Talk:Wandsworth Parks and Events Police

A police force is any constabulary whose constitution is prescribed by law and whose officers are considered to be Crown Servants, rather than employees. A police force is a seperate legal entity.

The Wandsworth Park Police has no constitution, other than what might be defined internally by governance. It's Officers are employees- concil officers.

They are a constabulary because they are merely a body of constables. They are not a police force.

Why and how can people still pretend and spread the propaganda to the contrary?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.79 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[Text removed] 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. Dibble999 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dribble999

We do not have to justify our exsistance to you we exist therefore I am the WANDSWORTH PARKS POLICE

RATIONALE

I was asked to casually monitor this site and correct the ill informed. I will leave what you have put above as testament that you have no evidence for your edits. Please feel to use as many question marks and exclamation marks etc as you like. Cut and paste and edit parts of articles and legislation as you like. Officers in your service (if you really are a met policeman)of far superior standing in rank and education then you understand fully the role of of the Wandsworth Parks Police. Misquote as much as you like this site has no influence. We will continue to police the parks and open spaces and work with our local police to make Wandsworth safer.

A Response to the personal attacks

Right, thanks for the personal attacks which aren't warranted. Writing my name as Dribble999 for example, grow up! I have not attacked you personally or the organisation which no doubt does great things in the park. I am all for the extended policing family and I do not dispute that you have aided WW Met officers with keeping the parks safe. By the way you have replied anonymously which isn't really on.

My points above are all backed by the law in question and other sources such as the Newham report and the Lords committee which are repeatedly deleted by yourselves. (Its hardly ill informed!) My only issue is the use of the word police etc and portraying yourselves as police officers. You've got to agree its not awfully clear, in law, what the position of the WPP is when is comes to criminal law. I'm asking you to point to ANY legislation which disputes my contentions. Thus far you haven't apart from the banal, "I'm in WPP and we're correct" sort of replies! By the way, you do no know what rank I am, and taking a shot at my education is a bit cheap. Believe it or not Met officers, of any rank, do get things wrong so suggesting that they go along with us, so everything is ok is not really an argument. I could equally say that many Met officers have extremely negative thoughts on the WPP but I'm not going to add them. If your so sure, show me where your basis, with cited law or evidence, for your standpoint is, and I'll be happy to be corrected.

I am prepared to listen and be corrected and generally learn something I did not know but at the moment you are not giving me any such law or reasons to dispute my standpoint, but instead just attacking me personally. Dibble999 (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Police Officer at the parks you have not cited any facts other then in your opinion these laws somehow have been passed to their detriment! You are misleading people in an area you are not qualified to dabble in. Sorry if this is too personal for you but if you pretend to be an expert you have to accept criticism when you get it wrong. As for your edits I am sure they are personal attacks on anyone who dares to not agree with you. TopCat —Preceding unsigned comment added by TopCat666 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Passing thoughts

Having read Both Dibbles and TopCats posts, the following appears to be true:-

In respect of WPP amongst other parks constabularies; Members of the constabulary are sworn as constables under section 18, Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provision Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967. However, constables of these parks constabularies are not 'constables' as defined in general police legislation and any powers above that of a 'person other than a constable' depends on the relevant byelaws and any legislation applicable to their limited territories.(source Wikipedia List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom)

At no point is it stated that they are police constables, indeed whilst all police officers are constables, the reverse is not neccessarily true, indeed in this case with reference to the sources highlighted by Dibble it would appear that WPP should have been named Wandsworth Parks Constabulary and that the use of the word police to describe their officers should never have occurred.

In an attempt to pour oil on what has become troubled water, The WPP should not be calling their officers police officers Just because something has not been corrected does not mean it is correct. Only time will tell if the mistake is rectified.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief ironside (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts, I appear to be bashing my hands against a brick wall

In response to Top Cat. I have relied on my professional knowledge of criminal law throughout, which is all verifiable. If you look at my comments I have cited the Police Act 1996, the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1986 and the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 when talking about various police officers. The Act that establishes the WPP and any London parks constabulary is none of these and does not make them police officers just parks constables able to enforce parks bye laws. It a simple verifiable fact. Please look at the statute book. (I am willing to be corrected if it says something else somewhere, please show me).

I have also added a report from Newham and a committee from the House of Lords (both verifiable and sourced) which keep being deleted. I have not at any point used my own personal opinion, its all there in black and white in the statue book or in the public domain. Thanks Chief Ironside for seeing the point I am making. It seems blindingly obvious to me. If I'm wrong, fine, show me the law and I'll quite readily accept it. And Top Cat I didn't make it personal at all until the chaps from WPP accused me of being uneducated. And if you read my comments I'm more than willing to accept the Met get it wrong on occassion. The Met is by no means perfect so I don't know where your comments come from! Oh and just a thought Top Cat, in response to your bit saying I am not qualified to dabble in this area. Think on, what happens if as a front line police officer in the Met we get called to assist WPP with an incident. I really do need to know what their real legal powers are. Its not quite as academical or technical when your talking about possible cases of unlawful imprisonment, use of force etc!

In short, instead of just reverting the edit and attacking me, answer this simple question: What piece of legislation makes parks constables police officers or allows borough councils to establish police forces? Dibble999 (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Legislation

Members of the constabulary are sworn as constables under section 18, Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provision Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967. Legal definition of a constable is member of a constabulary. I suppose that is a quick answer to why some councils have formed Police Services or Constabularies or Police Services or Constabularies sorry are we going around in circles here? Let me explain viz.

Constabulary equals Police as in PC as in a Police Constable in the Metropolitan Police i.e. PC 123 Plod is this plain enough for you? Yes I have reverted it back as you state you have a problem with them using police 'who missus' (quote from Frankie Howerd') lighten up and get out there and make a difference Boris is relying on us all to do our bit. You will never convince Wandsworth they have more legal opinions then you can shake a baton at. Mowthegrass (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

At last a sensible answer!

Thanks, Mowthegrass, at last, someone is answering my legitimate question. I don't agree with the answer given but at least you answered the question. I have at no point intended to belittle or have a go at the WPP, I'm sure you do a fine job. In effort to calm things down I won't edit the article at this stage until we have discussed your answer. As I read the law, Home Office and Special Police forces have Acts which specify that members of their respective forces are police constables with the powers attached (different jurisdictions for Home Office compared to BTP or MOD etc etc). The Act that the WPP is established under, as I read it, and pointed out by Chief Ironside above does not make them police constables but parks constables as pointed out in the Newham report and addressed in the Lords committee. How have Wandsworth dealt with this? 'Constabulary' does not legally automatically mean police...The police constabularies that do exist are listed in the Polce Act 1996 Schedule 1 such as Cumbria Constabulary. Your thoughts please... Dibble999 (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's take care

OK - I'm sure we all want the same thing here - an accurate and informative encyclopedia. Sometimes things can get overheated, but let's stay calm. I'm sorry you got a bit of a personal poking above, Dibble - that's just not right.

Can I start by saying that I am NOT a policeman of any sort or variety. My only direct connection here is that I used to be a resident of Wandsworth and used to encounter both the WPP and the local Met. It does seem to me that we have a strong difference of opinion between several editors who ARE constables (I use the term generically, not implying any rank!), at least two WPP constables and one, or maybe two, Met constables. Maybe professional issues are therefore adding to the heat, at least a little bit? Which would be entirely understandable.

As I see it, from a neutral point of view (and I have edited this article in the past, but based solely on cited sources) our job is principally to report the status quo. At present the WPP desribes itself as a Police Service, and it marks its vehicles and its officers (on their uniforms) with the word 'Police'. If this is wrong, then it is not for Wikipedia to correct it! That would surely be a matter between the Chief Officer of WPP and the Home Office? At present the WPP is marketed as, and functioning as, a Police Service (and has been doing so for many years) and so that is how we should be reporting it here.

Dibble999 raises a legitimate claim that some people question the status of this Police Service, and he (apologies, but I am assuming gender!) cites references. This should therefore be included in the article, with the sources, and Dibble999 should be able to make his point without being reverted every time he writes anything. However, at the same time, I think we are also bound to continue to reflect the status quo that this is a de facto Police Service until someone in authority removes the 'grey cloud' by stating otherwise.

In short, I would propose that the article be left intact, reflecting the fact that WPP is functioning as a Police Service, BUT that Dibble999 should also be allowed to establish a section within the article outlining why some have questioned this status, without his being constantly reverted. At a later date, if someone in authority makes a definitive ruling that WPP is not what it says it is, then the article can be changed, but to date nobody has made such a ruling, so we must surely assume that WPP IS what it says it is. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 12:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets have the cards on the table

Timothy Titus thank you. Dibble999 does not cite any legitimate references to the Wandsworth Parks Police. His references have nothing in them questioning the fact they are using the word police. Newham Constabulary or any other Constabulary or Police Force is not the Wandsworth Parks Police. Dibble999 uses bland references to law which does not cite the WPP.

Dibble999 thank you for as well. You wanted references. Blackstone's Police Manual 2007. Volume 4 general Police Duties. Page 77 Offence : Wearing or possessing uniform-Police Act 1996, s.90(2) and (3).

     'The Police Act 1996, s90 states:
        (2) Any person who not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence.

        (3) Any person who, who not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence.'

Need I say anymore I will remove any edit that does not specifically relate to WPP. I also have a lot of experience with the WPP and their job is not made easy by the never ending 'you are not a real policeman' not from the public but from people who should understand better and support them. I will defend them until to someone actually gives evidence relating to them directly that they are not police. Mowthegrass (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Titus - The voice of reason..

I have to say that I echo Timothy's comments. For my own part; and having re-read Dibbles postings, I would say that there is no attempt to denigrate the service provided by WPP or to attack any of their members personally, nor their role in the extended police family. My primary concern was the use of the word police instead of constabulary. Let's all put our teddies away now and play nicely like Timothy suggests, until clarification is forthcoming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief ironside (talk • contribs) 15:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Titus - Quite right sir!

Having read the inputs from Timothy Titus and Chief Ironside I have to re-enforce I have no grudge or issue with WPP and as I have tried to explain throughout I am sure that the WPP do a good job in the parks of Wandsworth. I think Timothy Titus's input is very fair and valid and I concede his points regarding the status quo. My citing of the Newham report is due that constbulary being set up under the exact same legislation as WPP. So although it is not directly related to WPP, it is relevant much in the same way as case law knocks on to other things. Mowthegrass, I am sure that it is difficult when persons state 'your not real policemen' and it would annoy me intensely if I was in your position. The law could be one hell of a lot clearer than it currently is. I do disagree with you quoting the 1996 Police Act, (it supports my position actually I think, both offences mention 'police force' ) but I will, at present ask that if I accept the valid status quo aspect as presented by Timothy Titus you allow me to add a paragraph at the bottom with the cited references explaining the grey area aspect. Is this fair? Dibble999

Mowthegrass

Ha ha I am not a policeman or constable or pretending to be! but doesn't mean I am not interesting in supporting the police. I am however very interested in Wandsworth Borough and over the years the withdrawal of our Wandsworth Borough Police (the Met calls themselves that) means that we call 'our' Parks police Officers to deal with things that the met are to busy to deal with and the SNT's have gone home. There are no grey areas for me, run an opinion poll the council did and the WPP scored high in council services. Anyway the council is packed with retired met some of them run the WPP. Something to consider for later on perhaps. It appears the above from the Clerkenwell Bomber pretends to be our good friend Dibble999 but I guess not. Oh yes Chief ironside I know numerous people confined to wheelchairs doing their duty so do not play rightous with Wikipedia. Please allow me to defend the WPP and in my next newsletter to my community I will add an article about this attack on these fine Police Officers if it continues and the next reference alluding be acting on behalf of the met and therefore the commissioner I will speak to him about professional standards having a look at the contributors. Also to all you detractors you have still not provided a scrap of evidence to support an argument or dispute mine. Good day sirs. Mowthegrass (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

One more point

Although my personal opinion is that WPP is very well run and successful, I would favour the removal of the word "successfully" from the opening line. I have not tried to do so, but several other editors have - always with an immediate revert. However, there can be little doubt that the use of this word, in this context, is a violation of WP:APT. I think that the majority of us are moving towards a sensible consensus here. If the minority (on both sides) won't play ball, then we may have to involve an Administrator. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 04:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed

As I originally added the word successful I take the point on board that this is in fact my own personal view so I have removed it. I do not do this lightly but TT is valid when he cited acceptable 'use of' rules. Could you all take this on board please lets stick to facts the WPP is not a dartboard for personal opinions from individuals who willy nilly cite references that they are unable to justify has anything to do with their own problem with other police services or if you prefer constabularies. When TT edited my last attempt at clearing up previous mistakes it was turned into a simple straightforward reference to the WPP. It was not meant to be either self promoting or detrimental lets keep it that way. Keep your question marks and exclamations out and give me facts. I have contacts with the WPP I will get photo's of their new fleet and post them if they will allow me. Mowthegrass (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)