Talk:Ministry of Defence Police/Archive 1

They are sometimes colloquially called "the Modplod"~(well I always found it amusing).130.237.175.198 08:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a term to use carefully. Whilst it can be used in an amusing/friendly way it is more often used as an insult/put-down. cjp116

Map
The map is not a true reflection of the MDP police responsibility. Although they police establishements across the UK the map implies they will be found across the country and are responsible for it. Something along the lines of the map displayed for Civil Nuclear Constabulary would be more appropriate and accurate. Anybody know how to do this? Dibble999 10:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely there are far too many MOD installations to represent like so? Morwen - Talk 12:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how many establishments there are, but my point is that the current map implies, incorrectly, that the MOD police area is the entire UK which it is not. Their normal jurisdiction is limited to MOD establishements unless certain conditions are met and they are not responsible for policing the entire nation as the map implies. How this can be remedied, I'm not sure, perhaps a map with the HQ and major millitary/MOD bases shown? Dibble999 17:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you look at this article, you'll see that the MOD Police has stations all over the country, and therefore is a truly national police force. A map showing the locations of even the major MOD installations (and it wouldn't just be military bases) would involve a map of the UK covered in little red dots. In any case, you couldn't do that, because it would seem that that is the limit of the MOD Police's jurisdiction. It is easier with the CNC because there aren't that many installations it polices. If you want to try and put all the named MOD stations on a UK map, by all means, but unless or until you do, I am restoring the blue UK map. Hammersfan 11/09/06, 15.25 BST

I understand that MOD police has installations all over the country but they are not responsible for the whole country nor have full jurisdiction throughout the UK in normal circumstances. The map is implying that they have full jurisdiction (which they don't), or that they are responsible for policing the entire UK (which they aren't). In reality the MOD police is, normally, a specialist security police for the ministry of defence, which most police officers in Home Office forces never come across. The current map is not a reflection of this. Someone who doesn't have knowledge of the police will look at the current map and get the wrong end of the stick. You also state that a map with dots would imply that that is the limit of the MOD officers jurisdiction. Well, under normal circumstances MOD officers do not have full jurisdiction through the UK, only in certain circumstances. If we were to use your argument for the map being as it is due to jurisdictions (which is wrong) then all the England and Wales forces maps should show the whole of England and Wales as constables of these forces have true jurisdiction throughout England and Wales and are not limited to the police area for which they work as is currently shown. In short if the police force maps show jurisdiction then they all need altering, or which is probably the case, they are there to show the area that the force is responsible for then the current blue MOD map is incorrect and needs changing, as the MOD police are not responsible for the whole UK just MOD installations. I won't remove the map at the moment so we can get to some agreement but something needs to be altered. Regards Dibble999 20:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The MoD Police and the British Transport Police (BTP) (and the Civil Nuclear Police, as mentioned by Dibble999 above) are similar in their powers and their restricted "patches". Having just looked at the BTP page, their map is "coloured in" using a map of the national rail network. This does not solve the problem of what to do in the case of MoD Plod but it might provide a "seed" for some lateral thinking. I agree the Civil Nucelar Police map is the "proper way" to show the MOD Police, but I also agree that it may not be a practical to show it on the UK map.Pyrotec 15:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been away for a bit but see that the blue map is still being used which is highly inaccurate and misleading in relation to the MOD police. I do not wish to arbitarily remove it and am open to suggestions but it needs to be rectified. It doesn't reflect the area this force is responsible for (as the maps do for each of the other forces) and also it incorrectly implies they have full jurisdiction throughout the nation outside of MOD land (which they don't). As already stated this force is a highly specialised police service which has very little to do with normal day to day policing. If a map would be too cluttered with all the MOD establishments, I would suggest removing the map and replacing it with a sentence explain 'Responsible for MOD land and premises throughout the UK'. Dibble999 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Even the force itself doesn't produce a map of it's stations - the only thing that I can find is a map showing the areas the divisions cover but this is not much better than the blue map in terms of misleading people.cjp116

There is now a 6th division in the MDP, but I dunno how to edit the map to reflect this, correct me on this but I believe it's called something along the lines of "Critical National Infrastructure". Agent00x (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pitcairn Islands
A recent C4 documentry showed MOD police on the Pitcairn Islands. They have two officers who also run the island's prison. This needs including somewhere, I'll find a bit more info first Guydrury 22:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The MOD Police detachment on the Pitcairn Islands finished quite recently. It was part of the international policing responsibilities referred to in the article cjp116

Layout altering
I intend to split the article from here: 'It once had a presence at 120 Ministry of Defence sites,' under the heading 'Areas of policing'. Better header names anyone :p ?


 * I'm a serving MOD Police officer - I think that the whole article could do with a bit of a rewrite as the roles and responsibilities of the job have changed quite a lot since the introduction of agency status. Areas of policing is not as clear cut as it seems in this article. In terms of layout something closer to the British Transport Police might be a good idea (although there are flaws in that article). I might have a go a rewrite next week when I've got time - thoughts? cjp116

Rewrite
To add to what I've posted above, I am in the process of a total rewrite of this article to better reflect the current role of the MDP, I will put it up sometime next week when I have completed it. cjp116

Merge
Why? Shouldn't you have at least floated the idea on a talk page first? The article at the moment is awful.

