Talk:Wandsworth Parks and Events Police

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)
 * And I, naturally, fully support it as well. ninety:one  18:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * And for the record, although I have my views certain aspects of WPP, I do have great sympathy for the awful position staff at WPP must be in waiting to hear what the future holds. I may disagree with certain aspects of legal bits and pieces but I know that all staff at WPP are only trying to make the parks safer for everyone.


 * By the way I'm slightly perplexed as to why you are trying to find out who editors are, completely irrelevant and frankly a bit underhand.
 * And re your comment on the 1st August, the MPS as far as I am aware, is not trying to take over the parks constabularies, I think it is more to do with councils taking advantage of MPA BOGOF and judging what is most cost effective and value for money for them (which of course is controversial in itself). I've edited the article as best I can. Dibble999 (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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