Talk:Peter Power (crisis management specialist)

wikipedia hijack fears
I and a few others, watch out for hostile groups trying to hijack Wikipedia features to promote themselves. It is known from other websites that you have a very hostile vendetta against Power. Your organisation should express its views in another article. I gather you believe that the 7 July 2005 London bombing tragedy was played by actors pretending to be injured, or missing the point that there have been 22 bombs on the London underground since 1885? The ‘Julyseventh’ group who inserted the previous last sentence in the article about Peter Power have been inaccurate and malicious in their intent, as opposed to just informative. Their addition has therefore been removed.You are adding nothing of value to this article, expect to suit your purposes that I and others consider malicious. You are part of the 'julyseventh'campaign has a very hostile vendetta against Power (see many other websites) and you clearly seek to use Wikipedia to further this by adding valueless/malicious additions. Please stop doing this--Martinfud (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC).


 * I agree with Partick56. The anarchist group who added the previous sentence to this article are hell bent on just attacking Peter Power (see YouTube etc). Their motives are both hostile and malicious and do not belong here. Why not under 7 July bombings which is their big beef? --Martinfud (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why the accusations of ill motives? Is there a reason that the Wikipedia policy of Assuming Good Faith wouldn't apply here? IslandGyrl (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The disputed material is ultimately derived from a reputable source, i.e. the Dorset Echo. If you have any evidence that the newspaper did not print the report in question, then by all means present it, otherwise continued deletions of it will be deemed vandalism and dealt with accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems you and your colleagues are alone in your seemingly hostile quest just to attack this person (and a few others like him) by (a) perverting the purpose of wikipedia by (b) dressing up your personal vendetta in the guise of just selectively quoting from a provincial newspaper in 1993 to suit your purpose. My understanding from similar very ancient newspapers in Dorset is that the CPS ultimately said no prosecution applicable (his rank presumably meant papers had to be submitted as a matter of protocol?), he was never charged/summonsed with anything at all and in any case it was an internal matter only. To accuse people like me, who seek to detect articles inspired only by malicious intent by people like you, of vandalism begers belief. Both martinfud and I obviously agree that your motives are purely personal and linked to a sustained campaign just to attack this person wherever you can.--Patrick56 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to cite reputable sources to support your claims. However, that Power did indeed work for Dorset Police and was subsequently suspended seems to be a fact, and so can be legitimately recorded in this biography. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are adding nothing of value to this article, expect to suit your purposes that I and others consider malicious. You are part of the 'julyseventh'campaign has a very hostile vendetta against Power (see many other websites) and you clearly seek to use Wikipedia to further this by adding valueless/malicious additions. Please stop doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinfud (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Your opinions of what I may or may not be or believe are not important. You deleted en masse links to articles about or by the subject on entirely spurious grounds. What possible reason could you have for deleting the links to the BBC pages on the King's Cross fire, for example? Power was there and the pages in question documented that fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a few points:
 * I am a member of the July 7th Truth Campaign and I am not an anarchist.
 * The July 7th Truth Campaign has not posted any videos on YouTube about Peter Power. (I believe this may be a reference to a video posted by We Are Change UK who are a separate group).
 * The "offending" sentence was not added by me (only the link in the external references) but I took the trouble to edit it, in the interests of accuracy, from "dismissed" to "suspended".
 * If there is documentary evidence in the Dorset Echo that "the CPS ultimately said no prosecution applicable" the July 7th Truth Campaign would welcome that evidence. The date which it was published would be sufficient. We would verify it and publish it on our web site. Cmain (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am the original author of the article and have met Power previously, as have many others. I see no reason at all why he nor indeed anyone else, should justify themselves to a self proclaimed 'truth campaign', nor suffer the vendetta from you and other hostile groups that appear to think 7/7 was make believe. However, I'm the first one to promote freedom of speech and informative debate, but your position and reason to add these additions abuses such an assertion. Notwithstanding this I am quite certain the CPS ultimately said no prosecution. No charges or disciplinary action was ever, as far as I know, taken against Power. Whatever it was alleged he did was an internal matter only - source local Dorset paper 1993. Why not add to the article instead that he drove a Ford motorcar, favourite food was curry and he liked photography? All pointless editions that add nothing whatsoever to the original article.--Patrick56 (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Page protection
I've protected the page for a brief period. Can the edit warriors resolve the issues on the talk page please.

There seem to me to be two issues:


 * 1) Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced?
 * 2) Are any/all the external links suitable.

I do not believe there to be BLP issues with page as the information is not disputed, but sourcing to a partisan website because it carries a scan of a newspaper clipping seems dubious. It would be better to cite the newspaper directly. CIreland (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Makes sense to me as the pressure group ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ who are very keen to include the new inserts I find most difficult to debate with. Here is how I see it as (a) the original author and (b) someone who has since met Power (who is reluctant to be involved in this matter):

The original article and attachments I researched were I hope, accurate and relevant. Not inspired by any hidden agenda. I was also grateful for a bit of Wikipedia help in the finished work. I also believe anything in this or any Wikipedia article should be not biased or linked to gratuitously antagonistic sources that only want to pursue their own cause. With these thoughts in mind two questions are now asked:

1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? 2. Are any/all the external links suitable?

The final paragraph is indisputably from an organisation that is pursuing a personal and hostile vendetta against Power. Numerous websites confirm this. Indeed, the author does not hide the fact. I find it impossible to accept that any paragraph submitted by this group can be unbiased or not linked to antagonistic sources and a hidden agenda. But are these issues alone sufficient to doubt the source and suitability?

1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? I consider the source has to be weighed against the relevance of the paragraph? What was or might have been reported in a provincial newspaper almost a lifetime ago is not in itself an immediate point of challenge, although it could be. The substance however, is even less newsworthy than say someone who is found not guilty of a minor traffic offence. Power in this sense, was never charged, summonsed or even disciplined. I can confirm from the subject of the article that the CPS did indeed decide that no prosecution was required for an internal/administration matter. However, Power was a senior police officer which meant a full enquiry whenever any allegation is made was bound to occur, even though no charges were ever brought. But the local paper thought his rank merited comment. Otherwise, it was not in the least newsworthy. Within the context of an accurate and relevant article I believe this deliberately selective use of an otherwise distant and pointless news item is intended only to harm Power to suit the organisation that discovered it. Had they looked further there are other newspaper features over the years that tell of Powers awards for gallantry and leadership, but of course these do not support the reason why the ‘July 7 truth campaign’ want to publish this particular and I believe (at best) irrelevant paragraph.

2. Are any/all the external links suitable? Probably the ones that for many months linked to the wider exploits of Power and were not specifically selective, are suitable. They have never been challenged as they are from various sources without any hidden agenda. For example, those linked to all the BBC sites who have reported on Power’s previous actions - without bias. Now suddenly a hostile pressure group with a well known and personal vendetta against Power wants to promote itself by inserting its own external link. I suggest this is neither accurate nor relevant and seeks only to manipulate Wikipedia to promote a single course.

Since the eponymously called ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ has a keen interest in promoting its own view that nothing so far, has been truthfully reported about the tragedy in 2005, can I suggest they consider adding to the already very well covered article on that event, rather than be allowed to conduct a campaign of what appears to be character assignation far removed from anything that is accurate or relevant to the readers of Wikipedia. It seems from other contributors that I am not alone in this view.

