Stretch the Overstretch

[Ali Barber]

A friend of mine has just come back from leave in the UK and heard this latest pearl of wisdom from some people who should know what they're on about.

Apparently, the National Audit Office has found out that the manning scale for airmen on the Stns includes 2 weeks of duty as stn guard. The theory goes that, if all the airmen did their 2 week stints then we wouldn't need all those policemen we recruited specifically to release the airmen from guarding duties. As a result, 2,500 police are to go.

The only trouble with the theory is that it requires the establishment of airmen to be at 100%, which it usually (always?) isn't, and for them not to be deployed all over the world dealing with all those squabbles we are sorting out.

So, what with extended operations all over the world, the threat of doing the Fire Brigade's job over Xmas and now the joy of stn guarding when you get back, I wonder what else "they" can think of to reward the efforts of our airmen?

I stand to be corrected if the story stems from rumor control - anyone know either way?

[tu chan go]

I was recently at a Scottish station and I learnt that the RAF police were being taken off guard duty and that all airmen were eleigible to start doing this duty again. It was suggested that, as the RAF police are also (mostly) airmen, would they also be eleigible to do their stint?

I agree with Ali. The guys are doing some extremely onerous tasks around the world and this is how they are rewarded!!

[Flatus Veteranus]

I thought the Rocks were formed during WW2 to guard airfields (specifically in the aftermath of the invasion of Crete, where our airfields were captured intact). What are the Rocks doing for a living these days? :confused:

[Cpl Plod]

Almost correct, the way I understand it:

All Stns LUEs are manned to be able to provide airman guards for 2 weeks PA. Under the new scheme, this will be reduced to 1 week PA.

The majority of STC units have enough manpower (!) to fulfil this commitment and airmen will shortly commence guarding.

Other units that don’t have enough ‘blue suits’ will be established for MPGS soldiers who will do the necessary static / mobile patrolling.

The RAF Police will ‘right size’ over the next 4/5 years, losing approximately 1000 personnel. Yes those that remain will be eligible for guarding duties, but 1 week PA the same as every other Trade.

All the guarding commitment OOA will, in time, be given to airmen guards from any trade (probably for more than 1 week PA otherwise the commuting would be a nightmare).

It does seem strange that at a time when the MOD is talking about the fight against terrorism, the RAF is getting rid of the additional RAF Police recruited during the 80’s to counter the IRT threat. The MPGS sounds like a fine body of men, the RAF Police who will lose their jobs are expected to join. Joining as Private Class 4 about £12 000 year, strangely enough I don’t know anyone who’s applied yet!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

[BEagle]

I thought that the Regiment was formed to defend RAF aerodromes, not just to guard them?

Keep misemploying trained technicians as gate checkers and there won't be much left to guard before long.......

[Scud-U-Like]

The decision to change the guarding commitment at RAF units has nothing to do with the NAO (God only knows where that one came from). The idea was a result of 'Provost 2000', a study into the future of the RAF Police trade structure, which also looked into the RAF guarding policy in general.

The changes will remove RAF Police from guarding duties (except for their annual one week's guarding commitment, in common with other trades). RAF Police trade strength will be reduced to a level more commensurate with policing a population of around 50,000 people.

You can't please everyone, Cpl Plod. The primary reason for these changes was the general dissatisfaction among RAFP junior ranks with carrying out routine and often mundane static guarding and security patrol duties. The smaller RAF Police force will be a 'pure policing' agency, providing continued expertise in general police duties, criminal investigations, counter intelligence, computer security, air transport security, along with those areas unique to the RAF Police, such as the Tactical Provost Wing, the Equal Opportunities Enquiry Team and the Defence Flying Complaints Investigation Team (oh, and not forgetting the sneaky beakies we can't mention).

Meanwhile, is it asking too much for an airman or airwoman to do a week's guard per year? Not really.

[Ali Barber]

It may not be asking too much for them to do one or 2 weeks guarding, except that it obviously takes them away from their primary duty. This is taken into account in the establishment, but it only works if the station actually has its full establishment of personnel, which I doubt is the case but cannot say for sure. Add to that all those personnel away on deployments and we will end up short of people doing their primary duties because of the guarding committment.

Maybe the answer is to ensure that a correct establishment is actually provided, and avoid fudging the issue with such things as people still on strength when they are on a course that will be immediately followed by posting.

Sorry about the NAO reference, but this is a rumour network after all!!

[Cpl Plod]

Scud,

I hope your comments are aimed to the population of the board in general. As you would expect, as a member of the trade involved, I am fully aware of the intricacies involved in the Trade Group 8 Re-Alignment.;)

As to whether you can please everyone, I didn’t think the RAF was a democracy, if you don’t like the job, you walk. I, like many others have done my time on the RAFP (Routine And F Pointless) duties and may do so again. One week a year sounds great as far as I’m concerned, but I can see that the civies in uniform will monk like hell.

If you believe the rumours, the OOA Dets are likely to increase. It seems strange to get rid of the personnel that are currently doing the base security and handing it to the techie types. At what point will there be not enough techies to guard OAA, guard UK bases and do their primary jobs?

