Do we REALLY need the MPGS

#1
Now before anyone fires up the outrage bus, I have family members serving in the MPGS, so this is NOT personal!!!!

I was, however, chewing the fat with a couple of muckers today about the MPGS. The basic thread was that in these times of austerity, do we really need them? Lets be honest, with the threat of redundancy looming over us all, wouldn't it make fiscal sense to disband them, after all they do not deploy, surely we need to hold on to our frontline troops, and surely we get more VFM from them. The MPGS are purely UK based, units abroad have to look after their own security. Lets be brutally honest, there is no real reason why UK based units could not be responsible for their own sy as well. I realise that we are stretched, with continual ops but there was a time when we had uniformed civvis looking after gates during the day, and we ourselves would stag on from 1800hrs. It seems like a no brainer to me.

I am sure that there will be those amongst you who will have strong opinions about this, and quite probably valid argument both for and against, however, please remember that I have no personal axe to grind, just decided to throw this out there like..:)

Oh, and I did a search before I posted, so **** off :nod:
 
#2
Im MPGS and no-one is more surprised than me to find we are actually still in a job. I'm expecting the "we're getting rid of you" before long. But until then, I'll crack on. Once they say feck off, I'm gone from this corrupt country faster than a dose of the shits.
 
#4
.
It's either them or you stagging on the front gate. Dry your eyes and let them get on with it.
But if it's them stagging on the gate or a regular soldier keeping his job, I'm sure your average squaddie would happily stag on again.

It's beyond belief that we keep soldiers employed purely to run guardrooms when deployable soldiers are being laid off. Yes stagging on was shit but redundancy's a bit shitter.
 
#5
But if it's them stagging on the gate or a regular soldier keeping his job, I'm sure your average squaddie would happily stag on again.

It's beyond belief that we keep soldiers employed purely to run guardrooms when deployable soldiers are being laid off. Yes stagging on was shit but redundancy's a bit shitter.
Hence the reason Im amazed we're still in a job.
 
#6
No problem to me, but I'm not the 18 yo Jock who is going to end up stagging on. There is probably some mileage in looking at what guarding state to adopt, the default does not seem to have changed since we had to find a means to occupy thousands of Conscripts.
 
#7
But if it's them stagging on the gate or a regular soldier keeping his job, I'm sure your average squaddie would happily stag on again.

It's beyond belief that we keep soldiers employed purely to run guardrooms when deployable soldiers are being laid off. Yes stagging on was shit but redundancy's a bit shitter.
This was basically where we left it. WE are all old(er) farts, and non of us have particularly fond memories of stagging on, but given the choice........
 
#8
And when you deploy who stags on? Or do you leave a sizable rear party of deployable soldiers to do this?
I spent far too long stagging on gates, and as a (former) 12 year lance-jack in a trade with damned poor promotion prospects spending 2 weeks 12 on 12 off every few months stagging on the gates of Ward Barracks in Bulford was a major motivator for calling it a day at my 12 year point.
I also recall being at HQ 1(BR) Corps back in the late 80's when the IRA were knocking the crap out of us in Germany and spending 3 days a week on stag then going back to work straight after a 24 hour duty as we were so undermanned and getting more and more undermanned as bodies began to sign off.
Stagging on. Not fun.
 
Last edited:
#9
your jobs may be a little more secure than you imagine

SCOTLAND’S nuclear base could lose all of its specialist police under budget cuts being considered by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The UK’s prime strategic nuclear deterrent – nuclear submarines armed with Trident missiles – is currently policed by some 1000 specially trained MoD Police.

However, The Herald has learned that ministers are considering cutting the MoD Police – who are specialists in counter-terrorism – and replacing them with military personnel trained to be “armed security guards”.

The MoD is considering the use of the Military Provost Guard Service (MPGS) for security at Faslane.
Scots nuclear base officers face the axe - Herald Scotland | News | Home News
 
#10
Fundamentally there's 2 ways of providing an armed guard to Military Premises without going down a very slippery slope

i. Police officers whether service or civilian - high cost , not good for skill retention for the BiB in question - see previous extensive reference to RAFP and 'barrier technician'
ii. Soldiers - potentially cheaper especially if FTRS /NRPS HC contracts

the alternative would be create some kind of 'Armed guard' which would then creep gradually until it wasn't just military premises - do you really want SIA badged 'security' with guns ? with money being wheelbarrowed in the direction of G4S and Serco ?
 