I ask that the final paragraph and external link that now exists be removed and we revert to what was previously published.--Patrick56 (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have more to say, but first of all let me repeat my earlier statement. The final paragraph was NOT added by the July 7th Truth Campaign. It was added by someone who commented ANONYMOUSLY on Stef Zucconi's blog (which is what alerted us to it) and added here by someone identified as 86.147.134.174. As originally added, it was indeed defamatory because it said that Power had been "dismissed". I amended it to use the more accurate work "suspended". Read the history page and you will see that what I claim is true. Cmain (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The newspaper cannot be sourced directly as the article is not online. The news item was not only reported in the Dorset Echo, it was also reported by the Sunday Times, as also documented in the external link. Again, the Sunday Times article is not online so cannot be sourced directly. Cmain (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Patrick56, in the first instance I would remind you that you being "the original author" cuts very little ice here. I would suggest that you read OWN if you need further clarification on this issue.
 * Secondly, amidst everything you have written above, the core issue seems to be nothing more complex than you being of the opinion that this detail of Power's career does not matter. Even in terms of the bigger picture, to effectively omit three years of a person's professional life in a biography is curious, to say the least. To compare it to the trivia of reporting what car Power may or may not drive is disingenous to the point of absurdity. What appears to be your original text of, "Power joined the London Metropolitan Police in 1971 but since 1995 has run a UK based specialist organisation in the private sector," is demonstrably misleading, as it could easily be taken to mean that Power was with the Met between 1971 and 1995, which is clearly not the case. Ambiguity is something that Wikipedia editors strive to eradicate - the facts should be laid out plainly, with no room for any false interpretation. Thus it is perfectly legitimate to state when Power left the Met, where he worked subsequently, and so on.
 * Thirdly, since you have presented no evidence that Power did not work for Dorset Police, or the events that led to the end of that employment are not as has been reported, your opinions of J7 seem to be a case of shooting the messenger. In fact, you describing them as "anti government" and "malicious" demonstrates that you can hardly be counted as impartial on the issue.
 * Lastly, you seem to be basing a lot of your objections on privileged knowledge, which again is contrary to how we do things here. Hypothetically, Peter Power could have told you personally that his secret hobby is poking badgers with spoons, and he may even have shown you photographs of himself poking said badgers, or invited you along to watch a bout of badger-poking, but even so you could not detail any of it on this page. If, however, Power appeared on the cover of Badger Spoon-Poking Monthly - or better, a report in The Times about the little known hobby of badger-poking - then what those publications report could be detailed here. Nick Cooper (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not object to the final paragraph and its associated reference being removed. As I have said, J7 was not responsible for it, only for correcting it. I agree with Nick Cooper that there ought to be a sentence somewhere that Peter Power worked for Dorset Police from 1990 to 1993, even if nothing else is said about that. I request that the link "Suspended by Dorset Police" which I added to External Links be retained. I submit that the fact that I merely added the link and left the rest of the article untouched indicates my intention to be respectful to the previous contributors to the article, contrary to the allegations about my motivation made by Patrick56. I submit that the link be retained because it is the only online documentation available of that matter. I submit that, whatever anyone thinks about the motives of J7, the article linked is factual and sourced (it cannot be otherwise or our ISP would make us remove it). If anyone takes the trouble to read it, they will find that contrary to the impression given by Patrick56 the very first paragraph has links to articles praising Peter Power's "leadership and gallantry" (unsurprisingly, much the same links as I left untouched in the External Links of the Wikipedia page). The statements made in the article meet the requirement that "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". The significance of the suspension is hard to judge. Patrick56 asserts it is less newsworthy than a minor traffic offence, but that is not public knowledge because the alleged offence has never been disclosed. Cmain (talk) 00:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I’ve been looking at why Cmain|talk] from the July 7 action group is so keen to change what was a perfectly acceptable article that I think Patrick56 first put up about Power. This seems to be happening more and more where Wikipedia is massaged to suit the purpose of any organisation keen to use it as a platform to promote their own message, rather than just be unbiased and informative. July 7 action group have been having a real personal dig against Power for ages, simply because he ran an exercise on 7/7 with a very similar scenario to the real event – and had the balls to admit it (surely if he was on the inside track he would never do that?) and because he’s not going to jeopardise his client by revealing their name he must be guilty of something, or so July 7 think. I agree with Patrick56: Just leave the article as it was without deliberately dragging up some distant, irrelevant and unnecessary story from 15 years ago miles from London, just to harm Power. Cmain|talk] is wrong when he says “the significance of the suspension is hard to judge. Patrick56 asserts it is less newsworthy than a minor traffic offence, but that is not public knowledge because the alleged offence has never been disclosed”. Patrick56 (who unlike July 7) says he has met Power, made the point that Power was never charged, summonsed or disciplined and probably left the force himself and was not dismissed. At least with a traffic offence someone was actually summonsed to end up in court, which is a lot more than Power ever was as far as I can see. I’ve given this a lot of thought and I think this is just a rather spiteful and unnecessary action by Cmain|talk] and should not be included. Why the witch hunt Cmain|talk]?--Martinfud (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to seriously misunderstand what Wikipedia is and how it works. Nothing it set in stone, but rather it evolves dynamically as new information comes to light. That Patrick56 may have been responsible for the start of this article gives him so special rights whatsoever to prevent other editors from amending or adding to it. Neither does the fact that he claims to have met Power himself, for the reasons I have already outlined above. Since all evidence suggests that Power did work for Dorset Police, reverting to the earlier text that suggested that he went straight from the Met to the private sector is a serious and misleading omission. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope it has not escaped anybody's attention that the Martinfud User Account was newly created at 1227 on 14th February 2008. The allegations made by Martinfud are self-evidently false. If J7 was merely interested in promoting the agenda that Martinfud claims, we would have edited this page to include details of what Peter Power said he was doing on 7th July 2005. We have never done that. We discovered this Dorset information as something of a spin off from our research into July 7th 2005. It is biographical information about Peter Power which has been sourced to the Dorset Echo, the Sunday Times and the Guardian. We therefore consider it to be appropriate material for Wikipedia; encyclopedic content which is verifiable. It may be true that Power was never charged or summonsed, then again it may not. At present that is not verifiable. Cmain (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I took time out to look at the July 7 ‘Truth Campaign’ (aka people calling themselves Nick Cooper or Cmain) who all alone, are mad keen on inserting a piece of distant and I believe, malicious and irrelevant information about Power from way back in 1993. Only to them alone it’s not irrelevant. They only seek only to besmirch Power wherever they can because they cannot understand how he ran an exercise on 7/ July 2005 that was so similar to the real thing that day? Hardly the bases for an informative and unbiased addition to an article on an individual that has been on Wikipedia for many months? I’ve suggested before they add their view about what Power did that day (that I think they are entitled to) to the actual well written Wikipedia article on the event, rather than to an individual, but of course that does not help their real objective.

They say that his departure from Dorset ‘has never been explained’. Why does it have to ‘be explained’? What gives them the right to say it must be explained to suit them? Every year 100s of senior police officers retire (unlike Power, many in very mysterious circumstances that are of course of no interest to July 7 Truth Campaign). Their pursuit of this poor sod blinds them to the fact that elsewhere in Wikipedia it’s reported that over 20 bombings have occurred on the London underground since 1885, which makes the London tube system the most bombed place in the UK. A bit of a no brainer it strikes me if you are looking for a London terror exercise scenario - so pretty good idea Power if you ask me.

I cannot comment about who Martinfud is, but just because he/she feels as angry as I do about what the July 7 group are trying to do here (and elsewhere…) and then signs up to Wikipedia just to make en edit(s), does not debar him/her from adding their opinion. It’s utterly disgraceful that Cmain has the sheer arrogance to assert that whatever Martinfud has said is ‘are self-evidently false’. Who says? Damm check to try and strike out what appears to be comments - just as valid as anyone else who wants to chip in.

Taking all this into account I (and others I have invited to read this article) fail to see that a proposed edition that is so obviously motivated by the pursuance of a campaign against Power (which led them to by pass a lot of other information about Power from other newspapers etc) has any bona fide place here.

Let July 7 Campaign add their bit to the obvious article on the subject that has a clue in the title of their campaign. Let this article stay as it was before they tried to hijack it to suit there own cause--Patrick56 (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Patrick56, for your information, I do not "call" myself Nick Cooper - that's the name my parents gave me (of course, they actually gave me "Nicholas", but that's by-the-by). It may surprise you to know that I do not share the totality of the views on whatever Power may have been doing on 07/07/05 which you are so keen to ascribe to me. Also, I'm personally very aware of the contents of the Attacks on the London Underground page you allude to, since it was originally based (by someone else) on my own webpage on the subject, as you will have noticed if you'd read it properly. That said, you are wrong in your conclusion, as - discounting WW2 - Belfast is the most bombed place in the UK by a large margin.
 * To come to the matter in hand. I would again point out to you that the current text is potentially misleading, as it could be taken to mean that Power was with the Met between 1971 and 1995, going straight from there to the private sector. To omit - as you suggest we do - detail of a known three years from a subject's biography is entirely contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. Your suggestion that there is no need to add it because it wasn't there previously is entirely bogus. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I "call myself" Cmain because my real name is Chris(topher) Main. I am the only member of the J7 editorial team who contributes to Wikipedia on J7 related matters. [Correction: Numeral and The Saint of Pudding Lane are also J7]. Nick Cooper is not a member of the J7 editorial team (I think he may participate in the J7 forum, but as he has said himself he is very sceptical that the Visor exercise has anything to do with the events of July 7th 2005. J7 tries to be open to people of all points of view provided they contribute in a reasonable tone). In case you missed it, Patrick56, I have tried to establish a more constructive dialogue with you on your talk page. Cmain (talk) 08:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Patrick56, you claim that J7 states that Power's departure from Dorset "has never been explained". Please can you provide a source for that quotation as I have been unable to find it. The J7 article clearly states that Power departed from Dorset police on health grounds. Cmain (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All (inc. Martinfud and others who share my view) - I’m getting fed up with this and I have suggested below a solution. First, there has been much written on the July 2005 London bombings. A great deal of it appears to be conspiratorial nonsense aimed at Power and persistently delivered by people who’s motive seems only to attack him (it is my turn to correct you insofar that the London underground remains I believe, the most bombed (de facto) structure in the UK, although Belfast is is indeed likely to be the most bombed town, although I am never sure how many bombs hit the Europa hotel Belfast?). But back to the subject of Power: Second,I think I have a solution and I appeal to Wikipedia to use this as a compromise between two positions that seem opposite each other and have reached an impasse. (A) Simply say that Power served in the Metropolitan Police 1971 - 1990 and the Dorset Police 1990 - 1993. To add anything more than this seems gratuitously unnecessary as I and Martinfud have asserted many times. (B)  Remove the link to the so called ‘July 7 Truth Campaign’ that is obviously a very controversial insertion from an organisation I firmly believe to have a personal vendetta against Power. Indeed, it seems impossible to draw any other conclusion when you read the link. I hope this makes sense. I have given some ground on this and I now hope that those expressing a different view to mine will do likewise. Whoever edits this in Wikipedia can you please accept this as final?--Patrick56 (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. I think this is the solution. Well done Patrick56 for suggesting an obvious way to solve this propblem. Oh and by the way, I really do exist!--Martinfud (talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your proposal, Patrick56. I have passed it on to the others in J7 and we will respond fully later. (Obviously we cannot make any commitments on behalf of anyone outside of J7 who may want to edit this page). I will also write something on your talk page which I hope you will consider. Cmain (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * After due consideration, we have decided to reinstate the external link which we originally added to this article. We believe that it meets the requirement of Wikipedia that encyclopedic content must be verifiable; it is sourced to the Dorset Echo, the Sunday Times and the Guardian. Cmain (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, can we now stop messing with this article. The very recent change in main article body made it appear subject moved to Dorset directly after 1985 (incorrect). Also, unnecessary link to July 7 Truth campaign has, once again,removed – as per discussions--Patrick56 (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) above--Patrick56 (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)--Patrick56 (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)--Patrick56 (talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC).


 * No it didn't. It seems you are determined to change the page just for the sake of changing it, to assert what you seem to think of as your "ownership" of it. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You’ve got that completely wrong. It’s you who seem to change this site just to suit your campaign against Power. Anyone who looks at your website can see that. You call yourself the ‘July 7 Truth Campaign’ I understand, but cannot accept that Power was apparently running a bona fide exercise that day? That’s what this is all about. Not an unbiased and informative addition about Power. Just your organisation (and others) having a constant dig at Power. Every day or so I check sites like this and make minor changes. Minutes later you change them again. It’s a bit sad.--Patrick56 (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? I do not in anyway represent J7, nor do I pretend to. Anyone actually looking at my websites will "see" nothing of what you imply, so clearly you've never even seen them (they're linked from my User page - I'm sure with a bit of effort even you might be able to find your way to them). I would also note that you have ignored my previous statement, i.e. "I do not share the totality of the views (of J7) on whatever Power may have been doing on 07/07/05 which you are so keen to ascribe to me". I see that your latest edit removed the detail of what Power's position at Dorset was. Why? Do you have any proof that he was not in command of that part of the county? If you don't, then one has to ask why you would wish to suppress the information.
 * As to my editing habits on Wikipedia, I have hundreds of pages in my Watchlist, so whenever I log on I can see what has been recently changed, and address them if I think they merit it. Looking back at the edit history of the page, I have only edited immediately after you on five occasions, only one of which could be described as "minutes" afterwards. Big deal. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Given Patrick56's failure to explain the removal of detail about Power's role at Dorset Police, I have reinstated it. Continued removal of the J7 link is looking increasingly belligerent, but we simply cannot ignore the basic fact that Power was suspended before he was allowed to "retire". Patrick56 has offered no coherent reason why this should not be documented, beyond claiming it "doesn't matter", and objecting to the website it is sourced via. J7 quotes the relevent newspaper reports verbatim (with a scan of the print version of the first here), and Patrick56 has failed to present any evidence that they are in any way misquoted or otherwise not as presented by J7. A possible solution would be an narrative account of Power's suspension, citing the newspaper reports quoted by J7, but not linking to J7 itself. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * J7 are happy to drop the link to our site provided all the information is documented in the main text, as suggested by Nick Cooper. Cmain (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I rather think this is getting a bit silly and I’m fed up with the endless debate on just one article. Let's try and find a solution: First J7 just keep adding their own website as part of what I (and others) firmly believe is no more than an anti Power campaign on the back of what they think is the truth about 7 July 2005. I just cannot agree that this is relevant here, but might be under the 7/7 article? I therefore ask J7 to do just that and take their argument to the correct article. Next, to the best of my knowledge from researching whatever sources I can (e.g. a police officer who served at the time) I have no doubt that Power was indeed suspended. The Echo newspaper refers to a comment from the then Deputy Chief Constable saying the incident was solely an internal matter. However, his rank required that the Crown Prosecution Service had to make the decision about weather to prosecute on whatever papers had to be sent to them and they said no. Only then did Power retire, having I presume (?) stayed in the force to clear his name - if required. It has never been put in the public domain exactly why he was ever investigated, but since he was never charged, summonsed or so it seems even disciplined there seems to have been no reason for him to clear his name and I think to contimnually drill into this matter makes no sense to me? Had he been charged with anything at all that would be a different matter and I would be the first to add such detail to what I originally put up about Power. Can we therefore leave it at that? I take exception with people who seem to have an obsession about conducting what appears to be a never ending witch hunt on the spurious belief that Power has to answer to J7 for an incident a lifetime ago that resulted in no action taken against him at all? Maybe Power himself would like to comment?--Patrick56 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Patrick56, I note that you have again deleted the detail about Power's role at Dorset Police and offered no rational justification for doing so. I have therefore reinstated it. Secondly, the circumstances of Power's departure from Dorset Police most definitely is "relevant" on this page, and I will be adding the narrative account I have suggested in due course. To not include it would be about as justifiable as not documenting the precise circumstances of John Stalker's retirement.Nick Cooper (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will not edit pending Nick Cooper's narrative amendment, assuming it will be done reasonably promptly. Patrick56, the Dorset Police spokesman who announced Peter Power's retirement to the Dorset Echo (as published on page 3 on September 3rd 1993) stated: "His retirement does not affect any liability for action by the DPP". His retirement was therefore announced before any decision was made by the DPP/CPS. I would also like to draw your attention to the Wikipedia guidelines for dispute resolution. Step 1 states Focus on Content (not on the other Editor) and links to Wikipedia:NPA (no personal attacks) which explicitly states the following is unacceptable: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.".


 * In support of the relevance of this information:


 * The crux of the matter is instead the simple fact that neither the DPP nor the CPS have files submitted to them for consideration of good or public-spirited behaviour. Files are only submitted to the CPS/DPP by the police when they determine that they have sufficient evidence to successfully prosecute criminal activity. Indeed, the CPS web site states: "The Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and Wales."


 * A secondary issue is the manner in which Mr Power has elected to omit from his curriculum vitae any mention of his nettlesome stint with the Dorset Police and the potentially criminal activity that resulted in his investigation, suspension on full pay, early retirement on the grounds of "ill health", complete with a full pension and, ultimately, the submission of a file to the DPP/CPS. Cmain (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the narrative, having restricted it to the contents of the known press reports on the matter. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For reasons already given above, I cannot agree with you. I firmly believe the motives for this change relate to one or more organisations with a Reson Detre based only on the events of 7/7 and have nothing of constructive value to add here. Surely Wikipedia is more than just a vehicle for anyone to say anything about anybody as they see fit? To add endless narrative on the back of what appears to be a vendetta against Power invalidates the value of these addition(s). Now we see a total re-write that drops so much informative data in favour of a thinly veiled attack on Power? I (and others) firmly believe is no more than an anti Power campaign on the back of what some think is the truth about 7 July 2005. I just cannot agree that this is relevant here, but might be under the 7/7 article? --Patrick56 (talk) 23:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Patrick56, as this is the page about Peter Power, this is exactly where the details of his police career - and its end - belong. Your suggestion to put them on the 7/7 page is utterly preposterous, not least because they long pre-date that event. I would for the second time repeat what I said some tiome ago, i.e.: "I do not share the totality of the views (of J7) on whatever Power may have been doing on 07/07/05 which you are so keen to ascribe to me." Having said this twice previously, I am at a loss as to why you have chosen to ascribe the motivation you have. Are you calling me a liar, or are you just ignoring what I have said?
 * You have offered no factual evidence that suggests that any of the quoted newspapers misreported events, despite numerous prompts to do you, if you are aware of any. If you have anything to add from a reputable source, then by all means do so, but if you delete the sourced information again, it cannot be regarded as anything other than your own agenda-driven vandalism, and will be dealt with accordingly. I would again draw your attention to John Stalker, where there are obvious similarities in coverage, as an illustration that this is how things are done on Wikipedia. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the numerous contributers on this page pause for a moment. My name is Peter Power and I am the subject of this article. As such I have a reasonable claim to express my view on what has been written. I am grateful to people who refer to themselves as Patrick 56 and Martinfud for trying to get a balanced article, in the face of other people who are determined to write a rather spiteful and nasty feature that despite a varied career lasting nearly 40 years is totally dominated by a singe event that lasted a few months.

I am 57 years old and have previously served in or been attached to the Airborne Forces and several operational police units in London, plus a very short spell in Dorset. During this time I have been at the front major events ranging from terrorist sieges to bomb scenes and fires. I retired fro the UK police in 1993.

Thirteen years ago I set up my own company. Since 1995 our work has taken my team and I across the world running numerous workshops and exercises and I consider myself very fortunate in doing this. However, little or any of this has surfaced in any of the article(s) I have seen.

I’m not at all sure how or why Wikipedia works but I guess it allows anyone to say just about anything on anyone and in so doing provides a global platform for a bunch of rather lonely people to express their thinly disguised campaigns, no matter how bizarre or invalid?

What keeps appearing in Wikipedia is dominated by a personal and rather nasty vendetta against me by J7 and others, who cannot understand why my organisation ran a scenario based exercise in 2005 that featured, in one very small part, a series of imaginary incendiary bombs on the London Underground, very similar to the IRA attack in 1992. To suit their purpose they dwell only on a few months in Dorset a lifetime ago because they feel this is how to attack me. Anyone reading the article can see this – which is why it was brought to my attention yesterday.

