Interesting Times

Discussion in 'AGC, RAPTC and SASC' started by western, Oct 3, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. What with the Baha Mousa Enquiry and the Danny Boy Judicial review some interesting assertions are being made. A panel of Judges has suggested that the reliability of any future evidence given by the DPM is questionable. What does that say about the organisation that he is 2IC of?

    By the way the one million in costs could be the reason you haven't got that vital bit of kit that you require.

    From the Guardian:

     
  2. I'd be deeply ashamed to have anyone say this about my evidence, never mind a judge. This sort of comment taints everyone in the same organisation. He needs to collect his pension and disappear! Anytime he gives evidence for anything in the future, this will be brought up. Any police investigation under his command will have these comments hanging over it.
     
  3. Here we go again. Western, have you not bleated enough about this story in past posts? I mean really, how many times do you want to dredge up the same s4ite? It is becoming tedious to the point of almost harrassment. (Before you start, yes I know it's already in the public domain and is not actually harrassment) but still, it's dull and repetitive.
    Please find something slightly more interesting to bang on about as I've had enough.
    ALl you seem to want to do is air everything again and again, in the hope that someone will justify your existence and that of your inane posts, by agreeing with you.

    Yes it may be sad that this has happened, but is it really INTERESTING TIMES, to use your title? I think not.
     
  4. There are lots of Police civil and Military that have convictions and may have given questionable evidence in the past. Although convictions etc are disclosed in all cases going to court, Its such a last port of call technicality to try to use it to win a case! Ok the guy made a mistake, we all do and for the most part people regret them.
    To seek the Deputy Provost Marshall to resign is absolutley obscene....
     
  5. That of course depends on your position and view.

    If you are aware of what is going on in the world, rather than the four walls of your Det or Section you will realise that there are a number of significant enquiries and Judicial Reviews going on at the moment which may or may not impact on the Military Discipline system and could result in major changes to the manner that military Criminal Investigations are conducted, by whom and under whose supervision.

    A starter for ten, The Baha Mousa Enquiry which is ongoing at the moment. During this event a man was murdered and no-one was brought to account for that. One soldier was convicted of an associated crime but not one of Murder.

    There are a number of reasons for that and they could include over restrictive rules of evidence and interference by the Chain of Command. The Enquiry could recommend major changes to the environment in which you do business making it easier to bring offenders to Justice.

    Next one, the ‘Battle of Danny Boy’ Judicial Review which is just about to recommence, again questions are being asked as to why the Investigation was conducted in the manner that it was and why it was delayed. Again it is possible that significant changes could be recommended to prevent this happening again.

    I believe there are other Judicial Reviews in the pipeline but lets not mention these until they hit the press?

    So what could change, well there is the obvious, little or nothing.

    Then maybe, MOD Police take over supervision and possibly conducting serious investigations in Theatre, they are already there.

    Some outside body such as the Met could take over supervision, unlikely, maybe?

    How about Investigators and SIOs having to do lengthy attachments to the Met to gain the necessary experience? That could be fun.

    So mate, if you do not think these are interesting times perhaps you should broaden your view of life and read a lot of what is going into the papers at the moment, the outcomes could have a significant impact on you as an individual, hopefully for the better.

    What we do know at the moment is that lots of things went wrong during the deployment in Iraq and some of the things that went wrong were complex and serious investigations. The reasons for these were probably beyond the control of investigators or their local commanders.

    Who knows what will come out? For your information you can follow the Baha Mousa enquiry with full transcripts published daily on the web. You really should check it out.

    As for the ‘Danny Boy’ review you will just have to depend on Google News just like the rest of us.

    Alternatively just believe the internal rumour mill or ignore events as they unfold around you. If you don’t like this thread don’t bother opening it, you will loose a lot of information but it will save you the blood vessels. :wink:
     
  6. Western old boy, you seem intent on focussing on this all as if it represents some sort of major failing on the part of the SIB, much like the Stephen Lawrence enquiry concluded that the Met Police was "Institutionally Racist". Does that really suggest that Met Officers would turn up to a murder and simply say "Oh this one's black, lets not bother"? Are you also suggesting that the SIB and hierarchy are looking at jobs and just saying "Sod it, we can't be arrsed"? I would hope not!!!

