Army abuse trial collapses

First of all, he or she would need to undergo psychological evaluation for electing voluntarily to take a massive cut in salary.
Starting wage for a PC, 19,000 or 22,000 dependant on Force. RMP LCpl out of training, 27,000.
 
The Army (armed forces / MOD) is the employer. The community are the employees surely.

I don't believe that other communities are irrelevant because we cross over with eachother and inter-mingle.

As for acting as a training ground for future careers? For as long as I can remember, the army has enticed applications on the basis of professional qualifications that may not be as easy to achieve in civvy st. Furthermore, most soldiers have done their 22 years at 40 years old. That potentially leaves another 28 years before state pension age, so professional training and continuation of that profession when you leave the mob, is I suggest, massively important.

There are also ways of protecting that investment. Many companies in civvy st, offer significant training opportunities. That person can't then leave within a given time period without incurring hefty financial penalties. Much like PVR I suppose.
The employer is the country, represented by the Sovereign, as advised by her ministers.. The country keeps the military for its defence and the furtherance of its national interests. To carry out this function the military has to remain a disciplined body regardless of the state of the environment in which it has to operate.. for this to occur the military has to have its own mechanisms for maintaining good order and military discipline.

Ultimately this is responsibility of the officer corps who hold commissions from the sovereign, however in order to ensure that the discipline regime is as resistant to corruption as possible, it has long been UK practice to have a professional Provost Marshall and dedicated Military Police. This roughly mirrors the civil practice of having County based Chief Constables and Police forces.

Although in practice it makes sense to have cooperation between civil and military agencies, there is no absolute need, either systemically or legally for this to occur. Many think that having these separate is desirable, in that checks and balances become possible..

Whilst I am sure that the military equips individuals for future careers, ultimately this is a by product rather than a core need. Where experience and ability are relevant, then indeed it should be possible to transfer them, but I see no reason for the military to mirror civil practice if it is not relevant.

As I have said in previous postings, I believe that many restrictions have been imposed on the military not to improve it, but to limit its ability to operate autonomously. There are many groups in society who see the military as a threat and seek to undermine it.

My last post on this thread....
 
Hmm that's not as good as it was. (How did you arrive at £27,000? I can't really understand the breakdown in the latest published scales). Not quite the full picture, though. In the Met, the starting salary is £22,443 plus £6,663 London allowances. Thereafter, there is an incremental scale that rises up to £37,254 plus London allowances in the same rank.

What has changed are the new pension arrangements (smaller contribution but also ends up quite crap by comparison to the old one) and the opportunities for overtime (unless you get yourself into a specialist ocu, where money seems to be no object). Also gone for new joiners is the old Housing Allowance (or free housing in lieu), which was worth several thousand.
 
If that's the case, then maybe the word police should be replaced with something a tad more military then...Provost maybe, so Royal Military Provost Corp as opposed to my other suggestion of Royal Military Police Constabulary...at least then there'd be no confusion between the office and appointment of a police officer and that of the RMP.
That wouldn't work, they'd be confused with the Military Provost Staff Corps. ;)
 
That wouldn't work, they'd be confused with the Military Provost Staff Corps. ;)
In any case, I really don't think that there is any confusion between the roles of MP and civpol in the minds of anyone who needs to be aware of the difference.

There's MoD Police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary, British Transport Police, various docks and harbour police and even local authority parks Police. They all call themselves police, but have widely varying powers, responsibilities and jurisdictions. It's never really caused any problems.
 
Why not; what will you do?

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Second thoughts, that was a bit silly. It would be nice to meet up again though and we can have a good laugh about the little misunderstanding.
Quite. Everyone loves a nice fairy tale ending. After all that is what Grimm used to write, after all.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
The two roles are not interchangeable and although there may be commonalities, there is no real parallel in either the job description, the modus operandi, the command structure, the career structure, the powers, responsibilities or the ethos.