So let me have my turn suggesting words for an article that someone might like to write that I actually think is much better than what Patrick56 first wrote (sorry, but I wish you hadn’t…) and is not saturated with gratuitous hostility towards me. Can I suggest that Patrick56 might now update his earlier article with something like the following:

“Peter Power was born in the UK in 1951. He served in the 10 Battalion Parachute Regiment 1969 - 1971 before joining the Metropolitan Police in 1971. His service in that force included the Special Patrol Group and attachments to the Anti Terrorist Branch and other front line units. He received several commendations for leadership etc. and in 1985 became the primary author of the Gold Silver Bronze Command Structure. He also designed several mnemonics for dealing with terrorist bombs during the IRA campaign. In 1990 he transferred on promotion to Dorset. An investigation against him in Dorset for an alleged internal irregularity did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him. He retired from Dorset in 1993. In 1995 Power set up his own company in central London. He is quoted in the UK Government Guide on Integrated Emergency Management and he is the author of many other advice guidebooks including the original UK Govt. (DTI) booklet ‘Preventing Chaos in a Crisis'. Power is a Special Advisor to a number of key organisations including the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness and the Business Continuity (BC) Institute London Forum. He is in addition, a Special Advisor to the editorial board of Continuity Professional Magazine in the USA and is listed in the UK Register of Expert Witnesses. He is a Fellow of numerous industry associations and member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London. --Peterpowervisor (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Not long ago I asked if Power himself read his article and it seems he has. I have just looked through what he (I guess it is he?) has said and feel his point is valid. What appeared overnight was a bizarre article that expanded beyond all reasonable proportion the 40 or so years of his career. What I have put up now is more concise and relevant and just because it uses a lot of what Power has himself has outlined makes it no less valid. Indeed, it introduces new information that I did now know--Patrick56 (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia is not an extension of anybody's PR. If anything is identified as being inaccurate, then it will of course be removed, while conversely any worthwhile detail will be added (e.g. the detail of Power's military service is more than relevent in the context of his curren t work). Nick Cooper (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would much rather nothing was written about me and what I now see is so selective, vindictive and pointless I wonder if anyone who keeps writing this has a real life? Patrick56 - if you want to liaise with me please do so via our company website (Visor Consultants)--Peterpowervisor (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Peterpowervisor I have added a section to your talk page as I believe that is considered by Wikipedia to be a more appropriate place to discuss motives and vendettas. This page should be about discussing Content. Cmain (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cooper - I really do think there is much to much here about Power. What lasted for a long time as a short/factual article before you decided to change everything was perfectly fine. Can you please leave it as it is now (11.20am). I will attempt to email Power (see above)--Patrick56 (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that you look at the actual differences between my version of 08:41 this morning and your version of 24 October, the last before this debate started: here. The only substantial difference in the text - barring some sectional breaks - is the detail of Power working for Dorset Police and his subsequent departure from it. Are you arguing that this material, on top of what you were presumably happy with in October, suddenly makes the whole article "too much" on top of what you were presumably happy with in October?
 * I would also request that you acknowledge and withdraw your claim that I "decided to change everything". The edit history of this page clearly shows that the Dorset Police issue was not introduced by myself. In fact, my first edit on 9 February to this page was to delete a duplicate link to the article you so voiciferously objected to! This is not the first instance of you mis-ascribing actions or motivations to me; I would suggest that you take more care in future. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection - 2 weeks
Due to repeated reverting, I have locked the page for 2 weeks. Please try to come some sort of an agreement in that time so that this constant back-and-forth between versions can cease. If involved editors do reach an agreement before the 2 weeks are over, drop a note on my talk page and we can lift the protection early. CIreland (talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I request that the following sentence be deleted:

An investigation against him in Dorset for an alleged internal irregularity did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him.

The claim that the investigation "did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him" is not verifiable. Cmain (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Sorry, I should have picked up that BLP violation before I protected the page. CIreland (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * CPS confirmed on 11th March 2008 that no action was taken as a result of the file sent to them, so I no longer object to this claim as unverifiable. Cmain (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I could not agree more. I guess as the subject under whatever Wikipedia rules apply, I have no final say in this obviously vexatious (and to me personal) matter that has more to do some J7 pressure groups and others trying just to dig any dirt they can on me, rather than create a balanced article. I still have a right to express my view. Just leave it. It says enough, although I would much rather the entire thing was wiped.--Peterpowervisor (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Peter - I hope Wikipedia listens to you as well as me and Martinfud. I'm reluctant to say wipe your article, but as it reads right now it makes sense.--Patrick56 (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Again I would ask what is "wrong" with the version you were evidently happy to leave as it was on 24 October 2007? I note that you persistently fail to respond to direct questions, and also that you have failed to acknowledge the incaccuracy of - and withdraw - your claim that I personally "decided to change everything". Argue with what I do say or do by all means, but I would again request that you have the common decency to refrain from responding on the basis of something I have neither said nor done. As to this page itself, I will be raising an RFC on this matter shortly; we'll see what a wide sample of editors think. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue is one of balance. The aspiration of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. Earlier this month new, verifiable information about the subject of this page was brought to light, information which (as I shall argue below) is significant enough to warrant a mention in an encyclopedic entry for the subject. In order to preserve a reasonable balance in the entry, the approach I took was to add an external link to that information. This left in place a text which, as Patrick56 has pointed out, has been undisputed for several months. It also left in place 10 other External Links, also undisputed, and added mine as the last External Link. The other 10 links are generally favourable to the subject, the one I added is unfavourable. I do not think a ratio of 10 favourable links to 1 unfavourable link is unbalanced or unreasonable.


 * However, as objections have been raised to the source of the link, if it helps to make progress with this dispute, I have agreed to the removal of the link if the information is included in the text instead. Nick Cooper did this, and all that he wrote met the requirements of Wikipedia, but the visual impact of the page was that the Dorset section was disproportionately large in the light of the length of the subject's career. The correct solution to that issue, I believe, is to expand the rest of the text (not to delete the Dorset section). I am happy for my User Talk page to be used to construct a fully expanded text, to which all the editors here could contribute, and when we are all happy then transfer it over here.


 * If instead a more minimal text is preferred, then I propose that the following is added in place of the sentence that was removed under edit protection:


 * In 1993 Dorset Police passed a file to the Crown Prosecution Service as a result of an investigation into allegations against Power on an internal matter.


 * Finally, to establish why I believe this information is important enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedic entry for the subject, Dorset Police had three courses of action open to them as a result of their investigation:
 * Take no action (no evidence of wrongdoing, or insufficient evidence of wrongdoing)
 * Initiate internal disciplinary action (sufficient evidence of wrongdoing)
 * Hand over to the CPS for action (sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, but of a kind too serious for internal disciplinary action)
 * As Dorset Police took the last of these actions, we can infer that it considered that it had found sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. If, as Power and Patrick56 claim, the CPS decided not to prosecute, Power would have faced internal disciplinary action but for the fact that his retirement was announced before the CPS made its decision (the Dorset Police spokesman quoted in the Daily Echo on September 2nd 1993 carefully stated "His retirement does not affect any liability for action by the DPP").


 * To omit this information completely from the entry would therefore, I believe, violate Wikipedia's aspiration to present a neutral point of view. Cmain (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cmain, you are of course correct in the observation about that the 10:1 ratio of website links, and it is unfortunate that some other editors do not understand the concept of "balance". You are also right that the Dorset narrative may have seemed excessively long, but while I did think it was initially important to clearly identify the information sources, there is no reason why is could not have been reasonably made more concise. Unfortunately the page got locked in the current "subject-written" version just before it was locked.
 * It's notable that in the course of this dispute some other non-controversial material was lost, making the balance of text not as ideal as one would wish. In addition, it would be better to properly reference various details, rather than simply having them as "External links" at the end. To this end I am working on a more conventionally formatted version of the page, which I will be putting up as a User subpage later today. I am also drafting an RFC, which I will post here shortly. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Cooper - for everyone's sake why not just leave this as it is? So far three people have suggested just that. I sense you have an unnatural obsession about Power and the need to leave no stone unturned in your quest to find something to besmirch him. Why?--Patrick56 (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Three people? Only Power and Patrick56 have said leave it as it is. In case I did not make myself clear, I am not in favour of leaving it as it is. Or are you assuming that Martinfud agrees with you? Cmain (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Patrick56 has persistently claimed that Power retired after the CPS decided not to prosecute. The CPS has today confirmed that Power retired before it made its decision. I have published the full text on my talk page. Cmain (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Content of page
The subject of this page is a former high-ranking British police officer, who in that capacity was involved in a number of notable events, as well as at least one major innovation in British policing practice. Since retiring from the police he has worked in crisis management, and is a frequent media commentator on such matters in the UK broadcast media.

This page was originally created by Rye1967 on 18 June 2007 with text inappropriately added to Peter Power (politician) by Patrick56, who was the last person to edit the page on 24 October 2007 until 7 February 2008, when Cmain added a link to new material on the subject on the website of the The July 7th Truth Campaign ("J7"). This material concerns the subject's service with Dorset Police, and his subsequent departure from the force in 1993. Previously this page gave the impression that the subject's Metropolitan Police service was contiguous with his moving to the private sector in 1995. These details of his police career were reported contemporaneously, but have recently been "rediscovered" by people investigating the 7 July London bombings, some of whom see a connection between those events and the subject. The latter is a view I do not personally hold, but the "new" material undeniably remains significant in terms of the subject's biography.

After several days of rapid changes and a certain degree of vandalism, Patrick56 deleted the new material and the J7 link on 10 February, claiming it "appears irrelevant and most likely inserted with malicious intent." There then followed a period of reversion and counter-reversion, with both Patrick56 and Martinfud (who has edited no other pages and may be a sock puppet) seeking to suppress the new material. Initial objections seemed to focus more on the source rather than the veracity of the information, with both of the aforementioned editors applying such unhelpful terms as "anti government", "anarchist", or "personal hate campaign against (the subject)" to J7.

Throughout this dispute Patrick56 has failed to engage in appropriate debate, frequently contending that the new material is "not important", or that it should go on 7 July London bombings rather than the subject's biography, simply by virtue of it being brought to light by people interested in that particular subject. He has occasionally referred to his original authorship of this page, suggesting a belief that this confers some form of ownership - and therefore control - over it. He has frequently falsely attributed statements, motivations and actions to both myself and other editors, and has ignored direct requests to retract them. In fairness, however, this may simply be attributable to an unfamiliarity by Patrick56 with Wikipedia discussion etiquette, and a consequent failure to understand that he has been dealing with more than one person.

In an effort to resolve the matter, I presented the new material in a narrative form based on the verbatim reproductions of the associated contemporary press reports on the J7 site, but referenced the reports themselves, rather than that site. Patrick56 did not accept this compromise and reverted the page to an earlier version. Around the same time, an editor claiming to be the subject himself (Peterpowervisor) suggested his own text, which Patrick56 promptly used. I reverted this to my own version with the narrative account and sought administrator intervention, but between that time and the page being locked, Patrick56 again reverted to the "subject-written" text. This is the current form of the page, which is poorly-formatted, with clearly avoidable red links, and is far less comprehensive than previous versions.

I have drafted a new version of the page text, which can be found at User:Nick Cooper/Draft 1. This is based on my last version of 27 February, but with a few amendments to reintroduce other (largely non-controversial) detail lost in the course of this dispute, as well as more conventional referencing. The proposal is that when the block on this page is lifted, this draft text should be used, subject to agreed constructive amendments.

The subject is clearly a notable individual - and considering his media profile and the current political climate will continue to be - and there is a wealth of verifiable source material to draw upon in compiling an accurate and comprehensive biography of him for Wikipedia. Indeed, Patrick56 himself originally added much of the detail on him under a justification of, "This Peter Power has a great many hits on Google and I think deserves his own feature" Nick Cooper (talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really have to disagree with Nick Cooper who constantly misinterprets me to that point that he makes it very personal between us. That apart, what I find very curious is that he spends an extraordinary amount of time looking at Power. Why? Is he as - I and others - suspect just trying to dig whatever dirt he can on Power to the point that he now appears to have an unhealthy on fixation the subject? I first wrote a short article on Power many months ago and it existed quite happily for ages, that is until a campaign based on discovering the ‘truth’ about the 7/7 bombs in London came along and have waged a vendetta against Power since then.  Power ran an exercise that day for a London company based on the same or similar locations that were actually attacked on the underground – and has kept quiet about who he worked for since then. Conspiracy or coincidence?  Actually, who cares?
 * I actually think Power is of boarder line interest only. If Nick Cooper thinks he is somehow extraordinary that must be I presume, only by comparison to his own life which I can only guess at based on the considerable and obsessive amount of time he spends on the internet trying to find something to besmirch Power? You will see elsewhere that by actually emailing Power’s company in London it is possible to contact the subject himself. I have emailed him recently (I did not do it last year I confess) and learned a lot – most of it I consider as not worthy of adding any more to the article as it stands on 1 March 2008. Can I suggest Nick Cooper broadens his considerable time in front of a PC to other more worthy targets? Just let this stand as it is. It’s a lovely day where I live and I’m now off for a walk. Nick Cooper why not do the same?--Patrick56 (talk) 09:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Patrick56, I have over 650 widely varying Wikipedia pages in my watchlist; some relate to things I'm very interested in, some to things I have only a tangential interest in. When I log on, I can see immediately if any of them have been changed, and deal with them - or not - as appropriate. That doesn't take the massive amount of time or effort you seem to think it does. In fact, I spent more time this last week swimming or reading (to name but two things) than I have editing Wikipedia, so your concern for the variety of my lifestyle is sorely misplaced. On the other hand, barring Talk pages, you have only edited some half a dozen subjects on Wikipedia, all connected either directly or indirectly to Peter Power or crisis management. If anyone here has the sort of one-track mind you're alluding do, it certainly ain't me.
 * I see that you continue to labour under misconceptions as to why I'm editing this page in particular. I would suggest that you read the last sentence of the second paragraph of my post immediately above yours (the one starting with "The latter..." and ending with "biography", if that's not clear enough for you). If you don't understand it, I suggest that you re-read it, and continue re-reading it until you do. That said, you have singularly failed to retract or acknowledge other false statements about my past actions or statements, so I'm not holding my breath for the scales to suddenly fall from your eyes. It is ironic that you accuse me of making it "personal" and yet you are the one who has attacked myself and others for things that I and they have been neither said nor done, and then showed an utter lack of maturity by failing to acknowledge your errors, even when asked directly to do so. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
asked me on my talk page to comment here. I am somewhat wary of doing so because I have taken administrative action in protecting the page; contrary to the impression some seem to have, my opinion carries no special weight because I happen to be an admin. CIreland (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I listed the page at the biographies of living persons noticeboard at the end of February.  See here.
 * In my opinion, the page has been used in the past to, colloquially, sling mud in the hope that some will stick. In particular, references to some kind of internal investigation that ultimately came to nothing tended to present the subject in a negative light by inviting the reader to infer wrong-doing. To include accounts of allegations and investigations is problematic in any biography but it is out of the question for biographies of people who work in professions that are prone to spurious or malicious allegations which are routinely investigated and which just as routinely come to nothing.
 * For the reasons given above, it is my opinion that the draft at User:Nick Cooper/Draft 1 is not suitable.
 * Some editors have expressed a wish that the page not be changed from its current state. Of course, since this is a wiki, that is an impractical wish if taken literally, not least since the article needs some cosmetic clean up and most of the external links should be in-line references. However as the subject is, with the greatest respect, a minor public figure, editors should err on the side of caution in adding new material.


