Jump to content

Talk:Wandsworth Parks and Events Police: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
TopCat666 (talk | contribs)
151 edits
Offer of help
Cewbot (talk | contribs)
Bots
7,259,359 edits
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 2 WikiProject templates. Create {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject London}}, {{Law enforcement}}.
 
(37 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{oldafdfull|page=Wandsworth Parks Police|date=24 June 2008|result='''keep'''}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject London |importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|counter = 2
|algo = old(31d)
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = Talk:Wandsworth Parks Police/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:Wandsworth Parks and Events Police/Archive %(counter)d
}}{{archive box|auto=yes}}
}}
{{Law enforcement|class=stub}}
{{reqphoto|military and police|law and crime topics|in=London}}
{{oldafdfull|page=Wandsworth Parks Police|date=24 June 2008|result='''keep'''}}

{{archive box|auto=yes}}

== Freedom of Information Act ==

Ninty:one I received your email; you failed to mention the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) anywhere in this email. However before you start with you do not have to mention it, I have authorised the standard reply you received as member of the public requesting such information. I would thank though not refer to the FOI Act without need when your request was so common, and simple to deal with. In addition, I note you have mixed in and taken out parts and refer to old opinions of your own. Did you mean to do this? [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:I emailed the council's FOI address directly, having not received any reply from the email I sent to the police address ;) If you have a constructive change to make, please copy what I suggested above and make your changes. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you checked the email address you gave us? Assuming your FOI request is true it must be different name and email address. If you you cannot remember which pseudonym you are on I can remind you of it ;).[[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 18:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

:i sent an email to parkspolice@ or similar - reply came there none. i then emailed foi@ and got a response. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::i shall presume from the silence that no-one has any further changes to make, and will insert the above text soon. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


== Ninetyone ==

Thank you for your contribution to the Wandsworth Police site. I hope we can agree you are getting a bit excited and overbearing. Please read my edits and think about them. If you think they need editing you have every right to do do as I have. Do not simply undo and claim vandalism my edits are as valid as the next Wikipedian.

Also I am not happy about you complaining to the WPP about me. They cannot stop me even if they wanted to. They they do not know which Police Officer is TopCat666 and will never know. :)[[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 08:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:The text I recently inserted has been available on the talk page for at least three weeks, in which time you made no constructive edits to it at all. I have not complained about you to anyone; and I would appreciate it if you withdrew the accusation. I still think you are acting largely in good faith, and that, to an extent, the wool has been pulled over the constables' collective eyes with regards their legal position. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 14:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:having read your latest changes, this charade has gone on long enough. This will have to go to RfC at the least, because you are repeatedly ignoring talk page discussion in favour of your own unsourced views. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 14:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

== RfC: Wandsworth Parks Police ==

{{RFCsoc| section=Legal status !! reason=Disagreement about verious matters !! time= 14:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC) }}
User with COI is eschewing talk page discussion and editing with POV statements. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 14:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

RfC: That is bad!
Seriously, uninvolved editors need to be told about the content dispute, not how an editor is breaking policy.[[User:Yobmod|Yobmod]] ([[User talk:Yobmod|talk]]) 10:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:the content dispute requires reading three talk pages.. this is very complicated. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 12:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

:So how about explaining one disputed edit at a time - the easier it is for uninvolved editors to understand, the more likely consensus will be reached. The only problem i see from a first read is a lack of citations - try adding fact tags and letting editors find support for their claims for a reasonable but limited time period. Following procedure may be slow, but it helps to diffuse personality clashes :-) [[User:Yobmod|Yobmod]] ([[User talk:Yobmod|talk]]) 08:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
:one of the main issues, as demonstrated further down this page, is the title of the constables. added tags. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 12:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

::"''There are some that hold an opinion, that the Monadnock Extendable Batons carried by these Police Constables may not be lawful in a public place."'' This is not the place for this, file a police report, and immediately delete this [[wp:or]]

::This case will not be resolved by an RfC in my opinion. It is not clearly articulated what the issue is. My take is that one user should be banned from this article because they are just too close to this topic. I suggest the next step in the dispute resolution. [[User:Raggz|Raggz]] ([[User talk:Raggz|talk]]) 10:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
:::It was actually one of the constables that added that sentence, but I'm only to happy to source it. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

== Some one autonomous ==

Please refer it to who you wish, I have answered your questions where you have ignored mine. I will be glad for some independant input again. I do not suppose you have contacted Chris as he was independant (obviously not to your liking) and did a very good job. I hope they have a serious look at your comments to other editors. I have used cited references from an independant source and just because YOU do not agree with them does not make your edits anything more or less valid then any one elses. Your clash of interest remark is again one of your unanswerable conundrums you use so much on the discussion page. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 15:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:i have never seen you cite a single reference yourself (please correct me if i'm wrong), and even now you are not making any constructive changes to the text. i will not go around asking individual editors for their opinions, that is selective and counter productive. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)



== Pure and simple ==

I cite the references you have used and to the English Dictionary. Other than that I simply give you another view to yours. Always the view actually being applied and practised by Wandsworth. This view is therefore in itself, is a citable reference. You acknowledge under a FOI request, this view has been supplied to you with up to date references and you ignore them. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 16:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:that is simply not true: i cited the FOI response seven times. where you have added "the view actually being applied and practised by Wandsworth" you have not followed it with <nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki> tags to any source, so you have not cited. additionally, you have never cited the "English Dictionary"... [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 16:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


== Onesided blog ==

See 3rd July this page for Dictionary References. I need not add links to documents you have already put links to. Citing does not have to be supported by links to documents. We both have copies of Wandsworth Council's policies, why don't you stick them on? I have them here so no alteration, omissions etc. Not that I think you would. ; ) You are making the mistake of trying to turn the article into a onesided blog, instead of a simple site where Wikipedians can view information on the oldest surviving Council run Police Service. Do you really think your efforts to try and convince me to hang up my badge and not deal with crime where ever it occurs will be ignored? [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 17:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:yes you do need to add links to documents, that is what citing sources means. you say: "We both have copies of Wandsworth Council's policies, why don't you stick them on?" - what does that mean? your inference that i wish you to "hang up [your] badge and not deal with crime" is your perspective on events. not once have i said anything against either you or the other constables. i have only expressed support for the constables (further up the page) but wikipedia has to reflect the legal truth of the situation, supported as it is by numerous sources.

:to address what seems to be one of your main concerns - any report or opinion on constables attested under the 1967 Act is as relevant to WPP as it is to any other london parks constabulary. That you are employed by Wandsworth LBC is inconsequential when it comes to the legal positions of the constables. every single constable attested under the 1967 Act is equal, regardless of which council employs them. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

At last you acknowledge these reports and opinions are inconsequential when it comes to the legal positions of Police Constables sworn in under the 1967 Act. I am going to leave it there you have proved my point. There is no legal truth in what you state, I merely report what the Wandsworth Police do not what you think they should do and my edits reflect this. Ta [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 18:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
:I actually can't tell if the first two sentences of that are a joke... [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't you?[[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

== Lead ==

I've flagged two versions of this as unclear now, simply because I can't, as a reader unfamiliar with the subject and who hasn't read the talk page in detail, understand what they're getting at. The current version reads:-

:Wandsworth Council is autonomous and independent of other councils and their opinions. Under references document one, produced by Wandsworth Council is their official view and supersedes private opinions on how others run their own Police Services and what powers they delegate to them

What does it mean to be independent of a council's "opinion"? ''What'' is their "official view", and what is it on, and whose "private opinions" does it supercede? Whose powers are being delegated to whom? I'm sure there's a point being made in here somewhere, but it's unreadable with the current wording. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 13:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:That is what Topcat puts in to try and convince people that Wandsworth is somehow different, even though all parks constables are exactly the same in terms of powers etc. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 16:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


All The Police Offices sworn in under the 1967 Act have the same powers. Therefore opinions in the numerous reports posted may or may not be valid, as only a court will decide whether a power used is lawfully allowed. This goes for every Police Officer in England & Wales. Wandsworth's view on their Police is clearly defined as is the powers they are using. 91 personal view is interesting, but to insist it is correct, well I need not comment other then to say it appears folly! The best course is to simplify the article and remove references to their Stop & Search Powers etc and all reports on these Police services. If anyone is interested in the 'powers' they can find plenty elsewhere on the web. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:my suggested text says 'according to', 'the report states', 'according to the report'. never, afaik, have i written "xyz is illegal" and supported it with a reference from a report. anyway, they won't find anything elsewhere, so i propose moving the powers section to either a) an article about the Act, b) an article called [[Parks police in the United Kingdom]] or c) [[Law enforcement in the United Kingdom]]. Personally, I favour b. Option a would be confusing, and option c would add too much text to the current article. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 16:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:This talk section is just about your edit to the lead, it doesn't matter what you and another user think of one another. Please try to reword it giving appropriate context, or move it into the body of the article if it requires excessive explanation. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:i was explaining why the second para exists. if we move the status section out of the article, then the para can go. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

McGeddon: Thank you for your input, I disagree with what you are saying. You are implying only 91 and I can understand the article as it stands. This is of course untrue, you may not and do not intend to look into our discussions on the article and refer to personalities. Fine that is your choice, if I was to ask the editors of the Quantum Physics article to explain it to me as I am not interested enough to read it. I probably would not get as a polite answer you have! [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 10:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:It's not that your paragraph deals with complex issues I can't understand, it's that the grammar is incoherent and I can't work out what it's trying to say. What does "Under references document one, produced by Wandsworth Council is their official view" mean? Is there a piece of paper called "Under References Document One" which is the council's "official view"? Or have you accidentally missed a word out somewhere? I've no objection to the content at this stage, only the poor quality of the writing. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

91: I disagree with you proposed options as they all will spill back into the WPP article and throw legal doubts on the Powers Wandsworth Police Officers enjoy. We had a cyclist prosecuted, he brought in a cycle map printed off of a website as defence. Only he knows if he believed it allowed him to cycle on the footpath. He was found guilty and therefore broke the bye-law. My point is does the article help or hinder? The courts decide on the powers Police Officers use not lawyers or laymen. We arrest a substantial amount of people each year, as they refuse to comply with Sec24 PACE, and because they heard somewhere or another we have no powers of arrest. Now this is fantastic for our arrest figures, but it calls into question the motives of the persons who promulgate these assumptions. I only placed edits stating what powers we use or disputing the assumptions of others on our powers. You ran away trying to obtain evidence you are right and placed it on the article, thank you. I merely state the facts and will continue to do so. People can add as many templates as they like to the article I agree with them. I want the reader to know there is a counter argument on Wiki, so if I ever encounter someone quoting it to me I can point it out. So if you think I am being 'difficult' so be it. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 10:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

== Synthesis ==

I've been bold and cut back a lot of the "equipment" section, most of which appears to be [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]: ''"Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research."''

