadge, had a radio for contacting the military police station and patrolled in land rovers marked as auxillary military police. The patrols back in UK just wore their own beret and patrolled in vehicles marked as garrison security patrol.
 
Changing names wouldn't do anything just introduce a new line in slagging. I don't think it would gender any better image.
Anything that costs more money isn't going to be introduced. Civvy Police trainers will not be used to costly.
I don't know how RMP is trained now don't know since I left not sure what real power it has now.
 
I think generally Police get into trouble when, for a number of reasons, leadership and supervision is lacking. I suspect this is the same issue, whether civil or military. If you do not keep juniors on a very short leash, the temptation to engage boot before brain is almost axiomatic. Over the years, the time available to seniors for keeping tabs on what the kids are up to has diminished. These days, anyone over the rank of Sergeant seems to spend the vast majority of their lives sitting behind a screen processing trivia.

If you allow the attitudes of the playground and street enter the psyche, you have a devil of a job to get it out. Situations where front line performance has failed, the "lesson learned" has been "more training" and "more restrictive process driven action" instead of what should have been done, which was to get more of the seniors out on the streets to show how things should be done..

I think the RMP has probably the most challenging of all of the service police jobs.. They are trying to supervise a large population of individuals, spread over large geographical areas with a naturally belligerent and tribal mindset. The way in which RMP detachments are manned creates a very thin red/blue line, and in many cases very junior soldiers have to deal with complex and volatile issues with minimal oversight. There is also the reality that the chain of command within units is often as much to blame as the perps, and are much more difficult to deal with. Too often the views of the PM is trumped by COs (particularly if of a "grand" regiment) or CoS. Whilst neither should have powers of veto, there is much mutual respect missing from such relationships IMHO.

RMP should not be the main agency for dealing with petty crime, and the current trend of the chain of command to distance themselves from these issues is, I think, much of the problem. Again this is an unintended consequence of stripping authority from the chain of command. We sometimes lose the point of having a chain of command, which is to lead and control their soldiers. Too often the attitude these days is that soldiering is a 9-5 job, to stay away from the messy "uman issues" and point folk in the general direction of a JPA terminal. RMP should not become involved in regimental discipline in much the same way as Civpol should stay out of schools...!

RMP is there as an independent agency for the investigation of serious crime, and should be used as such.. There is no requirement for the RMP to be liked.. but they must be respected. In too many instances of late, the RMP have been misused and have lost respect as a consequence. Policing must be done with the consent of the society being policed; it is a very serious situation if this principle is lost on either party.
 
Post #298. I also like the idea of the MoD Police (MDP) going under the Home Office umbrella and expanding its role to become a completely autonomous triservice policing body. (Current service police transferred perhaps?)

As I said earlier, I really have no personal axe to grind with RMP or the military justice system - neither has ever done anything to me - I just believe both, in their current form are past their sell by date. As somebody else said, an awful lot of skills are being outsourced these days so why not policing and justice?
If it's outsourced you'll not get CivPol you'll get G4S with warrant cards.
 
Yes, but what real purpose would it serve? Why would it enhance efficiency and/or professionalism compared to the existing arrangements (if that is what is being discussed)?
Directly, it wouldn't, but it would re-brand the firm (RMP) withing the community (Soldiers). That community start to see you as real police officers instead of fookin 'orrible monkeys.

It can't just be a name change for the sake of changing the name though. If Constables in the new and improved RMP Constabulary are to be taken seriously by their community and other constabularies, then they need to up their game and train to HO standards.

Again, this is a win win, because when the inevitable dining out night comes along and you go from being a 'silver back' to being just another civvy, you'll be able to cross-deck to civpol seamlessly, because you're already a constable.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads