Talk:Wandsworth Parks and Events Police/Archive 1

Arbitrary Section 1
Why and how can people still pretend and spread the propaganda to the contrary?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.79 (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The WPP are members of a Local Government Authority and therefore Crown Servants. The rest of the above appears to be the anon editor's fantasy. Mowthegrass (talk) 08:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[Text removed] Template:UnsignedIP -->


 * Please sign comments! It helps us all to communicate better. Ta. Concerning what you say above, it is indeed a grey area. We must be very careful, however, to avoid original research, personal opinion, or point of view. I would be quite happy to see a paragraph added about the question of the status of officers in WPP, AS LONG as suitable references were cited. The official website of the WPP makes it quite clear that they consider themselves to be a police force. Their uniforms bear the word "POLICE" across the breast as with Home Office forces, and their vehicles are marked with "POLICE" markings. Someone recently edited this article to change "Police Sergeant" to "Sergeant", which I have reverted, because the only reliable sources currently cited state "Police Sergeant". There is nothing wrong with introducing an alternative view, as long as that alternative view is reliably referenced, as opposed to being someone's opinion, view, or best guess. (PS: However, on the subject of personal opinion, and strictly for the talk page only, I used to live in Wandsworth and can personally vouch for the WPP as being the most reliable, efficient and well-run police force I have ever encountered!)  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  08:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anon editor. I also have to point out that as a serving police officer in the Met I can point to the law and legislation that gives me my powers and jurisdiction, which is a requirement under the Human Rights Act by the way. Just because the 'official' website of the WPP states they have consider themselves a police force does not mean that they are correct. I have researched for some time in a professional capacity to try and find legislation that allows these officers to have any more powers than Joe Public apart from enforcing bye laws in their parks. There doesn't appear to be any such legislation. Also there is some debate across London regarding borough constabularies using the word 'POLICE' on vehicles and uniforms. Many boroughs have dropped the word. Please see this report regarding Newham where the legal opinion is these constabularies are not police officers (http://apps.newham.gov.uk/docs/asbr.pdf) and do not have police powers (apart from the limitied bye law aspect) and should not be carrying offensive weapons (such as batons) which police officers are permitted to carry. As it is a grey area the deletion of 'Police Sergeant' to 'sergeant' is probably fair. In a Home office or special police force (such as BTP) you must pass nationally accredited exams and other interviews etc before being promoted. The sergeants in this constabulary have not and it is debatable that they are police officers in the first place. I would be interested for anyone to point me in the direction of legislation that gives memmbers of this constabulary any more powers than a citizen when not enforcing parks bye laws. (PS: Just my personal view of course, and in response to Timothy Titus, it is extremely easy to be perceived as a reliable, efficient, well-run 'police force' when you only cover a park, can rely on the Met to deal with any serious incident and do not have to deal with burglaries, domestics, terrorism, firearms incidents, assisting other agencies, traffic, major events etc etc etc. The WPP and Home Office/Special Police forces are just not comparable!) Dibble999 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

''' Dozo comments removed TopCat666 (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Please do not remove comments from the discussion page. Have the courtesy to discuss them. MINOMIX'''

Correct
Wandsworth Parks Police are a 'Police Force' 

Wandsworth Parks Police Officers are 'Police Constables' or 'Parks Constables' '

Wandsworth Parks Police Officers Hold a Rank

Wandsworth Parks Police are 'Police '

Minomix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.158.187 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Minomix - once again, may we please ask you to observe normal Wikipedia procedures. In particular, please start new discussions at the BOTTOM of the talk page, not the top. Also, please sign your comments by typing four tildes at the end.


 * As for your comments, you are fully entitled to your opinions, but Wikipedia is about reporting what is actually happening, rather than what we would like to be happening! As it happens, I don't like the term Police Service, but it is now in widespread use, like it or not. See the article Metropolitan Police Service, for example, about our capital's police. As far as WPP are concerned, they describe themselves as a Police Service (see their own website for confirmation), and that is why the term is used here on Wikipedia to describe them. It has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion for or against the phrase.


 * As for ranks/grades - any organisation may apply ranks to its staff. If WPP refers to its 'adminsitrative grades' as 'ranks', then they are 'ranks'. This issue is a complete red herring. The Boy Scouts have 'ranks' - it has nothing to do with issues of police powers.


 * All of your comments are very interesting, but none of them is backed up with any sources, citations or demonstrable facts. The article must be based on sources, not opinion, however well intentioned or informed that opinion may be.


 * Your comments are as welcome here as anybody else's, but please try to observe the rules of Wikipedia - they are here for everyone's benefit. The reason other editors keep reverting your edits is simply that you are not sticking to the rules!  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Status
Status - there is no dispute over the legal status of officers of this constabulary and this article reflects this. Although not a Home Office force, (i.e the Met, Sussex Police etc etc) i.e. they do come under the remit of being a constable in some parts of PACE. If there are any problems would our local police (met) not have done something after 25 years of our exsistance! I will not waste the readers time answering ill informed and edited articles but simply revert this article back to Timothy Titus's excellent and fair edit.

Questions over status
As already mentioned above the legal status of this constabulary IS a grey area. I am a serving officer in the Met and many of my colleagues are unaware of the powers and remit of borough constabularies such as the WPP. If serving front line police officers are unsure, then I have to say there is a definite grey area for the public. I have done some research and discovered some interesting points which the article does not in its present form represent. As a result, I and it would appear an anon editor have edited the article to try and make a better and objective article which reflects reality. As it was, the article was subjective and questionable. However these edits have been reverted without explanation – apart from comments such as ‘this is the truth’. In effort to explain my edits and prevent an edit war I set out below my reason for altering the article.

London Borough Parks Constabularies are, as is correctly quoted, established under sec 18 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provision Order Confirmation 1967. This act allows London borough councils to establish a body of constables who have the power to enforce parks bye-laws in their respective parks. It does not make these constables ‘police constables’ and does not allow police services or forces to be established. No police powers are given to these parks constables (with the exception of parks bye laws) over and above those which everybody is entitled, often referred to as ‘any person’ powers or as in the case of arrest, ‘citizen’s arrest’.

In comparison, officers from Home Office forces (such as the Met, Kent Police etc) can point to the Police Act 1996 as the basis for their establishment, jurisdiction and powers as police constables. BTP officers can point to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. Ministry of Defence Police officer can point to the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1986. I could go on…My point is that all these police forces have a legal basis and with the attached powers to call themselves police officers and the organisations they work for police services/forces. The WPP does not, unless someone can point to a piece of legislation that I have missed.

So the article started by saying, “Wandsworth Parks Police is a Police Service successfully run…”. Two points about the opening sentence. Firstly, its NOT legally a police service but a borough parks constabulary. Secondly, the comment regarding ‘successfully run’ is highly subjective and without basis. All organisations would like to be thought of a successful, but without any citation it should not be in an encyclopaedic article.

Under legal status the paragraph starts by mentioning the Met and working closely with it. Irrelevant to legal status me thinks and again subjective. Why mention a home office force in the legal status paragraph of a parks constabulary. This paragraph should merely be about the legal status of WPP and its constables. The paragraph rightly states that a magistrate swears WPP constables in, but not as ‘police constables’ but as ‘parks constables’ due to the legislation involved. Once sworn in the parks constables have executive powers to enforce parks bye-laws in their boroughs ONLY. Criminal law is not included. However, just like the general public, parks constables can enforce criminal law in certain limited circumstances relating to indictable offences only. This is commonly known as ‘citizens arrest’. Due to changes in arrest powers with SOCAP in 2006, non police officers, such as parks constables need to be aware of the necessity criteria to make an arrest lawful. My point is that the article read like the parks constables had police powers – they don’t (apart from the bye law aspect). The paragraph then goes on to state that parks constables come under PACE. Well this is obvious and irrelevant, any arrest by anyone is under PACE (as amended by SOCAP). What it doesn’t do is give parks constables any more power than Joe Public (apart from the bye law aspect). For all the above reasons, the last sentence of this paragraph (“They are always Parks Police Officers regardless of the technicalities of whether or not they are in the act of enforcing bye-laws.”) is not a true reflection of law and quite frankly wrong and misleading. There is no such thing as a parks ‘police officer’.

I had added at the bottom of the article two paragraphs with cited evidence which brings into question the status of parks constabularies and their use of the word ‘police’, blue lights and use of batons etc. These were deleted without reason. They are legitimate sources which shed light on the grey area. You may not agree with the report and committee’s results but they are in the public domain and support my contention that there IS a grey area and WPP are treading on thin ice on occasion.

In response to your comments about the Met not doing anything for 25 years, this has more to do with it being a ‘grey area’, it being in the ‘too difficult to do’ box and the politics involved with the council. Please don’t think that the Met is the be-all when it comes to the law. It gets things horribly wrong sometimes (and I’m a Met officer!). Look at Hammersmith and Fulham Parks Constabulary who do not call themselves police and use orange beacons etc. Newham have revamped their constabulary and I think I’m right in believing that no other borough, apart from Kensington & Chelsea, use the word ‘police’ - yet all are set up under the same legislation as WPP!?! I wonder why… I have edited the article back to what is a true reflection of law with less subjectivity. If anyone can point me to legislation which calls into question my comments I am more than willing to re-think. Dibble999 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dribble999
We do not have to justify our exsistance to you we exist therefore I am the WANDSWORTH PARKS POLICE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timothy Titus - Quite right sir!
Having read the inputs from Timothy Titus and Chief Ironside I have to re-enforce I have no grudge or issue with WPP and as I have tried to explain throughout I am sure that the WPP do a good job in the parks of Wandsworth. I think Timothy Titus's input is very fair and valid and I concede his points regarding the status quo. My citing of the Newham report is due that constbulary being set up under the exact same legislation as WPP. So although it is not directly related to WPP, it is relevant much in the same way as case law knocks on to other things. Mowthegrass, I am sure that it is difficult when persons state 'your not real policemen' and it would annoy me intensely if I was in your position. The law could be one hell of a lot clearer than it currently is. I do disagree with you quoting the 1996 Police Act, (it supports my position actually I think, both offences mention 'police force' ) but I will, at present ask that if I accept the valid status quo aspect as presented by Timothy Titus you allow me to add a paragraph at the bottom with the cited references explaining the grey area aspect. Is this fair? Dibble999 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.74.97.211 (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Many thanks Mowthegrass. As I said before, I quite agree with your view on WPP's success, but we must stick to the rules - WP:APT in this case. Thanks also for offering to seek out photos, which greatly improve most articles.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  09:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

One last time and then we really must agree to differ
In a final attempt to try and clarify the situation to all. The legislation WPP is set up under states:- Section 18 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 provides: “A local authority may procure officers appointed by them for securing the observance of the provisions of all the enactments relating to open spaces under their control or management and of the byelaws and regulations made thereunder to be sworn in as constables for that purpose but any such officer shall not act as a constable unless in uniform or provided with a warrant…”

Therefore, these are local authority or parks constables who, when outside of the park or designated open area act as any other member of the public with no specific police powers.

The Police Act 1996 s90 outlines the offence of impersonation:- (1) Any person who with intent to deceive impersonates a member of a police force or special constable, or makes any statement or does any act calculated falsely to suggest that he is such a member or constable, 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, not being a constable, wears any article of police uniform in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a member of a police force as to be calculated to deceive shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (3) Any person who, not being a member of a police force or special constable, has in his possession any article of police uniform shall, unless he proves that he obtained possession of that article lawfully and has possession of it for a lawful purpose, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. (4) In this section— (a) “article of police uniform” means any article of uniform or any distinctive badge or mark or document of identification usually issued to members of police forces or special constables, or anything having the appearance of such an article, badge, mark or document. As the constables of WPP are sworn constables they would be seen to have any articles and uniform lawfully (s90 (3))

s101 also adds clarification of a Police Force:- (1) Except where the context otherwise requires, in this Act— “police force” means a force maintained by a police authority;

Therefore WPP is not a police force

Now to answer points raised by mowthegrass:-

Whilst morally laudable that WPP deal with things that the met are to busy to deal with, if they act as police officers outside of their jurisdiction, any prosecution or action thereafter may ultimately cost the taxpayer a lot of money as a member of the legal profession proves that they acted unlawfully outside their prescribed powers.

Please explain in which way I have been rightous (sic) with Wikipedia (a humorous line about teddies to try and lighten what was becoming a series of vitriolic attacks) and how knowing many wheelchair users is relevant to this topic, or makes your argument more valid than someone else’s

On the plus side. We both dislike the anon contributors and editors who do nothing for the credibility of either argument We are both obviously passionate about our subject. We also both it seems, believe in the WPP as part of the extended police family, as you can see the constables of WPP have not been attacked at any time, merely having the question of their legal status and their jurisdiction raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief ironside (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More on the plus side.
Chief ironside, you refer to snippets of various acts out of context. The legislation you refer to is to clarify who is covered by the legislation not what police forces or service can call themselves. Nor does it outlaw local authority police constables or effect the powers given to them as sworn in WPP officers. Some of what you have written I passed by a member of the WPP. All this they have met before of course and have given me some interesting blogs from a specials website. The grey areas you people claim exist is easily settled. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Met and Wandsworth Council so both Forces know what to expect from each other with clear boundries established over the past 23 years or more. There is no grey area for the WPP only in the ignorant and over imaginative mind. After all no one has shown me one negative report on the accepted powers the WPP use.

Last thing could you tone down your personal opinons and keep them to when you are specifically mentioned in context to yourself. I merely pointed out the username you have chosen appears in bad taste and user names do effect credibility. As for your suggestions there are your personal opinions so I will ignore them thanks. Mowthegrass (talk) 07:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Mowthegrass, I have removed any comments which you feel are personal opinions and must ask that other contributors do likewise; including yourself, in the interests of equality.

The legislation quoted ‘out of context’ is that which you have outlined above in your postings! They quite obviously show that although not a police force, WPP have a lawful reason for ownership and use of police uniform.

As far as my username is concerned, I fail to see where you have plainly and openly stated it is in poor taste except for your last post. If it offends you, then accept my apologies, however as it has been a name associated with me for close to thirty years and one which friends and colleagues both able bodied and wheelchair user alike have used and stated was appropriate, it stays.

A fact which I keep repeating and which seems to be forgotten in your zealous defence is that I am a supporter of WPP as indeed of the entire extended police family and yes I do know they perform a good service within their remit. This has never been in question. However to portray them as police officers, which is what this wikipedia entry originally did, gave an incorrect assumption with potentially harnful ramifications to both WPP and the public perception thereof.

The point I have been trying to make (I cannot vouch for other posters both anon and signed on both sides) and which is constantly belittled as being derogatory is that you and doubtless other people coming into contact with WPP, may and do believe they are ‘full’ police officers at all times, thus creating the possible scenario as outlined in my last post, where a morally defensible act is in fact legally indefensible.

You seem to believe that we are diametrically opposed where in fact we are both travelling in the same direction but with differing viewpoints. If after this you still cannot see where I am coming from then I must bid you adieu. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief ironside (talk • contribs) 09:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Auf wiedersehen to you my friend it is not possible to stop the public assuming what suits them or me. Regards 212.85.28.67 (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And a final note from me...
Thank you Mowthegrass for the information that there is indeed a Memorandum of Understanding between the Met and WPP. I have unsuccessfully been trying to ascertain if there was one. See such memorandums linked for BTP, MOD police and CNC and Home Office forces which all outline the various forces powers, remits and limits. (BTP/Home Office force memorandum) MOD police/Home Office force memo) (CNC/Home Office force memo) If the memorandum of understanding for the WPP and Met is not restricted, (can’t see why it would be), would it be possible to link it so we can all see it.  It would clear up much and allow everyone to see officially how the Met legally sees things.

I will say this again just to make sure it is clear before I go on. I am in full support of the extended policing family including the WPP. Everyone’s aim is to catch the bad guys and make everyone’s life more safe and pleasant. My initial reason for editing and raising this issue in the first place was the uncertainty, from my reading and knowledge of the law and subsequent research, into what the actual legal position is with regard to London Borough Parks Constabularies and their constables. The grey area I have alluded to is in the Act that establishes the parks constabularies where it says (with grey area bit in bold),

“A local authority procure officers appointed by them for securing the observance of the provisions of all the enactments relating to open spaces under their control or management and of the byelaws and regulations made thereunder to be sworn in as constables for that purpose but any such officer shall not act as a constable unless in uniform or provided with a warrant….”   Sec 18 Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order etc etc Act 1967.

So this would appear to me (just reading the law involved) to say such constables have powers to enforce the bye-laws and regulations of the parks. Note it does not say anything about police. If you compare this legislation with the various Acts that set up the 43 Home Office forces, BTP, MOD police, Civil Nuclear Constabulary you will see that it specifically states that members of each force will have all the powers and privileges within their respective and varied jurisdictions (and also specifically mentions the term police force).

I also would point out that Chief Ironside, it would appear to me, has not quoted out of context and I follow his line of argument. The Police Act 1996 does specifically define ‘police force’ as a force maintained by a police authority, which all the forces mentioned do have, apart from Parks Constabularies. So under the main Act which establishes the main policing services in England & Wales, together with their officer’s powers it would appear that, as legally defined the parks constabularies are not police forces and certainly are not one of the listed police forces in Schedule 1 of that Act.

So there are definite issues and arguable points with the law. However I then did some further research and found the Newham Parks Constabulay report (see link above). Now, this constabulary is set up under the exact same Act as WPP quoted above. This report, which I believe was written by a solicitor and was looked at by legal counsel concluded that constables sworn in as parks constables under the 1967 Act are not police officers, have no police powers to enforce criminal law and the knock on legal issues of that (i.e. use of blue lights, batons etc). I didn’t come to this conclusion Newham did. The report is not irrelevant to the discussion as it is the exact same law as WPP is set up under and empowered.

I then found a Lords Committee report about Wandsworth Parks Police asking for police powers of stop search which they do not have. This again supports the argument that the Act that sets ups Parks constabularies only gives powers to enforce bye-laws not the powers automatically given to police officers of the Home Office, BTP, MOD and CNC police forces with all the powers and privileges in their respective jurisdictions. The committee heard from various witnesses including representatives of the WPP, the Met and Home Office. For various reasons no change was made to parks constabulary status following the committee.

At no point have I tried to have a dig at the WPP or its constables, in fact if you look I have stated I am sure they do a good job etc. I have merely read the law involved and found a related report and committee evidence, which all appears to raise legitimate questions which the article, when I found it, did not reflect and appeared to me to be incorrect. And looking around London it does look very haphazard at the very least. I have already mentioned Newham and their position. Hammersmith and Fulham appear to take a different line to WPP also in that they do not state they are police officers and do not use vehicles with blue lights fitted. No other parks constabulary from what I can gather state they are police (apart from Kensington & Chelsea Parks Police). It is a strange situation and I merely wish to clarify the situation so the article is correct, if not so already.

Please also note I have conceded Timothy Titus’s points regarding status quo and have not edited the article in any way until some consensus is reached on how and if the legal issues I have outlined (with cited references) can be incorporated. I have said my piece now and will leave it to others for a while to decide on a way forward with the article. All the best Dibble999 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dibble999 along as it is understood my Borough's WPP is as seperate from Newham Constabulary as WPP is seperate from the Met, GMP etc and all the critism (often unjustified)they receive. Regards Mowthegrass (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Other possibly similar forces
Firstly, thank you to everyone for the renewed sense of calm, order and politeness on this page - a credit to all.

Secondly, without wanting to stir things, it occured to me this evening to wonder how similar the various 'Parks Police' services are (in terms of status and authority) to the various 'Port Police' services. I ask this because I grew up near Dover, and have always been aware of the Port of Dover Police. I know that they too function as a 'private police service' (non-Home Office), justified by a particular Act of Parliament, and with members sworn-in as constables by the Dover Magistrates. To a layman like myself, it sounds like a very similar set-up. Certainly they operate in full police uniform, with marked vehicles with blue lights, etc. I presume that they have powers of stop and search, because in 2005 I was stopped and searched by officers from this force whilst on my way to France!  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Most ports police services are set up and empowered under section 79 of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Though some like the Port of Tilbury Police have seperate specific legislation.  These acts give ports police officers all the powers and privileges of a constable within there jurisdiction which is the land belonging to the port and five miles beyond the limits of such land.  So in answer to your question, yes within this jurisdiction such ports police officers are police and have all the powers, so they can stop search you as they did!  Now I don't want to stir things up again, but they are not the same as the issue at hand with this article.  The important bit is that ports police are set up in law as police and the bold bit regarding all the powers and privileges of its officers.  See my comments above regarding the legislation setting up Parks Constables and the powers which give them powers for the purpose of enforcing bye laws not all the powers and privileges.  That is the nub of the grey area I have pointed out.  Dibble999 (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Professionalism
I only wish to point out and not for debate that the WPP is not a private Police Force (which is unlawful)it is publicly funded and accountable. There is no grey areas as the WPP have a clear policy on what Police Powers and which 'any person powers' they use. Out of the hundreds of arrests (including Sec 25 now Sec 24 of PACE) and searches (allowed under certain any person offences and Sec 24 when applicable)there has never been a problem. Top that! I also would like to mention we are regarded by the Government as Crown Servants for all sorts of things such as the Official Secrets Act and do remember they were awarded the Queens Jubilee Police Medal. I proudly wear mine on numerous official occassions. TopCat666 (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi TopCat666 and thanks for your comments. On a different note, you sound as though you might possibly be in a position to assist with adding a useful photograph or photographs to this article. Do you think you might have anything suitable?  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  19:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Further queries raised by research
I have left this article alone for some time but have continued to conduct some research into parks constabularies, their legal status and recent history with the Met and Home Office etc. I must say that various sources I have looked at (which can be cited) really do call into question the legal position of WPP and as a result some of the assertions made in this article. One aspect which has constantly become apparent from Lords committees, legislation, written legal opinions, sources from various London borough reports (including Wandsworth Borough Council) is that constables of parks constabularies do not have police powers of arrest in relation to crime nor the other main 'tools' of a police officers range of powers such as stop search powers. What these various sources are saying is that the London borough parks constables are not police officers. This would appear to me to be readily apparant to a neutral viewer as the average person would generally state that what makes a police officer different to a member of the public is police powers of arrest and stop search etc all of which WPP constables do not have.

That of course is not to say that Wandsworth Parks Constables don't have certain powers in relation to bye-laws in the parks and open spaces of Wandsworth. Of course they do have these executive powers. But many organisations have such limited executive powers, such as environmental health officers in relation to noise and dumping, VOSA operatives stopping cars and examining them, DSS fraud investigators with benefit fraudsters and immigration officers arresting illegal immigrants. None of these organisations purport to be police officers even though they do have limited executive powers. It seems to me, following my research that WPP have latched on to the term constable and made a massive leap into a grey area of becoming a 'Parks Police Service' with 'Parks Police Officers' none of which has any citable basis in law. Various legal opinions I have located on the web support this view. This then transfers to the article.

Some the assertions made in the article are not supported by the more recent reports produced by committees at Wandsworth Council itself following the introduction of the Serious and Organised Crime Act. Other items are open to other viewpoints and have been added previously under a section I added called "Questions over status" which has repeatedly been deleted even though it was referenced. I will be looking over the coming weeks to edit the article bit by bit to reflect citable and verifiable facts or citable and verifiable differing opinions such as the deleted "Questions over status" section.

I will discuss each change I propose to make to the article on this discussion page prior to editing to allow others to raise objections with citable facts and sources and to discuss any disagreements to try and reach a concensus to avoid editing battles. None of the above is in anyway an attempt to have a dig at the WPP. When all is said and done they are part of the extended policing family (whatever their powers are (joke)!) and they no doubt have a good and positive impact on reducing crime. Can I request that if any editors connected with the WPP are able to produce the memorandum of understanding between the WPP and the Met this would be very useful. Regards Dibble999 (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Adult discussion please
I have found today my comments in the previous section erased for no good reason. I have tried to be reasonable and suggest a way forward with discussed editing of the article. On looking at the history of this page it would appear that certain people have been removing or deleting contributions that they do not agree with. This is not on. As I have written above I will commence to go through the article bit by bit discussing any proposed edits (with cited reasons) on this page. Can I ask that we give this a chance. There are obviously opposed views on this subject but if we just keep deleting and reverting we will achieve nothing and really does call into question the strength of argument of those who keep arbitarily deleting things on this page. Dibble999 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anti WPP website.
Nigel This is not the place for your unqualified view and attacks or for you to pillory the WPP. There is definitely an hidden agenda here why not just start an anti WPP website? TopCat666 (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet more deletion
It would appear that a certain editor has yet again deleted my recent reasonable entries on this page and added a rant about a supposed anti WPP vendetta (and who is Nigel?!). Any neutral person please view the history tag of this page to see what I mean. You should not delete discussion page entries it is not on and does nothing to strengthen your position. Topcat, hold fast and wait for the cited evidence as to my reasonable discussion points. Please Topcat do not delete discussion page entries again. I am quite happy to discuss the points one by one over the next few days. Dibble999 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Dibble999 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep Nigel or Dibble999, Nigel quite simply the article is factual do not attempt to turn it into an anti WPP blog. Write to the WPP and you will find they have had a legal opinion to say they have stop and search. According to you this evidence is enough (when you didn't think we had it). Find yourself another soapbox for your anti WPP powers personal opinion. Oh yes I will not justify our powers to you so carry on as you know you have no argument. You know you have to actually cite and not merely say you have bless the delete button. 92.5.175.180 (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete entries on this page. I'm extremely interested to hear that WPP have had a legal opinion that they do have stop search. Can you cite this evidence or is 'what you have been told'. I will tommorrow add my citations for my viewpoint and reason for wishing to edit the article. Can I ask that you in turn note that from the start I have used citations from the House of Lords Committee in 2003, the report into Newham Parks Constabulary (set up under the same legislation as WPP) and actual police legislation. (I have since found other interesting sources which will add to the discussion) Looking through the entries above I cannot see any citable evidence to rebutt any of the assertions made by myself (and others) that WPP constables are not police officers etc. If I'm wrong fine, just link the citable evidence or opinion to back this up. At the moment the article is using terms such as 'police service' this is not a legal term, 'parks police officer' which is not supported in the legislation and other bits.

Can I also point out that no-one has recently arbitarily edited the article itself. I have merely tried to discuss the issues on this page prior to any editing of the article itself once all have had a chance to discuss the issues. Can I ask all to have the courtesy to not delete entries on this page and to allow fair discussion on the issues in this article. I will add all my citations tommorow when I have more time... Dibble999 (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You wanted facts, try these...
Apologies to all for a large entry on this discussion page but read on to see why I felt this necessary due other editors with fingers on deletion buttons. To those editors, read this first, then discuss don’t delete if you’re so sure. Here are the facts you wanted…

Here is my citable objections to the article in full. Lets start with Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) itself which is the organisation that set up, employs, empowers and is responsible for the WPP.

WBC Report 06/456 - This report outlines proposals that had been made by WBC to gain Special Constable powers for the WPP. This was not possible as only the Met can ‘employ’ Special Constables in Greater London (discounting BTP for the moment). Why did WBC try to do this? Because of this, quote:

“Parks Police Powers. Officers do not have the powers of a Constable to enforce general law (i.e. the same powers as a Metropolitan Police Officer) but they are able to use the powers of arrest, as set out in Section 24(A) PACE available to any person. These are now known as ‘Other Persons Powers’ and in the event that a Parks Police Constable has to use these powers, they are fully trained in their definition and application, unlike a normal citizen. Parks Police Constables are also able to effect an arrest by virtue of Section 24 PACE, ‘Arrest Without Warrant – Constables’. Such a power of arrest can only be used in cases of doubt / failure to provide correct personal details when dealing with and enforcing bye-laws. The power that remains unavailable to Parks Police Officers is the power to arrest on suspicion of an offence being committed.” Paragraph 5 of WBC 06/456 (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf)

This quite clearly states that parks constables only have constable powers to arrest in relation to enforcing bye-law offences, and then only when name and address details cannot be ascertained or are doubted. When it come to any other offence they must use the same powers as any member of the public. And, due to the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCAP) changes to citizens arrest powers have been further limited with certain necessity criteria having to be met (oh and its only indictable offences that citizens can arrest for). (There are also issues with the WBC using the term ‘Parks Police Constable’ but I shall come to that later.)

Paragraph 9 of the same report states: “…Currently, the Parks Police have no powers of stop and search under Section 1 of PACE and this further highlights where Parks Police powers are limited, especially when dealing with potentially dangerous suspects who may be armed but cannot be searched. Indeed when the Parks Police arrest a suspect and take the person to the Metropolitan custody suite, they cannot search the individual who may well be armed with a knife or other weapon. This places constables of the Parks Police and Metropolitan Police in danger.” (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf)

Again, quite clearly this states WPP do not have powers of Section 1 PACE stop search. The rest of the paragraph is a bit of a grey area and does not make sense. If a parks constable has arrested someone for a bye-law offence as outlined above, they will have section 32 PACE search powers of the person. If, they have arrested as a member of the public whilst adhering to SOCAP’s requirements) they do have common law and Criminal Law Act powers to use force and search to prevent harm to themselves or others.

On to WBC Report 06/812. This is for the benefit of those arguing that WPP are crown servants. Paragraph 16(b) states:

“Issuing of CS / Pepper Spray. The possibility of issuing Parks Police Officers with CS/pepper spray was investigated. The sprays are considered prohibited weapons under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, and as Parks Police Officers are not Crown Servants - who are exempted from the prohibition it would be a criminal offence for them to carry such sprays.” (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf)

Clearly WPP are not crown servants which police officers are. Also as a result CS is quite clearly not permitted to be used by WPP.

We then move on to the Lords Committee session in 2003 when WPP requested police powers to be given to them in a upcoming Bill. Witnesses at this committee quite clearly stated that WPP do not have police powers. Paragraphs 532 and 535 for example. Despite requests for police powers this was rejected after the Lords heard from a Home Office and Metropolitan Police witness. (This led to the WPP asking to be Special Constables as outlined above which was also not possible) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldllauno/30219/3021901.htm)

There are a small number of London Borough Parks Constabularies all set up under the same Act as WPP. I was interested to see how they viewed their constabularies as this has direct relevance to the WPP due to the same law being used for all parks constabularies. This revealed some further interesting items (all freely available via the web):

Newham borough council had a parks constabulary which got into some difficulty due to accusations of over stepping their legal powers and other issues. A report was commissioned by Newham Council. The report is 67 pages long but in short it states that parks constables are not police officers. As a result it goes on to outline issues that could arise if parks constables give the impression they are police officers and also points out that use of batons and blue lights are not legal for parks constables. It is very clear, and as a result alterations were made to Newham’s Parks Constabulary. (http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ED1C2C59-4028-4BFA-AA8A-3AFF6F389882/0/asbr.pdf)

Barking & Dagenham have a parks constabulary which changed its name to Barking & Dagenham Parks Police. Again it was very interesting to read the report made at the time of this change together with the legal opinions especially when it comes to batons, blue lights and the name change itself. Quoting from legal opinion of Stewart-Price associates:

“Change of name If the name of the organisation is to be changed to ‘Parks Police’ the constables should be told that they must not at any time do or say anything which may lead members of the public to believe that they have all the powers of a police constable. Authority to carry batons Despite the views of the Metropolitan Police Chief Inspector a change of name does NOT provide lawful authority to possess a baton, expanding or otherwise. Lawful authority is now provided by Section 6 of the Police Reform Act 2002 but this only applies to members of a police force i.e. a force as defined in the Police Act 1996 or some other primary legislation. Use and fitting of ‘blue lights’ It is true that if requested to attend a scene urgently by the Metropolitan Police it would be arguable that the vehicle was being driven for a policing purpose, legitimising the use of blue lights on a road. However, the Health and Safety Executive take the view that driving a vehicle in this mode constitutes using dangerous machinery and the driver must receive adequate training. The constables should be instructed that they are not to use a blue light on a road whilst the vehicle is in motion.” (http://moderngov.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/Published/C00000180/M00001479/AI00005057/$DLESTinaRobinsonFutureoftheParksConstabularyAppendixB2.1FINAL.docA.ps.pdf)

A fuller legal opinion goes on to explain and define the term 'police force' (there is no such organisation as a police service legally). Instead of quoting the full report please follow this link: (http://moderngov.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/Published/C00000180/M00001479/AI00005057/DLESTinaRobinsonFutureoftheParksConstabularyAppenidxAandB2FINAL.pdf) The last paragraph of this report is worrying and of direct relevance to the WPP. In brief the report states that in its legal opinion, use of blue lights on the highway and the carrying of batons is not permitted for parks constabularies. It also states that care should be taken with the term Parks Police. This is the final council report (http://moderngov.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/Published/C00000180/M00001479/AI00005057/$DLESTinaRobinsonFutureoftheParksConstabularyCoveringReport1FINAL.docA.ps.pdf) written following the advice quoted.

With all the above and my previous submissions I would request that the article is edited thus:

(1) Wandswork Parks Police is legally a London borough parks constabulary not a police service. Police service is not a legal term (and it is certainly not a police force which is legally defined as above) and, as has been sufficiently outlined above its members are not police officers. So I propose that the first line of the article is edited accordingly.

(2) Under Legal Status - The sentence regarding working with the Met is irrelevant to this section. It should be placed elsewhere.

(3) Under Legal Status - As I have outlined in all the cited references, constables of the WPP are not Police Constables and second sentence needs to be edited accordingly. (as well as later in the paragraph)

(4) Under Legal Status - Constables of the WPP only have police powers to enforce bye-laws in the parks and open spaces (as outlined above). They have no police powers to enforce statute law. This bit needs to be removed.

(5) Under Legal Status - The last sentence of the paragraph is incorrect. They are never parks police officers (the term is not legal) but parks constables. Giving any other impression is dodgy ground as outlined above.

(6) Under Staffing - As they are not police officers they cannot be police sergeants, a defined rank in a police force (which WPP is not). I suggest the term 'sergeant' is used in the article instead.

(7) Under Vehicles - WPP must have special dispensation to drive motor vehicles on a road with blues and two's fitted especially if these are used whilst moving. Otherwise they are committing an offence. I would be interested to hear how WPP have overcome this issue.

And finally and repeatedly I am not trying to have a go at the WPP merely find the truth regarding their status so the article reflects reality. Throughout my research I have noted that they have assisted the Met on many occassions to great effect and also play a positive part in reducing crime and public safety.

To all, can we discuss my proposed edits prior to any deletion of my comments for a change. Regards Dibble999 (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your misquotes, wordsmithing and deliberate misuse of Wiki.
These are not facts, you want it both ways there are lots of misnomers below for starters we have Stop & Search now, we make arrests under PACE for suspicion of committing or about commit a bye-law offence. I'll be back to edit the rest of this for now I have commented in italics. I think it is a shame you are interfering with things that are none of your business with such bias and ignorance. Also we are sworn in as Constables in its simplest form not 'parks' cited in '''Section 18 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 provides:

“A local authority may procure officers appointed by them for securing the observance of the provisions of all the enactments relating to open spaces under their control or management and of the byelaws and regulations made thereunder to be sworn in as constables for that purpose but any such officer shall not act as a constable unless in uniform or provided with a warrant…”

Section 19 provides:

“Any constable or any officer of a local authority authorised in writing to enforce byelaws having effect in relation to an open space and any person called to the assistance of such constable or officer may, without other warrant than this order, seize and detain any person committing or having committed any offence against such byelaws whose name or residence is unknown to and cannot be ascertained by such officer or constable and take him to a police station or before a justice to be dealt with according to law. Provided that any officer or constable acting under this article and not being a constable in uniform shall have with him a written authority from the local authority to act and shall produce the same if required.” TopCat666 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)'''

Apologies to all for a large entry on this discussion page but read on to see why I felt this necessary due other editors with fingers on deletion buttons. To those editors, read this first, then discuss don’t delete if you’re so sure. Here are the facts you wanted… Apology is about the first sensible thing you have offered the WPP.

Here is my ex citable objections to the article in full. Lets start with Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) itself which is the organisation that set up, employs, empowers and is responsible for the WPP.

WBC Report 06/456 - This report outlines proposals that had been made by WBC to gain Special Constable powers for the WPP. This was not possible as only the Met can ‘employ’ Special Constables in Greater London conviently you ignore the City of London  ''(discounting BTP for the moment). Why did WBC try to do this? Because of this, quote:

“Parks Police Powers. Officers do not have the powers of a Constable to enforce general law (i.e. the same powers as a Metropolitan Police Officer) but they are able to use the powers of arrest, as set out in Section 24(A) PACE available to any person. These are now known as ‘Other Persons Powers’ and in the event that a Parks Police Constable has to use these powers, they are fully trained in their definition and application, unlike a normal citizen. Parks Police Constables are also able to effect an arrest by virtue of Section 24 PACE, ‘Arrest Without Warrant – Constables’. Such a power of arrest can only be used in cases of doubt / failure to provide correct personal details when dealing with and enforcing bye-laws. The power that remains unavailable to Parks Police Officers is the power to arrest on suspicion of an offence being committed.” Paragraph 5 of WBC 06/456 (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf) Apart from byelaws where we have full powers so what is your point?

This quite clearly states that parks constables only have constable powers to arrest in relation to enforcing bye-law offences, and then only when name and address details cannot be ascertained or are doubted. Wrong you have made up the former about byelaw arrests you naughty boy. When it come to any other offence they must use the same powers as any member of the public. And, due to the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCAP) changes to citizens arrest powers have been further limited with certain necessity criteria having to be met (oh and its only indictable offences that citizens can arrest for). (There are also issues with the WBC using the term ‘Parks Police Constable’ but I shall come to that later.) Breach of the Peace is not indictable yet power of arrest for everyone oh have you got it wrong how can this be when you are such an expert.

Paragraph 9 of the same report states: “…Currently, the Parks Police have no powers of stop and search under Section 1 of PACE except where byelaws apply and this further highlights where Parks Police powers are limited, especially when dealing with potentially dangerous suspects who may be armed but cannot be searched. Indeed when the Parks Police arrest a suspect and take the person to the Metropolitan custody suite, they cannot search the individual who may well be armed with a knife or other weapon. Always have searched prisoners to Prevent a Breach of the Peace when I deemed it necessary. under This places constables of the Parks Police and Metropolitan Police in danger.” Thanks for your concern we are trained to the highest Home Office standard in Officer Safety by our own qualified Trainers.

(http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf) Wandsworth now have decided we we can use Stop & Search for variuos byelaw offences.

Again, quite clearly wrongly now this states WPP do not have powers of Section 1 PACE stop search. The rest of the paragraph is a bit of a grey area and does not make sense. If a parks constable has arrested someone for a bye-law offence as outlined above, they will have section 32 PACE search powers of the person. If, they have arrested as a member of the public whilst adhering to SOCAP’s requirements) they do have common law and Criminal Law Act powers to use force and search to prevent harm to themselves or others. Why didn't you put this in further up save me putting it in?

On to WBC Report 06/812. This is for the benefit of those arguing that WPP are crown servants. Paragraph 16(b) states:

“Issuing of CS / Pepper Spray. The possibility of issuing Parks Police Officers with CS/pepper spray was investigated. The sprays are considered prohibited weapons under Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, and as Parks Police Officers are not Crown Servants - who are exempted from the prohibition it would be a criminal offence for them to carry such sprays.” (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf)

Clearly WPP are not crown servants which police officers are. Also as a result CS is quite clearly not permitted to be used by WPP. Again what has this to do with Crown Servants Tax Collectors are Crown Servants and do not carry CS what is this clutch at straws?

We then move on to the Lords Committee session in 2003 when WPP requested police powers to be given to them in a upcoming Bill. Witnesses at this committee quite clearly stated that WPP do not have police powers. Paragraphs 532 and 535 for example. Despite requests for police powers this was rejected after the Lords heard from a Home Office and Metropolitan Police witness. (This led to the WPP asking to be Special Constables as outlined above which was also not possible) (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldllauno/30219/3021901.htm)

There are a small number of London Borough Parks Constabularies all set up under the same Act as WPP. I was interested to see how they viewed their constabularies as this has direct relevance to the WPP due to the same law being used for all parks constabularies. This revealed some further interesting items (all freely available via the web):

Newham borough council had a parks constabulary which got into some difficulty due to accusations of over stepping their legal powers and other issues. A report was commissioned by Newham Council. The report is 67 pages long but in short it states that parks constables are not police officers. Taken out of context by you. As a result it goes on to outline issues that could arise if parks constables give the impression they are police officers and also points out that use of batons and blue lights are not legal for parks constables. It is very clear, and as a result alterations were made to Newham’s Parks Constabulary. This last paragraph is nonsense and you put your name to this. (http://www.newham.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/ED1C2C59-4028-4BFA-AA8A-3AFF6F389882/0/asbr.pdf)

Barking & Dagenham have a parks constabulary which changed its name to Barking & Dagenham Parks Police. Again it was very interesting to read the report made at the time of this change together with the legal opinions especially when it comes to batons, blue lights and the name change itself. Quoting from legal opinion of Stewart-Price associates:

“Change of name If the name of the organisation is to be changed to ‘Parks Police’ the constables should be told that they must not at any time do or say anything which may lead members of the public to believe that they have all the powers of a police constable. Who can disagree with this sound advice do you recommend they try to enforce their police powers with banners around them please do not confuse me with the Holy Met or Nigel's nose will be out of joint? Authority to carry batons Despite the views of the Metropolitan Police Chief Inspector who they are ten a pennya change of name does NOT provide lawful authority to possess a baton, expanding or otherwise. Lawful authority is now provided by Section 6 of the Police Reform Act 2002 but this only applies to members of a police force i.e. a force as defined in the Police Act 1996 or some other primary legislation. Rubbish you should know this does not apply to constables shouldn't you? Use and fitting of ‘blue lights’ It is true that if requested to attend a scene urgently by the Metropolitan Police it would be arguable that the vehicle was being driven for a policing purpose, legitimising the use of blue lights on a road. However, the Health and Safety Executive take the view that driving a vehicle in this mode constitutes using dangerous machinery and the driver must receive adequate training. The constables should be instructed that they are not to use a blue light on a road whilst the vehicle is in motion.” Up to the driver to make this decision do not lose sleep over it. (http://moderngov.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/Published/C00000180/M00001479/AI00005057/$DLESTinaRobinsonFutureoftheParksConstabularyAppendixB2.1FINAL.docA.ps.pdf)

A fuller legal opinion goes on to explain and define the term 'police force' (there is no such organisation as a police service legally). Instead of quoting the full report please follow this link: (http://moderngov.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/Published/C00000180/M00001479/AI00005057/DLESTinaRobinsonFutureoftheParksConstabularyAppenidxAandB2FINAL.pdf) The last paragraph of this report is worrying to who? and of direct relevance to the WPP no it isn't. In brief the report states that in its legal opinion, use of blue lights on the highway and the carrying of batons is not permitted for parks constabularies. It also states that care should be taken with the term Parks Police. This is the final council report (http://moderngov.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/Published/C00000180/M00001479/AI00005057/$DLESTinaRobinsonFutureoftheParksConstabularyCoveringReport1FINAL.docA.ps.pdf) written following the advice quoted.

With all the above and my previous submissions I would request that the article is edited thus:

(1) Wandswork Parks Police is legally a London borough parks constabulary not a police service. Police service is not a legal term (and it is certainly not a police force which is legally defined as above) and, as has been sufficiently outlined above its members are not police officers. So I propose that the first line of the article is edited accordingly. No way you are wrong

(2) Under Legal Status - The sentence regarding working with the Met is irrelevant to this section. It should be placed elsewhere. ''Is it no bias from you then Nige. No way leave it''

(3) Under Legal Status - As I have outlined in all the cited references, constables of the WPP are not Police Constables and second sentence needs to be edited accordingly. (as well as later in the paragraph) You have proved nothing leave it.

(4) Under Legal Status - Constables of the WPP only have police powers to enforce bye-laws in the parks and open spaces (as outlined above). They have no police powers to enforce statute law. This bit needs to be removed. The term enactments mean we enforce parts of the Road Traffic Act for driving off road in parks with no byelaws which we have had convictions in court stick that in your hat.

(5) Under Legal Status - The last sentence of the paragraph is incorrect. They are never parks police officers (the term is not legal) but parks constables. Giving any other impression is dodgy ground as outlined above. ''No such thing I agree we are constables who happen to Police the parks. Constable is the same as Police Constable as in PC Plod''

(6) Under Staffing - As they are not police officers they cannot be police sergeants, a defined rank in a police force (which WPP is not). I suggest the term 'sergeant' is used in the article instead. Rubbish people can be sergeant as in drill sergeant etc in anything whether you agree or not.

(7) Under Vehicles - WPP must have special dispensation to drive motor vehicles on a road with blues and two's fitted especially if these are used whilst moving. Otherwise they are committing an offence. I would be interested to hear how WPP have overcome this issue. This is your personal statement no one has 'special dispensation' you are making this up.

And finally and repeatedly I am not trying to have a go at the WPP merely find the truth regarding their status so the article reflects reality. Throughout my research you are joking you have cut and pasted other peoples work which is mostly unrelated to the WPP. I have noted that they have assisted the Met on many occassions to great effect and also play a positive part in reducing crime and public safety.

I have lent you half hour of my time I hope it is not wasted on you and you turn your attention to something more worthwhile. TopCat666 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

At last, we have a discussion! My final thoughts
Topcat, thankyou for your reply. You will be pleased to hear I will not be adding anything further to this article (providing there is no deletion) after this. I will leave it for others to decide on the issues in the article. As yet, I have seen no cited sources to back up your claims.

All the different sources I have quoted are either directly related to the WPP or to parks constabularies as a whole. Point of law, but if Newham Parks Constabulary are set up under the exact same Act as WPP then the powers, issues and legal opinions used by them will be relevant to the WPP because it’s the exact same piece of law. So the fact that a report into Newham Parks Constabulary concludes that constables of parks constabularies are not police officers then has probative weight to my point that WPP constables are not police officers as both organisations are set up under the same Act.

My quotes have described two (at least) other parks constabularies that state that constables of parks constabularies are not police constables and indeed there is some sourced material that suggests constables of parks constabularies should not portray themselves as police officers for legal reasons.

There are no misquotes whatsoever and I have linked all the sources for my viewpoint. There is no deliberate misuse of Wiki. (This accusation coming from someone who kept deleting my reasonable discussion points is a bit rich!). It is my belief (and it would appear others as well) that the article is not accurate of the legal position. And with respect, apart from the article trying to be accurate another reason why this is mine and everyone else’s business (in the UK at least) is that executive powers such as arrest powers bring with them many responsibilities, and if there is an organisation portraying themselves as a police force with police officers with no legal basis this needs to be commented on in the article.

You have quoted Section 18 of the Ministry of Housing (etc etc..) Act. Yes, I did this earlier above. This does nothing to support your argument. I have not disputed at any point that they are constables able to enforce bye-laws. But this does not make them police constables. (I used the term ’parks constables’ as they constables in a park but I’ll stop that if it offends)

Right, I shall now reply to your italicised points made throughout my last input (ignoring personal attacks):

“conviently you ignore the City of London” - No I didn’t. The City of London is separate from Greater London (which is what I mentioned) in so far as the City Police do not come under the MPA partly made up of GLA members which looks after the the Met. The City local authority (can’t remember what they’re called at the moment) are the police authority for the City and are not part of Greater London policing which is the responsibility of the Met.

“Apart from bye laws where we have full powers so what is your point?”  - My point, sir, is that if this is the extent of your powers, I.e. bye laws, then calling yourselves police officers is a bit of a stretch. Environmental Health officers, VOSA operatives, Immigration officers and many others have powers which are far more serious than parks bye-laws. They, however do not call themselves police officers which you do with far less powers.

“Wrong you have made up the former about byelaw arrests you naughty boy” No I didn’t. it’s a quote, from a WBC report, follow the link.

“Breach of the Peace is not indictable yet power of arrest for everyone oh you got it wrong how can this be when you are such an expert.”  Wrong again. You really do need to study your law. Breach of Peace is not an offence, indictable, triable either way or summary. Read what I wrote, I was talking about offences and said “…it is only indictable offences that citizens can arrest for”. Anyone can indeed arrest for Breach of Peace, but this is not a criminal offence.

You have then added to a quote from a WBC report regarding the unavailability of Section 1 PACE searches for constables of parks constabularies adding, ''“…except where byelaws apply”. '' Really? So has WBC policy changed since that WBC report? Has primary legislation changed? I know primary legislation has not changed and there is nothing on the WBC report database stating this. If your telling me WPP are conducting Section 1 PACE searches for byelaw offences you are on very very thin ice. As you know section 1 PACE searches can only be conducted if the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect he/she will find stolen or prohibited articles, offensive weapons, articles for use in criminal damage, and certain fireworks in certain circumstances. All of these items are squarely in the criminal law arena and I am struggling to realistically think what bye law breaches you would need to search for. Section 1 PACE searches are a potentially tricky issue and you need to be very careful.

Again further down the WBC quote from paragraph 9 (I didn’t write the quote WBC did) you have added, ''“Always have searched prisoners to prevent a breach of the peace when I deemed it necessary”. '' You have to be kidding! You have no power of search under breach of the peace.

And towards the end of the paragraph 9 quote you have written, “Thanks for your concern we are trained to the highest Home Office standard in Officer Safety by our own qualified trainers. I was showing no concern (though do be careful, of course), you are making comments to a quote from the WBC report not me, that’s what the quotation marks are for!

Now this comment really does beggar belief: “Wandsworth have now decided we can use Stop & Search powers for various byelaw offences.”  What legally has changed since the report two years ago when Wandsworth said you couldn‘t. How can Wandsworth Council suddenly change primary legislation? Stop Search is full of problems if not used properly and legally. Parliament gave police officers this power to tackle various forms of crime. I can’t see the intention to have been that people could be searched for parks bye laws! Its like saying police officers can search someone merely for speeding or other traffic offences (which they can’t) most of which will have stiffer penalties than parks bye-laws. Which particular bye-laws require you to search for stolen items, offensive weapons etc which is squarely in the criminal arena.

I then went on to quote another WBC report which states that as constables of parks constabularies they are not Crown Servants and cannot carry CS. You said ''“Again what has this to do with Crown Servants. Tax collectors are Crown servants and do not carry CS what is this clutch at straws?”'' No - previous editors tried to state that constables of parks constabularies were crown servants and were police officers. I merely wished to clarify that they are not and frankly this is major point in arguing that constables in these constabularies are not police officers. Tax collectors are civil servants. The only other crown servants I am aware of apart from police officers are the armed forces and certain members of the security services. No straws or clutches there!

I then went onto the Newham report which I linked in its entirety for anyone to read which states categorically that constables in parks constabularies are not police officers. You said ''“Taken out of context by you”. '' What?! Its there in black and white. Its about parks constabularies and its very relevant. I really don’t understand what you mean. You also said “This last paragraph is nonsense and you put your name to this” I’ve reread the paragraph just to make sure and it makes sense to me. And its what the cited report says.

I then quoted legal advice from Stewart-Price Associates about constables of parks constabularies being warned not to portray themselves as police constables. You wrote, “ Who can disagree with this sound advice do you recommend they try to enforce their police powers with banners around them please do not confuse me with the Holy Met or Nigel’s nose will be out of joint” First of all, who is Nigel? Secondly the Met is not Holy by any means. Thirdly you only have police powers to enforce bye laws so what would be the problem in portraying yourself as what you are - constables of parks constabularies. Fourthly - there are all sorts of legal issues and problems that may accrue to you as individuals or the organisation if something goes wrong and people were under the misapprehension that you were police constables. Fifthly - are you suggesting that you should try and pretend to be police constables or not be clear, thus giving people a false impression?

I then quoted legal opinion regarding the law regarding and batons I was frankly amazed by what you wrote. “Rubbish, you should know this does not apply to constables” Firstly, you commented on a quote of a legal opinion, not comments by me. Secondly, the act which gives police constables lawful authority to carry batons is the Police Reform Act 2002. (There was some debate over this issue prior to this time) However this act and the lawful authority it conveys only applies to police constables of the Police Act 1996 (Home Office forces) or other primary legislation forces such as BTP or MOD police. Not parks constabularies.

Your comment regarding use of blue lights does not answer the point raised. WPP is not a ’police force’ nor fire or ambulance service so its not just up to the driver as you think.

The report quoted from Dagenham regarding use of batons is of direct relevance to WPP despite your comments, as it states it believes arming constables of parks constabularies is illegal (in its view) and states it awaits to see what may happen in Wandsworth.

And lastly my proposed edits numbered 1 to 7 which I still believe stand and can be read above. I have quoted your comments to my edit proposals with my reply:

(1) “No way you are wrong” - No I’m not. Legally a police force is defined under the Police Act 1996 and certain other forces such as BTP. WPP is not one of these. It is a body of constables (a constabulary) which enforces bye laws in parks and open spaces. It is a parks constabulary not a police service.

(2) ''“Is it no bias from then Nige. No way leave it”'' Again who is Nige? Why is the Met in the legal status bit? You must work with other council departments and organisations but they’re not under the section of legal status. A legal status section should surely be about just that. Why mention another organisation. By all means place this in another area but not in this section.

(3) “You have proved nothing leave it”  Sorry, but constables of parks constabularies are not, nor ever have been police constables. I have cited several sources which point this out. You have not provided one item which rebuts this. And look at it by common sense. Police constables enforce criminal law, constable of parks constabularies have no police powers to do this. Ergo - not police constables.

(4) “The term enactments mean we enforce parts of the Road Traffic Act for driving off road in the parks with no bye-laws which we have had convictions in court stick that in your hat.”  Well, well done on the convictions. That does not prove you have police powers in relation to that issue however. Anyone can prosecute anyone for any offence if they know how. Did the summons/report go through a Met traffic file unit. Did the CPS prosecute or was it via private prosecution of the council? My point being, many organisations deal with criminal offences but that does not make them police officers or have police powers such as Benefits Agency Fraud Investigators, VOSA operatives etc etc

(5) ''“No such thing as I agree we are constables who happen to police the parks. Constable is the same as Police Constable as in PC Plod”'' Sorry, no. I have explained this repeatedly above. Constables of Parks Constabularies are not Police Constables. Nothing in the Ministry of Housing etc Act under which WPP constables are attested makes them Police Constables. The law in question confirms this and the various legal opinions and reports I have quoted also assert this. No sourced material has suggested otherwise.

(6) “Rubbish people can be sergeant as in drill sergeant etc in anything whether you agree or not”  Er I actually agree that you can be a sergeant of anything as per my initial comment. What I dispute is the term Police Sergeant much in the same way as the issue with Police Constable.

(7) “This is a personal statement no one has special dispensation you are making this up”  I don’t think you have read correctly what I wrote. WPP is not legally a police service, fire or ambulance service so would not legally be allowed to use blue lights. My question was, do you have special dispensation? Otherwise how do you get around the traffic offence of displaying a blue light when not authorised?

And finally towards the end you have said “You are joking, you have cut and pasted other peoples work which is mostly unrelated to the WPP” I’m not sure what sort of research you have done before but what I have done is research i. e. gathered cited information from various sources and put them together to support a viewpoint. It is a recognised way of doing things. All of it is relevant to the WPP, all references are either directly related to WPP or parks constabularies as organisations of which WPP is one. Hardly unrelated.

I will now leave the article alone (as long as no deletion of the discussion page occurs) for others to decide on the merits of both sides of the argument and edit as they see fit.

Topcat, no offence was intended to you or the WPP. I am aware that you do have a positive effect on crime reduction and public safety in Wandsworth Parks. As I have said throughout, I am trying to create an accurate article which, for all the reasons above I do not believe it is. However I will now leave to others to decide... Regards Dibble999 (talk) 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Take some think time
Nigel, are you really that niave that you think you are cleverer then all the expert legal opinions that allow the WPP to operate? and by quoting other equally niave personal opinions (mostly political) against anti-non Home Office Police Constables whether parks,docks etc. None of these are stated cases against any of the Police Forces you pit them against.

Fortunately the WPP Site may be deleted and experts like yourself who appear wasted in a wooden top job can whinge about someone else. No I am not offended by what you write, but I will not mince my words and do not care much what warnings and threats you get administrators to pressure me with. This is my free speech and when work committments permit I will have my say and instead I will comment on what is added and reserve the right to undo or remove from the article anything that is added that is wrong. You see I am the expert on WPP and I would not be so crass usually to state this unlike you and others who just happen a be in a job mop's thought at one time was credible. We will carry on regardless of this article as it makes no difference and let the Custody Officers worry about grey areas we can seldom wait the 30 to 40 minutes it takes for our Battersea colleagues to arrive to to help a victim we come across outside a park and will take the offender into the Police Station ourselves. Please do not expect me to spell out what powers we use for this go on your beloved PLND site and cobble something together against it without my help. If you are still reading this think about the unecessary time wasted on a subject a undo button easily puts right and go on specials.com where you will find real support from people we rejected as Police Constables. Final note (and I loathe to put this) with 25 years Policing in both the Met & WPP don't patronize me with your 10. Anyway ref break over I will go out and stick on a cyclist who knows it could be Bin Laden. TopCat666 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tried to make NPOV
in the course of my edits, i have changed some wording. firstly, i made all instances of 'Constable' lower case - this is the form provided for in the 1967 act: "“A local authority may procure officers appointed by them for securing the observance of the provisions of all enactments relating to open spaces under their control or management and of byelaws and regulations made thereunder to be sworn in as constables for that purpose but any such officer shall not act as a constable unless in uniform or provided with a warrant.”"