As with the "Smith and Jones" example in [[WP:SYNTHESIS]], we should provide a source that specifically ''comments'' on the contradiction between Wandsworth Council's legal opinion and those of other councils - we shouldn't just quote the original sources next to each other and point out observed contradictions ourselves. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 16:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:all of the information was in the sources. i knew nothing about the legal situation until i read them, and i have merely re-worded them. i object to your claim that what i wrote was synthesis or original research. Topcat, my proposal would mean all there would be in this article is a link to [[Parks police in the United Kingdom]] (or whatever) and no discussion at all of powers on this page. Then, we would be able to show the relevance of all the council reports. You still don't seem to be following here though: the reports have not been used to back up "xyz is illegal". That would be totally wrong. Instead, they are used to demonstrate the differing points of view; ie "one report says xyz is illegal, but another one says it is not". Your point about the cyclist: if he had read this article then he would know he could have been arrested for breach of a bylaw ;) [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
::I know the information was in the sources; the problem is combining these sources when some of them don't explicitly refer to the subject of the article. Please read [[WP:SYNTHESIS]]. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 20:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:"They are however a Police Service by virtue they hold a warrant and may arrest for bye-law offences and other enactments relating to open spaces." - this has to go; it is completely unsourced and inaccurate. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

McGeddon: I understand about your point about synthesis in the article and agree entirely. The reader of the article can come to the discussion page and find the plenty fors and and againsts.
As for the new edit to terminolgy, to avoid synthesis on the article I placed what I believed 91 would agree with. On the front of the article in large print by 91 is the wording of the 1967 Housing Act. In it is stated the 'Constable shall not act as a Constable unless in uniform or provided with a warrant'. All the sworn in Police Constables which include part time (our version of the Special Constabulary, but get paid hourly), work in plain clothes sometimes and are all issued with a joint council identity and warrant card. The Wandsworth Parks Police Service does not need references put on to the article viz. No one disputes they exist and secondly they provide a service which is policing the parks and open spaces amongst their other duties. So going along with your synthesis idea, either my edit should stay, or the entire section 'Terminology' is removed. I think the latter, there are references to contradict which is why we have the word technically in it. I think it is an unecessary section on this type of article and I reserve my right to edit/add to it. The section 2.4 of the following doc is one that has not been posted here yet so I will give you it. http://www.spelthorne.gov.uk/8apr03report5.doc. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TopCat666|contribs]]) 07:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:McGeddon, <s>the point is that any report referring to parks constables is relevant because they are all the same. regardless of which employer (council) they are prepared for, the reports are actually about the constables themselves and are therefore citable - their use is not synthesis.</s> ok, i think i'm following now. you see, the way that it's worded is confusing; the sources do refer to '''the subject of the article''', but they do not dissucss the discrepencies. Topcat, just because you have a warrant does not mean you are in a police service or force. police service/force means a force established by statute as a legal body. the constables employed by wandsworth are each separate and the chief officer is not accountable for them in the same manner as the CC of a territorial police force is. anyway, are we both in agreement about removing the whole of "Legal status"? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 17:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

No I am not in agreement, you were happy for the legal status to remain. Please explain your u-turn? and then I can comment. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 20:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
:oh dear. "''i propose moving the powers section to either a) an article about the Act, b) an article called [[Parks police in the United Kingdom]] or c) [[Law enforcement in the United Kingdom]]. Personally, I favour b''" and "''my proposal would mean all there would be in this article is a link to [[Parks police in the United Kingdom]] (or whatever) and no discussion at all of powers on this page''". look, because you have seem to have a problem with accepting that the reports apply to all the constables, the best way to solve the problem is to remove it. the information has to go somewhere, and by putting it all together we can link the other parks police articles to it as well. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 20:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems only solutions, you must realise by now you cannot goad me. I didn't think you would admit you have no argument. Play on, I have all the time in the world, turn and turn again. The article will never be to your liking. There must be another template or plea you can put out for help. Meanwhile Wandsworth Council's Police Service will continue to be part of the United Kingdom's policing history and future. I wish you luck on your search to convince the readers that your view has any value. I however continue to rely on facts and sound common sense rebuttals to your personal opinions. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 21:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

McGeddon, the sentence 'As each London council is independent, the powers given to Wandsworth Parks Police differ from those of other areas.' is simply untrue. All powers are given by one act (the 1967 Act) which applies to every single London Borough Council. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 21:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

McGeddon, you are 100% right. 91 has been complaining that Wandsworth Council, devolve more powers from the 1967 Act, to their Police Officers then he personally would like. You have clarified that simply and 91 is dodging the point. 91's irrelevent reference about the 1967 Act, is simply untrue. The powers given by the 1967 Act are not being disputed, therefore your edit remains true. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 23:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
:I can only strive so long before I just have to give up. If you honestly think that Wandsworth can 'devolve' powers to constables then I would hate to be a citizen of Wandsworth. Unlike PCSOs, there is no optional list of powers a CC can give. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 13:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Devolve
verb [T]
to (cause power or responsibility to) be given to other people:

Perfectly acceptable and apt, I read it as meaning '''existing''' Powers under the act are given to the Wandsworth Police whilst other Councils hold their powers back. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 16:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
:if you're going to use that definition, the power is 'devolved' when the constable is sworn in. Wandsworth do not give them any powers - or if they do please point me to the act which says that... Other councils may not require their constables to do certain things, but the constables still have the power to do it. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for confirming what I said, although for some reason you then lose the point and go off at a tangent! I have nothing to comment on your statement, as it is a closed question. So until the next time. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 18:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

== Titles ==

On the subject of the word used to describe the council officers. The law describes them as 'officers' and 'constables'. Legal opinions say they should not be called 'police constables'. I contest the use of the phrase 'Police Constables'. surely, then, the compromise (which is what we strive to attain here on Wikipedia) is to call them exactly what they are attested as; 'constables'. if the legal status is clearly set out there will be no room for confusion. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 21:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


Where is the evidence to justify your statement? Show legal opinion and not the Laymans reports on the other London Council's Police Services. For your information legal opinion can only be justified by going through court. This is called a stated case or legal opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion. This will also need to be directed at Wandsworth's Police Constables in particular. Not your's and other peoples POV's. Thanks [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 23:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the various sources relied upon by both sides of the argument. Legislation appears to support the supposition that 'police constable' is a term to be used only by constables of police forces i.e. Home Office forces and specialist police forces such as BTP and MOD police. WPP is not legally a police force and should not call themselves police constables but 'constables' maybe 'parks constables'. There seems to be a belief held by some contributers that just because you are 'constables' you are therefore 'police constables'. Not so. The term constable is an ancient term which can be used for various offices such as High Constable of a county or a water constable etc etc. 'Police Constable' is a legally defined term i.e. a constable of a police force, who has all the police powers of a police constable in his defined jurisdiction. WPP is not legally a police force and its constables do not have full police powers to enforce criminal law - as opposed to police constables of police forces in their jurisdiction (which is different when looking at Home Office or specialist police forces).

From a neutral point of view, I am staggered that WPP is using stop search (on what legal basis do they use this - for bye laws!?!). How have they been permitted to use blue lights, carry offensive weapons such as batons and infer they are police officers to the unsuspecting public. At best this is a very grey area. At worst it is down right illegal. Any directions to legislation that allays my concerns from Topcat would be appreciated. (And as an aside - the legisaltion is the same for all the London councils. Wandsworth can't abartarilly decide to invent its own powers and legal precedent - I really am shocked at some of the answers (or non answers) given by what I presume are members of the WPP on this page.) [[User:TOA63|TOA63]] ([[User talk:TOA63|talk]]) 16:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, try not be so rude and ignorant we are having discussions on this page. Do not try and dictate, but deliberate. Oh and if the Wandsworth Police's stop & search powers stagger you, what can one say? [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 21:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

:TOA63, feel my pain :p. you'll have to back up everything with a source though - even then you stand a good chance of being ignored. at the rate we're going, it's going to have to go to [[WP:COI/N]]. (to answer your last point, Topcat is a relatively senior member of the WPP, given he authorises FOI releases).

Topcat, please [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. Additionally.
*there is no such thing as a 'Police Service', especially not with initial caps.
*I asm astounded at you statement about 'legal opinion' - do i have to quote the article?
{{cquote|In the United Kingdom and other common law countries, a legal opinion normally refers to written legal advice on a point of law issued by either a barrister (often referred to as "counsel's opinion") or occasionally a senior government law officer, such as the Attorney General. The latter form of opinion is sometimes made available to the public either because of public pressure (see for example Lord Goldsmith's opinion on the legality of the invasion of Iraq), or because a general clarification of the law is called for (see for example, the Yorke-Talbot slavery opinion).}}
*I don't know how many times I have been down this route: every single (1967) constable is the same, regardless of their employer. A report about the constables employed by one council applies to them all equally. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 21:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

::Can we please stop returning to complete red herrings such as "there is no such thing as a Police Service". Try looking up [[Metropolitan Police Service]], to see why such a statement is nonsense; however, quite apart from that, we all know that 'Police Service' is a currently preferred politically correct term, used throughout government and policing circles, to avoid the currently politically-incorrect word "force". It has nothing to do with subjects under discussion here. With respect, comments like that above are both incorrect and irrelevant.

::I also repeat my earlier observation that regardless of anyone's POV, it is clear (from their official website, and reports of their Chief Officer) that WPP's constables are referred to as "Police Constables" by their own organisation, and Wikipedia should report that fact. An encyclopedia exists to report facts, not to forward opinions. '''<font color="green">[[User:Timothy Titus|Timothy Titus]]</font> ''<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Timothy Titus|Talk To TT]]</font>''</sup>''' 22:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
:::that's funny, the FOI response calls them 'Parks Constables', 'Parks Police Constables' and 'Constables'; whilst [http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf this] calls them 'Parks Police Constables' or 'Parks Police Constables'. The website calls them 'Parks Police Officers'. Never 'Police Constables'. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 22:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Given the fact that you can't see how '''Metropolitan ''Police Service''''' is a ''Police Service'', it is not altogether surprising that you can't see how a '''Parks ''Police Constable''''' is a ''Police Constable''. At the very least, however, this is a bizarre understanding of English language, grammar, and syntax. I stress that I am NOT expressing a point of view on the correctness or otherwise of organisations or individuals using particular titles, merely the observable facts of what organisations and individuals are actually calling themselves, and what they are ''being called'' by others. '''<font color="green">[[User:Timothy Titus|Timothy Titus]]</font> ''<sup><font color="orange">[[User talk:Timothy Titus|Talk To TT]]</font>''</sup>''' 07:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


91 why worry how Wandsworth Council refer their Wandsworth Parks Police Officers. These facts hold under Wiki rules regardless of personal objections and suppositions. Thanks [[Special:Contributions/212.85.28.67|212.85.28.67]] ([[User talk:212.85.28.67|talk]]) 16:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:The fact is that the title 'Police Constable' makes it look like they have full police powers, which they do not. Due to contrasting opinions and general confusion, we have to fall back upon legal definitions. A '''Parks''' Police Constable is not a Police Constable, you can't simply remove 'Parks' from the front of the title! With reference to your last point, the organisation does not call them 'Police Constables'. 'Parks Constable' or 'Parks Police Constable' are perfectly acceptable terms, but I understand Topcat is against their usage. Oh, and the Met may call themselves a police service but their article refers to them by their actual name, a 'police force'. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:If the Wandsworth Council anon IP would like to try and make their comment a little more understandable, I might be able to respond. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There you go again 91 worrying unecessary. They are sworn in Police Constables for the purpose of enforcing open space laws. Why worry what other people will think, you are getting very uptight about something you have no control of. I mean how many residents in London do think or care what titles are used? I thought if anything you would be as or more uptight about them having a Chief Officer. Do not worry about the Wandsworth Police Officers they are doing a fine job and know what powers i.e. stop & search that are available to them. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:Should we call them 'Police Constables' even though their own employer does not refer to them as such? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)




== Other duties ==

Thanks 91 have updated your edit to Aug 08, money collections from the APC'S (Automated Public Conviences), was taken over by our Police Support Officers some years ago. Then last month they were handed over to Decaux, the company who has responsibility for them. I have changed the non part to other duties as we are Police Officers when we serve Arrest Warrants made out by the Courts and of course we are Poilcing events in Battersea Park and on Tooting Common etc.

