Is it just me or is SIPE sh*t?

SIPE?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It is poo

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • It is a foetid mess

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am from outside of 2MI and do not know what you are on about

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am from 2MI and do not know what you are on about

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
SIPE, hmmmmm.

I wasn't sure if this had been discussed by the forum yet. Cannot be bothered to use the search tool, but I've been on this forum for so long and I don't believe it's been discussed.

I don't want to go into too much detail about the project itself, I want to talk about the management of it, or the attempts at management. I want to do this in an open forum, where there is probably people from the hierarchy of 2 MI reading this, and can see what it's like in truth for the guys given this immense bag of bullshit called SIPE and told to "get on with it".

I also bring the subject up because even if someone knows who I am, and subsequently decides to grip me for it, it won't matter one jot. My career is not strapped on a fucking rocket heading to smash the glass ceiling.

So...

Who likes SIPE?
 
#2
I think you may find it is a misunderstanding by management of what SIPE is. They think it's something brand new and shiny, but in the old Security Section days of 9 Security Company, 4 & 5 Coys in Germany, 11 Coy in Cyprus and the Coy in Hong Kong SIPE was simply knowing your patch, liasion with local SB, liaison other local Feds and discreetly chatting to locals, knowing what was going on around your VPs and barracks. All that has changed is the fancy terms used in IPE/IPB being added, which probably works for the youngsters who have to have labels for everything. Why not just do what you're supposed to and get out there and talk to people.
 
#4
Minnesota_Viking said:
I think you may find it is a misunderstanding by management of what SIPE is. They think it's something brand new and shiny, but in the old Security Section days of 9 Security Company, 4 & 5 Coys in Germany, 11 Coy in Cyprus and the Coy in Hong Kong SIPE was simply knowing your patch, liasion with local SB, liaison other local Feds and discreetly chatting to locals, knowing what was going on around your VPs and barracks. All that has changed is the fancy terms used in IPE/IPB being added, which probably works for the youngsters who have to have labels for everything. Why not just do what you're supposed to and get out there and talk to people.
We already do! It's seems to be more difficult to get info out of local SBs, but the truth is they don't want us to have info unless it directly involves the Army, which is fair enough. But what is really silly is the top-bottom way this was distributed, and then we're told that we must ditch the PS cycle in favour of this bollocks! I would do, if it worked.

What should have happened is this:

1. Bn have an idea.
2. Bn research idea or task a team drawn from all over Bn to put it together.
3. Idea is tested thoroughly.
4. Idea then given to a Section/s to run with and see if it works operationally.
5. If it works give to other sections, if it doesn't work then test it again.
 
#5
g2_loony_bin said:
We already do! It's seems to be more difficult to get info out of local SBs, but the truth is they don't want us to have info unless it directly involves the Army, which is fair enough. But what is really silly is the top-bottom way this was distributed, and then we're told that we must ditch the PS cycle in favour of this bollocks! I would do, if it worked.

What should have happened is this:

1. Bn have an idea.
2. Bn research idea or task a team drawn from all over Bn to put it together.
3. Idea is tested thoroughly.
4. Idea then given to a Section/s to run with and see if it works operationally.
5. If it works give to other sections, if it doesn't work then test it again.
Ah! The "it should have been done this way" syndrome. Suffered from that for many years myself.

It should not affect the PS Cycle, in fact the PS cycle should be a driver for you to get to places and do IT. What could be easier than visiting a CCF in a school in Lancashire and working out that it isn't at threat?

Your point about getting info from SB is very apt; they don't have to share, it's very politically sensitive what they are looking at; remember it is a multicultural society and they don't want it getting out that they are sharing information with the Secret Army Death Squads, do they?
 
#6
g2_loony_bin said:
Minnesota_Viking said:
I think you may find it is a misunderstanding by management of what SIPE is. They think it's something brand new and shiny, but in the old Security Section days of 9 Security Company, 4 & 5 Coys in Germany, 11 Coy in Cyprus and the Coy in Hong Kong SIPE was simply knowing your patch, liasion with local SB, liaison other local Feds and discreetly chatting to locals, knowing what was going on around your VPs and barracks. All that has changed is the fancy terms used in IPE/IPB being added, which probably works for the youngsters who have to have labels for everything. Why not just do what you're supposed to and get out there and talk to people.
We already do! It's seems to be more difficult to get info out of local SBs, but the truth is they don't want us to have info unless it directly involves the Army, which is fair enough. But what is really silly is the top-bottom way this was distributed, and then we're told that we must ditch the PS cycle in favour of this bollocks! I would do, if it worked.

