Army abuse trial collapses

I agree. As I've said previously, I'm not having a pop at individuals within RMP, and like you, I've had some good experiences with RMP. In fact a good mate of mine was a nurse (Caroline Moran) who's hubby was a RMP S/NCO in Minden. Great guy and very accommodating.

My confusion is with the wider system that doesn't seem to embrace 'policing'. Individual RMPs will do what they're trained to do. It's not their fault.

No disrespect to anyone. Sorry if I've offended any of those fookin 'orrible monkeys (sorry, it's hard wired in me from being an infanteer)

Respect to all :rmp::salut:
 
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
You're absolutely correct - why would you ask him to attend then if he's provided you with the details?
 
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 .
Trouble is, for our pink hatted chums, that for every good example remembered, there are more bad ones remembered. I stress the word remembered here.
Your post above triggered a memory of 'very poor' behaviour from the RMP and an officer in particular (chubby captain if memory serves) on Herrick.
An incident occurred, it allegedly involved our forces opening fire on a convoy, apparently an innocent group of people in a bus.
we received a large number of injured civilians, many of them having holes where holes have no right to be
While we were busy with all that, in comes a variety of people demanding to know what weapons were used to create the injuries, what calibres, distances etc. the most vociferous of all these were the RMP . They also demanded to take photos of the injuries etc.

The response which was along the lines of 'This isn't CSI Helmand, kindly go away we are too busy' was considered to be offensive and 'obstructing an investingation'



I'm going to have to think hard about it but I'm sure I've had some positive experiences with RMP.


This could take a while
 
Out of interest, do you have the option of saying no when you're invited to go to the police station with them?
Exactly the same as inviting a suspect in for a Voluntary Attendance interview, if they refuse, you have the option to consider arrest in order for The Prompt and Effective investigation of any offence.
 
Exactly the same as inviting a suspect in for a Voluntary Attendance interview, if they refuse, you have the option to consider arrest in order for The Prompt and Effective investigation of any offence.
So had the man with he BFG plates declined to attend the RMP station when requested and having evidenced that he was the going about his lawful business in a vehicle that he had lawful reason to be in, would an arrest have been considered for the prompt and effective investigation of whatever offence the RMP wanted to discuss at their station?
 
So had the man with he BFG plates declined to attend the RMP station when requested and having evidenced that he was the going about his lawful business in a vehicle that he had lawful reason to be in, would an arrest have been considered for the prompt and effective investigation of whatever offence the RMP wanted to discuss at their station?
Bearing in mind that I had shown all the right things, as you say, and this was on a public highway (Albeit in a garrison), I am looking forward to the definitive response to this question. Not that I can do anything about it now, obviously. He was hoping that I had committed, or was in the process of committing, an offence, even though there was no evidence to support that view. What is it the Americans call it; probable cause?
 
Exactly the same as inviting a suspect in for a Voluntary Attendance interview, if they refuse, you have the option to consider arrest in order for The Prompt and Effective investigation of any offence.
Tricky one. If your decision to make the arrest was because "he wouldn't come in voluntarily", you're batting on something of a sticky wicket.

How 'voluntary' would have been his attendance at a police station if you then arrested him simply because he exercised his right not to attend? If you had reasonable grounds to arrest him and his arrest was necessary in order to etc. etc., then that is what you should have done in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Exactly the same as inviting a suspect in for a Voluntary Attendance interview, if they refuse, you have the option to consider arrest in order for The Prompt and Effective investigation of any offence.
So you'd arrest a witness because they exercise their right not to attend a police station when invited to do so voluntarily? Yep...I can see how that one would go in court.

That's incorrect on so many levels.
 
I got stopped on leave from Germany by Merseyside police as one sharp eyed copper noticed the number plate on the car didn't match the one etched on the windows and alleged the car was on stolen plates. I flashed my warrant card and told him they were BFG plates, "what are they, never heard of them" came the reply. I told him if he PNCd the plates he would get a message to contact RMP and they would get the owner details. He did and got the message. He apologised and said every day's a school day, thanked me for my understanding and buggered off.
 
So had the man with he BFG plates declined to attend the RMP station when requested and having evidenced that he was the going about his lawful business in a vehicle that he had lawful reason to be in, would an arrest have been considered for the prompt and effective investigation of whatever offence the RMP wanted to discuss at their station?
Bearing in mind that I had shown all the right things, as you say, and this was on a public highway (Albeit in a garrison), I am looking forward to the definitive response to this question. Not that I can do anything about it now, obviously. He was hoping that I had committed, or was in the process of committing, an offence, even though there was no evidence to support that view. What is it the Americans call it; probable cause?
If I had been the RMP NCO concerned and a reasonable discussion had ensued resulting in you supplying the correct documentation, then you would have been on your way. If, however, you had failed to produce or had decided you were going to get chopsy about the process then you would've been attending the MP Station.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
 
Bearing in mind that I had shown all the right things, as you say, and this was on a public highway (Albeit in a garrison), I am looking forward to the definitive response to this question. Not that I can do anything about it now, obviously. He was hoping that I had committed, or was in the process of committing, an offence, even though there was no evidence to support that view. What is it the Americans call it; probable cause?
In his defense, I would have made the enquiry with you as well, so stopping you and asking reasonable questions about who you are and the vehicle you were driving is correct. It's also worth noting that a significant amount of crime and persons wanted on warrant comes to light as the result of routine traffic stops. So, I get why you were stopped, and hopefully, you do as well.

But having satisfied that routine enquiry, I'd have shook your hand and thanked you for your time. All done and dusted in 5-10 minutes and no tears before bedtime. Part as friends.

But instead of that, you're 'invited', and by that I read 'compelled or you'll be nicked anyway' to attend the police station...I just don't get how that can be acceptable police practice.

That's the sort of over-baring attitude that destroys a communities trust in their police, which is why that sort of approach is now so frowned upon in HO forces.

But, in defense of that monkey, he's the product of the environment that he received his RMP training. He wouldn't be like that, unless he'd been trained like that and unless he'd witnessed that from the seniors that would have puppy walked him after his training.

It's the system not the individuals that need to be addressed.
 
If I had been the RMP NCO concerned and a reasonable discussion had ensued resulting in you supplying the correct documentation, then you would have been on your way. If, however, you had failed to produce or had decided you were going to get chopsy about the process then you would've been attending the MP Station.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Nothing like that at all. I think one of two things was behind it.

It was late Sunday evening and he was bored so pulled me over then, because it wasn't far from the monkey shop, decided he would pad it out a bit with a visit to the nick.

or

They had had people in Catterick who had repatriated to UK after a stint in Germany still driving around on BFG plates when their entitlement had expired.

Anyway, what do you mean chopsy? How does that objectively have any bearing on the investigation of a possible offence? It doesn't; it just adds further weight to the view often put forward in this thread that the RMP are prone to abusing their powers on a personal whim.
 
I got stopped on leave from Germany by Merseyside police as one sharp eyed copper noticed the number plate on the car didn't match the one etched on the windows and alleged the car was on stolen plates. I flashed my warrant card and told him they were BFG plates, "what are they, never heard of them" came the reply. I told him if he PNCd the plates he would get a message to contact RMP and they would get the owner details. He did and got the message. He apologised and said every day's a school day, thanked me for my understanding and buggered off.
What? That's outrageous. Do you really mean to say that even though it was all squared away nicely at scene, you weren't 'invited' to attend the nick and give a statement? Shockingly slack..=-D:headbang:
 
Being the good military police NCO that I was, and still in Germany mode, I had all my BFG docs in a folder in the car. So I had insurance and BFG paperwork with me minus MOT as it was a reasonably new car.
 
If I had been the RMP NCO concerned and a reasonable discussion had ensued resulting in you supplying the correct documentation, then you would have been on your way. If, however, you had failed to produce or had decided you were going to get chopsy about the process then you would've been attending the MP Station.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Failing to produce at the scene is not an offence, and a driver has 7 days to produce his vehicle docs (not the log book) at a police station of their choice which they nominate at the scene.

Production of the MOD90 which is required to be carried, should satisfy the person enquiry.
So, with only the MOD90 +/- the driving license, and the index number and description of the vehicle, a copper will have enough info to satisfy that bit of his or her professional curiosity.

I'll have to check my old notes about the next bit, it has been a long time since I trained after all, but I'm pretty sure that there is no specific arrestable offense of 'being chopsy'.
 
Being the good military police NCO that I was, and still in Germany mode, I had all my BFG docs in a folder in the car. So I had insurance and BFG paperwork with me minus MOT as it was a reasonably new car.
Great minds think alike. Having been a copper, I also carry my docs with me as well. Much easier to produce at scene than piss about at the local nick.
 
If I had been the RMP NCO concerned and a reasonable discussion had ensued resulting in you supplying the correct documentation, then you would have been on your way. If, however, you had failed to produce or had decided you were going to get chopsy about the process then you would've been attending the MP Station.

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk
Nothing like that at all. I think one of two things was behind it.

It was late Sunday evening and he was bored so pulled me over then, because it wasn't far from the monkey shop, decided he would pad it out a bit with a visit to the nick.

or

They had had people in Catterick who had repatriated to UK after a stint in Germany still driving around on BFG plates when their entitlement had expired.

Anyway, what do you mean chopsy? How does that objectively have any bearing on the investigation of a possible offence? It doesn't; it just adds further weight to the view often put forward in this thread that the RMP are prone to abusing their powers on a personal whim.
Surely chopsy = Display of inappropriate aggression / volume / body language.
They all can indicate the suspect is hiding something and Requires A little more caution and a closer look at his story,
Or is this not policy or common knowledge ?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads