Standards

#1
I will try and protect opsec / persec as much as possible with this one, I just wanted to get some opinions.

I'm a civillian police constable, having left the army in 2002. I was in the block when a PIC was brought in for Robbery, and a nasty one at that. He was one of four offenders, but the circumstances of his arrest were pretty unique.

It turned out this guy, who had mega attitude, was also AWOL.

I checked his form and he his CRO went back eight years. I'm not talking minor stuff, he had convictions for robberies and TFMV which had resulted in time at both YOI and HMP. There were many intel logs detailing criminal associations and also suspicions that he was involved in bigger stuff. All in all he was an established shit.

His encounters / s.a.s records showed that he hung around with those of the same ilk and he was frequently brought to the attention of officers , often displaying enough attitude and lip to be brought in under POA.

He had been in for just over a year and awol for about a month.

My query is have standards slipped that much that:

a) a person like this can pass an intervew to join HM forces
b) a person with such an extensive criminal past can join HM forces
c) is the vetting so relaxed that this clown could blag his way in

I didnt get a chance to chat with the RMP who turned up to take him away. But if this is the calibre of soldier joining nowadays, I imagine he would be too busy to hang around and talk.
 
#2
martin7606 said:
I will try and protect opsec / persec as much as possible with this one, I just wanted to get some opinions.

I'm a civillian police constable, having left the army in 2002. I was in the block when a PIC was brought in for Robbery, and a nasty one at that. He was one of four offenders, but the circumstances of his arrest were pretty unique.

It turned out this guy, who had mega attitude, was also AWOL.

I checked his form and he his CRO went back eight years. I'm not talking minor stuff, he had convictions for robberies and TFMV which had resulted in time at both YOI and HMP. There were many intel logs detailing criminal associations and also suspicions that he was involved in bigger stuff. All in all he was an established s***.

His encounters / s.a.s records showed that he hung around with those of the same ilk and he was frequently brought to the attention of officers , often displaying enough attitude and lip to be brought in under POA.

He had been in for just over a year and awol for about a month.

My query is have standards slipped that much that:

a) a person like this can pass an intervew to join HM forces
b) a person with such an extensive criminal past can join HM forces
c) is the vetting so relaxed that this clown could blag his way in

I didnt get a chance to chat with the RMP who turned up to take him away. But if this is the calibre of soldier joining nowadays, I imagine he would be too busy to hang around and talk.

the amount of people we get through custody who are young lads with "nothing" to do is amazing I recomend the armed forces and they just laugh thinking stealing lead of church roofs and weighing it is is more profitable and exciting. You have got to question the mentalilty who half the population
 
#3
I guess they believe in second chances.
 
#4
I have it on good authority for a friend in the mess who works in a recruiting office that once a soldier has been 'round the houses' and has been declined by nearly all the recruiters in his office, there is a recruiter from a certain Infantry Regt who will seek him out and sign him up, whatever his history/background/attitude.

We are fighting a war on two fronts, we have to take what we can.

I PNC'd a soldier on Sunday last week who had a 300 number, so was obviously very new in. He has 7 offences listed (convictions all) ranging from POA through theft onto possession of cannabis. You have to ask if these people are being screened. Three months in the army and he was arrested for possession of coke after crashing his car whilst p*ssed and AWOL. Incidently, he was from the same Regt as the above mentioned recruiter.

RPC
 
#5
Why is it so hard recruit civilians who would make good soldiers?
 
#7
I was at school with a chap who joined the police and is now doing 18 years for assorted sexual crimes. There are always scrotes in any job. Guess we just have to live with them.
 
#8
I am in the process of rejoining at the moment. I was in the AFCO sorting out the paperwork when the Officer asked me to have a chat to a couple of guys who wanted more info on my previous Corps, while they were waiting to take their BARB test. I found through the course of a chat with one of the potentials that he had more than a couple of ASBO`s and a lot of convictions for drugs and assault. He was very open about it and was worried that it would affect his application. In due course he passed his BARB test. I heard nothing until i had to go back for my interview. I casually asked if he was successful in his application. I was shocked when told that he would be starting his basic next month after passing at Glencourse!!!!!!!!!