What should have happened is this:

1. Bn have an idea.
2. Bn research idea or task a team drawn from all over Bn to put it together.
3. Idea is tested thoroughly.
4. Idea then given to a Section/s to run with and see if it works operationally.
5. If it works give to other sections, if it doesn't work then test it again.
Now there's a concept. You should work with me mate. Often things that look good on paper rarely translate to good practice, the reason? Lack of testing. Its all very well throwing theories around, anyone can make a system work on paper, the only way is to test and introduce incrementally. I know our feilds are vastly different, however the principles of project management are exactly the same. Just a shame that some people ignore the fundamentals.
 
#7
DigitalGeek said:
Now there's a concept. You should work with me mate. Often things that look good on paper rarely translate to good practice, the reason? Lack of testing. Its all very well throwing theories around, anyone can make a system work on paper, the only way is to test and introduce incrementally. I know our feilds are vastly different, however the principles of project management are exactly the same. Just a shame that some people ignore the fundamentals.
Gladly!!

The fundamentals have been missed. I think the Bn saw a workforce in the sections and decided to use to them for a disjointed, unconnected project development which meant massive differences from section to section in terms of the end result. And that only causes further issues when everyone is told to sing off the same song sheet, protests will arise thus:

"We have been working it this way and we like it."

and

"Can't be bothered to change."

More man hours, more money, more wasted time in order to produce something that could have been constructed by the best and brightest in the Bn in one place, more quickly and with greater emphasis on producing an actual working project!!!
 
#8
I think SIPE is shite. Maybe its a good idea but for it to be a useful tool the amount of man hours required is in excess of what is available. Instead from my limited experience what is produced is information that only gives a basic understanding of an area, so what use is that?
 
#9
Mmmm. Is a chicken/egg thing isn't it. Everyone sticks to the PS cycle because its easy to understand and doesn't need extra man-hours we haven't got to start off the project. But we might have more man-hours if we were targeting the threat properly rather than wasting time on annual inspections of the Med Centre's one confidential document. Then you get the evangilists who seem to think SIPE is a magic wand that will 'do stuff' if you just wave it over your unit files. Its a process not a living, sentiant being.

Personally it I think it is nothing more than a useful framework around which to make your assessment of the risk from espionage, sabotage etc to a unit, a garrison, an individual, a group of soldiers, a region or whatever. MV is right that we have been doing it forever - possibly now we potentially have some useful IT tools that might make life easier (if developed properly but IT and the Corps is a whole other thread) and prevent reliance on the prodigious memory of the LCpl who has just been posted to the other side of the world, thus forcing the new bloke to start all over again.
 
#10
g2_loony_bin said:
What should have happened is this:

1. Bn have an idea.
2. Bn research idea or task a team drawn from all over Bn to put it together.
3. Idea is tested thoroughly.
4. Idea then given to a Section/s to run with and see if it works operationally.
5. If it works give to other sections, if it doesn't work then test it again.
What happens if the idea was tested thouroughly by a unit that came out of London District Sy Sect about 20 years ago?

That a 2** who ignored SIPE advice and lost his legs as a consequence, wrote to the Corps, asking that his case be used to educate all other HTP.

CCTV cameras correctly sited following SIPE, detected an IED as it was being planted in London, allowing safe evacuation of mess in ample time.

Where is that keen ex Gunner JNCO who supported the post strike analysis on both AFCO Derby attacks? Was the RA, LUP and escape route correctly identified? At Derby and Leicester, were the short standing OP locations correctly identifed by SIPE?

How was the terrorist long term OP at the scene of a major barrack bombing identified to detectives 2 hours after the IEDs went off?

Given nothing more that a 500 M radius of a busy urban intersection, in a strange city, and a 6 hour time window; how was the ops WO able to deploy his OP to pick up both a previously unknown LEC agent and his FIS handler?

There are other examples, but you are bored already, the bar is open, perhaps Gray's Anatomy is starting?