The reduction to core policing may be a good thing for the trade, time will tell. I don’t think your use of the EOI Team was a particularly good example though, only 4 personnel as I recall.

As for the unmentionables, I know we don’t like to talk about them, but there’s nothing wrong with being a Dog Handler!
;);) ;)

[canberra]

as an ex cpl non techy id like to add a few points.
1, apart from a few v small units ive never seen a snowdrop on the gate! at most units coppers are only on the gate first thing in the morning to check dress etc. one morning at leuchars a young copper was going to bollock a bloke for not wearing a tie with his jumper or for wearing rank badges. luckily he noticed the sign on his arm saying royal australian air force and just below it three chevrons!
2. its not just techies who do guard beagle! but the techies seem to think treir a special breed of airman that shouldnt do guard. i always worked on the principle that the more people that do duties the less duties you do.
3 as a shift worker i didnt like having to do guard training on my days off.
4, and finally all combatant officers in the raf should do one days guard at theis station. hopefully that would stop a lot of the complaints. anyone been to leuchars? theres a certain officer who at one time made a complaint every day about the guards, and he was aircrew!

[PICKS135]

I didnt mind having do piquet once a year. The only problem was that it didnt come round once a year. Reason. Mountain rescue team members didnt do it [didnt have a problem with that]. Photographers - sorry we do duty photog !,
Admin - we do duty clerk !
Supply - duty supplier etc, etc.
So that left the 3 sqns and eng wing.
Result the techies all ended up doing guard duties 2 to 3 times a year.
Certain people also had to other duties - snow and ice control and good old duty fitter.
So all in all that was piquet twice a year, duty fitter, 2 or 3 times a year and snow and ice once a year. That's if there was no war, detachments, or training courses.
Thank god they're downsizing the RAF or there would be no ground crew to look after the aircraft, they would all be manning the gates :(

[Scud-U-Like]

Cpl P

Unfortunately, walking is exactly what a great number of junior RAFP personnel have been doing, hence the need for change.

I have my own misgivings about Provost 2000, but I am hopeful it will be a good thing for the RAFP and for the RAF in general.

I wouldn't class drug detection dog handlers as sneaky beakies. Indeed, their effectiveness as a deterrent relies on publicity. I was thinking of something a little more covert.

I said the EOI Team was unique to the RAFP, not representative of it.

canberra

Snowdrops on the gate to check dress? I don't think so. That's the SWO's job. Though if someone was a complete bag of $hit, I would't expect an RAF copper to let it pass without comment.

[Molesworth Hold]

One week a year. This will become fixated in the minds of the airmen who actually do the duties and by those at the top. It will be uttered with an ironic sigh by the individual who inevitably gets caught three or four times a year and by the senior “manager” who accepts it as fact and dismisses the discontent.

No matter how well someone is trained I don’t believe anyone can slot into another job for a week and hope to carry it out to the same standard as a professionally constituted security force. Everyone wants security but no one wants to pay for it and I just hope that the lessons learnt from Tern Hill, Deal, Mill Hill etc won’t be forgotten.

I almost agree with canberra. :eek: Having a dig at the guy on the gate is too easy. If there is a problem and you know what you’re talking about, complain to the Guard Commander, but this would mean getting out of your car.

[Bullseye Bandit]

The airmen are never at 100% manning, was it not disclosed in the media the other day that 10% of the RAF is medically downgraded for one reason or another? The crux of the matter is that todays RAF is filled with to many CHIEFS and not enough INDIANS.

The RAFP as a force are stuck in a wilderness without a guiding light, apart from a specialist few, they are not really utilised as policemen more as objects of ridicule. Some are truly wasted as guards as they seem genuinally concered about looking after personnel and security( driving around MQ's in the small hours etc), however it is the few that seem hell bent on making peoples life a misery that spoil it for the majority. A smaller more proffesional force would be welcomed, In the name of jointery why is there not a combined police force for the services these days??

[Talking Radalt]

So errr, just to throw a spanner-wielding cat through the open window of the pigeon works....
At a Hampshire-based centre of aviation excellence, rumblings are that an idea has been suggested whereby newly arrived airpersons carry out guard for a whole month.....and never again afterwards.
And our survey said.......

[FOMere2eternity]

Good idea - by the end of their month they might know their way around the place they're guarding...

It should also inspire the new guys to know their specialist training wasn't in vain, make them feel like valuable members of the team and ensure morale doesn't spiral skywards...

Why not do it for a year and then never again....ahh, maybe that's the RAFP :p

[JohnB]

At most stations the airman caught for gate guard does 3 to 4 weeks on guard. So the 1 week per year of guard would mean that the duty should come round once every 4 years! Really!!!

A this unit SAC / Cpl do gate guard every 12-18 months for 3 week and as we are not on the list for MPGS then can't see how this is going to improve.

[Max_Chat]

What a bunch of whingeing old women. Get off your fat @rses and get with the program. You sign on and take the cash, then do as you are told and stag on. By the way, the aircrew have every right to complain about the enlisted that do not cut it.