secondly, i removed instances of the word 'Police'. The Newham report, which applies to all constables attested under the 1967 Act, is quite clear on the useage of this word under the section entitled 'The use of the word "police"'. ninety:one 16:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is a good thing to cite. Topcat666, this is not opinion, this is cited in reliable sources.  Please do not remove them.  Chris  lk02  Chris Kreider 16:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of officers and vehicles
I have previously removed sections containing a list of all operational vehicles and a table with all the different types of officers emplyed by this agency. I felt and still feel that this informaiton is unencylopedic. My actions have been questioned so I have started a thread at wikiproject law enforcement to get some other opinions on this matter. If there is no input from this project, I will gladly start a request for comment to get the opinions of those outside of the regular editors of this page. Discussion has been started here. Chris lk02  Chris Kreider 19:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Newham Report has an opinion not shared by Wandsworth we have police on our uniforms, titles and vehicles. We are cited as police in committee reports newspaper articles etc. I spoke to some of my colleagues about the WPP entry on Wiki and they questioned why bother, Chrislk02 is editing for his own reasons. Anyway I digress Ninety:one we can edit in circles for ever could you actually cite something of your own instead of making bland references and actually put some meat on your edits? Oh and as you know Wiki rules allow you to use citations whether or not they have been vaidated, so come on lets have something new. At least Chrislk02 puts up half the reason and admits he uses his opinion for his edits.TopCat666 (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

cool, let's go point by point from this diff.
 * "Wandsworth Parks Police is the name given to the body of police constables run by Wandsworth Borough Council" should be replaced with "Wandsworth Parks Police is the name given to the body of constables run by Wandsworth Borough Council". reason: whilst the 1967 Act does define them as officers and constables, constables sounds better.
 * my useage of the word 'holds' was obviously a little technical. i therefore propose changing it.
 * Wandsworth Council believe that the 1967 Act provides limited police powers and they therefore come under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and other Acts of Parliament when enforcing by-laws and some Statute Law .
 * (i presume you agree with this sentance - that is what the cited ref says anyway)


 * The Metropolitan Police and the Home Office believe that parks constables may only make arrests when the general arrest conditions in section 25 of PACE are fulfilled, and then only in relation to offences against the park regulations and (in London) all enactments relating to open spaces. Even in the parks they cannot arrest for offences under other legislation such as the Theft Act or the Criminal Damage Act – other than as a private citizen . This opinion concurs with that stated by an Assistant Director of the council to a House of Lords Committee .

dibble has gone through all this before, yet merely received baseless contradictions. please provide constructive feedback :) ninety:one 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm not suggesting we bring PPE, blue lights etc. into it for the moment.
 * on the naming: the law quite clearly states that those attested under the 1967 Act are "constables". because we can disagree about this, the best option is to go with the letter of the law - that can't be POV.

There are certain circumstances when police have no powers to enforce legislation. This does not stop them being police officers. Assistant Director was referring to Stop & Search we have worked around that one for byelaw offences. The day you use anything even the slightest bit technical and not just monkey hear monkey say I will be most surprised. You just keep trotting out the same speil without answering my points, maybe their too technical for you and we will keep using the word police as you are not adding to this debate and the editing can go on and on and on. I actually believe you do not know what is POV and what is not. In the English law courts reference is made to the dictionary definitions of words contained in these acts and sadly for some constables are defined in the dictionary as a police officer who arrests offenders. How or what we arrest them for as in byelaws does not matter. Constabulary is defined as the police force of a town or district. District is defined as an area of land marked off for administration or other purposes, which Wandsworth is. These are facts which have nothing to do with our name being compared to what police powers we may or may not have. So there we have it in its simple form, address this please and not keep dodging it and blandly give me opinions you have surmised from the Newham/House of Lords reports. Which you have been giving out of context to mislead. TopCat666 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

happily, but please stop making this personal. all i want is for the article to represent the truth.
 * With reference to the Assistant Director before the Lords' Committee, I refer to para 565. in para 579, he states there is no power for stop and search. (imo, he makes several very good points in that session about constables getting more powers)
 * becasue we can not agree on what to call them, we should revert to their legal position: 'constables'.
 * please stop with your accusation that i have been giving references 'out of context to mislead'. this is simply untrue.
 * i'm not now sure what you believe the powers of a constable attested under the 1967 act are, so could you please state what you think and we can work with that. ninety:one 09:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to paragraphs in an old document are not valid and you keep ignoring and brushing over what I am saying fine by me. As you say you disagree about the cited wording wording you do not have the right to decide. We refer to ourselves as police constables as all regular police officers are referred to. Do not try and make out I am making this personal when you insult me by saying that I do not understand what hold means. I have clearly explained to you the definitions which are not only citable, factual and as Wandsworth Council have named us, it is truthful. You on the otherhand rely on a House of Lords minutes and a report on Newham which clearly states Wandsworth have a different view to the author of the report. So no you prove to me Wandsworth Council's position is wrong. Oh yes I am not disputing the police powers we use. This is nothing to do with what you are trying to do to the article. TopCat666 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"565. What power of arrest is used? I presume a break-in is not covered under a bylaw, it is covered under the statute, so what is the power of arrest then used? (Mr Stratton) By and large, any person power."
 * I have specifically answered your points and am continuing to do so, please stop accusing me of "ignoring and brushing over what [you are] saying"
 * With reference to your claim that "reference to paragraphs in an old document are not valid", I quote from the committee minutes:

- HoL Committee

"Wandsworth Council holds but does not agree where they are acting in their jurisdiction that the 1967 Act may provide limited police powers and they do come under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and other Acts of Parliament when enforcing by-laws and some Statute Law[2]."
 * Can you please state the powers you think a constable attested under the 1967 act has right now?
 * With reference to the definitions: just because Wandsworth calls them "Police Constables" does not mean they are. Wikipedia can not take one side of the argument. as i have now said three times, "constable" is a neutral yet factually correct term.
 * With reference to the use of the word "hold":

- your edit

"holds" means "agrees with" or "believes". clearly therefore, the emboldened text is a contradiction.
 * if you want me to quote Wandsworth's own reports, i happily will. i presume you agree with the following:

"Officers do not have the powers of a Constable to enforce general law (i.e. the same powers as a Metropolitan Police Officer) but they are able to use the powers of arrest, as set out in Section 24(A) PACE available to any person. These are now known as ‘Other Persons Powers’ and in the event that a Parks Police Constable has to use these powers, they are fully trained in their definition and application, unlike a normal citizen. Parks Police Constables are also able to effect an arrest by virtue of Section 24 PACE, ‘Arrest Without Warrant – Constables’. Such a power of arrest can only be used in cases of doubt / failure to provide correct personal details when dealing with and enforcing bye-laws. The power that remains unavailable to Parks Police Officers is the power to arrest on suspicion of an offence being committed."

- http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf

"Currently, the Parks Police have no powers of stop and search under Section 1 of PACE and this further highlights where Parks Police powers are limited, especially when dealing with potentially dangerous suspects who may be armed but cannot be searched. Indeed when the Parks Police arrest a suspect and take the person to the Metropolitan custody suite, they cannot search the individual who may well be armed with a knife or other weapon. This places constables of the Parks Police and Metropolitan Police in danger."

- http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/moderngov/Published/C00000362/M00002523/AI00002899/$PaperNo06456.docA.ps.pdf

ninety:one 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay so here you go again old and superseded documents. I have told you we have Stop & Search Powers under Section 1 of PACE for byelaws ignore this again if you wish. What Chris has edited the WPP article to is fine. It is not there to promote nor put down the WPP. I am not discussing the police powers although you messed up on the any person power to arrest for believing an arrestable offence has been committed and that under the common law power of breach of the peace. We search for items that may cause injury after we have arrested. Any way police powers is not an issue for me I have been here 25 years and I never contradicted what has been agreed with Wandsworth Council and the local Commander of the Wandsworth Borough (MET) Police. Which changes occassionally so make a point to endorce your sweeping statements on the naming of the Parks Police and do not side track the issue to disguise you have no arguments against the word police being used by WPP regular police officers duly appointed and sworn in by a Magistrate. TopCat666 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

please, commas! i have emailed Wandsworth directly to ask which powers they think apply, because all the evidence available (namely two reliable sources) does appear to contradict what you are saying (i'm not saying that you are wrong, but merely recognising there is a conflict). in addition, i will try and find the original act under which constables have been attested in the houses of parliament next week. ninety:one 15:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)