 * CIreland, as regards your second point, the issue was more a case that the allegations were "unspecified" for the simple reason that nobody had been able to identify a source which actually specified what they were. I've subsequently been pointed in the direction of a later local newspaper report about/interview with Power, clarifying that it was a matter relating to expenses claim discrepancies of "around £100", which puts it into the proper perspective. We do have a paradox that although it seems relatively trivial in itself, it clearly did have a negative effect on the subject. I'm happy to omit it, but of course that does not guarantee that some other editor will not reinstate it in more damagingly suggestive terms at a later date.
 * The version of User:Nick Cooper/Draft 1 was essentially a reformatted and better-linked version of the page as it stood at 24 October 2007, with the addition details of the investigation. I have now amended it at User:Nick Cooper/Draft 2, and suggest that this is what we should use over the current unsourced version. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked over Draft 2 and couldn't see any problems with it; my only reservation is that some information of borderline relevance currently in the article is not included in the draft (TA career, mnemonics).
 * As for the clarification that the "allegations" were some trivial expenses matter, I think that prettry clearly demonstrates why we shouldn't use "unspecified internal investigations" etc. in biographies. Whilst, of course, there is nothing to prevent someone re-adding the material, it would be clear that anyone doing so was coming here to push a POV with regard to the subject and his work; such people should be reverted and informed of the trivial nature of the allegations; I would block them if they persisted. Furthermore, as clear violations of WP:BLP, reverting such additions would not, in my opinion, be subject to the 3-revert-rule. CIreland (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

CIreland & Nick Cooper: As the original author of of this somewhat contentious article - and accepting this confers not rights at all - I'm happy with the draft 2 mentioned above. I would only ask that the following should be considered for insertion in it (as has already been identified):

•	Prior to joining the Police he spent three years in the Parachute Regiment Territorial Army. •	Whilst attached to the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch he designed a series of counter terrorist Improvised Explosive Device mnemonics.

Let's hope that is it. Please....I have added another comment or two on the CIreland talk page, including part of a message J7 actually put on Power's talk page that makes it very obvious indeed they are out to get him --Patrick56 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that despite me leaving a polite note on Patrick56's talk page disclaiming responsibility for the latest edit (and even providing assistance in identifying the true editor), Patrick56's latest reversion comment attempts to implicate J7. Cmain (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

His company
What company did Peter Power form? It is mentioned but unspecified. This is needed for the article. Beligaronia (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Appearance on ITV on day of July 7 bombing?
Is there any particular reason that no mention is made of the interview the article's subject gave to ITV about his firm ("Visor Consultants") coincidentally conducting an exercise involving a simulated bombing scenario on the very day of the July 7 attacks? E.g. see YouTube link 1 or YouTube link 2. Irrespective of its status as a bit of "conspiracy lore," it seems notable enough and of sufficient interest to WP users, independent of the motives of the individuals who post it around the Web. IslandGyrl (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter Power on TV and Radio
This simple sentence shoudl be allowed to stand. It is a fact. Facts are sometimes strange. Wikipedia reports on drunkeness of hollywood stars, too.

'''Peter Power (crisis management specialist) appeared on ITV and BBC Radio saying that he was involved in a rehearsal of exactly the bombing scenario that morning. '''

A highly relevant entry that shows much about the doubtful personality of Peter Power. He goes on TV and Radio on the same day of the london terror attacks (his motive is clear, he wants publicity, he most likely fears something). He claims (with HIS emphasis, not mine) some incedible tale (HIS neck hairs, not mine) Then later pathetic attempts to "put things into perspective" only raise more questions. CLEARLY this is an addition to the article. The beat-to-death-argument "conspiracy theory" does not even apply here. Peter Power went on BBC Radio and National TV in order to achieve something. He could have said nothing, no reporter obligated him to come on air, he did it himself. This wikipedia article is about him and WHAT HE DOES. He goes on TV. He is in the SECURITY BUSINESS, it was his big day. It is prominent in his resumé, Snowded must not censor it.

I just mention it here, then the wikipedia-overlords label it a heresy and delete it. I am appalled. What century does User:Snowded live in? I would like to lodge a complaint about him.

On second sighting I see this theme has been here before. Snowded, if you must, you need to find a wording that leaves your world-view intact. If you absolutely need to discredt people a priori and denigrate their arguments, then do it. But this surely can't be in the name of wikipedia. Where does one lodge a complaint about you?

85.197.19.228 (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia rules are very simply, you make a bold edit, it is reversed you then discuss it.  You are instead edit warring.  You appear to be using this edit to attack Peter Power which breaks rules in WP:BLP,  you are also inserting the same material on the 7/7 article despite the fact there is no third party material.  Please revert and discuss.  -- Snowded  TALK  19:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please add the following reference to the article, since I am not sure if I am still allowed to edit it. Peter Power's own blog posting: . -- Regarding his notable Radio and TV appearances. Thank you for not mentioning your "conspiracy theory" any more. Real third party evidence is provided: a BBC4 article clearly discusses the RADIO and  TV appearance and Peter Power himself speaks of his temerity to go on TV . Clearly the subject is relevant. Mr. Power and BBC4 issued lenghty statements (see references). As to personal attack: Anything that reflects negatively on a Person must be expunged from Wikipedia? I am simply reporting a well known fact (recorded!) that makes people think. Wikipedia should not tell readers how to think about things! Further regarding relevance: Peter Power said: "I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright.", so the coincidence was clearly startling him. I am aware that conspiracy theorists claim that he went on BBC Radio 5 Live and ITV Television in order to become visible as a life insurance (assuming that secret services were the perpetrators and they manipulate witness testimony). I do not subscribe to such fevered speculation. My entry does not assume anything, it does not speculate, it does not exaggerate, it does not attack, it neutrally reports a notable event, with references for verification in a very short sentence. Feel free to make a longer sentence that still keeps NPOV intact. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Blog postings are not considered reliable sources so its not appropriate to add it in. I modified the text to match the reference and make sure it not imply any support for the conspiracy theory material which was also reported.  You are allowed to edit the article but you need to follow the rules.  If you make an edit and another editor reverts it then you make the case HERE on the talk page.   You don't edit war and you have been warned that such behaviour in the future will lead to a block.   If you discuss things on talk pages you will find that other editors will help you.  -- Snowded  TALK  17:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We have an inherent issue that what is actually known about the event indicates that it was nothing out of the ordinary that would fulfil Wikipedia notability criteria. However, the dogged persistence of certain parties that it did mean something have become notable in itself. The bottom line is that the Visor scenario had bombs going off at Russell Square, King's Cross, and Liverpool street stations, although in one case it was the mainline part, not the Underground, and there was also an incident at Chancery Lane (chosen because its where the client's offices are). So it wasn't "exactly" the same as the real events, and in many respects was very different. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording -- as it is now -- is highly inaccurate. The exercise was surely not designed to change from rehearsal to real terror-attack. (That would surely be a prosecutable conspiracy to aid a crime). Please be precise and use Peter Power's word precisely at the railway stations. This is what Peter Power tried to refer to in his multiple public statements. While it may be too long, using parts of his actual words should be permissible if explaining the actual events would take up more words than the quote itself. For your reference here the actual transcript:

BBC Radio 5 Live (afternoon of 7.July 2005)

Peter Power: ... at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for -- ah over -- a company of over a 1000 people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright! BBC Interviewer: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise? Peter Power: Precisely, and it was, er, about half-past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, 'this is the real one' and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from 'slow time' to 'quick time' thinking and so on.