You may find it worthwhile to check your facts a bit more thoroughly, to save I no doubt you will get, a bit humpty when you read this update. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 21:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
:your recent edits, whilst undoubtedly correct, are unsourced. i based my edit of your own FOI response. why are you providing responses if you know they are incorrect? additionally, 'serving legal documentation' does not mean enforcing arrest warrants, it means civil matters like serving writs. i really hope you are not enforcing warrants on the streets. you also appear to have missed my post above. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 17:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

91:Unfortunately I have no say in documents produced by others, but I do agree you should not be be provided with out of date or incorrect information. Thanks for taking it so well, you may want to address that question to the other Council's as well! Obviously you are not in the 'legal trade' or you would be aware that a Judge can name individuals on an Arrest Warrant. Which can includes foreigners i.e. European and American law enforcement officials, you do not need to be a Police Officer. As for unsourced information if everything on Wiki had to be proved, by citing a references to this that and the other. We would have half the articles we have now. As for missing your point about referring to the WPP as Police Officers, is a mute point. We are referred to in writing with all sorts of names. Some in old Anglo-Saxon if you get my drift. Back to the 'Other duties' edit, I expect it to be removed by someone sooner or later, as it is encyclopedic. I could add another twenty jobs to it. We would then get into one of those synthesis wrangles again. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 19:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

:I didn't say it would be illegal for you to enforce the warrant, but I'm not sure you'd remember to drop off your batons on your way out of the park ;) If you could edit the website to include all your jobs, then you could add them to this page. Otherwise, we can't add anymore. Out of interest, do parks constables get named on arrest warrants? 'Officer' or 'constable' are acceptable titles - anything else gives the impression that they are fully empowered police constables, and I'm sure you wouldn't want us giving that impression ;). [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

91:I did not say you said it was illegal I was just showing my surprise how niave you are on points of law and procedures. Any way I am glad you have added some humour, I actually always carry my baton, speed cuffs and wear my ballistic vest. When I am on uniformed duty and whether or not I am in a park, waiting to give evidence at court or reporting an untaxed motorvehicle on a public road. I am not bothered what people think. I deal with people like yourself all the time, and yes we do have a laugh at some of the things you come out with. Coming back to Arrest Warrants, I must confess I have not personally been involved executing a Arrest Warrant for over ten years now. If my memory serves me well, I believe it had all members of the Wandsworth Parks Police. This would have allowed our PPSO's, (though we did not have them then) to arrest as well. Oh yes it did also mention the local police on it. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 20:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
why are you reporting untaxed vehicles? describing me as 'niave', whilst you undoubtedly mean 'naive', could be construed by a more sensitive person as a personal attack and is not appreciated. you really can not carry batons on the streets; you are a constable for the purposes of by-law enforcement in parks and parks only. anyway, do you agree to usage of the words 'officer' or 'constable'?[[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 13:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

91: There is no personal attack on you I merely meant you were ignorant of the facts and I had not realised you are acting on what you read and personal opinion. I do not expect to have to educate you on the law, and common sense tells me that you will not except it any way. I do not have to agree or disagree with you. The article must reflect fairly on the WPP, that is all I am interested in and you?. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 13:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:to the contrary: if i had stated 'it is illegal for you to enforce arrest warrants on the street' then i would have been 'ignorant of the facts'. i did not state that. again, do you agree to usage of the words 'officer' and/or 'constable'?

91:I do not understand what the question is. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 16:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
:in the article, using 'Police Constable' to describe the constables is misleading because it implies that they have full police powers. therefore, do you agree that we should use 'constable' (or 'officer') to refer to them (as is done in many other UK law enforcement articles) ? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


No I do not agree. The Wiki rules are clear enough, it is not how you or I wish to describe Wandsworth Police Officers. I know your POV differs from the norm, but you are not expected to to think for others. You have not convinced me you are not more then a Bot with your edits. Please start thinking outside the box and get back to me, with an original thought. Thanks as always [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 21:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This may help: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050081/The-badged-brigade-wardens-police-powers-patrol-streets-dogs.html [[User:Wandsworth Police Officer|Wandsworth Police Officer]] ([[User talk:Wandsworth Police Officer|talk]]) 09:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Wandsworth Police Officer, those are called 'Accredited Persons' and come under [[Community Safety Accreditation Scheme]]s - are Wandsworth's constables accredited in this manner? Topcat, do you agree that 'Police Constable' is misleading? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 13:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, we are Police Officers! You seem to have trouble grasping this. Just because you are confused do not try and convince other they maybe. You are treating readers of Wiki with contempt by pushing your POV. Maybe you can reveal why you have a problem with the Wandsworth Police. Also we have '''Police Powers''' already why an earth would we need accreditation for something we already have? [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 13:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
:that was exactly my point, that the constables wouldn't need to be accredited. i assumed that the link had some relvency as it had been posted by someone with that name. you assume i have 'a problem' with the police - based on, erm, nothing. you constantly accuse me, in a style no doubt imitating other users, of 'POV pushing'. please, tell me what my point of view is and see if you can back your claims up. your intransigence over the title has now gone on for 2 months (with myself, but much longer with other editors). if you continue in this unconstructive manner, the article will have to go to [[WP:COI/N]]. Reports about constables attested under the 1967 act state that 'Police Constable' is incorrect. it implies you have full police powers, which you do not. 'constable' is an accpetable title; all other UK policing articles use this. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Topcat,
A couple of issues (at least) with your last post.

1. Point me to ANY legislation that makes you police officers. The 1967 Act allows London councils to appoint constables to enforce bye laws in parks and open spaces of their boroughs ONLY. There is no mention of police or any intention of setting up police forces. Police officers, whether they be Home Office police forces or the specialist forces (BTP, MOD police etc) are all members of police forces (as defined in the pertinant legislation) and as such are appointed as police constables. Your organisation is not legally a 'police force' which is a defined legal entity. So therefore you are not police constables ergo not police officers. Please show me any legislation which makes you police officers.

(And by the by, just because the MPS calls itself a 'service' these days is immaterial. Legally it is a police force.)

2. You ONLY have 'police' powers in relation to enforcing parks bye laws. Any other enforcement action you take is based on 'any person' powers commonly known as citizens arrest. (You may have certain council officer powers but that does not make you police officers either). There are several persons/organisations in the country that have 'police' powers for example:
-VOSA operatives have the 'police' power to stop vehicles and examine them (That does not make them police officers and one has ever suggested they were)

- Border and Immigration Agency Officers have 'police' powers to arrest and search and a plethora of other powers (This does not make them police officers and no one has suggested they were)
- Borough Council Environmental Health Officers have certain powers in relation to noise and environmental crime (This does not make them police officers nor has anyone ever suggested that they were)
- SOCA officers can be designated the powers of a police officer or customs officer or immigration officer or a combination of these various powers in their fight against serious and organised crime. (They are not police officers however and no-one has ever suggested that they are)
I could go on. The list of law enforcement agencies with various powers is massive but none of them are or try to call themselves police officers. Constables of London Borough Parks Constabularies merely have 'police' powers to enforce bye laws in the parks only. You and by the look of it WPP, seem to make a massive jump from that legally defined position into purporting to be police officers. If your argument held up to any sort of scrutiny surely SOCA, Immigration or Customs Officers could all argue that they are police officers as they have far more powers than a WWP parks constable, yet they never try to portray themselves as police officers, as you are doing.

Reading the inputs in the archives on this page it is apparent that various contributors have cited legislation, council reports, even Wandsworths own reports to support the position that the article should not use terms as 'police constable' or 'police officer' for very valid grounds. As far as I can tell no-one has provided any cited report or legislation which provides any legal basis for WPP to call themselves police officers or police constables. Yes the WPP may say it, but it doesn't mean that they are right "because they say so". If it was so clear cut and obvious why am I and it looks like several other editors finding some issues with article after looking at the relevant law and policy.

Topcat can I put some questions to you if I may:

1. Other than the 1967 Act (which only relates to constables being appointed to enforce bye laws in the parks etc) can you point me to any other legislation that supports your position that you are police officers?
2. Do you accept the clearly defined legislation which outlines what a police force is? And therefore accept that WPP is not legally a police force?
3. If WPP is not a legally defined police force how do you obtain the traffic exemptions regarding blue lights, speed etc?
4. How does WPP (if it is accepted that you are not a police force) get its authority to carry offensive weapons (batons) which members of police forces are entitled?
5. How can you hold a position (with regards to stop search and criminal law enforcement) that appears to go against the cited reports regarding WPP from Wandsworth Borough Council itself (and the evidence provided at the Lords Committee)?
6. I note you do not carry CS due to legal issues. Do you accept that all police officers can carry CS or its equivalent but you are prevented from doing so because you are not police officers?
7. And finally (for now) do you accept a basic tenant of law. You are made constables under the same Act that all the other London boroughs, who have such constabularies, are established. As such, any legal viewpoint on this Act from any of the other boroughs therefore has a bearing on WPP as it relates to the same law. Do you accept this?

And finally, I have found in reading these pages that the contributors who questioned your status have hardly been POV as you suggest. Many have intelligently cited evidance or reports and legislation clearly stating where there standpoint comes from. If you are so sure please quote the law, reports or legal opinion that supports and rebutts the issues raised by myslef and others. And, please do keep up the good work in the parks of Wandsworth - no-one I can see has personally attacked the constables or your efforts enforcing the bye laws merely the legal situation. [[User:TOA63|TOA63]] ([[User talk:TOA63|talk]]) 19:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

TOA63: Thanks for your post. The rules for Wiki articles are not as simple as having to justify an article through references to laws.

1. You identify the sections in the Acts you quote to evidence your post. We/I do not have to justify we are Police Officers for the article.

2. Blandly quoting Acts is just not good enough and stating they apply to the Council's Police Service.

3. Like 91 you are missing the point, you quite rightly point out we are Police Officers when we are enforcing Bye-Laws and other enactments relating to openspace law. Then attempt to muddle the issue by unnecessary references to where we are outside our jurisdiction.

4. We have stop & search, this power is only available to us Police Officers and some others.

5. Viewpoints can only be personal opinion unless you can prove;

A. It has been confirmed in a court of law (UK or EU).
B. Wiki rule:Cited references that are not more then a point of view.
C. There is an Act that prohibits something in particular, that actually applies to the article*

* Both the Housing Act 1967 & the Police Act 1967 allows you to do something).

and therefore some viewpoints will be POV.

6. Reading topcats replies on this discussion page, they are merely pointing out POV's, stating facts and telling the reader what the Wandsworth Police Officers actually do. Not what others think they should/are allowed to do.

7. Wandsworth Council has a legally set up Police Service running since around 1984, so I appreciate some may not like this, but this is life.

8. Wiki is a place for people to find articles of interest, it is not for people to promote their own personal issues.

9. I note all the different articles on Police Services or Forces, Para-militaries etc. Do not concern themselves about where their jurisdiction lie, Police Powers or the equipment they carry. I do not think this identifies who is a Police Officer.

10. There is no legal situation and there has never been one. Wandsworth Parks Police Service sits comfortably within the Borough's crime reduction initiatives. We do not compare ourselves to any other Police Force or Service, either in the UK or outside and see no reason to.