In order to have a doctrine, you must first have a system that is capable of learning. Perhaps if this is not enshrined in Doctrine, it probably has no value? Ops Wing must be bored and pulling it out of their @rrse again.

[/rant]

[align=center]In order to know where you are going, you first have to know where you have been[/align]

PS: Ask them why we ran out of copies of the PROBE 13 (?) report, Skydog knows :wink:

PPS:
Marsh Arabist said:
Actually this organisation has its own version (Copyright late 2002 early 2003) formulated by two security and intelligence gurus !

Done rather well out of it – we are on our fourth Breitling, apiece !
If that sort of THEM-like vulgarity is your style :roll:
 
#11
Minnesota_Viking said:
Your point about getting info from SB is very apt; they don't have to share, it's very politically sensitive what they are looking at;
However there was a time when a number of Branches around the country were tripping overthemselves to get the local MI Sect to give them a SIPE view on forthcoming HRFs / PMEs.

No SIPE, by serving soldiers is all wrong, it should be contractorised
IMMEDIATELY!!
Contact subcontractorsonic@hotmail.com

minimum call charges and GladysSonic usual terms and conditions apply. Exact specification of product may vary
 
#12
Sorry, I thought you meant skype!!

Anyway, Sy is a girls job and you will never find me hanging around the corridors of 2 MI.

Combat Int all the way, and bollox to all darksiders too!!!! :lol:
 
#13
eye_spy said:
Sorry, I thought you meant skype!!

Anyway, Sy is a girls job and you will never find me hanging around the corridors of 2 MI.

Combat Int all the way, and bollox to all darksiders too!!!! :lol:
Do you know where they put the cellphone scanner mate?
 
#14
Minnesota_Viking said:
I think you may find it is a misunderstanding by management of what SIPE is. They think it's something brand new and shiny, but in the old Security Section days of 9 Security Company, 4 & 5 Coys in Germany, 11 Coy in Cyprus and the Coy in Hong Kong SIPE was simply knowing your patch, liasion with local SB, liaison other local Feds and discreetly chatting to locals, knowing what was going on around your VPs and barracks. All that has changed is the fancy terms used in IPE/IPB being added, which probably works for the youngsters who have to have labels for everything. Why not just do what you're supposed to and get out there and talk to people.
MV are you suggsting that the Int Corps just reinvents the wheel and masquerades it under a gucci name and "paper" undersigned by a young and thrusting YO :p Surely not.......
 
#15
MrsRaven said:
Mmmm. Is a chicken/egg thing isn't it. Everyone sticks to the PS cycle because its easy to understand and doesn't need extra man-hours we haven't got to start off the project. But we might have more man-hours if we were targeting the threat properly rather than wasting time on annual inspections of the Med Centre's one confidential document. Then you get the evangilists who seem to think SIPE is a magic wand that will 'do stuff' if you just wave it over your unit files. Its a process not a living, sentiant being.

Personally it I think it is nothing more than a useful framework around which to make your assessment of the risk from espionage, sabotage etc to a unit, a garrison, an individual, a group of soldiers, a region or whatever. MV is right that we have been doing it forever - possibly now we potentially have some useful IT tools that might make life easier (if developed properly but IT and the Corps is a whole other thread) and prevent reliance on the prodigious memory of the LCpl who has just been posted to the other side of the world, thus forcing the new bloke to start all over again.
The subject of IT and the Corps is a bl00dy black hole!
 
#16
g2_loony_bin said:
SIPE, hmmmmm.

I wasn't sure if this had been discussed by the forum yet. Cannot be bothered to use the search tool, but I've been on this forum for so long and I don't believe it's been discussed.

I don't want to go into too much detail about the project itself, I want to talk about the management of it, or the attempts at management. I want to do this in an open forum, where there is probably people from the hierarchy of 2 MI reading this, and can see what it's like in truth for the guys given this immense bag of bullshit called SIPE and told to "get on with it".
I also bring the subject up because even if someone knows who I am, and subsequently decides to grip me for it, it won't matter one jot. My career is not strapped on a fucking rocket heading to smash the glass ceiling.
So...