[whisperer]

Ahh the old gate guard thing..will always be a pain in the A** for all concerned. Maybe the winged master race could help out from time to time then maybe they would be more understanding when SAC Scroggins refuses them entry with an out of date car pass or no ID......

[BEagle]

Personally I have considerable sympathy for the chaps/chapesses who have the thankless task of checking car passes and IDs. Many a time I've driven in at some ungodly hour to find some poor $od shivering on the gate doing this miserable job.

If anyone gives them a hard time, they need their ar$e kicked!!

[Talking Radalt]

...and annuver fing, most Gate "Guards" are simply armed Receptionists who are there to give directions to dim delivery drivers who have gained access to the unit with nothing more than a driving license, or to fend off errant ex-girlfriends of dashing young aviators.
The "visible deterrent" thing is utter bolleaux and to try and fob it off on intelligent well-educated servicepersons simply insults their understanding of the world around them. They are not trained as Group4, so why are they treated as such?
Fixing aircraft is specialised and we don't demand our security specialists do it; providing effective security for an airbase in the 21st century is equally specialised so why do we expect our "other" trades to do it? :(
Be realistic. Sending a few ounces of lead through a Fig59 and then watching a video doesn't count as training to provide worthwhile security cover for an airbase containing several billion bucks worth of taxpayers' trainset does it?.
The Sweeney days of a Mk1 Ford Escort screeching up to the maingate with three helve-wielding burly blokes inside are over. Why is it the experts always assume any hoccus-poccus merchant will make life difficult for themselves and easy for the (untrained) guards and actually try and gain entry to a unit posing as:
"O B Laden; Global terrorist, righter of Western wrongs and all round bad guy"
Why not use the Royal Mail, Express Dairies, TNT couriers, the RAC and everyone else who has business on the unit as cover, which SAC Bloggs doesn't have the training or experience to spot.

Oh! Have I just let the cat out the bag! Oooh I am sorry. :rolleyes:

[teeteringhead]

But why don't they use the universal passwords, guaranteed to gain entry to any building:

"Look sunshine, do you want yer F'in radiators fixed or what?"

Used it successfully myself when acting as intruder on exercises!;)

[814man]

Recent posts have surely identified what must be the overriding priority in this discussion, no not aircrew manning the gates, but that of the security of a unit and its assets. In order to effectively achieve that you need a properly trained well-motivated group of people.
The RAF Police have at last had the argument that it is not their job accepted, and will also accept the downsizing that will come with the removal of the security role and the focus on specialist tasks. The RAF Regt (rightly or wrongly) have never accepted any role in internal unit security. It is also abundantly clear that any airman, regardless of rank or trade, doing their annual stint on guard duty, with the best will in the world is going to be less than enthusiastic about the task.
Some years ago I did a stint on the main gate at RAF Gatow. It was manned at that time by a group called RAF Police Auxiliaries who were a mix of Germans and Brits (mostly ex-service). The first thing that struck me was that the guard seemed to be waving in almost all the traffic. I asked him if he really knew who all those people were and he reeled of the names of the occupants of the last 5 cars to have entered with their places of work and more details about them than they probably even knew themselves. (I should add here that this group of people became an invaluable source of information to me during my time as a RAF Police Investigator on the unit). Personal recognition is the best form of security. This guard had been working on the gate at Gatow for many years, he knew all the regular workers (remember some 90% of gate traffic will be regular visitors), and delivery drivers, and was able to pick out any unusual activity. He also didn’t complain about his job because it was the one he had joined up to do and got paid for.
It seems to me that the proposed MPGS are the logical answer here, or at least a RAF version of them. But they must be established at all bases, not just smaller ones with large civilian components, so that we get away from the ridiculous principle of a manning scale that includes 2 weeks on guard for everyone and at last get a professional dedicated and trained force to provide the security that our units require.

[canberra]

first of all yes ive seen coppers on the gate checking dress, leuchars 1985-87. if the raf police are going to be reformed does that mean they are going to become like the military police? by that i mean are they going to stop being involved in "security" and actually start working as policemen? i ask this cos at leuchars we had 4 coppers in the counter int section(surely that should be an int job) and one doing the si job! and finally on the subject of duties in general the only people who are exempted are members of the mountain rescue teams, their exempted under qrs/gais. no one else should be, note i said should!

[day1-week1]

I think blackadder had it right when he said that the one pre-condition of any british military campain is that your enemy should be armed with no more than a sharpen watermelon. In which case Zim gets my vote.;)

well B#@*er me if I didn't (somehow) post that on the wrong thread.

oops!

[Scud-U-Like]

canberra

During the period you mention, the SWO at Leuchars was regularly to be seen at the Main Gate checking dress and balling at techies, while the RAF Police carried out control-of-entry duties and, during the morning rush, traffic control duties (at the junction of the Main Gate and the public road that bisects the Unit) . Furthermore, the Police Flt at Leuchars had one SI Corporal (increased to two from 1987) , one CI Sergeant and one CI Corporal.

Just as the Army and the Royal Air Force are different creatures, so are the RAFP and the RMP. The RAFP provide all the police services to the RAF that the RMP provide to the Army. Additionally, the RAFP provide counter-intelligence services that, in the Army are provided by the Int Corps.

Independent inspections and Treasury-led audits show that the RAFP carry out all their duties in a highly professional and cost-effective manner. However, routine security duties have been identified as an area that creates job disatisfaction and retention problems for the Trade, so it has been decided that these duties will be removed from the RAFP.

[Talking Radalt]

"The RAF Police have at last had the argument that it is not their job accepted":eek:
What utter nonsensical tail-wagging-dog cobblers.

Does this mean it's no longer the SMO's job to keep everyone healthy and fitness tests are no longer the responsibility of PEd Sections?
And before any one suggests that control of entry isn't "police" work, how come control of entry to Downing Street is carried out by Metropolitan Police.
How come Heathrow Airport is patrolled by a specialsit branch of the Met?
Why is it when a civilian police service want to control entry to anywhere they use (oh! shock! horror!) a policeman.
Not the Police's job my arse!:rolleyes:
And if the "police" aren't going to do what is, call me old fashioned, "police" work can we assume they will be removing the red stripes and blue lights from their pretend squad cars and at the same relinquish the right to park anywhere.
And as for routine security duties leading to boredom, well boo f***ing hoo. Does that mean from now on I can stop doing duty crew and only go to airshows?:rolleyes:

[Scud-U-Like]

TR

Security and control-of-entry are a minor part of what Home Office police forces do. Under the new arrangements, they will also become a minor part of what the RAF Police do.

Why am I not surprised you are the first in the thread to start bitching about the RAF Police? So, you've had a run-in with them at some time. Get over it.

[FOMere2eternity]

American SP's seem to cope quite well with the security of their bases rather than pestering the populous with computer audits and often-cynical investigations.

Whether it's boring or not, it's not as if it was omitted from the RAFP brochure !

I don't mind the RAFP at all and have a few pals doing it for a living - the police hierarchy have shot themselves in the foot by not seizing the chance to do gateguard when there was clearly a great opportunity to maintain and even expand their empire.

The Regt, on the other hand, have thought much more proactively and got their people doing allsorts of new jobs nowadays. Lo and behold, they're expanding !

Now, we could stop wasting air by employing PTI's and a few other trades but that is another story...

[Scud-U-Like]

FOMeretoeternity

You're absolutely right in saying the provost hierarchy could have been more imaginative in expanding the RAF Police role (though I notice even the ever-dynamic RAF Regt wouldn't touch the routine control-of-entry/security job with a barge pole).

The USAF SPs have two separate branches. The security branch is responsible for routine security tasks, while the law enforcement branch do the often-cynical investigations bit. The security branch also cover those airfield defence tasks that, in the RAF, are the responsibility of the RAF Regt. The USAF SP force is around 30,000 strong. For these reasons, comparisons between the RAFP and the USAF SPs are not particularly useful.

You are right in saying RAFP recruits join with their eyes open. But, as we all know, reading about a job and actually doing it are two very different things. The question is, are the RAF Police prepared to lower the standard of person they recruit, in order to support the high turnover of junior personnel or are they going to ease the problem by making the job more specialised and challenging? They (and the Air Force Board) chose the latter.

Meanwhile, I can see I'm turning into the thread bore on this one, so, adios!

[skeet surfer]

I used to enjoy doing the odd week on gate guard. It gave you a break from the usual day to day duties (ex-techie). However, there's no doubt that there are even less people around to carry out more tasks, now, than in my day (89-98).

My brother, still in, has spent 9 out of last 12 months on dets and would probably not appreciate a few weeks guard duty in his 3 months 'off'. I guess this scenario is more the norm these days.

The job should be done by a dedicated team, up to now that has been the RAFP. The RAFP should continue to do this, admittedly, boring job until they are replaced by MPGS or equivalent.

This should make everyone happy except RAFP (for a hopefully short period of time) and the beancounters ('cause they'll have to shell out now to make savings later)

Sorry if RAFP don't agree, but I lent a tenner to one of them at Swinderby in 1989 and I still haven't got it back.........

[canberra]

first of all when i mentioned being at leuchars 85-87, i was also there 89-91 and again 95- 2001. when i mentioned about the raf police having 4 in ci and only one si that was last year. the raf police or should i say the provost and security branch(as they call themselves in the uk police gazetter) should make their mind up as to what they. are they a police force or are they a security force? as i said on my previous post the military police do not touch counter int, this is an int corps responsibility, why cant the raf int branch carry it out? and why dont provost officers where white caps? on the subject of guarding its got to be pointed out to the troops(and i was one) that someones got to do it! no one unless their v strange likes doing it.but i did do guard once at lu with an irishman who stated to me and several others that he wanted to shoot someone whilst on guard. for some reason we didnt like being on the gate with him!

[Talking Radalt]

Scud,
I agree whole heartedly that security and control of entry is only a minor part of police work, but still a part of it none the less.
This seems to be a case of the Plods clinging on to the "but it's always been that way" argument with regard to getting other people to do what is, being brutally honest, a role well within their job spec and only just (occasionally) inside everyone else's.
On the unit from which I operate there is a huge list of outstanding security issues that could keep a full time security force busy day to day, all it needs is for the worker ants to make this clear maybe by taking on some of these tasks and thus proving their worth, and for the king ants to accept peace time guarding of a military establishment is not a technician/storeman/driver's job.:(

And for the record I've never had any run-ins with any coppers.

[Ralf Wiggum]

TR, isn't security everyone's problem? It used to be that in TTW we relied on Soldiers to guard our Units. It was then realised that the RAF, believe it or not, was a disciplined military force responsible for it's own guarding. Now forgive me if I'm wrong, but how often do you see RMPs or Naval regulators doing gates?

Whether you are a technician, supplier or driver, like it or lump it, you are a fighting force. You, and I, should therefore do our bit. Doesn't sound to me like you have been nicked by the Police. It just sounds like you are quite 'Jack'. No one likes doing guard duty, but then again, we have to take our turn.

From what I can gather from the last AMPLT visit, the snowdrops are over qualified for their role on the gate as are technicians. So it makes sense, therefore, to employ them for what they are trained to do - Police the Unit. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can be a gate guard (Even you), but I sure wouldn't like to try my hand at sorting thorugh all the legal crap that's about these days. Hat of to the guys, let them do, like you, what they are trained to do.

Finally, your point about the civil Police doing Downing Street et al. I believe they are carrying out that duty (Usually Armed), purely on legal issues on who can carry arms in civvy street and/or who can arrest persons who break certain laws. Unless I'm much mistaken, it's limited to them. The RAF Police have only the same jurisdiction as you and I outside the wire. On military Units, all Servicemen & Women can carry arms and while the RAF Police may have a few more powers of arrest over Servicemen & Women, you and I again have the same powers over civilians, including intruders and terrorists.

Please tell me where it says that Guarding is the sole responsibilty of the RAF Police. I can then get some more rounds of golf in.

[FOMere2eternity]

Ralf

To address your points as you raise them:

- During TTW and Gulf War(s) we relied on the Army to man the gate because, not unusually, our people were doing their job - making planes fly

- With regards to us being a fighting force, yes we are - it's called the AIR FORCE and revolves around making planes fly

- If the RAFP are trained to 'police the unit', it's their contribution towards making planes fly (apparently by surveying our computers and stopping us speeding on camp)

- As for cops guarding Downing Street and it being a 'legal issue' - surely if it was inappropriate for cops to do it, the very people they're guarding are the very people to change legalities !

Guarding isn't the sole responsibility of the RAFP because we're doing it wrong and making do - as ever - it's about time somebody just said 'tough $hit - you're the security people and we need securing' and stopped letting them side-step the job !

That way the RAF might be able to get on with it's job - MAKING PLANES FLY ! (rather than stopping contractors !). If the RAFP don't fancy it, cool - but don't be amazed if you become excess to requirements...

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Didn't Churchill say something about airmen guarding bases?

PS. the Air Force isn't about 'making planes fly', its about projection of Air Power. If you want to 'make planes fly', go and join EasyJet.

[FOMere2eternity]

Damn...was expecting more of a bite than that...:p

Agreed on the projection thing, which is making planes fly with bombs on isn't it ? (and I know people have written whole books on the subject, so I'm deliberately simplifying things ;) )

but if the likes of the armourers are stood checking passes, and not 'projecting bombs onto wings', because the cops don't really fancy doing security, then we're not quite 'projecting' as best as we can

As for Easyjet......oh I wish sometimes....

[Not Imprest]

OK, picture this. At a secret (ahem) base in wiltshire walk out to jet (!) to discover small fuel leak in wing. Task can't go. Chat to Eng's and its 4 days delay. 4 days? 'Sorry Sir, the techies have been downsized and due to shift rotation we're looking at four days!'

Stating the obvious (sorry):

With every techie on the gate the primary jobs aren't getting done! I thought the whole point of the Air Force was TO ACHIEVE THE TASK, whatever that may be..... :confused:

P.S Whipping boys SATCO: I thought Air Traffic prevented people flying airplanes........! ;)

[FOMere2eternity]

Look out Imprest - I can see the inefficiency sympathisers about to claim 'achieving the task' includes car pass checking...

As for Churchill, that line is always used to justify this misuse of people - sure if there's a war, we'll all grab a rifle and walk the wire - but you can't selectively quote Churchill, otherwise The Few of us would still be planning to Fight Them on The Beaches...

Modern equipment and people needs modern thinking...and I still think PTI's should be fired so we can use their numbers to man the gate :p

[Bullseye Bandit]

OK then if security of the base is the responsibility of all!! lets have everyone and I mean everyone:eek: doing their bit, Flt Lt/SL as guard commanders and everyone else below that rank on the gate. It would solve a problem, and everyone would possibly then only do a week of guard max, and dont say the higher ranks are too important or have to much work, we are one big company and everyone has an important part indifference to rank. I wouldn't mind doing a week that involved no paperwork.