So there we have it in no particular order, thank you for your pledge of support on enforcing openspace law. I can assure you we will continue to act lawfully when we arrest for statute law whether we are in a park or outside it. I wish you all every luck in your chosen profession. [[User:Wandsworth Police Officer|Wandsworth Police Officer]] ([[User talk:Wandsworth Police Officer|talk]]) 09:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
==arbitary break==
yet one of you, at least, illegally carries an offensive weapon on the streets. whilst we could talk about the parks police all day, we're trying to build consensus on the article. from above: reports about constables attested under the 1967 act state that 'Police Constable' is incorrect. it implies you have full police powers, which you do not. 'constable' is an acceptable title. do either of you have any constructive feedback to this? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 13:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


== Ignorance is not a crime you are free to go. ==

91:Do not accuse people of breaking the law. You are not qualified and have no evidence in law. Surprise me and back anything up with evidence. The 1967 Acts (the two of them) do not state anything about the Wandsworth Police Officers. You know this, so why say it? I understand your ignorance and your reliance on your own and others opinion. I will let it go, but cannot speak for others. I continue to wait for you to produce something you can sustantiate. I will not be holding my breath on that one! [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 16:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:You are a constable for the purpose of enforcing open space bylaws. Only a constable may carry an offensive weapon. If you are not enforcing open space bylaws, you are not a constable. If you are not enforcing open space bylaws then you cannot, therefore, carry an offensive weapon.

:I have had enough of this charade. See [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Wandsworth Parks Police]]. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ninety:one,

I can see what you are saying and it makes perfect sense to me, backed by citable and verifiable law and reports.

Topcat,

If what ‘Wandsworth Police Officer’ is saying is true i.e. making police power arrests outside the parks for statute law offences then you are indeed breaking the law. You have no police powers in relation to criminal law (i.e. not parks bye laws and enactments) and definitely not outside the parks. The law is very specific on this point. The evidence, which has been quoted ad infinitum is all found above, but the key bit is the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 (I’ve called the “1967 Housing etc Act” for brevity from now on.) which is where you get your powers from and are established as constables. You have not provided any evidence throughout which shows why you consider yourselves police constables or police officers. The 1967 Housing etc Act just gives you powers to enforce parks bye-laws and enactments in the parks and open spaces of the borough.

Your next bit about the two 1967 Acts is bizarre. Of course the 1967 Housing etc Act does not name WPP but that is the Act that you are established under and it is where your authority and limited powers stems from. And this does not make you police officers or police constables. For your information the Police Act 1967 has been superseded by the Police Act 1996.

You have been given Acts of Parliament and various reports from various sources (even from Wandsworth Council itself!) supporting the position that you are not police officers or police constables. It is not good enough to say we are what we are so we are right. Prove it, with any legislation, report, policy, legal opionion….I mean anything at all. If it is that black and white then you should be able to readily point to the relevant law or report.

Enough is enough. I’m tempted to think that you know you are out on a limb legally and that is why you smoke screen any request for direct evidence of your status. If we are ignorant of the facts please enlighten us…but with citable facts not your opinion or your own take on the legislation. The article presently does not reflect current law.

Wandsworth Police Officer,

I’ll keep it in the points you numbered in your reply above to make this easier to follow the discussion...

1.I disagree with you. The article, at present, states you are police officers and police constables. My viewpoint, and it would appear other editors also, is that you are not legally either a police officer or police constable so the article is wrong. You do not have to justify yourself to me, but you certainly do to the law and as a result the truthfulness of the article. I’ll repeat, the 1967 Housing etc Act allows borough council to establish constables to enforce bye laws in parks and open spaces only. It does not make you police officers. It does not give you all the powers and privilages of a police constable. How do you square that circle? (I listed the other organisations because like you, officers of those various organisation have various executive or certain ‘police’ powers (some of them have far more powers than you) but unlike you, they do not then think they are police officers – what makes you different? Certainly I can find no law to support your viewpoint.)

2.I have not blandly quoted Acts! I’m afraid your missing the point – legal powers of the police and criminal justice system is based in law. So myself and other editors have been reading and quoting the law as it would appear to be at odds with your assertions. Not one quote has been fired back which supports your views. It has been pointed out before but a police force is a legally defined entity under the Police Act 1996 and other specific Acts. You cannot set up a police force without acts of parliament for all sorts of civil rights and legal reasons. So the Police Act 1996 sets up the 43 Home Office Forces, the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 sets up the MOD police and the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 is the latest act in relation to BTP. These acts set out the police force areas and the jurisdictions of the members of these various forces who are all police constables. WPP does not come under the remit of any of these police acts. The ONLY act in relation to WPP is the 1967 Housing etc Act, which does not in any way give authority for Wandsworth Council to set up a police force or give you the status of police officer or police constable. You have limited ‘police’ powers to enforce bye-laws only in the parks and open and spaces. It does not give you all the powers and privileges of a police constable. A traffic warden has limited ‘police’ powers to enforce traffic law and an Immigration officer has limited ‘police’ powers to arrest but that does not make either police officers. So what’s your legal basis for your position in the article?

3.Er, no, I have never said you are police officers at any time. My position is you are not police constables and not police officers. When you are enforcing bye-laws and other enactments relating to the parks and open spaces you are constables of a parks constabulary as per the 1967 Housing etc Act which establishes you. This Act gives you certain powers but does not make you police constables or police officers. No one I can see has tried to muddle the issue - it appears to me, and others, that it is very plain and simple if you read the 1967 Housing etc Act.

4.Stop search is only available to police constables, you are not police constables. My take on the law as read is that you are on very sticky ground conducting stop searches in relation to bye laws. Parliament gave police constables this power to prevent and detect crime. I cannot imagine they legislated so that people would be stop searched in relation to bye laws (remember you have no police powers in relation to crime as per the 1967 Housing etc Act). It would appear that until fairly recently WPP understood that they did not have stop search powers as per Wandsworth Councils own reports and the request for those powers at the above cited Lords committee a few years ago. What has changed since then? Primary law has not changed in relation to stop search so on what basis do you think you now have powers of stop search?

5.There are no viewpoints here but cited valid arguments. Myself (and others) have quoted various Acts of Law and the 1967 Housing etc Act to frame our viewpoint. In order for you to have police powers, such as arrest or search you must have backing in law otherwise it is illegal and can amount to assault or unlawful imprisonment. Police constables are given extraordinary powers which are all based in the various police acts mentioned above so that anyone can read them and see what police officers can and cannot do – that’s all part of living in a free country. The 1967 Housing etc Act that establishes you does not make you police constables nor allow borough councils to establish police forces; it merely gives you powers in relation to parks and open space bye laws and enactments. It is not a viewpoint its in the law as it stands. However if I and the other editors have missed some legislation to support your position please tell all. (For information the Police Act 1967 you mention is no longer in force and has been superseded by the Police Act 1996)

6.I have to disagree with your assessment of Topcat’s replies. I note on several occasions editors have asked Topcat for cited law or policy that supports his assertions. Theses have yet to appear. He may be pointing out what WPP officers actually do but there is the rub. My reading of the law, and cited evidence on these very pages would suggest to me that WPP is probably acting on very thin ice legally and is on shaky ground. But, you may suggest in response, we have always done it, so we must be right. I would counter that by saying that if someone was to actually challenge the issues following an arrest or stop search it would come to the surface and WPP would be found to be acting outside there defined powers in certain circumstances. For example it would appear the Mets position on the WPP carrying batons is that it is illegal as they are not police constables but will not take action due to ‘organisational sovereignty’ and will await a specific complaint by a member of the public. (That is from one of the cited reports above). The law states what you powers have, you cannot go beyond that just because you want to or because “that’s what we do”.

7.In legal terms Wandsworth Council did not set up a police service in 1984 as you assert, because it can’t legally do that, and there is no such thing as a ‘police service’ in law. What it did do in 1984, as per the relevant Act, is establish a body of constables (a constabulary) to enforce bye laws and enactments in the parks and open spaces of Wandsworth Borough. You may call yourselves WPP (there are issues with this but I’ll leave them for now) but in legal terms you are a London Borough Parks Constabulary.

8.Wiki is indeed a place to find articles of interest as you state. The issue is that the articles should, as far as possible should be accurate. At the moment myself, and others don’t think it is. And please do not think that because we disagree (with reasons) with you that we all have a personal agenda. I, for one, would leave these pages alone if I felt for one minute they were an accurate reflection of the legislation.

9.The reason the issues regarding police powers and equipment were raised is that police officers carry all the equipment and have full police powers. WPP officers do not carry all police equipment (i.e. CS) and there is some queries regarding lawfulness of batons (as per the reports) and do not have full police powers. Therefore this tends to support the argument that WPP officers are not police officers or police constables.

10.Don’t understand your point. I’m sure you do sit comfortably on crime reduction initiatives. Many organisations assist with these initiatives such as London Fire Brigade, Social Services, Charities and others. Doesn’t make you police officers though. Regarding comparison with other London parks constabularies. WPP and all other London borough constabularies are established and authorised under the exact same legislation. Therefore any legal reports or case law (if there is any) into any of the London parks constabularies does have a bearing and relevance to the WPP. You can’t pick and choose because it’s the exact same law being reported on. If you have any legal opinion reports that back up you claims, please cite them. Plenty of reports have been cited above backing my position.

And finally regarding your last paragraph – Yes I do support your efforts in the parks. And if you are arresting outside the parks for statute law using police powers you are acting unlawfully, no question. Thanks for the support regarding my profession, though it’s quite unnecessary. [[User:TOA63|TOA63]] ([[User talk:TOA63|talk]]) 19:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
:You're the third user to try and have a sensible discussion and I can tell you now it's sadly not worth it :( We should leave it to COI/N and see what happens. Thank you for your efforts, they really are much appreciated. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


== Right of reply ==

User 91 has tried everything he can to get his personal view endorsed onto the article. He has reported TopCat666 to his employer, he has solicited other Wikipedians in a campaign against TopCat666. This is now the latest example, he has added numerous templates accusing various problems with the article and TopCat. He has been warned by admin for his POV's and accusing the Wandsworth Parks Police of breaking the law. Which he has done again. He appears to have made another username up, TOA63 in attempt to give Wikipedians the false impression this is someone independent. I suspect he is using both names because of only a three minute gap between two postings on the discussion page between the two usernames. He also falsely reports replies on the discussion page and is ignoring independent edits from admin Chrislk02, McGeddon, Timothy Titus and others. User 91 is bulling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying) in his edits and this should not be allowed to continue. I am actually quite new to Wiki as an editor if this needs to be forwarded to another area of Wiki, i.e. complaints etc please point me in the right direction.

