Talk:Wandsworth Parks and Events Police: Difference between revisions
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Status== |
==Status== |
||
Status - there is no dispute over the legal status of officers of this constabulary and this article reflects this. Although not a Home Office force, (i.e the Met, Sussex Police etc etc) i.e. they do come under the remit of being a constable in some parts of PACE. If there are any problems would our local police (met) not have done something after 25 years of our exsistance! I will not waste the readers time answering ill informed and edited articles but simply revert this article back to Timothy Titus's excellent and fair edit. |
Status - there is no dispute over the legal status of officers of this constabulary and this article reflects this. Although not a Home Office force, (i.e the Met, Sussex Police etc etc) i.e. they do come under the remit of being a constable in some parts of PACE. If there are any problems would our local police (met) not have done something after 25 years of our exsistance! I will not waste the readers time answering ill informed and edited articles but simply revert this article back to Timothy Titus's excellent and fair edit. |
||
==Questions over status== |
|||
As already mentioned above the legal status of this constabulary IS a grey area. I am a serving officer in the Met and many of my colleagues are unaware of the powers and remit of borough constabularies such as the WPP. If serving front line police officers are unsure, then I have to say there is a definite grey area for the public. I have done some research and discovered some interesting points which the article does not in its present form represent. As a result, I and it would appear an anon editor have edited the article to try and make a better and objective article which reflects reality. As it was, the article was subjective and questionable. However these edits have been reverted without explanation – apart from comments such as ‘this is the truth’. In effort to explain my edits and prevent an edit war I set out below my reason for altering the article. |
|||
London Borough Parks Constabularies are, as is correctly quoted, established under sec 18 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provision Order Confirmation 1967. This act allows London borough councils to establish a body of constables who have the power to enforce parks bye-laws in their respective parks. It does not make these constables ‘police constables’ and does not allow police services or forces to be established. No police powers are given to these parks constables (with the exception of parks bye laws) over and above those which everybody is entitled, often referred to as ‘any person’ powers or as in the case of arrest, ‘citizen’s arrest’. |
|||
In comparison, officers from Home Office forces (such as the Met, Kent Police etc) can point to the Police Act 1996 as the basis for their establishment, jurisdiction and powers as police constables. BTP officers can point to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. Ministry of Defence Police officer can point to the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1986. I could go on…My point is that all these police forces have a legal basis and with the attached powers to call themselves police officers and the organisations they work for police services/forces. The WPP does not, unless someone can point to a piece of legislation that I have missed. |
|||
So the article started by saying, “Wandsworth Parks Police is a Police Service successfully run…”. Two points about the opening sentence. Firstly, its NOT legally a police service but a borough parks constabulary. Secondly, the comment regarding ‘successfully run’ is highly subjective and without basis. All organisations would like to be thought of a successful, but without any citation it should not be in an encyclopaedic article. |
|||
Under legal status the paragraph starts by mentioning the Met and working closely with it. Irrelevant to legal status me thinks and again subjective. Why mention a home office force in the legal status paragraph of a parks constabulary. This paragraph should merely be about the legal status of WPP and its constables. The paragraph rightly states that a magistrate swears WPP constables in, but not as ‘police constables’ but as ‘parks constables’ due to the legislation involved. Once sworn in the parks constables have executive powers to enforce parks bye-laws in their boroughs ONLY. Criminal law is not included. However, just like the general public, parks constables can enforce criminal law in certain limited circumstances relating to indictable offences only. This is commonly known as ‘citizens arrest’. Due to changes in arrest powers with SOCAP in 2006, non police officers, such as parks constables need to be aware of the necessity criteria to make an arrest lawful. My point is that the article read like the parks constables had police powers – they don’t (apart from the bye law aspect). The paragraph then goes on to state that parks constables come under PACE. Well this is obvious and irrelevant, any arrest by anyone is under PACE (as amended by SOCAP). What it doesn’t do is give parks constables any more power than Joe Public (apart from the bye law aspect). For all the above reasons, the last sentence of this paragraph (“They are always Parks Police Officers regardless of the technicalities of whether or not they are in the act of enforcing bye-laws.”) is not a true reflection of law and quite frankly wrong and misleading. There is no such thing as a parks ‘police officer’. |