I am not in favour of character assassination but c`mon, surely the warning signs are there!!!
 
#9
What makes anyone think that the recruits of the 70s, 80s and 90s were any different? The natural recruiting pool is amomgst violent young men from the lower reaches of society. As that pool becomes murkier there are probably more with documented previous criminal activities but in the main I would bet that they are no different.

I have been asked this question many times by Civvy Coppers, even in Northern Ireland, who seem to think that there is a similar recruiting standard and are shocked when they have to deal with soldiers whose backgrounds are as bad as some of their regular customers.
 
#10
martin7606 said:
I didnt get a chance to chat with the RMP who turned up to take him away. But if this is the calibre of soldier joining nowadays, I imagine he would be too busy to hang around and talk.
I'd be really surprised if it was RMP who turned up to collect the individual, it's usually the local 'Duty Unit's' RP Staff. In my experience RMP don't have the time or staff.

In response to your question, I often saw blokes get their 7th or 8th conviction for violence at DCM, and after a custodial sentence at the Army's holiday camp, (I mean MCTC), they were allowed to soldier on. There was also a bloke in the early 1990's who shot his girlfriend in Germany and was convicted, even he was aloowed to soldier on.

Can't catch your breath sometimes.

Although as I understand it, UK courts are no different, and are rotuinely releasing people into the community who should be serving time.
 
#11
According to the detention log it was RMP, but didn't see them myself. In the past I have seen RMP come and take AWOL blokes who have been locked up for further offences, though.
In response to the replies,I agree that we recruit from the rougher end of society and that some people joining the army will have had dealings with the authorities and the courts. But this can't justify recruiting someone who has recently been in prison for serious offences relating to robberies and violence. I'm not talking about petty thefts and a bit of anti social but an established criminal who was fully engaged in a life of crime and general skull-duggery!
I'd been arrested before I joined the army, I left and now police from the same station I was booked into! Second chances and all that...
There is a big difference between a few indiscretions and a proper villan. I wouldn't want to serve with, trust or rely on the latter.
 
#12
With that said, i guess taking in harden criminals who especially dont change is making the police job harder when they get out.

Seeing they now can shoot alot better then before and more skill in relations to guns and killing.

But to be out in the first place if they are such harden criminals would be the fault of the legal and criminal system. Then the recruiters for seeing the goal of reaching a target amount more important then up holding the standards of the army. So the standards problem would more so lie with the recruiters and the officers over them as well as the training staff who allow them to pass basic.

So the drop in standards starts with the recruiting and training staff.
 
#14
With the new, (Or not so new) custody rules, we used to think (That is the RMP), what's the point. Absentees are no longer considered criminals, they may get a PNC number, arrested and detained, but not much else.

I got sick of my guys (Past tense as I am now out), knicking someone, and handing him over to his unit, only to find that the nicked person had walked out of the gates within half an hour, because the new custody rules are too stringent. In other words CO's were frightened of using them or worse did not understand how to use them.

If I remember correctly, AWOL's could only be detained if they posed a threat to themselves or someone else, even then only if you applied to a JO (Judicial Officer). All in today's fluffy Bunny, Tree Hugging world.

It was also embarrasing when Old Bill rang to ask why the bloke they nicked was back at home, hours after they detained him/her. There was not a lot we could say, other than 'thats the way it is'.

MAOC's (I think thats the acronym), tend to deal with Absentees nowheredays, a lot of them anyway, as many claim that they were abused, assaulted, belittled, or even god for bid, shouted at. Don't get me wrong some are treated very unfairly, but a lot (That's my opinion), jump on the 'Bullied' bandwagon.

I am glad I am out. Until they reverse some of the custody rules, which are really stacked in favour of the 'accused', not a lot will change.

