Jump to content

Talk:Metropolitan Police: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
GimmeBot (talk | contribs)
m Bot updating {{ArticleHistory}}
Line 382: Line 382:
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_law_enforcement_agency
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_law_enforcement_agency
::Thanks for your reply. Template documentation is not canon - it doesn't have to be the same for every instance in which the template is used. As I explained above, what might work for other countries - putting an branch of the government in - doesn't work for the UK, because our system is quite different. The police authority of every force is not an overview body, but a governing body - its functions are completely different to HMIC and the IPCC. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
::Thanks for your reply. Template documentation is not canon - it doesn't have to be the same for every instance in which the template is used. As I explained above, what might work for other countries - putting an branch of the government in - doesn't work for the UK, because our system is quite different. The police authority of every force is not an overview body, but a governing body - its functions are completely different to HMIC and the IPCC. [[User:Ninetyone|ninety]]:[[User talk:Ninetyone|one]] 18:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

== Obscene Publications Squad re-direction ==

I don't see why the Obscene Publications Squad article re-directs here since there's no mention of it at all in the article. - [[Special:Contributions/188.141.61.64|188.141.61.64]] ([[User talk:188.141.61.64|talk]]) 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:15, 26 May 2011

Former good article nomineeMetropolitan Police was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 15, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

The Met wasn't first

'The first such service established in Britain. It was the forerunner and model of all later regional police forces in Britain.'??? This is the same information that the Met put out previously before being reminded that the City of Glasgow police force was founded by act of Parliament 29 years before the Met. The Mets own website no longer makes this claim.

This page should be altered to acknowledge the eariler existence of the City of Glasgow Police and have a link to this page in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.107.180 (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Met police service was the first orgnaised, good, police service seen in the UK. Never before had uniformed officers been so organised. So what the page says is right. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The City of Glasgow Police article makes them sound pretty organised. I'm sure there's room for a mention in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this it seems that the Met had little influence on Scottish regional police forces: http://www.police-information.co.uk/policeinscotland.html. Which is hardly surprising...Anyone see the episode of The Sweeney in which Regan is very rude to a visting detective inspector from Glasgow? Colin4C (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched The Sweeney, but there is no question about it, MPS was the first organised police service, apart from military enforces, the met was answerable to the public. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First in England was the Marine Police Force, established by statue (Marine Police Act) 28 July 1800. ninety:one 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That acted like a paramilitary force though. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Scanning through today's story "Boris forces in Blair out" on page one of the Daily Telegraph I find these designations for the Metropolitan Police Service:

Dont take the paper as gospel mate, they will put whatever seems like good reading. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the last three are the most important designations. 'The Met' is a sort of slangy abbreviation equivalant to calling someone named Nicholas, "Nick", so is not necessarily encyclopediac. I have put Scotland Yard in bold as it is a very well known metonym of the Metropolitan Police used as the title of many books and films describing them. I.e. it is useful to know that "Metropolitan Police" = "Scotland Yard" and that they are not separate organisations....Colin4C (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lead is more or less fine as it is, although the Scotland Yard mention should be in the present tense ("has also been known as Scotland Yard" seems slightly misleading) and bolded as per WP:MOS.
Watch your reverts, though. We should reach an informed consensus on the talk page rather than reverting back and forth and trying to fit our reasoning into tiny edit summaries. --McGeddon (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which version you prefer. This one?:
A number of informal names and abbreviations exsist for the MPS, such as "the Met" and "MP"; in statutes it is usually described in lower case as the "metropolitan police" without the appendage "Service". The Met has also been known as Scotland Yard after the location of its headquarters[1][2][3][4], now transferred to New Scotland Yard in Westminster, although administrative functions are increasingly based at the Empress State Building (ESB), and since the end of 2007 all command and control functions have been transferred to the three Metcall complexes.

I think that one is fine, it involves what I think is best, and what Colin4C thinks is best about the Scotland Yard thing. And gives a perspective. If everyone is ok with that, I think we should leave it as it is. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Or this one:
The Metropolitan Police is also known as Scotland Yard after the former location of its headquarters, now transferred to New Scotland Yard in Westminster, although administrative functions are increasingly based at the Empress State Building (ESB), and since the end of 2007 all command and control functions have been transferred to the three Metcall complexes.[1][2][3][4]
Also do you think that all the books about "Scotland Yard" are about a seperate entity to the Metropolitan Police? Are they just histories of ther headquarters building or of the whole force? See Metonymy for other examples. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The one with the greater amount of information seems more useful, it just needs the boldface and the present-tense of the other.
So far as I understand it, and taking a quick look at current Google News stories, "Scotland Yard" can still be used to refer to the whole force, even today. --McGeddon (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other well known examples:

