HMIC Inspection of RMP SIB

Not open for further replies.
I have just read the full report of HMIC's inspection of the SIB. It was good to see that despite the comments regularly expressed on here about the ability (or lack of) of RMP, that view is not shared by HMIC.

The report makes some interesting comments and good recommendations.
Would it not have been more interesting if GPD had been included?
biased report :p
Time the RMP came into the 21st century. I find it hard to believe that they are still so reactive and dont have an inteligence model.
Ah well, perhaps you lot will start to earn your crust when youve been dragged into line with the real police and find out what its really like.

Northern Monkey, Ive been off line for a wee while its good to see your still around mate, hope all is well.
FRG-Hallo mate. How's things?
As for NIM GPD are attempting to implement it, and have been for a while. Still, get HMIC in to inspect GPD, and lets stop playing at policemen!!!
The NIM is pants anyway. It was designed by someone who has no friends, hence the number of meetings that it involves!

Its a handy thing that senior officers in Civpol can embrace and say "ooh aren't we good, don't we know a lot about intelligence"
Well said hants, on reflection the NIM is pants (worn ones from 3 weeks MM3) and your right and to be honest i was trying to provoke a rant from my old mate Northern Monkey.

Still stand by my bit about the RMP working for a living like the Civ Police have to with an average of 1.7 complaints every 7 days with 99.7% of them being malicious. Gets you down. Also time the RMP became proactive, which Im sure the ones that do work for a living and see themselves as police officers (and not little Hitlers) would agree with.

Hantslad said:
The NIM is pants anyway. It was designed by someone who has no friends, hence the number of meetings that it involves!

Its a handy thing that senior officers in Civpol can embrace and say "ooh aren't we good, don't we know a lot about intelligence"
Sorry mate I think you are way off the mark there. RMP are not Civvie Police and work in an entirely different environment. Sure malicious complaints are made against them and a lot of unsubstantiated whinging goes on about them.

The RMP policing role is reactive pure and simple. The CoC require them to sort out some of the military's problems and provide facts in order that they can be processed by the staff during normal working hours. Some of these 'problems' are crimes and this report concludes that the investigative element of RMP is competant to deliver this function.

In my opinion the 'Military Police Station' is an outdated concept which is just a drain on manpower. The service provided by them could equally be provided by a 2 NCO duty crew with the rest of the unit processing reports and training for operations during the day.
Reactive vs proactive? I've been in some places where, for various reasons, Pro was proactive. In general it did not work. Basically because some COs felt that the action resulting from proactive was undermining their authority and position. You might think that some things done are proactive - don't know if still done but there used to be drug awareness and safe cycling. Register belongings to be marked for anticrime.
Police Station. 2 man crew. How would you contact this 2 man crew? Where would back-up come from if more than one immediate attention incident at once. Just how proactive could a team of 2 be?
Re the two man crew:

certainly in my time the police station rarely fielded more than one patrol and RMP were often only called to deal with 'incidents' that were being dealt with by the appropriate agency. The function was and I suspect still is mainly clerical. OK this is slightly different in Germany and there are other exceptions, but if an RMP patrolling presence was needed it would be in equal numbers in every garrison and station.

As it is some places get a single NCO, others a small detachment while others a whole Provost Company. There is no sense to it as Pro Coys are generally sited by either where they stopped after WW2 or near the local District HQ.

Add to that the fact that patrols are used for a mass of administrative tasks during the day and Mess Taxis at night and you don't have a great use of manpower. 24 Hour manning means that half the unit are asleep when they could be working or training.
Good grief, did I really use that expression? At least it woke Biscuits up.


Can you kep the noise down please. You'll wake the 'availables'.

(PS. Having read that report.....there's been a little bit smoke and mirrors applied to the odd area)
Would that be the same report as the one posted on the 6th October on page 1?
HMIC did the mandatory 1 year later re-inspection and reported October 2007. It is here
When the initial report was published, HQ PM(A) and others greeted and publicised it as the Second Coming. The re-inspection was not as glowing and has a number of reservations ("HMI CI is disappointed that HOLMES has not been used in support of RMP(SIB) investigations. ..... This capability has become unusable" is an example. There are others)
I have seen NO publicity about the re-inspection. Editor Corps Journal is unable to find anything and Google returns nothing. I've queried the matter with Sec Regtl Association and have not had the courtesy of an answer. I suspect that even after all these years my name is still on a naughty step somewhere!
So - does anyone reading have any information as to what happened re the re-inspection or was it deep-6d like anything that goes against the beliefs of the "leaders" at PM(A) or HQ SIB?
I read PMs
Not open for further replies.

Latest Threads