Police Close Protection v Military Close Protection

[co19]

some of the teams average around 9 hostile environment visits a year these days, its a big money earner for them. Another mate of mine recently went around the far east travelling to Japan and Nepal to name a few so there is good travel.

[frankfarmer]

Hello all,

My first posting on the site and wanted to add my bit about military vs. police CP work. I’ve done both and think that each genre has its place. The military style tends to be best suited to working in overt teams and aimed at providing a safe and secure environment for others to work within a belligerent space. The police style is ensuring a high profile person can safely travel and work within a semi-permissive environment. Protocol, liaison and pre-emptive planning tend to occupy the police CPO’s time.

One is preventative planning and the other is aggressive mitigation. Each has their place but I believe the police style is best suited to the UK market.

Kind regards

Frank

[apple27]

I have found that the difference between the two to be down to the more aggressive role of the military guys. Looking after a Brigadier in places like Helmund is always going to be a lot more dangerous than a high ranking politician in London. The police have to justify every single round fired, whereas guys in the Mil may not have to (hence the use of belt fed weapons, 40mm HE etc), despite what the ROE may state, obviously common sense and moral standing will always dictate your actions. I worked with a couple of tone's guys in kabul, a few years ago and they were good guys. One was frustrated at their units reluctance to get some serious weapons (5.56mm +) for them despite some of the locations they were now required to operate in since 9/11. They told me that assault rifles were seen as too aggressive for their role. I can understand that in the UK, but when you are in Iraq/A'Stan, then a semi auto only MP5 is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.
I'm sure there will be more opinions on this subject from both camps, but the military have it in my book as it is easier to tone things down, but hard to turn it up if you haven't had that training in the first place.

[apple27]

Further to my comments, I would agree with Frank that the Police background would be best suited to UK style work. The current scene in Kabul/Iraq would be best suited to Military guys.

[Block 30 Janitor]

Let me just through a couple of points in for discussion. Although we carry out similiar roles they are not the same. Royalty or Diplomatic CP is normally carried out within a ring of steel whether in London or Iraq. If an incident should occur the BG will get the boss into some kind of cover and await the masses to take on the threat (and why not? That sounds like sence to me) The Military BG usually has far fewer allies to rely on and will travel around in far fewer vehicles. That is why we are trained to extract many hundreds of metres on foot and why we have much more firepower, because there usually is no other support. There is also quite a difference between age and fitness. I have witnessed this on refresher courses and on Ops. That aside, I do believe that we shouldn't take them as young as we do and not much can replace experience. There is a place for the blue rinse brigade close to my heart and I have made many friends as a result of working alongside them. Long may it last.

[Hippo]

Apple 27

Whilst in Basra I had a large number of Met Pol Prot teams and a Met Pol Rpg visit my location with various Principles. What struck me was although they were alloacted on teams whilst in UK if ther principle was to leave country they could decide not to go with them. There were a few guys who constantly came out as volunteers from other temas to fill the slots and make the money as well and why not. But to be able to choose if you go overseas to a hostile country or not with your principle that you work with day in day out in Uk or other less volatile countries i think is wrong. You either want to protect that principle and call yourself a Ppo (Civ Pol CP) or you don't it not a pic n mix job.

[co19]

Alot of it is team dynamics, people not wanting to spend to much time with other people. Plus they do some serious hours and some famillies are not happy with there other halves being away so much. I am out with them (SO1) this thursday as there is a social occasion on.

[Block 30 Janitor]

Let me just through a couple of points in for discussion. Although we carry out similiar roles they are not the same. Royalty or Diplomatic CP is normally carried out within a ring of steel whether in London or Iraq. If an incident should occur the BG will get the boss into some kind of cover and await the masses to take on the threat (and why not? That sounds like sence to me) The Military BG usually has far fewer allies to rely on and will travel around in far fewer vehicles. That is why we are trained to extract many hundreds of metres on foot and why we have much more firepower, because there usually is no other support. There is also quite a difference between age and fitness. I have witnessed this on refresher courses and on Ops. That aside, I do believe that we shouldn't take them as young as we do and not much can replace experience. There is a place for the blue rinse brigade close to my heart and I have made many friends as a result of working alongside them. Long may it last.

[Hippo]

CO 19

Say hi to all that remember / know me I'll Pm some names

[saps-za]

I cant talk for the guys from the UK, but i have worked with guys from the military and guys from the police CP teams from diffrent countries and find it better to work with the police, the military guys dont know how to talk to and interact with the Vip.

On the other hand i have worked with some diplomatic police from some EU countries that have never worked in a "threat" enviroment as where they work with their VIP its very safe, so in that case i would rather work military CP if need to say to Iraq as would not trust some of these guys in the Diplomatic team.