Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Boris - The Prime Minister

First thoughts on PMBoris, will he make a difference?


  • Total voters
    609

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
If only they had been reading ARRSE :D :D

How long has the land bridge issue been discussed on these hallowed pages ?

I think my opening start point was £ 10 Billion a year for the use of UK infrastructure :D:D

ETA

It also throws into doubt the EU's claims on their extensive No Deal planning.
And for the UK courts to have oversight and final say on all goods moving from Ireland to the EU Mainland from begining to end! VAT raised on these goods to be paid to the UK.

Something similar to what the EU have been demanding of the UK.
 
If only they had been reading ARRSE :D :D

How long has the land bridge issue been discussed on these hallowed pages ?

I think my opening start point was £ 10 Billion a year for the use of UK infrastructure :D:D

ETA

It also throws into doubt the EU's claims on their extensive No Deal planning.

The plan for no deal was there wasn't such a thing as no deal. The 'what if' approach that I always thought integral to long term planning wasn't included in the calculations because no deal was considered too off piste - or so it would appear.
 
As seen in Italy last month. Maroon bereted sharp looking Toms on all the tourist spots and transport links. Not in groups chatting but eyes on the crowd and finger along the trigger guard. Definitely not checking that masks are over noses and social distancing in place.

Italian troops have been on the streets in tourist areas since at least 2013, when their presence was quite evident in Rome.

At least one specific incident from even earlier (2008 ):


E2A:
"Safe Streets" Operation
• Start of Mission: 04 August 2008
• End of Mission: -
• Status: Ongoing
• Place: Italy
• Geographic area: Italy

 
Johnson appeared to suggest yesterday that he would be willing to call in the Army to back up the Police when it came to matters of civil disorder. This has, in turn, been shot down by both the Police and the MOD. Gen Dannatt wrote a pretty good piece today in the Telegraph on it:

The suggestion that the Government may draft in the military to assist the police in enforcing Covid-19 restrictions is an alarming one. Ever since the so-called Peterloo Massacre of 1819, when militia on horses were deployed to try and control a crowd of people who had gathered to demand the reform of parliamentary representation and a number of people were killed, there has always been a determination to keep the military away from actively policing the public in Great Britain. The exception was obviously in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, between 1969 and 2007, but that time notwithstanding, involving the military in day-to-day policing is a highly contentious idea.

The police have very good mutual aid arrangements, whereby when one police force comes under huge pressure they borrow manpower from another police force. If even that situation becomes overwhelming, it is perfectly reasonable for the home secretary to ask the defence secretary, under a process known as military aid to the civil authorities, to request the military to assist.

But the sort of tasks they are usually asked, and would wish, to do are those unarmed activities that are well away from direct public interface – marshalling traffic, for example – which releases trained police manpower to deal face-to-face with the public. That differentiation between face-to-face interaction and background tasks is an important principle. Breaking it is not how a liberal democracy such as ours operates. We are getting quite a long way towards breaking our liberal principles when we’re encouraging our neighbours to snitch on their neighbours, of course. I wouldn’t want to see the military involved in that in any way, shape or form – and actually, most senior policemen don’t want to be involved in that way either.

Separately, but related to this issue, is the fact that the military has in fact been so pared down in recent years that it simply does not have the numeric manpower to be able to assist the police in this way.

When a government is not spending enough on defence, it runs down the nation’s capability to react to a range of situations – in this case the ability to react to the domestic circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. What the current situation calls for is for the Government to be as clear as it can in communicating what the threat to the public is, and to then put in place sensible measures that are well understood and that people can voluntarily comply with.

The principles the police have been operating on – to explain, encourage and engage – are much better than enforcement, and this approach should continue.

As public servants, the British military will do whatever the government of the day requires us to do. But we are the nation’s trained manpower of last resource. The fact that we are the ultimate – last – resource, is in this instance crucial.
Yet again Dannatt saves the universe.
 

Truxx

LE
Johnson appeared to suggest yesterday that he would be willing to call in the Army to back up the Police when it came to matters of civil disorder. This has, in turn, been shot down by both the Police and the MOD. Gen Dannatt wrote a pretty good piece today in the Telegraph on it:

The suggestion that the Government may draft in the military to assist the police in enforcing Covid-19 restrictions is an alarming one. Ever since the so-called Peterloo Massacre of 1819, when militia on horses were deployed to try and control a crowd of people who had gathered to demand the reform of parliamentary representation and a number of people were killed, there has always been a determination to keep the military away from actively policing the public in Great Britain. The exception was obviously in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, between 1969 and 2007, but that time notwithstanding, involving the military in day-to-day policing is a highly contentious idea.

The police have very good mutual aid arrangements, whereby when one police force comes under huge pressure they borrow manpower from another police force. If even that situation becomes overwhelming, it is perfectly reasonable for the home secretary to ask the defence secretary, under a process known as military aid to the civil authorities, to request the military to assist.