:Total BS. I have never complained to Wandsworth council. I have done exactly what I am supposed to do in this situations, and gone to RfC and the relevant WikiProject. I was not 'warned by an admin', we reached consensus over a misunderstanding on my part. '''I brought the matter up on his talk page''', it was most certainly not a warning, and it had nothing to do with him being an admin. Please, exactly what on earth does 'falsely reports replies on the discussion page' mean? And when have I been 'ignoring independent edits'? Accusing me of having a sock is one of the most serious accusations you could make on Wikipedia, and totally untrue. Just because there is more than one person who disagrees with you doesn't mean they are all socks. Feel free to go to [[WP:RCU]] and ask them to investigate. If your accusations weren't so widespead and serious, this would be amusing. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 17:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


== Office of Constable ==

Extract verbatim from Police Federation (England & Wales)

What it means to hold the Office of Constable:

Every sworn police officer in England and Wales is a ‘Constable’, irrespective of rank. It is from the Office of Constable that each officer derives their powers. On appointment each police officer makes a declaration to “faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of Constable”. In
England and Wales, police officers swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch; this is to ensure the separation of power and political independence of the Office of Constable. The office of Constable means a police officer has the additional legal powers of arrest and control of the public given to him or her directly by a sworn oath and warrant. These are not delegated powers simply because they have been employed as an officer. Police officers are not employees. Each sworn constable is an independent legal official; they are not agents of the police force, police authority or government. Each police officer has personal liability for their actions or inaction. The chief officer of the force to which the constable is attached also has a level of corporate responsibility. Those who hold the Office of Constable are
servants of the Crown, not employee. Police officers have access to most statutory
employment rights afforded to employees, but it is a criminal offence for police officers
to take industrial action. Holding the Office of Constable means a police officer executes their duty independently, without fear or favour. With the Office of Constable comes personal accountability and responsibility for the protection of life and property, the prevention and detection of crime, themaintenance of law and order and the detection and prosecution of offenders. Police officers must be allowed to police using common sense, free from political
preference and political targets. Again, the Office of Constable and the rule of law protect this.The Constable must be at the heart of policing communities, ensuring cohesion and security at a local, national and international level. Those holding the Office of Constable do so in full knowledge of the increasing dangers they face, the accountability both on and off duty and the restrictions placed on their family lives (see Restraints upon
the Office of Constable).Wandsworth Police </http://www.polfed.org/OC_Final.pdf>


Every sworn in Police Officer or Police Constable (if you prefer) of the Wandsworth Parks Police. Is attested at Magistrates Court and is a Crown Servant amongst their other roles. Below is that of the oath that every Police Officer (England & Wales) '''must''' take.


I, .. <Officer's Name> .. of .. <Police Service> .. do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that I will, to the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law." Wandsworth Police Officer's oath http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_oath

The document in the link http://www.polfed.org/OC_Final.pdfclearly points out that every Constable is a Police Officer and vice versa. Thank you for reading this. [[User:Wandsworth Police Officer|Wandsworth Police Officer]] ([[User talk:Wandsworth Police Officer|talk]]) 09:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, yet again you have not answered the questions above I posted but make a tenuos leap to an organisation which has nothing to do with thw WPP. Do not use the police federation of England & Wales to try and justify yourselves. This organisation represents Police officers of the rank of Police constable to Chief Inspector of the 43 Home Office forces in England & Wales only.

Wpp constables are NOT members of the police federation, I would imagine you are members of trade union but not the police federation. Why? Because you are not POLICE constables nor police officers. Not one person has argued that you are not constables. You are, BUT you are not POLICE constables with all the powers and privilages of that office. Every constable is certainly NOT a police officer. Yes, it says every police officer is a 'constable' whatever their rank because a Superintendent is still in a legal sense a constable (with additional powers due to rank) but the federation is not saying constables of parks constabularies are police officers.

You really do need to read the reports on your own organsation by Wandsworth Council itself and realise that you are so much on dodgy ground. You've pointed to the police federation report to try and justify yourselves. This quite clearly points out that POLICE constables are crown servants. Your own organisation (Wandsworth Council) quite clearly says you cannot enforce criminal law like a police officer nor are you Crown servants, hence why your not allowed to carry CS. This is the link: [http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf]

So, instead of answering my questions above with legal basis, you leap to an organisation that represents Police officers of Home Office forces which you think supports your claims but in fact is more in support of my opinion! And I suggest to you, that the police federation, if it were asked its actual opinion would categorically state you are not police officers or police constables. (The flyer you quoted was a general circulation for the public across the country about police officers in the federation not a legal document for you to try and back up your claims)

Right, try and answer my numbered points above. If its so straight forward, show me [[User:TOA63|TOA63]] ([[User talk:TOA63|talk]]) 17:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Lots of London parks constables used to be [[UNISON]] but UNISON said they couldn't carry batons so loads went to [[GMB]] instead. 1967 constables, as far as I know, have no oath stipulated by law - the one copied above applies only to territorial police forces. Wandsworth Police Constable, your own employer regularly refers to you as anything but 'Police Constables', and I'm sure the Fed would be only to happy to concur. Unless you particularly want a section dedicated to how Wandsworth does calls you parks constables etc., i suggest we agree upon 'constables' [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== Guy you are so sad ==

You have been beat, your nonsense does not impress bye. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
:Well done, you have committed a breach of the Data Protection Act. I provided my name to Wandsworth Council in confidence, you have released it. I am now considering complaining. With regards to your edit, the FOI response states twice that all vehicles are marked. 'All vehicles have reflective markings in order to provide a high visual impact during the day and at night' and 'Officers patrol the Borough in modern, highly recognisable marked police vehicles'. I will remove the word unmarked as it is unsourced and, in this case, controversial. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 22:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


== Unmarked Police Vehicle ==

Its a fact we have a fully kitted out Unmarked Police vehicle, if knew how I would stick a picture on the article for you! I have put it back in the article, nowhere does it state we do not have unmarked vehicles. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 11:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Please familiarise yourself with [[WP:V|basic Wikipedia policy on verifiability]]. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth'''—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
:Although we'd save a lot of time if we could use real-world truths from people who work in relevant areas, it would carry potential problems of abuse or accidental inaccuracy, and [[WP:COI|conflict of interest policy]] specifically warns against it. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 11:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
==Outstanding issues==
several points.
*'Police Constables' - not only do countless reports say this title is inaccurate, the law does not use this title and Wandsworth refers to them as anything but 'Police Constables' because they do not have full police powers. The term 'Police Constable' is misleading and should be replaced immediately.
*Dog section - this text is still copyrighted on the website and is a currently a copyvio. Tagged as such. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 20:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Every sworn in Police Officer or Police Constable (if you prefer) of the Wandsworth Parks Police. Is attested at Magistrates Court and is a Crown Servant amongst their other roles. Further up is that of the oath that every Police Officer (England & Wales) '''must''' take. and here is again an explanation of a that '''all''' attested Police Constables are Police Officers etc. </http://www.polfed.org/OC_Final.pdf> . Please do not have me explain it all again to you, just go back to on this discussion page its all there. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 23:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
:Wandsworth council say they do not carry CS because they are not Crown Servants. 1967 constables are not attested under the PRA 2002 oath, it means nothing. You have ignored the fact that Wandsworth council does not call them 'Police Constables', and the fact that such a description would misleadingly imply that they have full police powers. (McGeddon, can you archive some of this? I would, but I wasn't sure which method you used before) [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 17:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::I just added a template asking [[User:MiszaBot|MiszaBot]] to archive anything over a month old - it'll do it automatically for old content. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
::We do not wish to carry CS Spray, we would like to carry PAVA [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonivamide pepper spray.] The only reason we do not carry either, is because they are classed as a firearm and therefore a firearms licence is required. Nothing to do with us being Crown Servants. As I said before please do not let me explain it all again! I do not understand your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_narrative reasoning] on the full police powers. You know we have the full powers of a Police Officer when we are performing our core function. So who is hoodwinking who? [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 22:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
:::If you have full powers, why this? "with a few exceptions enjoy the powers and privileges of the office of a Constable." [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::::the only powers they have are whilst enforcing parks bylaws, and even then they can only arrest if they think someone is lying about their name or address or search after a bylaw offence. the reason 1967 constables can't carry CS/PAVA is because they are not excluded by [http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=firearms&Year=1968&searchEnacted=0&extentMatchOnly=0&confersPower=0&blanketAmendment=0&sortAlpha=0&TYPE=QS&PageNumber=1&NavFrom=0&parentActiveTextDocId=1628564&ActiveTextDocId=1628746&filesize=26243 section 54 3 a of the firearms act 1968]. I certainly had read in one of the countless reports that the reason was due to them not being Crown Servants - which whilst not incorrect is an oversimplification. anyway, the argument is not about 'Crown Servants' but 'Police Constables' - what is wrong with just 'constable'? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::A member of the Wandsworth Police Service, upon being sworn in and taking the oath at the local Magistrates Court. Shall in their jurisdictions have the powers of a Police Constable to enforce the bye-laws and other [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enactments enactments] relating to openspace law. They will generally have no police powers in the other jurisdictions, unless he/she has been additionally sworn in as occurs with police in border areas, many of what are perceived as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Any_person_arrest#United_Kingdom "police" powers], such as the general power of arrest, are actually possessed by all persons. So a Wandsworth Parks Police Constable is never totally powerless. All police officers are "Police Constables" in law, irrespective of rank. You will see we do not only have powers to enforce bye-laws, we arrest many criminals both in and outside the parks. Including handcuffing them and other police restraint holds. 91, you may recognize some of the research above! ;) [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:How clever of you, copypasting text from [[Law enforcement in the United Kingdom]] and inserting words in. The section is innaccurate and I am re-writing it at the moment ([[User:Ninetyone/test2|here]]).
*'we arrest many criminals both in and outside the parks. Including handcuffing them and other police restraint holds.' - that is perfectly legal, handcuffs are not offensive weapons - even i could do what you just said.
*'we do not only have powers to enforce bye-laws' - that's funny, the law says you are sworn in as a constable for the purpose of 'securing the observance of... ...bye-laws and regulations...'
*again, what is wrong with 'constable'? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

::Even funnier anyone can enforce the law, thats where common law any persons powers started and sec 24a PACE at the moments finishes. Surely you would not expect a sworn in Police Officer to ignore a crime being committed? You had better rethink your rewrite, before someone else does. By the way do not restrict nicking people to the borough of Wandsworth either.
Police Officer or Police Constable I do not mind either, in the law courts we are referred to as Police Officer, by the Judge. So unless you at last actually present concrete evidence and not your personal view or hang up. We can continue this circle for ever,(or until there is some legislation change either way). [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:Well guess what, the legislation calls you a 'constable'. I could cite any one of countless reports which refer to you as anything but 'Police Constables'. Also, the sentence 'The service also holds Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee Medal as Police Officers' is inaccurate - the reference you cite says 'members of the police service', and can not be used to back up the title 'Police Officers'. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 19:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== Verifiablity of sources ==

[[WP:VERIFY]] "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."
Something similar has been discussed on the Reliable sources noticeboard [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Aspartame]. Like the document in that case, the FOI document in this case has not been published. I'm raising the issue there [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Freedom_of_information_.28FOI.29_reports_-_not_published.2C_can_they_be_used.3F]. - Oops, forgot to sign. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 16:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:The information is not likely to be challenged, and the only quotation is from the 1967 Act which I'm trying to get out of the Lords library. Still, Wandsworth ignored my requests to publish it, though i'm sure there's some way of forcing them. In this case, there's precious little else to go on. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
::I agree, but having taken part in the Aspartame discussion, I felt this should be raised--it interests me as someone who has been involved in FOI requests anyway. [[User:Dougweller|Doug Weller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Absolutely agree. Is there any way to make them publish a FOI response? In fact, according to Topcat, this is a standard document they produce not a custom-written one. Topcat, as you can see it's in your own interests to publish the document - can you try and do this? [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

:The FOI response as it stands adds little value. Clearly it's a standard information sheet, hence ephemera rather than ''record'', but by hosting it and referencing it without including the FOI itself you render it liable to fairly significant abuse. Frankly the use of the source is pretty tortured as it stands.
:[[User:ALR|ALR]] ([[User talk:ALR|talk]]) 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

== Exceptions to the rule ==

Hi Doug, firstly of course there are exception to every rule, even in law. A quick answer to your question. There are 40 odd Bye-laws applicable in certain parks and openspaces in Wandsworth. Wandsworth's Police Officers can arrest under section 24 of PACE which is a lot more in depth then merely the suspect lying! There are only certain Bye-laws that there are full Police Powers to search a person or vehicle under section 1 of PACE 1984.
There is the Police Power of search upon arrest (for bye-law offence), section 32 of PACE. Everybody can search under certain circumstances using common law when making an any person arrest, section 24a of PACE. We are and continue doing this and as we take our prisoners to a designated police station, no problem there then. Please take time to look back at questions and answers on the discussion page as we have a lot of duplicated questions, there is also a wealth of links. Thanks. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


