RMP on R4

Discussion in 'AGC, RAPTC and SASC' started by Ninja_Turtle, Mar 10, 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. BBC linky

    Whilst running the usual risk of this thread decending into a petty squabble; this may be worth a listen.

    File On 4 2000 GMT, Radio 4, Tuesday 10 March 2009.
  2. 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?
  3. As NT said, probably worth listening to the Programme first.
  4. I just did. Not looking good is it? Some pretty fair comment. Wonder who the senior investigator was (voice disguised)? It didn't deal solely with ops either.
  5. Oh yes there was.
  6. Neat the way PM(A) used HMIC 1 to assert his investigators were fully capable. Such a pity the guy questioning him hadn't heard of HMIC 2.
    If the story re the barmaid was correct, there is not a lot in PM(A) going on about operating in sandy places; they cannot even get things correct in good old Germany. I was amazed at the way the informant was (mis)handled.
    The now-locked thread mentioned a number of adverse comments from people who know but it seems there were plenty more. I take it that the CO still signs off the covering letter to the investigator's report. So, why are all these highly-trained and especially selected officers not seeing what dross is in the report? Do they not read them or do they not know how to verify that the job is fit to be released into the open?
  7. Only way forward is to take the RMP out of the Army in much the same way as KMar in the Netherlands.
  8. I think the whole organisation needs to be looked at by an independent non-military police review body. The things they were mentioning on the programme were spot on. I hope the SIB have moved on from various levels of management 'red-penning' statements of its investigators. I think the biggest problem is the lack of experience of major enquiries that they get involved in. To investigate murder and covert investigations you need to be doing it all the time to ensure the required skills and experience are in place. I think that secondments to civil police murder squads, crime squads, sexual offences units should be a major part of SIB training. ORC, I think, has mentioned that this was the norm many years ago.

    Having listened to the broadcast, I'll think twice about mentioning to anyone that I used to be in the Branch.

    It’s a shame it’s come to this. I would imagine that the MOD are going to have to sort this mess out now that it’s hit the press. Hope old Findlay's got a good job lined up! He was so far on the back foot during that interview; I'd recommend him as a Strictly Come Dancing candidate

  9. 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.
    The responsibility lies with whoever signs the covering letter to the report. Their reputation and career should stand or fall on the work they release. Being in charge of a load of cowboy investigators is hard; the supervisor cannot be at their shoulder all the time. They may all leave morning prayers with the work for the day all OKd by the WO and then go off and do as they please.
    The officers will tell you they are in charge of the blokes. Fine - if a job goes adverse or tits up, then the officer's cojones are on the line. We used to have all sorts of weird blokes brought in as OC Sections before the Corps had its own officers. Very few of them lasted beyond their first annual report - if that long. We kept on dumping the rubbish till we got some that stuck. It worked.
  10. A KMar style organisation may solve the operational issues which are constantly wheeled out in defence, but would it solve the non-operational matters? The programme recognised the difficulties faced in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what was brought out by the programme wasn't an operational issue or any question of the ability of RMP to 'soldier'. What was in question was pretty much how RMP have conducted some of their enquiries and I would hasten to clarify 'some'. For every faulted enquiry, there are many professionally conducted and successfully concluded enquiries. I don't include homicide in that number as there have been so few, although of that number some of those have been mismanaged and previously reported on, and there's no getting away from that. The issues brought out were pretty basic stuff. In the cases brought out, evidence handling, continuity and knowledge of the law in relation to evidence were fairly criticised. Is this a wider problem for RMP though? I don't think that it is. The two incidents in Germany were particularly embarrassing. The one in the pub was bad enough, but the Covert matter was down right ludicrous. Who sanctioned that? The RMP may be out of the chain where enquiries are concerned, but surely someone should have been disciplined for that fiasco. PM (A) ducked and dived all the way throughout the programme. He appeared almost insulted by the fact that he was being questioned. Without repeating the HMIC thread (he threw the first report in as a defence as predicted), he was fortunate not to have been faced with findings of the 2nd HMIC report. Shiner hasn't fully done his homework, but the matters he highlighted were cringeworthy. The points brought out by the 'former' SIB investigator were pretty much as would have been expected given the managment of the covert element at that time. But what of overall command? What about the managment of SIB (G) at that time? Would the CO, and in particularly the 2IC who was very much the 'policing' decision maker in (G), have had some control or say in that matter? The sad thing about this is, that the vast majority of RMP who are more than capable in both Ops and Policing have been roped into this whole issue, by virtue of being in the organisation who's role will be questioned next month. And knowing just how professional many of them are, that is a very sad and unfair set of circumstances. The 2nd report might get an airing there along with some very awkward questions. Shame that the person on the receiving end will be the new guy and not the outgoing PM (A). The whole matter comes down to the management of the organisation. I doubt that we'll ever see a KMar style organisation. If they wanted that, the MDP would be the starting point and would end up running it. Next months enquiry will be interesting. The content will certainly be highlighted here, but are the MDP management at this moment in time, sat back contemplating an expansion in numbers, responsiblity and more importantly, budget?

    Secondments to local Constabularies would be a good thing for SIB, inparticularly for the Officers, but in fairness, the early f*ck ups in Iraq, weren't managed by SIB Officers. They were managed by inexperienced DE Officers who were listening to the wrong people, who were in the SIB and who were cuffing it. I don't include PJ in that number. In fairness to the outgoing PM, he wasn't even in the chair then.
  11. Alternative to us sending guys to the Met would be a re-run of the Campion thing where we got 19 experienced detectives to sort out a load of 'just growed' investigative resources. Much used to be made of the 'soldiers first and investigators second' mantra which was daft as there were 000s of soldiers and only 237 investigators but it does look as if the 'soldiers first' thing has come about. My impression was always that one could not run a SIB section like a Guards Bde cadre (or even a Pioneer Corps burial party!) and my interpretation of what gives now is that the Soldiers First mantra has got in the way of the professional work. Certainly, my best (i.e. most effective and productive) Officers Commanding were very relaxed in the military department. They had earned respect rather than it being something demanded.
  12. As ST says though, it's a shame that it has come to this, but will next month bring a decision for the greater good or will it be the case of the new guy shrugging his shoulders at the hearing and telling them that he wasn't in charge at the material time, which would result in a purely one way conversation? The outgoing PM should not be allowed to avoid that enquiry. Both he and the bloke before him should be called back. Each of the events where SIB have recieved justifiable criticism, occurred during both of their tenures. I don't think that we'll see the demise of RMP because of SIB faults, but after all of the high level criticisms, maybe the writing is on the wall for the SIB.
  13. Awful lot of one post posters popping up. Is that you Lenny?

    'Da man on da radio' (isn't that racist?). I take it you mean PM(A)?
  14. I don't know about anyone with any grudges, I left the Branch on good terms and I still have friends serving.

    The man on the radio is a BBC journalist, not some hack reporter from a daily gossip sheet and the report does raise many valid concerns. Rather than have a go a some of the above posters, perhaps you can put the record straight regarding the highlighted incidents?

    As far as qualifications re covert investigations, you don't expect anyone here to post their CV on here do you? How about you telling us about your ample experiences first of all. I am serving in a large city police force and I have a fair experience of proactive operations. Based on the details as broadcast, the operation re the participating CHIS got very out of hand. It sounds like the person running the informant got hoodwinked by their source and made too many promises they shouldn't have made. Not the first time this has happened. It is one of many pitfalls of working too closely with criminals. It was due to incidents like this that many home office forces changed their guidlines and management of source handling.