Why didn't you merge this: Ministry of Defence Guard Service?

MDP and MGS are two different bodies and need separate articles. I recognise the previous set up was confusing but it was better than what we have now. Guydrury 19:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They definitely still need work - but I think they're a fair bit better than before; the previous set of articles were out of date and badly referenced / layed out, and there weren't enough links between the MDP, MGS, and MDPGA articles. Since they're all the same executive agency, and since none of the articles (are|were) long, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to have them split up.


 * If you're unhappy with the merge, and you have a better plan of action for making these articles better, by all means plough ahead with it (and be bold, which is what I was trying to do ;) - if you've got ideas and you'll carry them through to their conclusion, you've absolutely got my blessing... I'd like to merge the Ministry of Defence Guard Service article too, though, and perform a thorough restructure of all the content (and make the content better referenced throughout). njan 21:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the MGS was formed quite recently (late 1990s/early 2000s) because the bean counters considered that it was too expensive to pay for a police officer to guard a MoD office; so they brought in (cheaper) guards for MoD offices and kept the armed MoD Police for the sensitive guarding duties. I have no problem with merging MDP into MDPGA; however the article as currently written does not reflect my statement above. No doubt if it is wrong some one will correct it.Pyrotec 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed; the article doesn't adequately cover the distinction between the two, and definitely needs work. I've held off on improving it further pending consensus regarding whether or not the article should remain merged. I can go ahead and start making these sorts of changes, but I don't want to seem like I'm plouging ahead without consensus, or do a bunch of work that ends up being wasted! :)


 * The only thing I can find on why the MGS exist is here and I'm assuming from the first bulletpoint here that prior to the formation of the MGS, the MoD were paying for private sector security services... any idea where other commentary on the formation of the MGS might be found? njan 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The MGS came about after PIRA attacks on British Forces UK bases including the Royal Marines Barracks at Deal, the MoD were indeed paying for private security from companies such as Reliance which had replaced a MDP presence. At the same time there was an attack (a bomb was discovered in a stairwell of a barrack block) at a North London RAF station which was dealt with by several RAF personnel and a MDP officer who managed to get the device away from the building.--Pandaplodder 21:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Places like Abbey Wood and Kentigern House had MoD Police on the front door before the MGS came into being. You will find some of the answers in: "Ministry of Defence Security", Chapter 16 in: George, Bruce and Button, Mark (2000). Private Security. Leicester: Perpetuity Press. ISBN 1-899287-70-1. Pyrotec 19:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Also, but not so much, in: "Specialist Police Organisations", Chapter 5 in: Button, Mark (2002). Private Policing. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. ISBN 1-903240-52-2. Pyrotec 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a book I have, but feel free to add (and reference) any material you feel appropriate. :) njan 20:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The MoD Guard Service have their own distinct badge which you could probably do with getting an image, they also have their own badged vehicles. --jmb 06:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do they? I have never seen this at establishments where I have worked. The only vehicle I have seen MGS pootling about in is a unmarked white Ford Transit tipper.--Pandaplodder 21:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it was white then it might have been a hire vehicle from Whitefleet. I have not seen any marked MGS vehicles (apart from dog vans). Agent00x (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They had a badged estate car and dog van when I visited Craigiehall earlier in the year. --jmb 23:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

civilian deployment
Are there any restrictions on the deployment of MOD police into the civilian population? Are they actually free to operate anywhere in the UK, but 'choose' to confine themselves to MoD property? or must their deployment be authorised, and if so, by whom? Would they ordinarily have the power to interfere with civilians who weren't themselves on MoD property ?82.11.251.232 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The MOD Police would be involved in the initial stages of an incident if it was not on MOD property, but then they would hand it over to the relevant police force, whoever has the jurisdiction for where it happened. Just like if a home office police person came upon an incident involving the MOD, they would hand it over to the MOD Police. The MOD Police is customer funded, basically, what the customer says, goes. If the customer decides they don't want the MOD Police to police somewhere anymore, they have to close and move people elsewhere. Agent00x (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The basic answer is that the MOD police do not generally have jurisdiction outside of MOD property, other than when actually investigating MOD crime. So generally a normal member of the public will very rarely come across the MOD police. They do have police powers off MOD land when not related to MOD crime ONLY if they come across a spontaneous incident or are asked to assist the local force. At this point they would have all the police powers of the force they are assisting or to allow the spontaneous incident to be dealt with until the arrival of the local force.

So to answer the original question, if you as a civilian are on MOD property (i.e. the normal jurisdiction of the MOD police) there are no restrictions and an MOD police officer has the same powers over you as a normal police officer. They can operate anywhere in the UK in relation to MOD crime only. They must only use there police powers off MOD land as outlined in my first paragraph and if they do they MUST inform the local force and handover to them. Ordinarily they would not have the power to 'interfere' with civies not on MOD land.