I bet it would not be too long until the RAFP took over the guard commitment again

I'm all for real policemen doing real police duties, 4 CI and 1 SI great!!! that would mean the rest of them could be made redundant, after all there is not enough speedguns or computers to check (?!!) for the rest. Could also get rid of all those Blue light vehicles, which are a lot of wasted money just to make people feel like REAL policemen.

[Talking Radalt]

First things first. Ralf Wiggum, I am not jack.
Further more I do not judge people whom I shall never meet and comment on their personal standards via this website (except Lemmon Drop Kid obviously).
Enough of that.

Bottom line is I will willing do gate guard all day every day as long as the RAFP take on a more serious role in unit security. Saying it's everyone's responsibilty doesn't include the caveat "except the RAFP or Regiment" although this ethos seems to exists at a great many camps. The idea that everyone else should be involved has, in my experince given RAFP the opportunity to suggest that they shouldn't be.
I know for every bad cop there are probably ten good ones but for example, colleagues of mine and I have highlighted lapses of security with the RAFP whilst on GG only to find the same lapses of security exists six months later.
The RAFP don't mind us doing guard so that they don't get lumbered with it full time, but do they like it when you try and contribute to unit security in a more general sense?
It seems when it comes to taking root at the gate in the pouring rain on Christmas Day, it's "everyone's job" and the RAFP object to the idea that they should be more involved.
When it comes to suggesting a review of the idea that local farmers hold keys to crash gates (this actually happens at the unit I am on) the RAFP get equally uppity that we are treading on their toes.
If the Guards are the first line of defence the RAFP are the second and should operate accordingly and work with the guards in a very real sense instead of doggedly arguing that "security is everyone's responsibilty".
"Everyone" includes them too. ;)

[PICKS135]

If RAFP are guarding the stations, then can someone tell me how long the West and East sands at St Andrews been part of LUK ? As they seem to be patrolling roads leading to these beaches in their little white car. Especially in the summer :D

[The Cryptkeeper]

Having had a fair few run ins with the RAFP an old joke springs to mind!
What's the difference between an RAF Policeman/woman and Adolf Hitler?
Adolf was a substansive corporal!!!

[Ralf Wiggum]

FOMere**, you are apparently under the misguided illusion that I am a snowdrop. I thought my post made it quite clear that this was not the case. Still, to look at letters on a VDU is easy - to read them may not be quite so easy for those with their own agendas.

I like to defend all trades & Branches that are down trodden each time someone like you rams it down our throats about being there to support Air Power. You seem to forget that Air Power is there to protect and support the soldier on the ground. Therefore, you do not come at the very top of the order of merit, merely a second place to the Infantryman.

TR, you also seem to be under the same misguided illusion about my job. Also the b*ll*cks about the caveat "Except the RAFP or RAF Regt" - who gave any caveat? I believe that the RAFP when they lose the gates, will also be included in the 'Airmen (Any trade)' that will have to take their turn on gate duties.

OK, so you say you are not 'Jack' but for sure, you are extremely bitter towards the RAF Police for some reason. I have always learned that there are 3 trades you try to get on with. Suppliers - it's easier to ask politely for some kit than go in and demand. Caterers - Obvious really and who wants to upset someone who can put any type of bodily discharge in your food without you knowing. Finally, the RAF Police - They can make your life hell for a minor incident if you're the person who gives them sh*t on the gate. Besides, I know from experience that they have the best and often the cheapest bars on some camps. The attitude test is so easy to pass, so why do Aircrew regularly fail?

If I were a betting man TR, I'd put money on you being a Sgt Aircrew, either in training or just out. I reach that conclusion by the total disregard (probably through naivity) for others saftey by highlighting what you see as security breaches on your Unit via a public forum. If there is an incursion at your Unit such as the one at Boscome highlighted in the Sunday Express recently, I'm sure the RAF Police boys and girls sponsored by Burtons will be paying you a visit. Well done TR.

[Scud-U-Like]

TR shouldn't be too hard to find at his secret Unit in Hants. ;)

[FOMere2eternity]

Ralf

Thanks for the reading lesson. I'm one of the 'down-trodden' who has to do guard because the cops don't fancy doing it. I'm far from the 'top of the order of merit' and my agenda is actually to support the 'down trodden' so they don't get fannied around standing on gates.

My overall point was that if you take anyone away from their primary duty on a regular basis, it will and does affect our primary role - to be an air force - unless, of course, your* primary job, which you signed up to do, is security !

* 'your' doesn't mean YOU !

We can go back and forward all year about the rights and wrongs of station personnel doing guard, except to say it is far from ideal. Technicians, administrators and yes, even PTI's, have primary jobs to do, but what do the RAFP contribute ?

The answer, I believe, is security, which has somehow mutated into speed traps :p

[Talking Radalt]

Get the landing net, the fish they are are a-biting........:rolleyes:

Of course the "security breach" I mentioned wasn't fictionalised but just plausible enough to get a point across was it?
There are very similar loop holes that are being left wide open which was the point I was raising. As I said, I've raised them through the correct channels, so have colleagues and on one occasion even a concerned Joe Civvy. Reported them up the relevant chain and hey presto....nothing.
So if airing them here gets someone, somewhere to hit a large red button marked "panic" then is that a bad thing?