They just both happen to have the word police in the job title.
If that's the case, then maybe the word police should be replaced with something a tad more military then...Provost maybe, so Royal Military Provost Corp as opposed to my other suggestion of Royal Military Police Constabulary...at least then there'd be no confusion between the office and appointment of a police officer and that of the RMP.
I quite like the Royal Navy terms of Regulators working in the Regulating Branch.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Presumably then, you've also got a qualified health care professional in the guard room with you, who will confirm they're fit for detention, will oversee them whist they're detained and set the requirements which must be adhered to whilst they're in your care. That's what happens in civpol cells.
No they got put on the bed in the cell and checked up on during the night. They were not locked up and it seemed the sensible option to hoping they find their room and don't choke during the night.
 
Well.. I think I am working from first principals rather than pre/post PACE. Break the basic principals of the need for adequate, competent and effective supervision, and behaviour will spiral off into lala land!

Yes I know the principals of Intelligence led activity however can I suggest that even when this is done, much of Police activity is still encounter driven! In both scenarios, the need to apply judgement and experience cannot, despite the latest theories to come out of Hendon and Tulliallan be replaced by system based theory typified by legislation such as PACE. Never forget that a plan seldom survives first contact with the enemy..

"Intelligence" at the end of the day is simply a refined form of "Guessing"! We need people in the military who can apply skill and judgement to a developing situation rather than follow blind dogma..!

...but we digress! RMP needs fixing rather than replacing, as I contend that what it does is, and always has been, a core element of military activitiy..
That's a bit savage - and wrong! But this thread is not the right place to refute your slanderous allegations.
 
No they got put on the bed in the cell and checked up on during the night. They were not locked up and it seemed the sensible option to hoping they find their room and don't choke during the night.
I'm sure that's how it's dealt with, and seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do...In the 1970s. However, it contravenes the codes of conduct for safe detention and custody of prisoners.

And whether they've been formally arrested or not, the fact that they are in your care in cells means that they are detained....even if the cell door is open.

Incidentally, one of the jobs I do, is as a HCP in police cells.

I'm not looking to be disrespectful here, and as guard commander, you're quite a long way down the food chain, so just do as the guard standing order tell you to do. I get that. I'm just flagging up that the military are years behind the curve with this sort of thing.

I've thrown a few ideas into this discussion which would protect the name of the RMP and enhance the training to such an extent that they would be 'real' police officers in every sense of the word.

I've noticed though that some of the nay sayers are the very people who would have benefited from this.

Strange....
 
Just a couple of extra thoughts that may be of relevance.

The Royal Navy Police - who, whilst they retain the term 'regulator' in some of their ranks, are not 'regulators' or 'the regulating branch' any more - they are Royal Navy Police - used to be only volunteer transferees, but are only recently accepting DE into their service. Of relevance when considering why one service feels this idea has merit - if some on here think DEs adds to the negatives.

Second, I believe the investigation was carried out by SIB. The trg course pre-requisite for SIB certainly has elements where current or ex-serving civpol give briefs, trg or otherwise contribute. Similarly, those who have qualified on SIB often get the opportunity to do the HO CID detectives course. It is also hugely common for SIB to go on civpol interviewing courses -ABE, the old PIP courses which are I believe called Tier 1 etc. The professional standards units who review misconduct are trained by civpol and review to civpol standards. In short, there is a lot of direct or civpol equivalent courses that feed service police activity or standards. It is almost inconceivable that the named Capt, who I believe someone said they knew as ex-ranks, had not passed at least one fairly specialist civpol course, be it detective or interviewing.

My point with the above is that making everything civpol does not automatically make it better - particularly considering SIB will already have civpol qualifications on board.

In terms of trying to 'constabularise' the service police, it certainly used to be the case that service policemen had to jump through all sorts of hoops to become Special Constables, and it was forbidden in most HO forces - because the constabulary oath to the Chief Constable was seen in some circumstances to clash completely with the attestation oath. In layman's terms it was explained to me that if there was a giant national emergency with all government arms responding, whose asset were you if belonging to both? If a chief constable is established for x-number of trained specials and only gets 85% or whatever in a disaster scenario, where is the benefit?