The Palace = Buckingham Palace = the British monarchy
Downing Street or "Number 10" = Official residence of the Prime Minister = the British Prime Minister and his or her staff
Whitehall = A neighborhood of London in which may be found... the offices of the British government's senior bureaucrats
The City = The City of London = the British financial markets, historically centred in The City
Westminster = The City of Westminster in London = The Parliament of the United Kingdom, located in Westminster.
Harley Street = A street in the City of Westminster, home to a high concentration of dentists, surgeons and physicians = the British private medical industry
Fleet Street = A street in London which was the original location of much of... the British newspaper industry.

"Fleet Street" is a similar example to the use of "Scotland Yard" to describe the "Metropolitan Police". Even though most journalists no longer work on that particular street it is still used to describe them. Colin4C (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we debating this? It already has how it is referred to sometimes, as Scotland Yard. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 19:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it should be in bold as it is a very well known and often used alternative name for the Metropolitan Police. Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a problem with that. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Priority boroughs

Police Mad Jack has reverted another editor's submission of "Each BOCU is commanded by a Chief Superintendent, apart from several priority boroughs such as Westminster and Lambeth which are headed by a Commander" back to "apart from Westminster". Which is correct? --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not correct? You can hardly call two boroughs "several". Stop picking at holes, McGeddon. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The edit is listing the two boroughs as a "such as" example. If several boroughs have commanders, it would be factually incorrect to say that Westminster is the only one. --McGeddon (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your crafty, I'll give you that. You made out what I have done was wrong, by clever wording. Buddy, give it a rest. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats where your wrong, each borough is not headed by the Metropolitan Police rank "Commander", the only one that does is Westminster and maybe one other. All the others are headed by a "Chief Superintendent". [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's correct, then that's fine. I was just concerned that you were reverting the well-meaning edits of a new user with no explanation, and didn't want to have this conversation in edit war comments. --McGeddon (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Departments?

Three are explained in detail. Nine are listed in a table. Where's the tenth? 71.179.82.29 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further examination, it seems the tenth department is the Criminal Investigation Department. I'm no good at editing things myself, so (assuming that's correct) if someone would please add the CID to the table at least, that'd be very helpful. 71.179.82.29 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convictions within the Metropolitan Police

Is there anything salvageable in this section? The Met having "the largest number of officers arrested" seems like meaningless tabloid bullet-point filler - the Met is also the largest police force in the UK, so could still have the most arrests even if it was proportionally below the national average.

The Helen O'Mahony case is a similarly vague example, apparently being used here to suggest that because two random officers both have records, this must somehow mean that probably lots of them do. (The "court employee" quote is just attributed to "a source" in the Sun article, which could mean anything from "made-up quote to push the tabloid's point-of-view" upwards.)

A section on convictions might be worth exploring, but none of the current content here seems appropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a more serious section on, say, 'Police Corruption' might be more useful. Reading such stuff as the soaraway Sun's: "a male officer is said to have belonged to an internet forum which revelled in female genitalia" makes me think that it is tabloid journalists who should be brought to book rather than the police. Colin4C (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth taking out "the largest number of officers arrested", agreed with Colin. By all means add content about the convictions, but the problem is, in my opinion, that the convictions bit seems like more of a paragraph fuelled by personal dislike, rather than facts. How does people feel on re-wording the sentance? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem an odd, individual case to focus on. Given that the only notable fact about the O'Mahony case is that the other officer involved already had a conviction, I'm not sure it adds anything to the article. There are surely more notable examples of convictions within the Met. --McGeddon (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How should we proceed with this? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got a book (somewhere in my house...) by Andrew Morton about the history of police corruption in the Met. Might be worth adding something about this to the History section or creating a new section. Thinking especially of the scandals of the 70's involving bribery of police officers by criminals. Colin4C (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re this from the article:

"The London Metropolitan force tops the list for the largest number of officers arrested - 304 - with 17 quizzed over sex offences as well as 123 for violence." [1]

It is unclear whether the arrested officers were convicted or whether conviction rates for policemen are going up or down.