[Scud-U-Like]

TR

Sounds more like backpedalling than the whirring of a fishing reel. ;)

FOMere

I'm sure the downtrodden will be forever in your debt.

[FOMere2eternity]

Naw, I'm pretty sure they won't...

However, due to an inappreciative 'Trodden' I think I'll ignore stuff like this from now, just say 'tough' and become fashionably oblivious. I don't have to do it, so who cares huh ?
I really think YOU are missing the point Scud...

Hope you get stopped for speeding :p

[Bullseye Bandit]

So if it is true that Leuchars is to open up a civvy terminal for Ryanair etc does that mean the RAFP will still want to say that they are not a security force?

will it be the normal Station guard force that guards the terminal Of course not..... The RAFP will say they are responsible for security. I can just see them walking around with the Flack jacket,Holster,Heckler and Koch MP5's,ear-piece radios. AKA Heathrow etc. surely it is just a dream...............nope it isnt!!

[FOMere2eternity]

Oh man, let em pose, it's easier than setting Scud off again :)

[Divergent Phugoid!]

Cant see what all the fuss is about...

You all joined the RAF to do particular function, part of that function must surely be, security!!

Are you all not, unless non-combattant, trained in the use of firearms?? I wonder why that is.... um.... nope not the glorious 12th, but to defend your selves and your station in case of atack...

What is the difference from being on exercise and working a gate or pan access and the like to doing the whole camp?? None!!

One for the Aircrew who seem to have a little buzzing thing under their caps.....

I take it that you dont expect the RAFP to pick up FOD when they see it on their patrols? So you wont mind if it is ingested by your engines because its not their job to pick up rubbish?? I think you would be the first to point the finger at them if you knew that they ignored FOD deliberately. But where in their terms of reference does it say that a duty of the RAFP is litter collection?? It isnt. Its a function that we all do because we know what the consequences could very well be.

And as for the Pruner worried about The RAFP doing them for speed?? SLOW DOWN its easy and it doesnt hurt!! (Oh and its the pedal on the right! lift your foot slightly) What could you do with those precious few seconds that you might save by speeding around?? Boil a kettle?? I think not!!

Its a shame that The RAFP cant join in on this thread, I am sure they would have some quite interesting ideas on other trades apart from theirs, and how they would like to do things, to affect your time off!!

I personally enjoyed a break from the routine, it meant that you came into contact with others, from areas of which you would not normally have mixed with. Some people are so insular, maybe its time for them to take a good look at themselves!! IS guarding and the security of where you work and live not your concern???

[FOMere2eternity]

Agreed

let's take the coppers off their primary duties for a week and get them to walk around picking up FOD...

:)

[Talking Radalt]

Scud, and others,
Call it back-peddling, call it umbrella going up, call me stupid, irresponsible or just call me Loretta, for goodness sake.
There IS an adjacent land owner, he DOES have his own self-governing access to parts of said unit.......but then he IS a top bloke, very well vetted and the whole arrangement is official (hence my message was "fictionalised").....unless you ask the MTV Surveilllance Team who then say "Wot gate? Wot farmer?":rolleyes:

Interesting that the first reaction from Wiggy was to imply I was meddling in things about which I knew little and then to shift the focus of attention by threatening some kind of witch hunt.
Thanks for demonstrating my whole point Wiggy!;)

And DPhug,
The thing about "What is the difference from being on exercise and working a gate or pan access and the like to doing the whole camp?? None!!"

Small but significant point, exercises are about war when rules of engagament and the aftermath of a shooting are totally different to peace time vetting of visitors to a unit and any associated use of firearms, hence it should be left, in it's entirity, to a specialist trade.

As an aside but kinda relevant: Once saw a cracking TV interview of a USAF SP chap at a contentious piece of "Common" land near Newbury. A mobile missile launcher was seen to be halted by a group of soap-dodgin' tree-huggin' wimmin. He was asked:
"What do you think of just how easy it is to stop your convoys? These protestors are totally unarmed and have brought you to a stand still just by sitting in the road"
Reply (in a pure Elvis accent): "Uh-huh well ma'am, if we were at uh war, we'd uh, shoot them and drag the uh, bodies out of the way" Dead pan face, no flicker of emotion. Nice!:cool:

[Divergent Phugoid!]

Radalt, sorry mate but you missed my point entirely. I was suggesting that on exercise you did what was necessary and also what you were told to do; A requirement to safeguard all from what ever possible threat. Has the Millitary Given up the war on terrorism?? I dont think so...

Security should be everyones concern and everyone should do their bit to assist in the whole ball game, not just bits that they like to do, or want to do. If Security was everyone elses problem who would deal with it??

If you see anyone on or near your aircraft whom you dont believe should be there, do you question them or just let them get on with it... Was that what assisted in the 911 incidents?? Complacency???

If you are not 747 FS2000 I hope I dont take a trip with you on your aircraft... Presuming you are the Captain, Who would be responsible for the security?? Oh thats right its not you is it....