== latest additions ==
== latest additions ==
Line 448: Line 52:
== Practice what you preach and let me help you. ==
== Practice what you preach and let me help you. ==


You justify your adding of unecessary references for instance UNISON advice, which you still haven't quantified and I am waiting for reply from my Regional Officer. As for Private Eye what is that all about? I do not know what you are trying to prove with the article. Why do you not enlighten us? I may be able to help you with advice particularily on the legal side. I have substantial amount of case law and practical experience along with access to [http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/police-reform/policing-improvement-agency/ NPIA] I can see you are struggling to get across your point of view and I have no problem with that. Please except my offer of help, this is more in depth then you have been used to. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]])
You justify your adding of unecessary references for instance UNISON advice, which you still haven't quantified and I am waiting for reply from my Regional Officer. As for Private Eye what is that all about? I do not know what you are trying to prove with the article. Why do you not enlighten us? I may be able to help you with advice particularily on the legal side. I have substantial amount of case law and practical experience along with access to [http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/police-reform/policing-improvement-agency/ NPIA] I can see you are struggling to get across your point of view and I have no problem with that. Please except my offer of help, this is more in depth then you have been used to. [[User:TopCat666|TopCat666]] ([[User talk:TopCat666|talk]]) <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment was added at 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You just claimed that I didn't answer your questions, but you won't tell me what those questions are. The best thing you could do is publish the PDF you sent me as an FOI response.
:I have no point of view, I am not trying to prove anything. I have never seen a WPP officer, let alone had dealings with them. All I'm trying to do is build an accurate article.
*The sentence 'They will generally have no police powers in the other jurisdictions, unless he/she has been additionally sworn in as occurs with police in border areas or assisting a Police Constable' is misleading.
**Regardless of the fact that 'Border areas' refers to areas on the English/Scottish border, no parks constable will be sworn in by the Met as a constable.
**Section 89 merely states that if you assault or obstruct someone who is helping a constable then it is an offence. It says nothing about anyone getting any powers whatsoever. Sentence needs removing.
*What have I not 'quantified' about the UNISON advice?
*'So a Wandsworth Parks Police Constable is never powerless and may arrest using reasonable force' - as can any person. Sentance needs clarifying to include this.
*The first [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_10#pt3-pb1 SOCAPA ref] ('As each London Borough Council is independent, the police powers[6]') does not back up any claim, so is pointless and needs removing.
*You cited the Fed report. They are not members of the Fed, but of Unison. It is clearly irrelevant. The paragraph I assume you're trying to refer to specifically refers to Fed (ie non-1967) constables swearing an oath - one stipulated by the Police Acts. Even if 1967 constables do swear this oath, it has no meaning in law because it is not stipulated - again, as far as I know - by the 1967 act.
*The HSE ref is totally unrelated to parks constables. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

== Removal of sourced material ==

There seems to be activity in this article of late that attempts to remove properly [[WP:V|sourced]] material. Further, this removal has the appearance of [[WP:NPOV|bias]], as the editor in question apparently has a [[WP:COI|close connection]] with the material. All editors are reminded to maintain a neutral point of view per [[WP:NPOV]], and not to remove material from a reliable, verifiable source without first gaining consensus to do so. Please also note that removal of citations that reference dead links is NOT considered deletion of properly-sourced material; see [[WP:LINKROT]]. Thank you. [[User:N5iln|Alan the Roving Ambassador]] ([[User talk:N5iln|talk]]) 18:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

== Should we mention the plans to replace the force with Met officers? ==

Clearly a matter of debate. Should we include the following paragraph?
{{quote|In April 2011 Wandsworth Council announced that it was proposing to take advantage of a [[Metropolitan Police Authority]] funding scheme that would result in the set up of a team of 16 police officers from the Metropolitan Police dedicated to policing the parks and open spaces of the borough. The council believes the move would save £800,000 a year as well as securing a team of officers with higher levels of training and greater powers. Such a move would mean the abolishment of the Wandsworth Parks Police.<ref>http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/10368/plan_for_met_officers_to_patrol_parks</ref><ref>http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13624</ref><ref>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23938047-met-police-to-take-over-park-security-in-south-london.do</ref> There is opposition to this proposal from the Friends of Battersea Park, a community organisation.<ref>{{cite news|last=Bryant|first=Miranda|title=Park users fear crime surge if civilian patrols are axed|url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23939331-park-users-fear-crime-surge-if-civilian-patrols-are-axed.do|accessdate=8 June 2011|newspaper=[[Evening Standard]]|date=7 April 2011}}</ref>}}
Let's try and discuss it on its merits without reference to any non-existent "POV pushing." [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

:I note the above paragraph has been deleted without discussion. I added the paragraph after initially noting the story in London's Evening Standard Newspaper. I then looked a bit deeper (this newspaper does get things wrong sometimes) and found not only that the proposal has been officially reported by Wandsworth Council on their own website, official council committee papers and the Metropolitan Police Authority website, including a quote from the Deputy Mayor of London Kit Malthouse, local news media and London's main free newspaper. The proposal is currently going through the councils various committees but it is looking like the proposal is a real possibility. So we have verifiable sources that this significant proposal my happen and is being progressed. I would also say this significant in terms of the article as it would mean the end of Wandsworth Parks Police in its current form so it is hardly irrelevant. So I would ask why has this been deleted - the proposal is certainly a reality? I understand there is opposition to such a move, which can also be added to the article but just to delete seems rather odd. [[User:Dibble999|Dibble999]] ([[User talk:Dibble999|talk]]) 15:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
::Considering the amount of coverage in reliable sources this has gotten, it hardly seems like "unnecessary political speculation", as the last removal would have it. I think it should remain. Then, if it doesn't happen, we can report on why it was rejected.--[[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|<span class="gfSarekSig">SarekOfVulcan (talk)</span>]] 15:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
:::And I, naturally, fully support it as well. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I read the above comments I am looking forward to the MPS absorbing all these little Constabularies. Would anyone know if Hammersmith and Chelsea are going too? [[User:Pushpinapple|Pushpinapple]] ([[User talk:Pushpinapple|talk]]) 17:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised find my referenced addition to the Wandsworth Police removed. I have spoken direct to the Police at Battersea, who tell me that GMB union have issued a letter that TUPE applies to Boris's BOGOF. A view the Director of Finance at Wandsworth ackowledges, who's official comment I used. I telephoned the Police yesterday and they couldn't tell me who Topcat is, but said they know that Dibble is a constable in the local police service (MPS District). Is this why he removed my edit as 'only a proposal' and leaves his own edit which is only 'a proposal'? Double standards I think, maybe you would like to comment Dibble and evidence your legal basis comments? thanks for reading this.[[User:Pushpinapple|Pushpinapple]] ([[User talk:Pushpinapple|talk]]) 05:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

::In reply. I am a serving police officer but I will not state where or what rank - its irrelevant. I removed your edit as there is no legal mechanism for someone who is not from a none [[territorial police force]] or a [[special police force]] in the UK to transfer directly into another territorial police force such as the MPS (see current Police Regulations). Please look at the archives of this discussion page, there has been considerable debate and argument around the legal situation of WPP which I will not go over again. As things stand any Wandsworth Parks Constable wishing to become part of the new Met parks unit as police officers (should this proposal go through) would have to join the MPS as a recruit, do all the training and then apply to any Wandsworth Safer Parks SNT of the Met (or whatever they might eventually call it). Having read the report you quote I think you will find the council finance director is merely outlining possible financial considerations depending what happens to the current WPP staff without any real knowledge of what could be legally possible. TUPE relates to transfer of undertaking (protection of employment) - again a difficult area in terms of police constables of territorial police forces as they are not employees and we do not have contracts so how the parks constables of WPP who do appear to be employees can cite TUPE is a very tricky area. Certainly going to be interesting to see how its done.

::And for the record, although I have my views certain aspects of WPP, I do have great sympathy for the awful position staff at WPP must be in waiting to hear what the future holds. I may disagree with certain aspects of legal bits and pieces but I know that all staff at WPP are only trying to make the parks safer for everyone.
::By the way I'm slightly perplexed as to why you are trying to find out who editors are, completely irrelevant and frankly a bit underhand.
::And re your comment on the 1st August, the MPS as far as I am aware, is not trying to take over the parks constabularies, I think it is more to do with councils taking advantage of MPA BOGOF and judging what is most cost effective and value for money for them (which of course is controversial in itself). I've edited the article as best I can. [[User:Dibble999|Dibble999]] ([[User talk:Dibble999|talk]]) 11:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

::Pushpinapple - I've just noted your comments on the edit history. No, the Met police would not 'absorb' the parks constabulary so your mention of no Acts of Parliament preventing this is not relevant and shows you may not have grasped that already the MPS is statutorily the territorial police force responsible for all of Wandsworth including the parks. That Wandsworth Council chose to start a parks constabulary in the 1980s does not alter this - the Met are still the police force responsible. Legally what would happen, if this goes through, is that the Wandsworth Parks Police would just simply stop. The Met would just internally set up a Safer Parks Team dedicated to to Wandsworth Parks Police instead of the current situation where there are no Met officers in Wandsworth dedicated solely to the parks. [[User:Dibble999|Dibble999]] ([[User talk:Dibble999|talk]]) 12:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


'''Director of Finance comments paper 11-583 "the severance costs of existing Parks Police staff not transferring to the Metropolitan Police Service, or being redeployed elsewhere in the Council";'''
It seems to me that it is you who fail to grasp that: Wandsworth Council's Director of Finance who controls millions of Tax Payers money, is likely to have more knowledge and access to legal advice then me. He is more reliable and qualified in his statement of fact that there will be transfers. Unless you tell me you are up there with the decision makers and (give verification), do not remove referenced materials and place your unverifiable statements that he has it wrong. I have managed to speak to Topcat as I wish to write an article about the Wandsworth Police. He pointed out a few things about Wikipedia and its users and gave me a couple of tips. If you continue to remove my referenced material I am to report it to an admin officer to referee it. You appear desperate to bury the Director of Finance's paper, I don't suppose you will share why? [[User:Pushpinapple|Pushpinapple]] ([[User talk:Pushpinapple|talk]]) 14:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Oh dear, I did not want get into a heated debate in on this subject again. Of course referenced material is fine however it needs to be relevant to the point being made. My contention is that your quotes do not support the suggestion that WPP constables are going to be able to transfer direct into the MPS. As stated above, only officers from other territorial or special police forces can direct transfer between each other. The WPP is not legally a police force and certainly not a territorial or special one as defined in legislation. The sentence quoted above is merely pointing out the unresolved question of what would the costs be to Wandsworth Council if existing parks constabulary staff did not transfer to the MPS etc. Wandsworth would obviously much prefer to reduce the costs to them by transferring WPP staff into the MPS as police officers lock stock and barrel. What it is not saying, as you appear to suggest is that it is confirmed that the parks constable will (or are even legally able to) transfer direct into the MPS as police officers. The full quote actually says its all a bit grey and states:
:::'''"There are still a number of issues that need to be resolved before a comprehensive financial appraisal of the proposals can be made. These mainly comprise, the costs of any services that the MPA agreement will not include as outlined in paragraph 10, severance costs of existing Parks Police staff not transferring to the Metropolitan Police Service, or being redeployed elsewhere in the Council, and potential impact on the existing income budget if revenue generating services are not retained under the new agreement"'''
:::Can I suggest we leave the article as it is as nothing has been confirmed yet stating "There is opposition to this proposal, and several aspects remain unclear, such as the future of current WPP staff" - which I think is a fair and balanced statement. By the way it is not the Financial Directors report its the Environment, Culture and Community Safety Overview and Scrutiny Committee report of 27th June 2011 whereby the Finance Director makes comments. Please don't accuse me of burying anything - most unfair and if I may so, without foundation. Its also not on to make certain assumptions about an editors intent and to threaten to 'report to administrators' at this stage is somewhat novel. I am very happy to have a civilised and reasoned discussion on these pages about the content of the article but certain aspects of your comments are a bit personal. Regards [[User:Dibble999|Dibble999]] ([[User talk:Dibble999|talk]]) 09:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Hi Dibs, you are joking the WPP not legally a Police Force! I have been over there today and they have vehicles with blue lights and sirens (do want pics)? They also have batons and handcuffs! I hope you do not take this personally again are you and Sarek mates? You both seem to be going over the top on this one. Any way the bogof will not happen now as the article in the London Evening Standard shows. On a personal note I found them very helpful and knowledgable and have given me a lot of material for the article I am writing. [[User:Pushpinapple|Pushpinapple]] ([[User talk:Pushpinapple|talk]]) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
:I do not want to get dragged back into this pathetic, childish game again, but Dibble deserves backing up. Yet again we are seeing the same style of discussion as we saw with Topcat666: anyone who disagrees with what he believes must be working in cohort with other editors, must be part of the Met, must dislike WPP, must have something to hide - it's all nonsense, and it obfuscates the actual issues under discussion. I'm not suggesting it's deliberate - that would, I fear, to be attributing unnecessarily what might be explained by malice when the reality is probably a little different - but it constitutes blurred personal attacks (contrary to [[WP:NPA]]) through innuendo and it's still a problem that needs to be confronted if these discussions are going to get anywhere at all. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