    You seem to forget that many of these investigations, which have attracted some criticism, were conducted under extremely trying conditions, with varying degrees of witness co-operation and/or lying on behalf of those witnesses. You forget (or do not realise) that to conduct a murder investigation in Iraq, during an insurgency, with Force Protection issues and severe time/manning constraints together with the witness 'truth' problems, was not the easy task which you seem to imply. The boys and girls worked VERY hard to secure what evidence was available.

    You are the one who should remove the rose tinted glasses once in a while to understand that even with the fullest investigation, some jobs will not result in a conviction. It happens, we don't like it but we carry on nevertheless. No police force in the world can claim a 100% conviction rate and therein lies the problem. Whereas in bygone times this 'failings' as you would term them would simply have been left alone, the PIL lot and the press just love to have their pound of flesh, and people like you just love to use their arguments as ammo to fire upon the branch.

    Cheap shots all round if you ask me, and by the way, I don't listen to internal rumour mills, I'm clearly too busy posting replies to the crap you put on here. I am no-ones 'man', I just say things how I see them, and what I see in you is a twisted, bitter man who likes to shout a lot about the branch in which I serve.
     
  7. What a strange reply. If you read my post I did not criticise the people conducting the investigations and suggested that any changes, if suggested, may be of benefit to the Branch and give people a chance to conduct investigations more successfully. Not once did I suggest that the people concerned did not do their best within the constraints that they have to work.

    But don’t let that stop your rant, don’t read the words and establish the facts before you ‘go off on one’.

    Then it’s off to personal insults. Hoping to get a bite after all that would deflect attention from the main point of this thread wouldn’t it? Sorry mate I’m not falling for that one and will continue to post the reports as they unfold.
     
  8. Western, don't try to hide behind some "just cause" reasoning, when in your post you use terms such as "Probably beyond the control of investigators" and make quite obvious recommendations as having either the Met Police or, god forbid, MOD Police "SUPERVISING" our investigations?? Seriously??, the MOD Police.

    I have had some dealings with the MOD Police and wouldn't want them anywhere near our work to be honest with you. The Met Police I could just about live with, but then lets not forget that they aren't exactly bathed in glory from every angle, like I said before, "Institutionally Racist" according to one report and the whole of the press. Now if we are to believe that then why on earth would we be allowing them to supervise our investigations into the deaths of Iraqis or other insurgents. Surely doing so would be akin to asking Beverley Allet to monitor nursing practice.

    As for continuing to post the reports as they unfold, surely you could simply let the other users of ARRSE go look for such information if they wish to without you spoon feeding it to them in your 'good citizen' updates? Smells to me like you have some sort of grudge against the current DPM as you quite obviously don't want to let go of the bone.
     
  9. Tell me before I go on is English your second language? Not having a go, I just don't want you to think I was ridiculing you.

    I used the expression 'probably beyond the control of the investigators' as a comment to show that there were factors over which they had no control as SIB Investigators, such as the environment, the chain of command and legal constraints. How in your paranoid mind did you see that as criticism?


    There you go again filling in gaps, what I listed were possible recommendations that could come out of these enquiries. Tell me what was the first one on my list?

    At least I didn't suggest RAFP

    Why bother having an internet, why communicate, why read the papers? The list is endless but more to the point what is the point of Arrse? It doesn't seem to be a problem when people post other matters of interest in the press

    I know the guy, but not well enough to have a grudge against him. The report was just confirmation of the statement made by the Judges and happened to be published in the last week in the Guardian and the BBC News site. If I had an agenda I could have brought out all the other things that happened in court at that time, but I didn't though.
     
  10. Tell me before I go on is English your second language? Not having a go, I just don't want you to think I was ridiculing you.

    Ha ha, don't make me laugh. The term "Just cause" in my sentence was used in the context that you were pursuing a just cause, which unless I am very much mistaken would be a perfectly acceptable use of the English language.