Who likes SIPE?
G2LB I have been out of the Corps for almost a year now and was never a member of said hierarchy but I was fortunate enough to be respected enough that my opinions were listened to (probably due to my rank... granted :) ) Your right to anonymity is of course respected but since you state that the "management of SIPE" is s**t, then use this forum to state why it is and let the hierarchy read your gripes. Offer the solution -- Not the problem as I believe the saying goes 8)
 
#17
Piglet_Files said:
g2_loony_bin said:
SIPE, hmmmmm.

I wasn't sure if this had been discussed by the forum yet. Cannot be bothered to use the search tool, but I've been on this forum for so long and I don't believe it's been discussed.

I don't want to go into too much detail about the project itself, I want to talk about the management of it, or the attempts at management. I want to do this in an open forum, where there is probably people from the hierarchy of 2 MI reading this, and can see what it's like in truth for the guys given this immense bag of bullshit called SIPE and told to "get on with it".
I also bring the subject up because even if someone knows who I am, and subsequently decides to grip me for it, it won't matter one jot. My career is not strapped on a fucking rocket heading to smash the glass ceiling.
So...

Who likes SIPE?
G2LB I have been out of the Corps for almost a year now and was never a member of said hierarchy but I was fortunate enough to be respected enough that my opinions were listened to (probably due to my rank... granted :) ) Your right to anonymity is of course respected but since you state that the "management of SIPE" is s**t, then use this forum to state why it is and let the hierarchy read your gripes. Offer the solution -- Not the problem as I believe the saying goes 8)
I wish I could, however this is all mainly in hindsight, from what I have seen and heard from others. It's far too late for a solution for what has already happened and I have listed before what should have happened. Right now things are going a bit better, only a bit though. Since the original SOP for this whole business came out nearly two years ago it just seems daft as fuck as to why this couldn't have been done quicker!

Like I said, a dedicated team could have done this, with the IT bods at Wilton, in a much quicker timeframe.
 
#18
Over 10 years ago, PM RAF submitted a paper on Advanced Intruder Testing, to Centre, Navy and Army for their consideration.

The proposal, rejected by all, was that each service should form a specialist, multi-disciplinary survey team to cover all facets of security. RAF CI personnel had deployed on a number of such joint tasks in Central London, Gibraltar and BFG.

The RAF still operates its team today, it is now well-established, and does what it says on the tin. What we lack in the Army's personal determination, drive and skill, we must make up for with a team that has close familiarity with what we consider to be a tight group of niche processes.

What a testament then, to the young men and women of the Intelligence Corps! Perhaps this is yet another example of the widely employable, multi-skilled Op MI, being able to turn their hand to any facet of tradecraft at the drop of a side-hat?

Just give them a questionaire, and a half-day (SAT compliant) workshop in an antique wooden hut on Salisbury Plain. ( with a haverbag for the journey home) .
......Jobs-a-good-un!


Oh! There's my taxi Brigadier.
We're just off to do all the IT in the Tech Block, pass my new OBE over will you?

See you after NAAFI Break
 
#19
Piglet_Files said:
Minnesota_Viking said:
I think you may find it is a misunderstanding by management of what SIPE is. They think it's something brand new and shiny, but in the old Security Section days of 9 Security Company, 4 & 5 Coys in Germany, 11 Coy in Cyprus and the Coy in Hong Kong SIPE was simply knowing your patch, liasion with local SB, liaison other local Feds and discreetly chatting to locals, knowing what was going on around your VPs and barracks. All that has changed is the fancy terms used in IPE/IPB being added, which probably works for the youngsters who have to have labels for everything. Why not just do what you're supposed to and get out there and talk to people.
MV are you suggsting that the Int Corps just reinvents the wheel and masquerades it under a gucci name and "paper" undersigned by a young and thrusting YO :p Surely not.......
Yep! Edited to add: Not necessarily a YO though, perhaps someone who has missed out on an MBE. :oops:
 
#20
subbsonic said:
Minnesota_Viking said:
Your point about getting info from SB is very apt; they don't have to share, it's very politically sensitive what they are looking at;
However there was a time when a number of Branches around the country were tripping overthemselves to get the local MI Sect to give them a SIPE view on forthcoming HRFs / PMEs.
Yep! And they learned. And they didn't try to reinvent the wheel once they had learned. Now they do it without thinking, like wot we did.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
reebrov Int Corps 148
A Multinational HQ 73
E The NAAFI Bar 137

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top