Oh yes there was.Daxx said:Interesting but as with much media, there is insufficient information in the article to establish the base of the (any) argument. Assuming for a moment the implied competence ascertation is correct; I wonder who the BBC thinks should conduct investigations on operations?
Whilst the KM has a wide range of likely looking tasks, the actual policing within the Armed Forces is done by KMOO, the Military Police Service My experience when in liaison with them from Belgium was that the Military Police branch guys got kicked into MOO and were likely to stay there for their whole service. They did very little investigative work - this was handled by the regular police as if the soldier were a citizen. So, in terms of investigations such as now handled by SIB, no real improvement. The opinion we see here (which together with HMIC 1 and HMIC 2 is all this old Branch bloke has to go on), is that the Branch is broken and needs fixing. Mere replacement by another (unknown?) body is not the answer; I appreciate that is the way the government does things now. The developments since my days have been many but may be summed up as the emplacement of more officers in more posts drawn from the OR element as well as the usual suspects. It is not for me to suggest why these procedures have made such a mess of what was something that was fit for purpose despite allegations of having been a hard drinking culture with blokes in flares and dodgy taches. Even with some hard thinking and consultations of old colleagues, I cannot remember a climate then of so many adverse comments as we have of the modern establishment with their slimline tonics and jogging.pandaplodder said:Only way forward is to take the RMP out of the Army in much the same way as KMar in the Netherlands.
I don't know about anyone with any grudges, I left the Branch on good terms and I still have friends serving.Suffice to say, the main point of the reply is to say: Lap it up suckers, must be all true - after all the man on 'da radio said so. Baaa.
Not just six years. Although NI was very small beer in comparison, it did have it's moments. After Internment we had investigators trapped in inf locations for three days before we could extract them. In two of these, they picked up a spare SLR and joined in the defence.**** said:Regarding Western's points, I couldn't disagree more. The SIB has uniquely met the challenges of investigating crime in an operational environment in the last six years.
What's this 'smoother start'? The investigative side - which is all that a Met CID person could contribute - the Branch goes back to 1939 and before. That is a long start-up period isn't it?The only resource/expertise that has been lacking is manpower. Of course if we could have borrowed a couple of Chief Inspectors from the Met Murder Squad we might have had a smoother start, though I doubt it.
But at least the existing investigators would have had an opportunity to have received training in warlike conditions and the excuse of environment would not have been so readily available. How many inf blokes say from within a FOB "oh this is frustrating/difficult/scary"?The environments SIB was operating in would have been alien to them as well and they would have suffered the same frustrations of getting to scenes, following through on enquiries etc.
All the more reason therefore to have expected them to be adapted to the environmental/access etc conditions and done better than they seem to have done.Importantly and contrary to popular belief the SIB does have experience of investigating serious crime including murder â BFG, Kosovo, Bosnia, Cyprus, Falklands, GW 1 etc. The organisation has not just been investigating GBH for the last 60 years or so.
Easy to say - rather ther is no other agency - full stop We have no way empirically to measure what any other agency might do. But - were there not some RAFP made available? Did they deploy as investigators and how many jobs of theirs attracted adverse or worse comment?There is no other agency in the UK who could have achieved what SIB has achieved.
HMIC 1 and HMIC 2 gave just the same opportunity of mistake correction and re-org improvement but those opportunities seem to have been overblown and disappointing respectively.Of course there have been mistakes but most importantly the organisation has learnt from them and moved on. This should be the cornerstone of any organisation and self criticism is an important part of learning and making sure mistakes are not repeated.
Someone should have recognised that the sandy places were not going to be a walk in the park. Someone should have recognised that especial attention was critical in re selecting those going there so that known fcuk-uppers were kept away.It could be argued that the UK and the USA military were not fit for purpose in fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan if you listen to one sided media coverage. However, as can be seen in Iraq lessons were learnt and we move slowly and painfully to a more stable environment. Additional resources are now being thrown at Afghanistan.
The operational tempo issue is key. Unless you have worked in the environment you will not understand. Quite clearly it will not always be possible to conduct investigations of serious crimes in a hostile and dangerous environment in the same way as you would in the UK. This does not stop the SIB from trying. There is a danger that one or two fcuk ups are used to suggest, as is happening in this forum, that the entire organisation is unfit for purpose and the 99% of jobs that have been investigated fully, properly and professionally are simply forgotten about.
Glad you could join us Brigadier. Shame about Radio 4 though. Get thee to the Media Studio for some practice methinks.I for one am immensely proud of the work the lads and lasses have achieved.