[Molesworth Hold]

The crux of this issue is finance, as the scuffers will no longer carry out control of entry/anti-terrorism duties, their trade manning will be severely reduced along with their career aspirations.. Without the offer of redundancy the average plod will eventually deduce that promotion will stagnate and join the queue to PVR. The remaining RAFP will be free to concentrate on law enforcement and Station budget holders will be happy that guarding will be carried out at no cost. If there is to be a net reduction in the numbers of the RAFP, will there be an increase in other trades or will the savings be swallowed buy other budgets?

It’s almost flippant to say that security is everyone’s business, for most guarding never went away and it’s the RAFP who have chosen redefine their security role. The decision to return to the way things were a few years ago, in today’s very different world can only be based on money.

Since this is an Aircrew Forum I would just like to add that one SAC A/Cpl gleefully told me that his war role was to ensure that reluctant Aircrew didn’t do a bunk when the sh*t hit the fan.

[Tiger_mate]

Since this is an Aircrew Forum I would just like to add that one SAC A/Cpl gleefully told me that his war role was to ensure that reluctant Aircrew didn’t do a bunk when the sh*t hit the fan.

Which believe it or not is EXACTLY what the RAFP (P&SS) did in Germany when a TACEVAL was called. If you were on local leave and did a runner, the RAFP would stop all BFG registered cars making for the autobahns and deep **** lay ahead for those caught!

T_M

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Didn't see any feds securing Kabul International..........

[FOMere2eternity]

I don't think they had computers to check and it was decided to overlook the locals speeding :p

[Scud-U-Like]

W B Satco

Your comment seems to follow the ill-informed, slightly vitriolic trend of many of the posts herein.

I understand Tactical Provost Wing sent a recce team to survey Kabul International Airport at a very early stage. (The story featured in RAF News). So, in fact, the RAF Police were among the first RAF personnel to set foot in the place.

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

Scud-U-Like

Well, having spent the best part of 4 months there, the only RAFP I saw were 2 x ATSy (plus a few more for Rapiscan duties during Loya Jirga). The RAFP may well have been part of the recce team but, as I said before, I didn't see any securing the airport.

And my point; RAFP are not meant to be gate guards - It is up to all of us to defend ourselves.

Off my soap box

[Talking Radalt]

D Phug,
You only need to look at the fall-out from things like the Clegg shooting and Bloody Sunday (which although admittedly are part of a scenario in itself unique) and then compare them to accounts of actual war to realise the big difference is Rules of Engagement.
At war, a legitimate target is wholly different to a potential threat in peace time.
It's no secret that in this day and age of litigation we have no choice but to employ an "ask first, shoot later" policy. I would suggest the difference between war and peace is the reversal of this policy.
Was every single round accounted for in the Gulf or the Falklands? Was the exact location of every individual at the time of every discharge ascertained? No, of course not, because they are examples of a figthing force doing what they are primarily trained to do on the understanding they are allowed a degree of flexibilty. Collateral damage, be it human or otherwise, may lose votes and confidence but is still "acceptable" and almost inevitable in any military campaign.
Now look at the peace time use of firearms to defend a location against unauthorised access or in retaliation to an incident. The civilian police has a very long, intricate and highly subjective selection process to allow their officers to face the public with the means to kill them. Only a very select few make the grade and alot of officers proactively avoid the firearms specialisation altogether.
Now you only need to watch the TV news or read a quality broadsheet and see the massive forensics investigation that goes in to any shooting incident to realise that asking a non-specialist airman/woman or even senior officer to take on potential life and death decisions that will be open to such intense scrutiny is a bit much.
Maybe if we DID put senior officers on the proverbial spot things would change?

To look at this whole thing another way, every one does first-aid training, most people would happily fly in a Seaking and possibly even dangle on the wire.

Doesn't make 'em winchmen though does it?:p

[Scud-U-Like]

TR

Fair point, but civilian police armed response units are often required to act in an offensive role in unfamiliar surroundings, whereas armed service guards are purely defensive and have a good knowledge of their physical area of responsibility.

The criminal law allows any person to use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in arresting a person or in self-defence or in defence of another. The important point is that a person using such force (which may include killing another) will be judged on the facts as he believed them to be, rather than as they were. The law therefore acknowledges that a person acting in the heat of the moment may use more force than (with the benefit of hindsight) was necessary.

In peacetime circumstances, the Crown Prosecution Service (and if it came to it, a jury) would almost certainly expect a lower standard of judgment from a service person, who is occasionally taken away from his primary role and armed in defence of his base, than it would from a police firearms officer, who deals with firearms incidents in the street, on a day-to-day basis.

Without going into specifics on a public forum, I think our personnel are well trained to meet the threat.

[canberra]

the reason that the civvy police armed response teams have psycohological tests etc is due to the fact that the vast majority of civvy coppers join the police not to carry guns! any civvy coppers care to comment? on the subject of leuchars international airport i know of an raf station that not only had a civvy airport it also had an ssa. they managed to cope, in fact the coppers didnt have anything to do with the airport, i think the police at leuchars will leave ryanscair alone after all they left hubbardairs twotter alone on its paper flights.