Last edited:
#12
I'm all for keeping the MPGS, lets get rid of the MOD police (the old ******* who refuse to do anything, not the nuclear police kind), and the Civ Guard Service. Whats the point of having 3 spanners to turn 1 bolt? Then make the MPGS deployable, so they can guard FOB's and Camps on tour too. More boots on the ground
 
#13
Absolutely makes no difference, How would binning the MPGS make everyone else's jobs more secure ?
That is like saying bin the Signals and get BT in to do the job with FP.....
 
#14
Absolutely makes no difference, How would binning the MPGS make everyone else's jobs more secure ?
That is like saying bin the Signals and get BT in to do the job with FP.....
We're half way there already, in one way or another!
 
#15
Just re- deploy the RAF Regiment!
Oh yes i can see that really working (especially in a guards establishment/environment) not,

The options for the mod:

MPGS on a mlse engagement to cover tri-service/mod sites uk wide, complete with an armed response element & incident control management, so host unit focuses its own guys on primary role,

MGS civvies (abeit some ex Mil) on barrier/guard room duties minus a "armed response capability" which have to rely on host unit for incident control measures, and additional manpower requirements when MGS fail to maintain their own manning,

Civvie (SIA Badge Holders) on a renewal mutual agreed contract in which companies regulary undercut each other to seal tenders whom pay for poorly paid Static & roving Guards with no Armed Capability, With little or no interest of the job itself (rife in the civilian Industry) abeit only a very few companies which do hold a contract in a variety of site locations in th Uk

I agree when costing cutting or for a better phrase (rebalancing being the word) is regulary debated at the levels at be using the MPGS would reoccur (especially within the field deployable pers) questionable,

However as its been stated many times on arrse achieving a balanced fiscal Security/Armed reponse package is down to the Whether the Unit's CO wishes to decide (pragmatically/fiscally their best option) available to them...
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#16
I'm all for keeping the MPGS, lets get rid of the MOD police (the old ******* who refuse to do anything, not the nuclear police kind), and the Civ Guard Service. Whats the point of having 3 spanners to turn 1 bolt? Then make the MPGS deployable, so they can guard FOB's and Camps on tour too. More boots on the ground
The whole point of mpgs is that they don't deploy. The day they deploy is the day you start getting retention problems like the rest of the army. I quite like knowing that if my life goes mega tits up and I lose my job/house/missus/flat, I can sign up, get fed , get a room, to guard the base. It's a nice old boys network perk.
 
#17
1,Making the MPGS deployable is a non starter anyway due to the Unit struggling to even provide enough manpower for the current sites it already covers UK wide,

2,Southwick Park needs to deal and maintain it's existing manpower issues first and foremost,

Lastly, Judging by the forum talk etc many would 'like' to be deployable and assst however this would mean a rewriting of the current MLSE contract which is'nt going to happen until ser 2 is solved...
 
#18
I'm all for keeping the MPGS, lets get rid of the MOD police (the old ******* who refuse to do anything, not the nuclear police kind), and the Civ Guard Service. Whats the point of having 3 spanners to turn 1 bolt? Then make the MPGS deployable, so they can guard FOB's and Camps on tour too. More boots on the ground
I think you raise some good issues and maybe the original post should have asked - Do we need MGR? Do we need MoD Plod? Do we need CNC?

The realistic answer is no. Can't see the MPGS being made deployable but they certainly could turn 3 badly managed organisations turn into one and that would save £££ in HQ administration alone.
 
#19
I think you raise some good issues and maybe the original post should have asked - Do we need MGR? Do we need MoD Plod? Do we need CNC?

The realistic answer is no. Can't see the MPGS being made deployable but they certainly could turn 3 badly managed organisations turn into one and that would save £££ in HQ administration alone.
You make a fair point, maybe I should have asked do we need MGR, etc.

The fact is that (so far) everyone makes sense, there have been some intelligent answers to the initial question. Keep it coming!!!!
 
#20
MPGS, and their contract type, are and wll be immensely useful as the Armed Forces return to UK. We could generate full time rear parties to support the blokes popping overseas.

CNC, MoD Police and the three service MPs could amalgamate to form a single entity of armed police, capable of covering all the sensitive sites and deployingto support overseas ops.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top