But the sort of tasks they are usually asked, and would wish, to do are those unarmed activities that are well away from direct public interface – marshalling traffic, for example – which releases trained police manpower to deal face-to-face with the public. That differentiation between face-to-face interaction and background tasks is an important principle. Breaking it is not how a liberal democracy such as ours operates. We are getting quite a long way towards breaking our liberal principles when we’re encouraging our neighbours to snitch on their neighbours, of course. I wouldn’t want to see the military involved in that in any way, shape or form – and actually, most senior policemen don’t want to be involved in that way either.

Separately, but related to this issue, is the fact that the military has in fact been so pared down in recent years that it simply does not have the numeric manpower to be able to assist the police in this way.

When a government is not spending enough on defence, it runs down the nation’s capability to react to a range of situations – in this case the ability to react to the domestic circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic. What the current situation calls for is for the Government to be as clear as it can in communicating what the threat to the public is, and to then put in place sensible measures that are well understood and that people can voluntarily comply with.

The principles the police have been operating on – to explain, encourage and engage – are much better than enforcement, and this approach should continue.

As public servants, the British military will do whatever the government of the day requires us to do. But we are the nation’s trained manpower of last resource. The fact that we are the ultimate – last – resource, is in this instance crucial.
No he didn't ("appear to suggest")

What he said was that the army could be used to backfill to allow more police etc on the front line.

Have another listen. Hear the words he says, not the words that others think he says.

And that goes for you too Dannett.
 
No he didn't ("appear to suggest")

What he said was that the army could be used to backfill to allow more police etc on the front line.

Have another listen. Hear the words he says, not the words that others think he says.

And that goes for you too Dannett.

This is what he said:

He told MPs: "We will provide the police and local authorities with the extra funding they need – a greater police presence on our streets and the option to draw military support where required to free up the police."
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
This is what he said:

He told MPs: "We will provide the police and local authorities with the extra funding they need – a greater police presence on our streets and the option to draw military support where required to free up the police."
Was that in this or his other term as Prime Minister? Because that isn't really all that he said.
 
a greater police presence on our streets and the option to draw military support where required to free up the police

As ever, he is delivering the headline message.


Downing Street said the military would be able to help fulfil certain police duties such as office roles and guarding protected sights to free up officers and would not be granted “additional powers”.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “To further free up the police to have a greater presence on our streets they will have the option to draw on military support, where required, using tried and tested mechanisms.

“This would involve the military back-filling certain duties, such as office roles and guarding protected sites, so police officers can be out enforcing the virus response.

“This is not about providing any additional powers to the military, or them replacing the police in enforcement roles, and they will not be handing out fines. It is about freeing up more police officers.”

The Ministry of Defence said it had 500 military personnel available to help with “armed guarding duties” if needed by the Home Office, but added: “The military will not be undertaking any public order or enforcement activities.”

But National Police Chiefs’ Council chairman Martin Hewitt said: “Any military support must be assessed very carefully.

“At the moment, no military involvement is necessary, nor do we anticipate this will be needed.”

And John Apter, the national chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “This is not what policing has asked for and not what it needs.”


 

Truxx

LE
This is what he said:

He told MPs: "We will provide the police and local authorities with the extra funding they need – a greater police presence on our streets and the option to draw military support where required to free up the police."
So why would you read that as anything other than having the option to draw on military support where required to free up the police?

Are you attempting to read between the lines? If so stop, you are rubbish at it.

As it happens the declaration is nothing new; from delivering PPE to manning testing stations to assisting with building Nightingale facilities. But you are so busy trying to find something to sneer at that you probably missed all of that.
 
As ever, he is delivering the headline message.


Downing Street said the military would be able to help fulfil certain police duties such as office roles and guarding protected sights to free up officers and would not be granted “additional powers”.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “To further free up the police to have a greater presence on our streets they will have the option to draw on military support, where required, using tried and tested mechanisms.

“This would involve the military back-filling certain duties, such as office roles and guarding protected sites, so police officers can be out enforcing the virus response.

“This is not about providing any additional powers to the military, or them replacing the police in enforcement roles, and they will not be handing out fines. It is about freeing up more police officers.”

The Ministry of Defence said it had 500 military personnel available to help with “armed guarding duties” if needed by the Home Office, but added: “The military will not be undertaking any public order or enforcement activities.”

But National Police Chiefs’ Council chairman Martin Hewitt said: “Any military support must be assessed very carefully.

“At the moment, no military involvement is necessary, nor do we anticipate this will be needed.”

And John Apter, the national chairman of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said: “This is not what policing has asked for and not what it needs.”



Is that what Bozo said, or No 10, later on to clarify?
 
So why would you read that as anything other than having the option to draw on military support where required to free up the police?

Are you attempting to read between the lines? If so stop, you are rubbish at it.

As it happens the declaration is nothing new; from delivering PPE to manning testing stations to assisting with building Nightingale facilities. But you are so busy trying to find something to sneer at that you probably missed all of that.

Where have I attempted to explain what Bozo meant by his statement?
 

Latest Threads

Top