|||
I had added at the bottom of the article two paragraphs with cited evidence which brings into question the status of parks constabularies and their use of the word ‘police’, blue lights and use of batons etc. These were deleted without reason. They are legitimate sources which shed light on the grey area. You may not agree with the report and committee’s results but they are in the public domain and support my contention that there IS a grey area and WPP are treading on thin ice on occasion. |
|||
In response to your comments about the Met not doing anything for 25 years, this has more to do with it being a ‘grey area’, it being in the ‘too difficult to do’ box and the politics involved with the council. Please don’t think that the Met is the be-all when it comes to the law. It gets things horribly wrong sometimes (and I’m a Met officer!). Look at Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary who do not call themselves police and use orange beacons etc. Newham have revamped their constabulary and I think I’m right in believing that no other borough, apart from Kensington & Chelsea, use the word ‘police’ - yet all are set up under the same legislation as WPP!?! I wonder why… |
|||
I have edited the article back to what is a true reflection of law with less subjectivity. If anyone can point me to legislation which calls into question my comments I am more than willing to re-think. |
|||
Revision as of 16:47, 17 May 2008
 | Law Enforcement Stub‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Template:UnsignedIP -->
- Please sign comments! It helps us all to communicate better. Ta. Concerning what you say above, it is indeed a grey area. We must be very careful, however, to avoid original research, personal opinion, or point of view. I would be quite happy to see a paragraph added about the question of the status of officers in WPP, AS LONG as suitable references were cited. The official website of the WPP makes it quite clear that they consider themselves to be a police force. Their uniforms bear the word "POLICE" across the breast as with Home Office forces, and their vehicles are marked with "POLICE" markings. Someone recently edited this article to change "Police Sergeant" to "Sergeant", which I have reverted, because the only reliable sources currently cited state "Police Sergeant". There is nothing wrong with introducing an alternative view, as long as that alternative view is reliably referenced, as opposed to being someone's opinion, view, or best guess. (PS: However, on the subject of personal opinion, and strictly for the talk page only, I used to live in Wandsworth and can personally vouch for the WPP as being the most reliable, efficient and well-run police force I have ever encountered!) Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with the anon editor. I also have to point out that as a serving police officer in the Met I can point to the law and legislation that gives me my powers and jurisdiction, which is a requirement under the Human Rights Act by the way. Just because the 'official' website of the WPP states they have consider themselves a police force does not mean that they are correct. I have researched for some time in a professional capacity to try and find legislation that allows these officers to have any more powers than Joe Public apart from enforcing bye laws in their parks. There doesn't appear to be any such legislation. Also there is some debate across London regarding borough constabularies using the word 'POLICE' on vehicles and uniforms. Many boroughs have dropped the word. Please see this report regarding Newham where the legal opinion is these constabularies are not police officers (http://apps.newham.gov.uk/docs/asbr.pdf) and do not have police powers (apart from the limitied bye law aspect) and should not be carrying offensive weapons (such as batons) which police officers are permitted to carry. As it is a grey area the deletion of 'Police Sergeant' to 'sergeant' is probably fair. In a Home office or special police force (such as BTP) you must pass nationally accredited exams and other interviews etc before being promoted. The sergeants in this constabulary have not and it is debatable that they are police officers in the first place. I would be interested for anyone to point me in the direction of legislation that gives memmbers of this constabulary any more powers than a citizen when not enforcing parks bye laws. (PS: Just my personal view of course, and in response to Timothy Titus, it is extremely easy to be perceived as a reliable, efficient, well-run 'police force' when you only cover a park, can rely on the Met to deal with any serious incident and do not have to deal with burglaries, domestics, terrorism, firearms incidents, assisting other agencies, traffic, major events etc etc etc. The WPP and Home Office/Special Police forces are just not comparable!) Dibble999 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Status
Status - there is no dispute over the legal status of officers of this constabulary and this article reflects this. Although not a Home Office force, (i.e the Met, Sussex Police etc etc) i.e. they do come under the remit of being a constable in some parts of PACE. If there are any problems would our local police (met) not have done something after 25 years of our exsistance! I will not waste the readers time answering ill informed and edited articles but simply revert this article back to Timothy Titus's excellent and fair edit.
Questions over status
As already mentioned above the legal status of this constabulary IS a grey area. I am a serving officer in the Met and many of my colleagues are unaware of the powers and remit of borough constabularies such as the WPP. If serving front line police officers are unsure, then I have to say there is a definite grey area for the public. I have done some research and discovered some interesting points which the article does not in its present form represent. As a result, I and it would appear an anon editor have edited the article to try and make a better and objective article which reflects reality. As it was, the article was subjective and questionable. However these edits have been reverted without explanation – apart from comments such as ‘this is the truth’. In effort to explain my edits and prevent an edit war I set out below my reason for altering the article.
London Borough Parks Constabularies are, as is correctly quoted, established under sec 18 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provision Order Confirmation 1967. This act allows London borough councils to establish a body of constables who have the power to enforce parks bye-laws in their respective parks. It does not make these constables ‘police constables’ and does not allow police services or forces to be established. No police powers are given to these parks constables (with the exception of parks bye laws) over and above those which everybody is entitled, often referred to as ‘any person’ powers or as in the case of arrest, ‘citizen’s arrest’.
In comparison, officers from Home Office forces (such as the Met, Kent Police etc) can point to the Police Act 1996 as the basis for their establishment, jurisdiction and powers as police constables. BTP officers can point to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. Ministry of Defence Police officer can point to the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1986. I could go on…My point is that all these police forces have a legal basis and with the attached powers to call themselves police officers and the organisations they work for police services/forces. The WPP does not, unless someone can point to a piece of legislation that I have missed.
So the article started by saying, “Wandsworth Parks Police is a Police Service successfully run…”. Two points about the opening sentence. Firstly, its NOT legally a police service but a borough parks constabulary. Secondly, the comment regarding ‘successfully run’ is highly subjective and without basis. All organisations would like to be thought of a successful, but without any citation it should not be in an encyclopaedic article.
Under legal status the paragraph starts by mentioning the Met and working closely with it. Irrelevant to legal status me thinks and again subjective. Why mention a home office force in the legal status paragraph of a parks constabulary. This paragraph should merely be about the legal status of WPP and its constables. The paragraph rightly states that a magistrate swears WPP constables in, but not as ‘police constables’ but as ‘parks constables’ due to the legislation involved. Once sworn in the parks constables have executive powers to enforce parks bye-laws in their boroughs ONLY. Criminal law is not included. However, just like the general public, parks constables can enforce criminal law in certain limited circumstances relating to indictable offences only. This is commonly known as ‘citizens arrest’. Due to changes in arrest powers with SOCAP in 2006, non police officers, such as parks constables need to be aware of the necessity criteria to make an arrest lawful. My point is that the article read like the parks constables had police powers – they don’t (apart from the bye law aspect). The paragraph then goes on to state that parks constables come under PACE. Well this is obvious and irrelevant, any arrest by anyone is under PACE (as amended by SOCAP). What it doesn’t do is give parks constables any more power than Joe Public (apart from the bye law aspect). For all the above reasons, the last sentence of this paragraph (“They are always Parks Police Officers regardless of the technicalities of whether or not they are in the act of enforcing bye-laws.”) is not a true reflection of law and quite frankly wrong and misleading. There is no such thing as a parks ‘police officer’.
I had added at the bottom of the article two paragraphs with cited evidence which brings into question the status of parks constabularies and their use of the word ‘police’, blue lights and use of batons etc. These were deleted without reason. They are legitimate sources which shed light on the grey area. You may not agree with the report and committee’s results but they are in the public domain and support my contention that there IS a grey area and WPP are treading on thin ice on occasion.
In response to your comments about the Met not doing anything for 25 years, this has more to do with it being a ‘grey area’, it being in the ‘too difficult to do’ box and the politics involved with the council. Please don’t think that the Met is the be-all when it comes to the law. It gets things horribly wrong sometimes (and I’m a Met officer!). Look at Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary who do not call themselves police and use orange beacons etc. Newham have revamped their constabulary and I think I’m right in believing that no other borough, apart from Kensington & Chelsea, use the word ‘police’ - yet all are set up under the same legislation as WPP!?! I wonder why…
I have edited the article back to what is a true reflection of law with less subjectivity. If anyone can point me to legislation which calls into question my comments I am more than willing to re-think.