    I very much suspect that you were under the misguided belief that I was using a shortened version of 'Because' in my "just cause" sentence, silly you. I'm not some sort of chav you know, I do understand grammar and the structure of sentences.

    As for the rest of your post, sorry I lost interest after spotting your glaring error as highlighted above, although I have to concede that you were right in not offering up the RAF Police in a supervisory capacity, nice one. Touche!
     
  11. You see, this is why I had to ask. At every turn you misinterpret the words you read. My question was not directed at what you had typed and it didn’t cross my mind that the term ‘Just Cause’ was anything that could be misunderstood.

    How could you accuse me of hiding behind a just because? It just does not make sense?

    Right then, now we have established that you are in the wrong, why don’t you go and read the rest? Or has your positioned crumbled.

    Just one more question. Are you really in the Branch? What with all your avoiding facts, making assumptions, jumping to conclusions and misinterpretation of the written word, I have to ask.
     
  12. My bold above, people in glass houses.

    I do love the fact that you state that I am the one misreading things here, it seems that you choose to do the same. I maintain that I did not misinterpret your 'supervision' idea, or your use of the word 'probably', which is a word designed to allow an element of doubt, would you not agree, (i.e. I probably won't have a beer tonight, undoubtedly means that I will)

    The point is that you appear to take great delight in always publicising on this forum the supposed shortcomings of the Branch, which only serves to highlight those perceptions to all and sundry who use this forum. My argument is that all you really achieve by doing so is to further alienate the serving members of the SIB from the rest of the Army, who already don't really like us that much.

    Now I'm not overly concerned about this, after all I didn't come into the RMP or indeed the Branch to attend social functions with Private soldiers, but I still feel that your remarks do not help to promote a positive image of us to the other Arms and Corps. Don't foget that everytime you post it appears (albeit briefly) on the front page of this fine website, and every Tom, Dick and Harriet laughs about how sh1te you portray us. Thanks for that.
     
  13. My pleasure, but I must thank you for reinforcing their opinions. You do it so much better than I ever could. :clap:

    One more thing what point were you making that I had entered a typo? Or did it just confuse you? :wink:
     
  14. For what it's worth my only dealing with the Met reviewing SIB inquiries in theatre was a request to go and do a door knock for three child witnesses to an accidental death that occurred nearly two years before. I'm not sure what made me more curious:

    1. The fact that they wanted us to find a few very young Iraqi witnesses (under 10 years old) after 18 months
    2. The thought that it was unlikely that these witnesses would end up in UK court and even if they did I couldn't imagine them being real reliable
    3. The idea that you could go into this region with anything short of a reinforced company group and could almost guarantee getting into a proper shooting match to do it....

    Just showed me how little those outside the world of Military Policing understand the nature of what we do.

    Nah, having worked with them on two different ops in the sandpits now I'll take our beloved feds ( a genuine term of endearment!) over anything else on offer. We (they) are still the only policing organisation that will step outside the wire to conduct inquiries without fear nor favour.

    I'm sure the MOD Police have their place in life but it isn't on high risk operations, neither is the Met's. As for supervision, I reckon the home office have enough problems without wanting to take on the complex area of serious investigations on operations.

    I reckon as a Corps we have learnt great deal since the early days of Iraq. I think we will continue to improve. Incidentally having just spent a week with pretty much every key international military policing organisation I can tell you we are very well thought of in the way we are driving forward military policing wise! Think we should focus on trying not to make the same mistakes twice. Not sure there will be too many organisations jumping to fill the breech if they decided to bin us!

    Talk about a poison chalice! I always thought it ironic that organisations like PIL and Amnesty think we cannot conduct an independent inquiry while the bulk of the Army think we are trying to do their legs in!
     
  15. I’ll bet there aren’t many here who don’t know that on operations investigators at all levels are between a rock and a hard place. Similarly we all know that it’s dead easy to criticise from the cheap seats and it seems to me Dudley Giles is yet another casualty of government prevarication and spin.

    Of course it’s a poisoned chalice. Another glass of hemlock dearie?