Lastly, I am aware of evidence given to the Commons Defence Select Committee (or whatever they are called) by all 3 service Provost Marshals, some point around 2009-10. Its on Hansard if you are that interested. In short, they said jointery was already being done in Cyprus Falklands and Gib. They pointed out the tri-service trg establishment. They concluded that there was no benefit to any further integration at this time. Combine that with the rank/pay of qualified service police - the RMP graduate OR-3s on Supplement 1, the RNP OR-4s on Supplement 1, and the RAFP OR-2s on Supplement 2 - and I don't know how you could 'purple' the service police easily, or what gains you would make by doing so.
 
I really wasn't going to do this, but I shall relate my three personal experiences of dealing with the RMP. I don't hate them, but I have no regard for them whatsoever.

The first was during basic training in Catterick. A week before passing off, just after we returned from the end of course final field ex, the DS took us all out to a pub and we all duly got leathered, as you do. The next morning, Saturday, one of the guys from our troop, who had obviously recovered quicker than the rest of us, came into our four man room and woke us up. In his hand he had our four wallets which he had found in the washroom when he had been in there earlier. Needless to say, all the cash was gone.

The guys in the guardroom (ROS I seem to remember) took the incident details and then had the duty driver take us down to the monkey shop in camp centre. They again took the details and took us back to camp, where they proceeded to search all our lockers and personal possessions. Clearly those that had been robbed were the main suspects. At one point one of them even complained that we had dirty kit in our laundry bags, which was not a mega surprise as we had just returned from ex. They turned over everything, absolutely everything, even unrolling our socks etc. and found nothing. Anyway, word got round like wildfire, and that afternoon one of the blokes from the holding troop, Blair IIRC, came back from Darlington with hands full of shopping bags, being suddenly flush with cash. Everybody reckoned it was him, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. We duly reported our suspicions to the monkeys who basically said that there was no proof and therefore they weren't going to do anything. No fingerprints taken from the wallets or the room, just tough luck sucker!

The next incident was in JHQ. I was with a small detachment supporting 3 US Corps on REFORGER, in the small block opposite the fire station, and we were sleeping in one of the transit blocks up near the bowling alley. As the duty tech, I had a phone installed in our room so that in the event we were needed they could call us/me out. Corps level liaison comms being considered important and all that. To make this call out procedure efficient our 3/4 ton LR was parked outside the block so we could be there in minutes if required. Anyway, about three days in I was woken up at about 3 in the morning by a monkey full screw kicking my bed. Having established that i was the owner of said softskin landrover, I had to accompany him to the cop shop to make a statement. What could be the problem I wondered. Had it been damaged? Stolen? Reported for an offence? No. Apparently I had acted negligently in not locking the doors of this softskin landrover and had to be interviewed with a view to being charged for gross negligence. I was interviewed, made a statement and released with the order to report back in the morning. When I got there they told me I had been reported to my unit, 22SR, and they would decide what happened next, but from now on I had to park the rover half a mile away in the locked 60 Sqn(?) MT compound where I wouldn't be able to get to it outside working hours. What a great f'in plan! Back at the det, I was told to ring the Ops O back in Lippstadt. So I did, full of trepidation, and he told me that the monkeys were just being throbbers and the Adjt and CO had completely disregarded their report and binned it. Nonetheless, the rover had to stay in the compound and if called out I would just have to walk the 3/4 mile to the ex location. As it was we arranged with the spams that if I was called out they would come and pick me up, which they did several times during the three weeks...good lads.

The third one was again in Catterick, during my Staffies' course. Due to all the kit needed, it was normal for people to drive over from Germany in their own cars. One Sunday evening I was returning to camp after visiting my parents in Manchester when I got pulled over by the plastic rozzers. Why am I driving a BFG car in UK? Obviously, on a course etc. He wanted to see all the docs, no problem, then I had to accompany them to the cop shop. I showed the desk Sgt all my docs and he then phoned the duty bod in Hohne to confirm that I was in fact a member of that unit. Of course I was, but they were mega disappointed that they couldn't get me for anything. Again...F'in throbbers.

This type of behaviour does not engender respect and confidence in a corps that is already held in low regard by most people in the army.
Was the suspected tea leaf in holding troop (CT troop) awaiting discharge? I seem to remember that incident.
 
Just a couple of extra thoughts that may be of relevance.