ITV News (8:20 p.m. 7.July 2005) Peter Power: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector - and we sat everybody down, in the city - 1,000 people involved in the whole organisation - but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was, we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from 'fictional' to 'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time - ITV News: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario? Peter Power: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 oclock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the hair....

It would be too long to include in full, but I can't see how else a NPOV can be maintained. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a couple of changes to remove ambiguity, nothing in the text implied a switch to a real attack - please. to be honest I am still not sure the whole think should not be scrubbed.  Its a minor interview blow out of all proportion outside the mainstream media.  -- Snowded  TALK  18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Weird. Now you defend him from an accusation that has not been made. Without telling the reader what weird thing he actually said nobody can understant why you would mention his TV appearance. The notability of the interview in Radio AND TV is lost. I'll insert the actual words and then it becomes clear. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't defended or attacked, I have just summarised the one reliable source and its linked so they can read it. This is an encyclopedia, it does not list full transcripts. -- Snowded  TALK  15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Identical insert made at Talk:7 July 2005 London bombings please keep discussions in one place
 * Good point. Fair enough.
 * About removing the transscript:
 * First you accuse me of attacking and you deny the notability (both wrong), now that you have taken over the actual wording (not nice! it wasn't your call), you do not allow an unparalleled event to be transcribed in it shortest possible form. Please call for a neutral moderator and please retire from this article. I challenge your neutrality on the subject. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:INDENT for help on how to format comments. I have made the changes for you above.   As a compromise I put a summary of the referenced article here.  I could have simply reverted to the stable state pending agreement and I am happy to do that still if you want.  I am not happy to insert the quotes that you want, that is not agreed.   I have no intention of retiring from this article.  You might want to read the welcome note on your talk page to get guidance on how to edit and the various processes which are available to you if you are unhappy.-- Snowded  TALK  16:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that's a workable compromise. I think that readers with reasonable tenacity have a good change of understanding now. BLP should also be satisfied since you transported Peter Power's point of view in your selection of the wording. 85.197.19.228 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thats how things work around here, discuss within the rules and progress can normally be made. Pleased you are happy with that -- Snowded  TALK  18:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

2011 England Riots / 7/7 Video Link
I edited this article yesterday adding details of an interview Peter Power gave on BBC Breakfast News at 6.20am on August 2011 saying that his company Visor Consulting was preparing a report that dealt with recommendations for new Police powers that dealt with the exact same situations as were being experienced as part of the 2011 England Riots.

This has been removed.

I also added a link to the television interview with Peter Power & the BBC on 7/7 as a citation

but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.101.217 (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bias
So much of the comment below is entirely subjective about the alleged 'hostility' of some critics. This page does not mention the many other incidents Mr Power has been involved in, such as taking control of a tube train, involvement in the Kings Cross fire and numerous other events in London. Extrapolation of whether these were a matter of him just being in those places by coincidence or not is irrelevant and speculation should be avoided, but the reported facts of these events do not. The extensive and excessive comments below suggest a lack of impartiality on both sides. This talk page is considerably longer than the article itself and more time should be spent on putting FACTS in the article and less on bickering on here in my view. I know two people who died in the bombings and am quite certain they weren't actors. Mr Power does seem to be most unfortunate in being so frequently present at the time and location of numerous attacks/disasters. I repeat, we should not speculate, but we should not have an incomplete article, and should not accept the suppression of information about the concerns of many about Mr Powers, whether or not we agree with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.102.83 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 April 2013‎
 * Power was a senior police officer with responsibilities in certain fields, so apart from one fortuitous incident, so it's hardly surprising that he ended up being involved in the incidents he was involved in in a professional and reactive capacity. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean 'one fortuitous incident'? His job as a police officer would mean it would not be suprising that he attended major incidents.  The curious issue is his presence at the exact time several incidents have occurred. What about the 'pied piper' incident on the Underground? He said he assaulted the driver of the train in this incident (some comment about apply persuasion to his face) which he claimed was justified. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/november/23/newsid_3227000/3227456.stm.  What about his strange comments about the Kings Cross fire involving a bomb?  http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/november/18/newsid_3267000/3267833.stm. I seem to recall him being in proximity to the 2007 London car bombs and talking about this on BBC News, but can't find a link right now.  I personally think he would be insane to talk about the drills if he was in anyway involved in the bombings but that is just an assumption.  Apart from the Dorset Police suspension, there is no evidence of any other questionable behaviour by Mr Powers.  The chance of someone doing drills at the exact same time and places that bombs went off is extremely low, however whilst coincidence is certainly not proof, it does make people ask questions and we should discuss this openly.


 * Wikipedia is about facts. It is a fact that Mr Power has had some unusual experiences in his life, it is a fact he was investigated for very serious allegations, it is a fact that despite retiring on ill health grounds he is still working in high pressure jobs, it is a fact that huge numbers of people have concerns about him.  It should not take thousands of words of discussion to just get verifiable information into this article.  The removal of additions that are true because someone is worried about the motives of the writer is an outrage. If the additions are TRUE, they should stay.  Why certain people spend so much effort censoring FACTS should worry people and those doing it should be banned from making further alterations. 80.6.102.83 (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Clearly it was fortuitous that Power, while off-duty, was on board a train affected during the Oxford Circus fire, but he certainly does not say, "he assaulted the driver," in the very source to cite yourself. In pretty much every other major incident he was involved, it was in a professional capacity, i.e. we was either deployed to them reactively, or what on duty covering whatever precipitated them.


 * As to the "infamous" drill on 7/7, the Conspiracy Files programme conclusively demolished the idea that it was anything but what it actually was - a coincidence. It clarified that in the exercise scenario, Russell Square, King's Cross, and Liverpool street stations themselves were bombed, although one was the mainline rather than the Undeground station. Obviously this is by no means the "exact same" as the stations between which the actual bombs went off. It is also ludicrous to claim that the, "chance of someone doing drills at the exact same time... that bombs went off is extremely low," given the number of companies in London doing the same sort of work as Visor all year round, not to mention the various other companies, organisations, etc. that run their own emergency planning exercises. If "huge numbers of people have concerns about [Power]," then it is only because they are more wedded to the enduring conspiracy theories than reality. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)