:::I for one have had enough of this. Pushpinapple, for the last time, a police force is a legal entity defined by the [[Police Act 1996]] for [[territorial police forces]] or the Acts that set up the [[special police forces]] i.e. BTP, MDP or CNC as discussed infinitum before. WPP is a body of constables, but not legally a police force. But I see reasoned discussion will not be happening and your personal attacks continue. I will leave it to others to continue to look after this article. The newspaper article Pushpinapple mentions is this <ref>http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23981019-sacking-parks-police-may-be-against-the-law-unions-warn.do</ref>. I fear that article may have raised more questions than answers -with the use of the term police officer by the GMB as I believe they are termed as parks constables not police officers (plus police officers of the police forces cannot be members of a union hence the police federation). However I will not be taking part in any further discussion on these points as life is too short to put up with these personal attacks. And, as I have said before, I hope the WPP staff are looked after one way or another, as despite my questions over various legal aspects I am aware that the staff of WPP do a good job in keeping the parks safe. [[User:Dibble999|Dibble999]] ([[User talk:Dibble999|talk]]) 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I do think I need to reply and this is to whoever is able to give me a reply: [[Police Act 1996]] It does not make all the other Police Services, (I use the word Service as opposed to Force) illegal. Just because a Police Service was missed when the Act went through does not make them illegal! Just because the WPP are not grant maintained after being missed off of the list, does not effect them in the slightest. I was priviledged to have all my questions answered by the WPP and looking for the facts to this unique Police Service. Which appears to have been around since 1984. Here I am accused of attacking other editors, just for asking for facts. i.e. The Met Police Service are a body of constables the same as Wandsworth Parks Police. Please anyone point me to the legislation that the Parks Police are not a Police Force or Service and I will chuck away my Collins Dictionary as the Government is making it defunct. One other thing to Ninety:one, thanks for sorting the reference out, as you know I am new here and trying to get the hang of it. [[User:Pushpinapple|Pushpinapple]] ([[User talk:Pushpinapple|talk]]) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:We are not here to have a debate about whether WPP are a "police service" or "force" or anything of the like (incidentally they are not, and Dibble is wholly correct), we are here solely to discuss how improvements can be made to the article.
:Pushpinapple, I made a general statement to the effect that implying that other editors are conspiring together together and trying to "out" them constitutes blurred personal attacks. It had nothing to do with your "just for asking for facts". It should be noted that your continued aggressive attitude has driven Dibble away, and this is not the first time that he has withdrawn from the page in the face of obstructive and tendentious conduct.
:Do you now have anything further that you wish to add to the article? We are not going to carry on a pointless debate about the definition of police services. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things to add, firstly I am a pacifist so have not driven anyone away. Secondly you are not entitled to say I am wrong without verifying why. So I am still saying they are a properly constituted police force. Thank you and please do not keep accusing me of being the aggressor. Much love.[[User:Pushpinapple|Pushpinapple]] ([[User talk:Pushpinapple|talk]]) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

== removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] ==

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at [[Template:POV]]:
::''This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:''
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- [[User:Khazar2|Khazar2]] ([[User talk:Khazar2|talk]]) 13:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:45, 10 February 2024

latest additions

[edit]
  • You cited the Fed report. They are not members of the Fed, but of Unison. It is clearly irrelevant. The paragraph I assume you're trying to refer to specifically refers to Fed (ie non-1967) constables swearing an oath - one stipulated by the Police Acts. Even if 1967 constables do swear this oath, it has no meaning in law because it is not stipulated - again, as far as I know - by the 1967 act.
  • You can't cite something if it doesn't back up a claim. Simply linking to s110 of SOCAP after 'police powers' is meaningless as a citation.
  • Why should we call them 'Police Constables' when the title, as stated by the council, is 'Parks Police Constables'? Why, when numerous reports say using the title 'Police Constable' is inaccurate and possibly illegal? Why, when they do not have the powers of normal constables? ninety:one 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
though you now seem to be ignoring this, justifications for latest edit:
    • The HSE ref is totally unrelated.
    • 'So a Wandsworth Parks Police Constable is never powerless and may arrest using reasonable force' goes for absolutely any person as explained by the fact it is a citizen's arrest.
    • Regardless of the fact that 'Border areas' refers to areas on the English/Scottish border, no parks constable will be sworn in by the Met as a constable.
    • There are no powers available while assisting a constable at all, and even if there were a forum is not a reliable source. ninety:one 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

91: You are wrong I have been onto UNISON via my UNISON Rep, there is no warnings issued to any Police Officer not to use their Batons. I have undone your POV edits as well as they are a blatant vandalism to the article. There are stated CASES IN LAW in the specials forum and therefore the reference is citable. My UNISON rep may yet report your action for official sanction. Provide a reference to back up this claim or remove forthwith. TopCat666 (talk) 20:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TopCat666, this is not a good way to carry out a content dispute. Please read WP:ATTACK and I really think you had better withdraw what looks very much like a threat. Doug Weller (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Part V

Miscellaneous and General

s.89 Assaults on constables (1) Any person who assaults a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both. (2) Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or to both. (3) This section also applies to a constable who is a member of a police force maintained in Scotland or Northern Ireland when he is executing a warrant, or otherwise acting in England or Wales, by virtue of any enactment conferring powers on him in England and Wales. TopCat666 (talk) 21:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(That does not give anyone the powers of a constable!) Was that a legal threat? My edit is referenced and factually correct. I actually can not believe you said 'Provide a reference to back up this claim or remove forthwith'. A national magazine with a circulation of a million is my reference, as cited... Furthermore, the phrase 'They will generally have no police powers in the other jurisdictions, unless he/she has been additionally sworn in as occurs with police in border areas' is utterly useless - as stated above, it applies to members of the police forces next to the English-Scottish border. Furthermore, no parks constable has been sworn in by the Met. ninety:one 22:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The s89 of the police Act 1996 is quite clear that anyone can assist a Police Constable who come under the act. Why are you suggesting anyone is saying anything different? As for Private Eye Magazine, are you quoting an article from it as a reference for your UNISON warning not to use our batons (anymore)? Let me know, or I will take it as read and get my own copy and seek verification from UNISON. If however you have muddled the two together you are able correct this. TopCat666 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note I object to you completely removing some of my edits claiming they are irrelevant. This is a difficult road for us to go down as I think a lot of you edits are personal and irrevelant. I merely add my tuppence worth and expect everybody else to do the same. TopCat666 (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Section 89 merely states that if you assault or obstruct someone who is helping a constable then it is an offence. It says nothing about anyone getting any powers whatsoever.
    • I'm not entirely sure what you're asking but the Private Eye article states: 'The council workers' trade union, Unison, is advising its members in the parks constabulary not to carry the batons under any circumstances'.
    • 'So a Wandsworth Parks Police Constable is never powerless and may arrest using reasonable force' - as can any person. Sentance clarified to include this.
    • The first SOCAPA ref (after 'the police powers') does not back up any claim, so is pointless and needs removing.
You have not responded to my points about the Fed or HSE references or the border areas sentence, so I have removed them. ninety:one 12:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not justified your edits so I have undone them and have not answered my questions or replied to my request to justify your irrevelant editing. TopCat666 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which questions have I not answered? Instead of blindly reverting, paste the content you believe should not be removed and justify it. ninety:one 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Practice what you preach and let me help you.

[edit]

You justify your adding of unecessary references for instance UNISON advice, which you still haven't quantified and I am waiting for reply from my Regional Officer. As for Private Eye what is that all about? I do not know what you are trying to prove with the article. Why do you not enlighten us? I may be able to help you with advice particularily on the legal side. I have substantial amount of case law and practical experience along with access to NPIA I can see you are struggling to get across your point of view and I have no problem with that. Please except my offer of help, this is more in depth then you have been used to. TopCat666 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You just claimed that I didn't answer your questions, but you won't tell me what those questions are. The best thing you could do is publish the PDF you sent me as an FOI response.
I have no point of view, I am not trying to prove anything. I have never seen a WPP officer, let alone had dealings with them. All I'm trying to do is build an accurate article.
  • The sentence 'They will generally have no police powers in the other jurisdictions, unless he/she has been additionally sworn in as occurs with police in border areas or assisting a Police Constable' is misleading.
    • Regardless of the fact that 'Border areas' refers to areas on the English/Scottish border, no parks constable will be sworn in by the Met as a constable.
    • Section 89 merely states that if you assault or obstruct someone who is helping a constable then it is an offence. It says nothing about anyone getting any powers whatsoever. Sentence needs removing.
  • What have I not 'quantified' about the UNISON advice?
  • 'So a Wandsworth Parks Police Constable is never powerless and may arrest using reasonable force' - as can any person. Sentance needs clarifying to include this.
  • The first SOCAPA ref ('As each London Borough Council is independent, the police powers[6]') does not back up any claim, so is pointless and needs removing.
  • You cited the Fed report. They are not members of the Fed, but of Unison. It is clearly irrelevant. The paragraph I assume you're trying to refer to specifically refers to Fed (ie non-1967) constables swearing an oath - one stipulated by the Police Acts. Even if 1967 constables do swear this oath, it has no meaning in law because it is not stipulated - again, as far as I know - by the 1967 act.
  • The HSE ref is totally unrelated to parks constables. ninety:one 15:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced material

[edit]

There seems to be activity in this article of late that attempts to remove properly sourced material. Further, this removal has the appearance of bias, as the editor in question apparently has a close connection with the material. All editors are reminded to maintain a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV, and not to remove material from a reliable, verifiable source without first gaining consensus to do so. Please also note that removal of citations that reference dead links is NOT considered deletion of properly-sourced material; see WP:LINKROT. Thank you. Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention the plans to replace the force with Met officers?

