"MP's or Provost - An Idea on Roles" and "Replace base MP with RCMP"

[RCDtpr]

In my experience, the basic problem the MPs suffer from is that their policing role often puts them in conflict with their security and force protection roles.

MPs are not answerable to the CoC for how and when they police.  They are, however, answerable for the other two roles.  The problem is, the MPs will often abandon security and force protection for policing, hanging a Base Commander out to dry in the process.

My solution?  Contract out the  policing role to the RCMP.  Even in non-RCMP provinces, there is always a federal RCMP presence. They can work  for those Divisions.  The remaining MP PYs can then focus on field policing, POW handling, force protection and security. We can then get rid of CFMP Gp and put MPs back where they belong- accountable and responsible to the CoC.

I highly doubt the government will go for it.  Whetherthe RCMP or CF polices the CFB's ultimately the government pays for it.  I can't see them paying an RCMP Constable 80k a year plus overtime when they can pay a Cpl 65k/yr with no OT.

Economics will win

 

[JesseWZ]

Not sure if this has been brought up recently or not as well, what about the NDA? Most civilian police forces have no clue how it works, charging under it, CRO's, etc.

Removing the policing portion of the MP branch causes the first step on the pillar of the Military Justice system to weaken.

 

[QV]

Yes I'm an MP.

SKT, I agree where you say policing and other functions come in to conflict.  They do.  But a police force cannot be under the command and control of the very group of people it polices.  There needs to be independance.  If policing was to be contracted out away from MP, then MP need a name change as their function is no longer about policing.  There is no problem with a guard force falling under direct command and control of local CF commanders. 

RCD, I think it would be cheaper to contract police services out then budget for a full detachment at every base.  Police agencies near CFB may not even increase staffing.  If it is only emergency response and police related duties, I don't see a huge jump in their work flow.  There would be a significant reduction in police presence, however. 

As for the NDA comment, all matters under the NDA should be disciplinary matters anyway which unit's can handle themselves.  Any crime should be prosecuted properly under the CCC or other appropriate statute, like it is for every other person in this country. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The NDA is not that difficult.  Non-police officers (ie, the rest of use in the CF) manage to learn it, apply it and even make charges stick in a summary trial setting.

An online course could be developed (wait- we already have one!) for RCMP officers posted to a military Det.

Even as things stand now, do MPs posted fom province to province not have to learn (on their own time) the vagaries of their new province 's laws and acts?  How would this be much different?

QV- I happen to agree with you that the policing function should not be under the CoC, to avoid a conflict of interest.  What I am saying is that, regardless of how we solve this problem, the non-policing roles held by the MPs (and the associated PYs) need to flow back to the CoC.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Personally, and only from my perspective, MP's already act like they don't belong to the CF.

They get special police looking uniforms, vehicles, schools and promotion incentives. Either they are military and do what they did 20 years ago, policing, signing routes, escort etc.

Or they are pseudo civvie cops.

The MP hat and regular service uniform sufficed for ever. Why did it need changing? Why are they special?

They are soldiers, doing a military occupation. Unfortunately, most don't think themselves soldiers. They think they are cops. They, in reality, are nothing more than service people with an MOC.

Nothing anymore special than infantry, sigs, bosun or any other trade.

You can't be military and civvie at the same time.

You are either MILITARY Police, or your a flat faced civvie LEO.

I don't see any in between position.

 

[QV]

Personally, and only from my perspective, MP's already act like they don't belong to the CF.

They get special police looking uniforms, vehicles, schools and promotion incentives. Either they are military and do what they did 20 years ago, policing, signing routes, escort etc.

Or they are pseudo civvie cops.

The MP hat and regular service uniform sufficed for ever. Why did it need changing? Why are they special?

They are soldiers, doing a military occupation. Unfortunately, most don't think themselves soldiers. They think they are cops. They, in reality, are nothing more than service people with an MOC.

Nothing anymore special than infantry, sigs, bosun or any other trade.

You can't be military and civvie at the same time.

You are either MILITARY Police, or your a flat faced civvie LEO.

I don't see any in between position.

Police and Military do not mesh well.  Military requires a strict command structure, police require individual thought and action. 

In the military, the officer is ultimately accountable.  A police officer ( even an MP) is individually held accountable. 

 

[TCBF]

Police and Military do not mesh well.  Military requires a strict command structure, police require individual thought and action. 

In the military, the officer is ultimately accountable.  A police officer ( even an MP) is individually held accountable.

- Disagree. I would say we need both a strict command structure and individual thought and action, with accountability up and down - throughout - the chain of command.

-

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Police and Military do not mesh well.  Military requires a strict command structure, police require individual thought and action. 

In the military, the officer is ultimately accountable.  A police officer ( even an MP) is individually held accountable.

So that is different from other trades how?

We've had MPs forever. What's changed in the last 15-20 years that they should become different all of a sudden?

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Instant rank of Cpl and no time to get acquainted with military part in Military police...?

 

[Dissident]

RG:

While I've met my fair share of MPs who were much happier in patrol cars than in a trench, your slight against the different uniform has been debunked by others before.

For better or for worse the trade changed, with these changes a new uniform was deemed necessary. How many trades have different/specialized work dress?

FWIW I don't get to wear the blacks all that often at all and I much prefer Cadpat myself anyways.

In any case, I get the feeling that you look down upon MPs and would find whichever way you can to disparage MPs.

 

[blacktriangle]

My question: What kind of cost savings are to be had by taking the policing duties away from MP's. If another force still has to be contracted, what are those costs?

If there are huge savings to be had in terms of PY's and money,  go for it. If not...not a chance. I like the fact that MP's are visible and frequent patrollers of bases. Plus not all of them are fresh from basic training, I've met quite a few that were OT's and have done their time elsewhere. They get it. 

 

[dapaterson]

Any change is not only a question of money.  The CF, Reg F, is capped at a paid strength not to exceed 68 000.  That is more of a limiting factor than the cost.

A reduction in one place can permit increases in others.  So, for example, if we need 100 fewer Reg F MPs, we can get 100 more pilots.  Or vehicle techs.  Or Bos'ns.  Or whatever the priority is.

Or, maybe we're going to need increased security because our next generation of fighter aircraft will be so whizz-bang high tech that we have to prevent foreign spies from snooping around.  So we'll need more MPs - and to get them, we'll reduce AVN techs because we'll contract out much of the maintenance function.

But it's playing with the 68 000 that is the limiting factor, not the cost.

 

[George Wallace]

My question: What kind of cost savings are to be had by taking the policing duties away from MP's. If another force still has to be contracted, what are those costs?

Only cost savings will be in the fact that the costs will not be solely out of DND budget, but an arrangement with the RCMP with their Budget. 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

RG:

While I've met my fair share of MPs who were much happier in patrol cars than in a trench, your slight against the different uniform has been debunked by others before.

For better or for worse the trade changed, with these changes a new uniform was deemed necessary. How many trades have different/specialized work dress?

FWIW I don't get to wear the blacks all that often at all and I much prefer Cadpat myself anyways.

In any case, I get the feeling that you look down upon MPs and would find whichever way you can to disparage MPs.

You're reading way too much into my comments and trying to 'demonize' me instead of discussing the points.

They're not civie police, they are military police, no matter how much they try to emulate the former.

I don't look down on anyone that does the job that their military trade requires in a professional manner, so you can quite playing that game.

 

[Dissident]

I don't think I'm reading too much into what you wrote, you need to reconsider the way your message come across.

Your questions regarding the need for MPs to have a distinctive uniform have been answered before. Are you deliberately being obtuse or would you care to share your appreciation of the (lack of) need for a distinctive uniform?

Right now MPs provide police services in and around military establishments, such as all the CFBs which operate under the open base policy. Lots of civilians access the facilities and there is a need for the public to be able to easily identify MPs. It's not about the CF at large or the role MPs USE to do back in the old days. It's about the job that needs to be done now.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I don't think I'm reading too much into what you wrote, you need to reconsider the way your message come across.

Your questions regarding the need for MPs to have a distinctive uniform have been answered before. Are you deliberately being obtuse or would you care to share your appreciation of the (lack of) need for a distinctive uniform?

Right now MPs provide police services in and around military establishments, such as all the CFBs which operate under the open base policy. Lots of civilians access the facilities and there is a need for the public to be able to easily identify MPs. It's not about the CF at large or the role MPs USE to do back in the old days. It's about the job that needs to be done now.

Think what you have to, to get you through your day.

 

[Dissident]

Think what you have to, to get you through your day.

What grinds my gear in this case, because really I don't have a dog in this OPD/Cadpat argument of yours, is that you have singled out new members in the past for spouting off ill informed opinion which could have been answered by a simple site search. Since you have stated this opinion before and had a proper reasonable explanation given to you, why would you bring it up again without some more substantiation?

You are failing to meet the standard which you have previously help set on this website. Underwhelming.

 

[Kat Stevens]

That big old black brassard with MP in 4" high white letters, red hat, and white crown vic with the monkey bar on top wasn't enough to differentiate a military policeperson from a Paladin security guard?

 

[George Wallace]

That big old black brassard with MP in 4" high white letters, red hat, and white crown vic with the monkey bar on top wasn't enough to differentiate a military policeperson from a Paladin security guard?

Having seen some of the posts on this site recently, I would think not.  How many of our illiterates could read the big letters spelling "MILITARY POLICE" on the car?  >

 

[Fishbone Jones]

What grinds my gear in this case, because really I don't have a dog in this OPD/Cadpat argument of yours, is that you have singled out new members in the past for spouting off ill informed opinion which could have been answered by a simple site search. Since you have stated this opinion before and had a proper reasonable explanation given to you, why would you bring it up again without some more substantiation?

You are failing to meet the standard which you have previously help set on this website. Underwhelming.

Put your ruler away. I don't care how big you think your dick is.

Spout off all you want, you're not getting a rise out of me.

Thanks for proving my point though.