Re this:

"In a recent court December 2007 case at Westminster magistrates the Crown Prosecutors decided that an assault case against another Police Officer Helen O’Mahony to be dropped after it emerged that the victim WPC Smith had Herself been arrested a year earlier and received two cautions for common assault and being drunk and disorderly at a club. A court employee was quoted as saying "It makes you wonder how many police officers have a previous history of offending.” [2]

It seems to be utterly trivial as nobody was convicted in either case (just 'cautioned') and the unattributed 'court employee's opinion, (if it is true at all and not just made up by the journalist)) is also utterly worthless (on the same level as the sublime pronouncements made by the archetypal "man in a pub" IMHO). Colin4C (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a fairly straight cut-and-paste copyvio of the original Sun article, now that I look at it, with the Wikipedia editor inexplicably replacing the anonymous "a source" with "a court employee". --McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK I agree about "a source" but an example should be given, and I can't think of a better one than this. It's an interesting case that has everything from homophobia, to corruption and police convictions and should be noted for future reference. Jemthepen (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edits, they are just point scoring. We should keep the first sentance, which is already in the passage before you edited. We do not need to go into intricate detail, of individual incidents. Before reverting, leading to a possible edit war, please reply here. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence was added by User:86.138.234.0 half an hour before - I assume this was Jemthepen before they'd created an account. Given that this is just a tiny, out-of-context piece of tabloid trivia about a particular two-year period in the Met's history (with no conclusion as to whether the 304 arrests are high or low number compared to the country as a whole), I'm removing it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-added it, because I believe to be important as it highlights several issues within the MET, Homophobia, Corruption and police convictions. Please note I have been a Wiki member for years and contributed to several articles. I feel an independent person should decide on this issue! Jemthepen (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is dispiuted stays off until an agreement is decided, so I am removing it. We will battle it out here, rather than revert war. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 17:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I support McGeddon on this one; typical knee-jerk response to (especially bad) news coverage is to add it to an article. ninety:one 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it is non-news, just the usual tabloid smoke and mirrors, signifying nothing. Colin4C (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Convictions within the Metropolitan Police

The London Metropolitan force tops the list for the largest number of officers arrested - 304 - with 17 quizzed over sex offences as well as 123 for violence. [2] In December 2007 the Crown Prosecutors at Westminster magistrates court decided that an assault case against a Police Officer to be dropped after it emerged that the victim another officer had herself been arrested a year earlier and received two cautions for common assault. [3]

[2] http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=742-police-nicked&method=full&objectid=20757749&siteid=93463-name_page.html

[3] http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1785330.ece

I've inserted the article here in case people want to read it and note the sources. Met Officers biting each other! LOL. One gets convicted, the other officer gets off because of the conviction. But the important points are, can you be convicted by an officer who has a conviction, and are you told of the convictions, how did the officer know of the other officers' convictions. Why is it non news?

(talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talkcontribs) [reply]

All you want to do is score points over the Met. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the problem is that your wording makes it out that all Met officers are guilty of the "crimes" you found in your sources. I personally do not think you are interested in adding un-biased information, instead I think that you would rather make the Service look bad. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The second source is when the officers are off duty. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned but police officers shouldn't commit crime on or off duty! LOL Next you would be telling me that arsonist can be a fireman?? Jemthepen (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was not the point I was trying to get across. I think the problem is that you are willing to "tar everyone with the same brush" [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 16:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "Convicts within the metropolitan police" - this would seem to be supported by the evidence above, which should surely be incorporated within the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism /police violence

Can I write an article on this?

I want to keep an eye on these cases as well:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7767834.stm

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jOItzVx2unpxr62FwrfQt3LGpIdA —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talkcontribs) 16:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the addition of a section on police violence.93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Info Box

I like the new info box that has been added, however there are some errors that I would like to correct. The MPS is not an agency and there are one or two bits that are legally incorrect. I've managed to change the map caption but am not sure how to alter the other bits. Any ideas? Dibble999 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying it on a few before I go nationwide, and am reporting all issues back to Peet Ern on the template talk page. You are quite correct about the jurisdiction - we can override that manually as you have done. Technically all Police Act police forces are "bodies corporate" - I 'll ask about altering the parameter |nongovernment to fit that in. Anything else? ninety:one 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this information box comes from the US? Anyway I think the sub title where it says "Jurisdiction Structure" needs altering to Policing area or something similar to avoid confusion regarding the legal jurisdiction and area of responsibility. I've edited the legal jurisdiction bit to a better summary of the situation in terms of a police constable of England & Wales having limited police powers in Scotland/NI at any time.

For the Met specifically under general nature it says local civilian force which isn't reflective of the Mets national role in certain arenas. "Minister Responsible" is going to be the same for the 43 forces in England and Wales and may infer some operational control - which isn't there, is it really relevant?. "Agency Executive" needs to be changed - not an agency and the term Chief Officer or Commanding Officer might be better. Generally though I like the box just needs tweaking to the system we have here. Regards Dibble999 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • They guy who wrote it is Australian, but it's designed to fit any country.
  • "Jurisdiction Structure" is supposed to be a subheading, so doesn't need changing.
  • I've already asked about changing "Agency executive".
  • I put "Minister responsible" because the HS has more control over the Met than she does over other forces - specifically the appointment of the Commissioner. (I toyed with putting Boris :p)
  • |local=yes was a parameter I automatically included at first. Removed it. ninety:one 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jurisdictional Structure" doesn't quite work though in our system as the jurisdiction of the Met or any other of the 43 territorial forces in England & Wales is throughout this part of the UK. It should be "Geographic Police Area" or something similar. Also under this heading its says "Operations jurisdiction" which is not accurate. There are many specialist units of the Met often operating outside the MPD plus the Met has a unique national remit in certain areas such counter terrorism and personal protection. "Operations Jurisdiction" would be better as "Geographic area of primary responsibilty/or primacy".
  • Regarding the HS its not quite as clear as that (even with Boris sticking his oar in!). The HS has powers in relation to all Chief Constables - admittedly the Met has certain historical throwbacks that are fairly unique. However, I think sticking this in an info box which passsing readers from any country might read gives the wrong impression. Operationally the HS has no control of police forces (in theory at least) and, in my opinion should not be part of the info box. Better to be explained in the main text. Dibble999 (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jurisdictional Structure" is supposed to be a subheading for everything down to "Operational Structure", and is acceptable as that, because all the information below it relates to the jurisdiction. However, "Divisional agency (Operations jurisdiction)" is very confusing indeed! I think "Geographic area of primary responsibility" would be a good replacement actually. I'll add that to the growing list on the template talk!
  • Fair point - I can see how it would be easily misunderstood. Removed. ninety:one 20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(in response to request on Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency) "HS" = Home Secretary, an elected MP - she has more power over the Met than over other forces. "Boris" refers to Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London who is chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and effectively sacked the current commissioner, Sir Ian Blair. This is an issue as this is the first time the situation has occurred, as both the Mayor and the Authority are new creations. ninety:one 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Peet Ern (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Image

I uploaded this image for use in The Bill project banner. Just thought I'd let you all know, in case you want to use it on this page. I couldn't really find an appropriate place to put it myself, but I'm sure that there are people who can find a place. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its certainly a nice picture, I dont think it would be a bad idea to put it on Custodian helmet, Law enforcement in the United Kingdom, this page of course, or Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom. Up to you. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision by MadJack

I changed the top section, removing the focus on the transition from Ian Blair to Paul Stephenson, and focusing more on Stephenson, while mentioning that he replaced Blair. Surely this is more appropriate than the current form of the article as reverted by MadJack...? Jamesblythe (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm not so sure your changes are better, both versions included the same thing anyway with only a few wording differences. Was it really that bad in the first place to change? As I have included before, both revisions read the same, just slightly different, what is in it? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was trivia section removed?

Why was triv section removed without discussion? Jemthepen (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1981 a report by Lord Scarman stated that London's Metropolitan Police were guilty of racial discrimination.Q&A The Scarman Report. BBC News (2004-04-27). Retrieved on 2006-07-20. The issue arose again in the 1999 Macpherson Report, which stated that there was institutional racism.The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. TSO (1999-02-24). Retrieved on 2006-07-19.

In 2000, more than 25% of the population of London are from ethnic minorities, while 15% of Met police officers are as of 2004.Ethnic minority Met officers at record high. BBC News (2000-02-22). Retrieved on 2006-09-17.

In 2003/04, there were 6,202 accidents involving Metropolitan Police vehicles, the City of Westminster having the highest number in the three years to 2003/04, with 847.Liberal Democrats: Met Police collision deaths rise 17% in three years. Liberal Democrats (2005-01-17). Retrieved on 2006-07-19. Between 1998 and 2005, 60 people died in Metropolitan Police custody.Deaths in Custody. MPA (November 2002). Retrieved on 2006-07-19.

Between 1990 and 2005, 41 serving Metropolitan Police officers died in the execution of their duty, eight of these were murdered or fatally injured by an assailant.History of the Metropolitan Police: Book Of Remembrance The last death of a serving police officer in a violent incident was in 1997.Blair's tribute to 'remarkable' officer. BBC News (1998-10-22). Retrieved on 2006-09-17.

In 2005 pay scales for the MPS differed from other areas in the UK to take account of the cost of living and working in the capital. New constables in the MPS are paid a starting salary of £27,402 (including London weighting), rising to £29,847 on completion of initial training. This continues to rise after probation incrementally, up to a ceiling level of £39,373 after ten years' service (as of September 2006).Metropolitan Police Careers Service FAQ. Metropolitan Police Careers Service (2006-09-01). Retrieved on 2007-04-07. The Metropolitan Police Federation is the staff association for all police officers below the rank of Superintendent.