Notty.
 
#15
martin7606 said:
My query is have standards slipped that much that:

a) a person like this can pass an intervew to join HM forces
b) a person with such an extensive criminal past can join HM forces
c) is the vetting so relaxed that this clown could blag his way in
I think you are being a bit naive here. Western did get it right, we are not recruiting potential police officers here, we are recruiting people who will soldier in extreme conditions for a fraction of what police are paid.

Yes, some have records but the Army hope to rehabilitate them with discipline and a new life. In some cases it works, in others we throw them back to you to deal with.
 
#16
martin7606 said:
My query is have standards slipped that much that:

a) a person like this can pass an intervew to join HM forces
b) a person with such an extensive criminal past can join HM forces
c) is the vetting so relaxed that this clown could blag his way in

I
I have it on good authority that if a conviction is spent then we have to have a good reason why we wont accept them (the whole 'they are rehabilitated people now their conviction is spent' thingy). These sorts of things do go down to HQ RG and are assessed on a case by case basis. Whilst a lot of these scrotes shouldnt be in we dont really have a choice, a lot of them will take the Army to court if we refuse them entry too readily (believe me this happens quite a bit). 8O

As has been mentioned before, its not as if we can be horrendously picky these days. However we should never let our standards slip (well not to much more anyway!!!) :D
 
#17
Daytona955 said:
martin7606 said:
My query is have standards slipped that much that:

a) a person like this can pass an intervew to join HM forces
b) a person with such an extensive criminal past can join HM forces
c) is the vetting so relaxed that this clown could blag his way in
I think you are being a bit naive here. Western did get it right, we are not recruiting potential police officers here, we are recruiting people who will soldier in extreme conditions for a fraction of what police are paid.

Yes, some have records but the Army hope to rehabilitate them with discipline and a new life. In some cases it works, in others we throw them back to you to deal with.
I don't think I am being niave, for the reasons stated above. When someone has spent two seperate spells in a YOI and a HMP they have been through the rehabollitation approach already. They have lived in an environment that attempts to address the offending behaviour that led them into custody. As stated already, this was an established criminal who was regularly arrested for serious offences over a number of years. He had criminal associations and intelligence detailing further offences he was linked too.
The army can turn people around, I've seen it myself, but it can only develop and discipline a person so far. Surely there comes a point where the Army say "we are better than this t**t", I think those still serving deserve better than to have to live and work with a clown who's criminal record and complete lack of achievement speak for themselves.
I agree that the army recruits from the rougher end of the spectrum, it's the same end of the spectrum that it recruited me from. I think that there is a distinction between a kid who's seen a bit of life on the wrong side of the tracks and a man of the who has made a career out of criminality and has all the contacts that go with it.
 
#18
Xwhitetop said:
What are the RMP doing taking back an AWOL type chappie. Surely a nasty robber should be charged and kept in custody.
I wish. To get a remand out of our custody block is a rarity. I only completed about three MG7's last year, and one of them was turned down by CPS out of hours.
I've heard other forces are more inclined to keep them in, which can only be a good thing.
The usual process is bail them either for cps or further enqs. For domestics stick some conditions on them and get him out the door. Inspirational.
 
#19
I would like to think that there is now an investigation into possible FALSE ATTESTATION now, seeing as how it is unlikely that the chap in question disclosed fully his criminal history. If he didn't he attested into the Army under false pretences and is liable for Courts Martial and discharge. This tends to be the rotue taken by the Army, the Police however tend to opt for Obtaining a Money Transfer by Deception (much harsher conviction for the record). I just wish that we would do the same.
 
#20
I was recently on the periphery of a job where a NAAFI employee had hidden fraud convictions from her employer and she got put up for pecuniary advantage, not money transfer.

I think this should be a route taken with those who fail to disclose serious convictions on attestation, however, it's a lot of work just to punish someone who is probably on his way out anyway in both cases described above. 'Service interest' springs to mind.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top