The Royal Navy Police - who, whilst they retain the term 'regulator' in some of their ranks, are not 'regulators' or 'the regulating branch' any more - they are Royal Navy Police - used to be only volunteer transferees, but are only recently accepting DE into their service. Of relevance when considering why one service feels this idea has merit - if some on here think DEs adds to the negatives.

Second, I believe the investigation was carried out by SIB. The trg course pre-requisite for SIB certainly has elements where current or ex-serving civpol give briefs, trg or otherwise contribute. Similarly, those who have qualified on SIB often get the opportunity to do the HO CID detectives course. It is also hugely common for SIB to go on civpol interviewing courses -ABE, the old PIP courses which are I believe called Tier 1 etc. The professional standards units who review misconduct are trained by civpol and review to civpol standards. In short, there is a lot of direct or civpol equivalent courses that feed service police activity or standards. It is almost inconceivable that the named Capt, who I believe someone said they knew as ex-ranks, had not passed at least one fairly specialist civpol course, be it detective or interviewing.

My point with the above is that making everything civpol does not automatically make it better - particularly considering SIB will already have civpol qualifications on board.

In terms of trying to 'constabularise' the service police, it certainly used to be the case that service policemen had to jump through all sorts of hoops to become Special Constables, and it was forbidden in most HO forces - because the constabulary oath to the Chief Constable was seen in some circumstances to clash completely with the attestation oath. In layman's terms it was explained to me that if there was a giant national emergency with all government arms responding, whose asset were you if belonging to both? If a chief constable is established for x-number of trained specials and only gets 85% or whatever in a disaster scenario, where is the benefit?

Lastly, I am aware of evidence given to the Commons Defence Select Committee (or whatever they are called) by all 3 service Provost Marshals, some point around 2009-10. Its on Hansard if you are that interested. In short, they said jointery was already being done in Cyprus Falklands and Gib. They pointed out the tri-service trg establishment. They concluded that there was no benefit to any further integration at this time. Combine that with the rank/pay of qualified service police - the RMP graduate OR-3s on Supplement 1, the RNP OR-4s on Supplement 1, and the RAFP OR-2s on Supplement 2 - and I don't know how you could 'purple' the service police easily, or what gains you would make by doing so.
Out of interest, do you have the option of saying no when you're invited to go to the police station with them?
 
Out of interest, do you have the option of saying no when you're invited to go to the police station with them?
If you're asked to attend the Police Station for an interview you very much have the option, you've been given the option to be spoken to without having your liberty infringed.

However should non attendance frustrate the investigation (and it will, seeing as the Police want to speak to you) you can be arrested to allow 'the prompt and effective investigation of the offence.'
 
If you're asked to attend the Police Station for an interview you very much have the option, you've been given the option to be spoken to without having your liberty infringed.

However should non attendance frustrate the investigation (and it will, seeing as the Police want to speak to you) you can be arrested to allow 'the prompt and effective investigation of the offence.'
The reason I ask, is that unless there's specific military regulations to the contrary, that's unlawful.

A police officer may stop any person, vehicle or vessel to ascertain the identity of that person and/or ownership and responsibility of that vehicle or vessel (S1, PACE, 1984, but don't quote me. I left Hendon in '89 so I'm very, very old).

Once the person has done that, the authority to detain further no longer exists and to further detain the person is unlawful.

This soldier was stopped by RMP because he was driving on BFG plates. Fair enough and I would expect nothing less. That's good obs and good practice.

However, said soldier produced his docs at scene and could show that he was who he said he was and that he was lawfully in possession of the vehicle.

At that point, copper says 'thanks very much. Sorry to have troubled you. Enjoy the rest of your day'.

What I don't get, is how RMP can then require that soldier to attend a police station? That's a complete breach of authority.

And don't get me started on the LR story.....we'll be here till chrimbo
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
Let's put in a positive post here. I am not one for holding back on our red capped colleagues but not everything is bad. We lost a guy on exercise in a shocking but very definitely, accident. The investigation and subsequent handling by the RMP was done considerately and did not intrude on the guys in his platoon who were quite badly shocked. Quite impressed with the work done .
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads