Talk:Wandsworth Parks and Events Police

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 [1]. Like the document in that case, the FOI document in this case has not been published. I'm raising the issue there [2]. - Oops, forgot to sign. Doug Weller (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. ninety: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. Doug Weller (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? ninety: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.

ALR (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

latest additions

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

• • 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)

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)

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)

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 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).

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)

Removal of sourced material

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)

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

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. There is opposition to this proposal from the Friends of Battersea Park, a community organisation.

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)

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)

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)