[edit]

Clearly a matter of debate. Should we include the following paragraph?

In April 2011 Wandsworth Council announced that it was proposing to take advantage of a Metropolitan Police Authority funding scheme that would result in the set up of a team of 16 police officers from the Metropolitan Police dedicated to policing the parks and open spaces of the borough. The council believes the move would save £800,000 a year as well as securing a team of officers with higher levels of training and greater powers. Such a move would mean the abolishment of the Wandsworth Parks Police.[1][2][3] There is opposition to this proposal from the Friends of Battersea Park, a community organisation.[4]

Let's try and discuss it on its merits without reference to any non-existent "POV pushing." ninety:one 02:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note the above paragraph has been deleted without discussion. I added the paragraph after initially noting the story in London's Evening Standard Newspaper. I then looked a bit deeper (this newspaper does get things wrong sometimes) and found not only that the proposal has been officially reported by Wandsworth Council on their own website, official council committee papers and the Metropolitan Police Authority website, including a quote from the Deputy Mayor of London Kit Malthouse, local news media and London's main free newspaper. The proposal is currently going through the councils various committees but it is looking like the proposal is a real possibility. So we have verifiable sources that this significant proposal my happen and is being progressed. I would also say this significant in terms of the article as it would mean the end of Wandsworth Parks Police in its current form so it is hardly irrelevant. So I would ask why has this been deleted - the proposal is certainly a reality? I understand there is opposition to such a move, which can also be added to the article but just to delete seems rather odd. Dibble999 (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the amount of coverage in reliable sources this has gotten, it hardly seems like "unnecessary political speculation", as the last removal would have it. I think it should remain. Then, if it doesn't happen, we can report on why it was rejected.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I, naturally, fully support it as well. ninety:one 18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the above comments I am looking forward to the MPS absorbing all these little Constabularies. Would anyone know if Hammersmith and Chelsea are going too? Pushpinapple (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised find my referenced addition to the Wandsworth Police removed. I have spoken direct to the Police at Battersea, who tell me that GMB union have issued a letter that TUPE applies to Boris's BOGOF. A view the Director of Finance at Wandsworth ackowledges, who's official comment I used. I telephoned the Police yesterday and they couldn't tell me who Topcat is, but said they know that Dibble is a constable in the local police service (MPS District). Is this why he removed my edit as 'only a proposal' and leaves his own edit which is only 'a proposal'? Double standards I think, maybe you would like to comment Dibble and evidence your legal basis comments? thanks for reading this.Pushpinapple (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply. I am a serving police officer but I will not state where or what rank - its irrelevant. I removed your edit as there is no legal mechanism for someone who is not from a none territorial police force or a special police force in the UK to transfer directly into another territorial police force such as the MPS (see current Police Regulations). Please look at the archives of this discussion page, there has been considerable debate and argument around the legal situation of WPP which I will not go over again. As things stand any Wandsworth Parks Constable wishing to become part of the new Met parks unit as police officers (should this proposal go through) would have to join the MPS as a recruit, do all the training and then apply to any Wandsworth Safer Parks SNT of the Met (or whatever they might eventually call it). Having read the report you quote I think you will find the council finance director is merely outlining possible financial considerations depending what happens to the current WPP staff without any real knowledge of what could be legally possible. TUPE relates to transfer of undertaking (protection of employment) - again a difficult area in terms of police constables of territorial police forces as they are not employees and we do not have contracts so how the parks constables of WPP who do appear to be employees can cite TUPE is a very tricky area. Certainly going to be interesting to see how its done.
And for the record, although I have my views certain aspects of WPP, I do have great sympathy for the awful position staff at WPP must be in waiting to hear what the future holds. I may disagree with certain aspects of legal bits and pieces but I know that all staff at WPP are only trying to make the parks safer for everyone.
By the way I'm slightly perplexed as to why you are trying to find out who editors are, completely irrelevant and frankly a bit underhand.
And re your comment on the 1st August, the MPS as far as I am aware, is not trying to take over the parks constabularies, I think it is more to do with councils taking advantage of MPA BOGOF and judging what is most cost effective and value for money for them (which of course is controversial in itself). I've edited the article as best I can. Dibble999 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pushpinapple - I've just noted your comments on the edit history. No, the Met police would not 'absorb' the parks constabulary so your mention of no Acts of Parliament preventing this is not relevant and shows you may not have grasped that already the MPS is statutorily the territorial police force responsible for all of Wandsworth including the parks. That Wandsworth Council chose to start a parks constabulary in the 1980s does not alter this - the Met are still the police force responsible. Legally what would happen, if this goes through, is that the Wandsworth Parks Police would just simply stop. The Met would just internally set up a Safer Parks Team dedicated to to Wandsworth Parks Police instead of the current situation where there are no Met officers in Wandsworth dedicated solely to the parks. Dibble999 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Director of Finance comments paper 11-583 "the severance costs of existing Parks Police staff not transferring to the Metropolitan Police Service, or being redeployed elsewhere in the Council"; It seems to me that it is you who fail to grasp that: Wandsworth Council's Director of Finance who controls millions of Tax Payers money, is likely to have more knowledge and access to legal advice then me. He is more reliable and qualified in his statement of fact that there will be transfers. Unless you tell me you are up there with the decision makers and (give verification), do not remove referenced materials and place your unverifiable statements that he has it wrong. I have managed to speak to Topcat as I wish to write an article about the Wandsworth Police. He pointed out a few things about Wikipedia and its users and gave me a couple of tips. If you continue to remove my referenced material I am to report it to an admin officer to referee it. You appear desperate to bury the Director of Finance's paper, I don't suppose you will share why? Pushpinapple (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I did not want get into a heated debate in on this subject again. Of course referenced material is fine however it needs to be relevant to the point being made. My contention is that your quotes do not support the suggestion that WPP constables are going to be able to transfer direct into the MPS. As stated above, only officers from other territorial or special police forces can direct transfer between each other. The WPP is not legally a police force and certainly not a territorial or special one as defined in legislation. The sentence quoted above is merely pointing out the unresolved question of what would the costs be to Wandsworth Council if existing parks constabulary staff did not transfer to the MPS etc. Wandsworth would obviously much prefer to reduce the costs to them by transferring WPP staff into the MPS as police officers lock stock and barrel. What it is not saying, as you appear to suggest is that it is confirmed that the parks constable will (or are even legally able to) transfer direct into the MPS as police officers. The full quote actually says its all a bit grey and states:
"There are still a number of issues that need to be resolved before a comprehensive financial appraisal of the proposals can be made. These mainly comprise, the costs of any services that the MPA agreement will not include as outlined in paragraph 10, severance costs of existing Parks Police staff not transferring to the Metropolitan Police Service, or being redeployed elsewhere in the Council, and potential impact on the existing income budget if revenue generating services are not retained under the new agreement"
Can I suggest we leave the article as it is as nothing has been confirmed yet stating "There is opposition to this proposal, and several aspects remain unclear, such as the future of current WPP staff" - which I think is a fair and balanced statement. By the way it is not the Financial Directors report its the Environment, Culture and Community Safety Overview and Scrutiny Committee report of 27th June 2011 whereby the Finance Director makes comments. Please don't accuse me of burying anything - most unfair and if I may so, without foundation. Its also not on to make certain assumptions about an editors intent and to threaten to 'report to administrators' at this stage is somewhat novel. I am very happy to have a civilised and reasoned discussion on these pages about the content of the article but certain aspects of your comments are a bit personal. Regards Dibble999 (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Dibs, you are joking the WPP not legally a Police Force! I have been over there today and they have vehicles with blue lights and sirens (do want pics)? They also have batons and handcuffs! I hope you do not take this personally again are you and Sarek mates? You both seem to be going over the top on this one. Any way the bogof will not happen now as the article in the London Evening Standard shows. On a personal note I found them very helpful and knowledgable and have given me a lot of material for the article I am writing. Pushpinapple (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to get dragged back into this pathetic, childish game again, but Dibble deserves backing up. Yet again we are seeing the same style of discussion as we saw with Topcat666: anyone who disagrees with what he believes must be working in cohort with other editors, must be part of the Met, must dislike WPP, must have something to hide - it's all nonsense, and it obfuscates the actual issues under discussion. I'm not suggesting it's deliberate - that would, I fear, to be attributing unnecessarily what might be explained by malice when the reality is probably a little different - but it constitutes blurred personal attacks (contrary to WP:NPA) through innuendo and it's still a problem that needs to be confronted if these discussions are going to get anywhere at all. ninety:one 20:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I for one have had enough of this. Pushpinapple, for the last time, a police force is a legal entity defined by the Police Act 1996 for territorial police forces or the Acts that set up the special police forces i.e. BTP, MDP or CNC as discussed infinitum before. WPP is a body of constables, but not legally a police force. But I see reasoned discussion will not be happening and your personal attacks continue. I will leave it to others to continue to look after this article. The newspaper article Pushpinapple mentions is this [5]. I fear that article may have raised more questions than answers -with the use of the term police officer by the GMB as I believe they are termed as parks constables not police officers (plus police officers of the police forces cannot be members of a union hence the police federation). However I will not be taking part in any further discussion on these points as life is too short to put up with these personal attacks. And, as I have said before, I hope the WPP staff are looked after one way or another, as despite my questions over various legal aspects I am aware that the staff of WPP do a good job in keeping the parks safe. Dibble999 (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I need to reply and this is to whoever is able to give me a reply: Police Act 1996 It does not make all the other Police Services, (I use the word Service as opposed to Force) illegal. Just because a Police Service was missed when the Act went through does not make them illegal! Just because the WPP are not grant maintained after being missed off of the list, does not effect them in the slightest. I was priviledged to have all my questions answered by the WPP and looking for the facts to this unique Police Service. Which appears to have been around since 1984. Here I am accused of attacking other editors, just for asking for facts. i.e. The Met Police Service are a body of constables the same as Wandsworth Parks Police. Please anyone point me to the legislation that the Parks Police are not a Police Force or Service and I will chuck away my Collins Dictionary as the Government is making it defunct. One other thing to Ninety:one, thanks for sorting the reference out, as you know I am new here and trying to get the hang of it. Pushpinapple (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to have a debate about whether WPP are a "police service" or "force" or anything of the like (incidentally they are not, and Dibble is wholly correct), we are here solely to discuss how improvements can be made to the article.
Pushpinapple, I made a general statement to the effect that implying that other editors are conspiring together together and trying to "out" them constitutes blurred personal attacks. It had nothing to do with your "just for asking for facts". It should be noted that your continued aggressive attitude has driven Dibble away, and this is not the first time that he has withdrawn from the page in the face of obstructive and tendentious conduct.
Do you now have anything further that you wish to add to the article? We are not going to carry on a pointless debate about the definition of police services. ninety:one 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things to add, firstly I am a pacifist so have not driven anyone away. Secondly you are not entitled to say I am wrong without verifying why. So I am still saying they are a properly constituted police force. Thank you and please do not keep accusing me of being the aggressor. Much love.Pushpinapple (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/10368/plan_for_met_officers_to_patrol_parks
  2. ^ http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=13624
  3. ^ http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23938047-met-police-to-take-over-park-security-in-south-london.do
  4. ^ Bryant, Miranda (7 April 2011). "Park users fear crime surge if civilian patrols are axed". Evening Standard. Retrieved 8 June 2011.
  5. ^ http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23981019-sacking-parks-police-may-be-against-the-law-unions-warn.do

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wandsworth_Parks_and_Events_Police&oldid=1205979935"