I disagree with the previous answer given regarding Home Office force handing over to MOD police. In law the forces responsible for all crime in there areas are the Home Office forces. If within a police area there is a theft of MOD property ordinarily the MOD police would investigate. However if it is murder or terrorism the Home Office force would generally retain primacy. The difference being Home Office officers have full police powers within England & Wales whereas MOD police and other specialist forces (such as BTP) have conditional jurisdiction away from there main focus (such as MOD land or railways respectively). MOD police are not beholden to there customers as the previous answer implies. It is to do with the legal situation and they are not told to close and move elsewhere, it is to do with which areas belong to the MOD - nothing more complicated than that! Dibble999 (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting sick and tired of all this pedantic mithering about the MDP's powers/jurisdiction et al. The MOD police are attested police constables, it is not hard to qualify their extended jurisdiction requirements, their officers are based throughout the UK and their job is to police the 'Ministry of Defence Estate'. If an MDP officer finds himself outside of the 'Defence Estate' and in a situation where police powers ought to be used, then he is almost always covered to use them under his extended jurisdiction. The legislation; like most legislation, depends on individual point of view as to its precise interpretation. The MOD Police quite routinely deal with police incidents completely unrelated to the 'Defence Estate'. The same applies for British Transport Police. And for the record I'm a serving MDP officer, working as a unit beat officer (real policing, not armed guarding) in the Surrey force area. 82.20.217.63 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Tom

Latest MDP Home Office Protocol (role of MDP not reflected in article)
It seems that there has been a shift in MDP responsibility. The new protocol states the MDP are actually not responsible and will not deal with all crime on MOD land and are selective in what they will deal with. In fact the latest protocol says that the MDP are primarily an armed protective security police. 

The article needs editing to reflect this from the above protocol: "he second difference is a change in the MOD’s requirement of the Ministry of Defence Police. The 2002 version of the protocol contained a commitment that the MDP would deal with all crime on the Defence estate.  In practice this was not implemented nor achievable: the MDP are not present on much of the defence estate, nor funded for a widespread general crime role. The new draft links the MDP involvement in crime to the types of crime and locations which are prioritised to meeting the MOD’s needs.

The MDP are maintained and funded by the Ministry of Defence to provide policing support to Defence objectives and priorities. The force is not funded by the Home Office, Local Authorities or Council Tax and MDP resources in any area are always additional to local police resources. The primary task of the MDP is armed protective security policing of critical defence assets, in accordance with the MOD’s funded tasking requirements, and accordingly the MDP are present only on those parts of the Defence estate where the MOD provides funded tasks.

The MDP do have a Criminal Investigation Department comprising some 200 police officers and staff. The CID is maintained and funded to provide a Special Branch, intelligence in relation to protest and disruption of Defence business, deal with Defence crime, and in particular to investigate fraud and corruption. In 2006-07 the MDP dealt with 3640 crimes in the UK. Geographically, the MDP dealt with less than 10 crimes in 16 force areas, and less than 100 in 33 force areas.

The effect of the new protocol would be that the MDP would not deal with crimes on the Defence estate at locations where there are no MDP officers available. The MDP would continue to deal with crimes where they are present and available, and would increase their focus on crimes which cause significant harm to the Defence capability.

Our best estimate is that this would involve a reduction by a few hundred in the number of crimes dealt with by the MDP, with a minimal impact on most forces. However there will be some locations within some forces where the impact may be noticeable.

We have identified the forces in question as North Yorkshire; Essex; Thames Valley; Devon and Cornwall; Wiltshire; Suffolk and Hampshire. I have written to the chief constables concerned, to identify our assessment of those locations with the invitation to engage with us on analysis, impact and mitigation.

This change will not represent any reduction in the MDP’s overall contribution to and commitment to crime – it is only a necessary (and MOD required) shift in priorities towards the more serious end of crime which has the potential to cause significant harm to the Defence capability."

Any thoughts before I start editing? Dibble999 (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Post SDSR Force
From Source Secretary of State - "The measures are being progressed as they are developed. The furthest advanced are changes to the MoD Police headquarters and management structure, the cost of which will reduce by 41 per cent. These include: cutting the number of divisions from five to two;

1. The Force Command structure was changed from 5 Geographic to two functional divisions on 1 April 2012. "Nuclear Division" and "Territorial Division". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotglider (talk • contribs) 14:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see the "cutting the number of divisions from five to two" part in the source at this source but where are you getting that they will be called "Nuclear Division" and "Territorial Division" from?
 * Equally, where is the reliable source for the separation of the MDP and MGS and disbandment of MDPGA? Pol430  talk to me 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The change took place on 1/4/2012 and they ARE called Nuclear and Territorial Division. Once MDP put contact details online this section will be updated with the New Div HQs. Remembering that Internet sources will take time to appear online and the current paper source 'Police Almanac' will take over a year to be updated. With regards to demise of MDPGA here is a MGS source (which is already out of date,at Feb 2012, as decision re MGS move to DIO has now been confirmed by MoD) SourcePilotglider (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what your saying is that, for the present time, the information on the new divisions is not verifiable. Such information therefore has no business being in the article (for the present time); however, I will refrain from reverting it because I happen to know that it is true. Note however, that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth... Pol430  talk to me 11:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)