In July 2006, The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that it would not be pursuing charges against any MPS officers involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. De Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. The MPS claimed immediately after the incident that de Menezes was a suspected suicide bomber. It later emerged he was innocent and unarmed. CPS senior lawyer Stephen O'Doherty said, "There is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer."CPS statement on Menezes report. BBC News (2006-07-17). Retrieved on 2006-07-19. However, the MPS as an organisation is due to face charges under health and safely laws.Q&A: Met health and safety charges

One police officer in London was found guilty of drunk driving every month during the past three years of 2004 to 2007. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talkcontribs) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in good faith by User:Ninetyone, an edit which I support. All the information that was important was placed in the appropriate section, all other trivia was disregarded. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged under the manual of style - important material should be incorporated into the main text - and if not notable enough to be worth including, then discarded. That appears to be what has happened here ... nothing to see, move along. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I forgot one:-

Since 2000 only 1 per cent of all public complaints of rape and sexual assault against Met staff were upheld by an internal police investigation

[[3]]

Anyone would think you have something to hide?

Can I write an article about corruption within the MET? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talkcontribs) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a notable 'event' and it's ref'd to mainstream media (or, say police authority stats). Then, please do include it in the main article - otherwise, please do read wikipedia policy on trivia sections. There's no attempt to 'hide anything', merely to follow wikipedia policy on improving articles. You might also want to read WP:COAT. They'd certainly be an argument for talking about ethnicity and notable corruption cases within the article. There's a section Notable incidents and investigations, where it mentions the Menendez case, in précis. Does this require expansion? A link to Scarman should probably be included under the Brixton Riots section. Where of course, readers can see full details of what the results were. The intention of the guidance is to improve the readability of the article and to ensure there is not massive repetition between articles. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I think we have Jemthepen is that as we have discussed before, you are not interested in adding unbiased information towards the Metropolitan Police. You do this as if you have a personal vendetta against them, and obviously this is not appropriate. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your comment "Anyone would think you have something to hide?", maybe you could explain? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


These FACTS have all come out via the Freedom of Information Act, It's not a police state on Wiki. The fact you don't let people write anything regarding recent issues, Police officers with convictions which the Met has the highest, sexual assaults 1% convictions etc.

I think you're the one who is biased, you don't produce any counter facts, you just delete what you don't like. You can't pretend things are not happening by hiding them. I think we should have someone of a higher authority to decide on what can be written.

Jemthepen (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of God will I do? (although, I think s/he might be acquiring a wikipedia account as soon as they get off the cleft stick protocol) - I'm an admin. We don't tend to do things around here by me waving a big stick - but by consensus. Some of the material that you added does have a place, but it doesn't have a place in a trivia section - is that OK? Let's address specific concerns, and add them to the right place, with the right level of detail here, and links to more detailed expositions under the relevant article. Can we at least agree on that? Kbthompson (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information you complain about was in the trivia list, so it was included.I did not delete it. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the MPS a police force or not?

I changed several occurrences of 'service' to 'force', I think for clarity the article should consistently refer to the MPS as a force, since that is its legal status and title. Wnjr (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Metropolitan Police encyclopedia, the Metropolitan Police Force was changed to Service as part of the "PLUS Programme" in 1989, under the then Commissioner Sir Peter Imbert. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Then that should be mentioned in the article.
Wnjr (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the website says Metropolitan Police Service, and it will not get any more concrete than that. So I think it would be logical to change it back to service, considering its own Website calls itself a service. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the name changed it remains a police force. I see no logic to referring to it as a 'service', especially in the History section. Would you refer to the British Transport Police as a 'police'?
Wnjr (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But like it or not, since 1989 that is its name. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to its function, which is as a police force.
Wnjr (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Legally it is the "metropolitan police force" (no initial caps). They call themselves the "Metropolitan Police Service", and in the case of titles we go with the most commonly used name, which is the second one. However, if used by themselves, "force" and "service" are analogous and there is no need to change any instance of either. ninety:one 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no disagreement with the title. However, I do not agree that "force" and "service" are analogous.
Wnjr (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this conversation conclusive enough to change back to service, what Wnjr changed to force? [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] ([[::User talk:Police,Mad,Jack|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Police,Mad,Jack|contribs]]) 09:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Use common sense. If "force" reads better, then use it. If "service" reads better, then use that. If people want to revert over "force" vs. "service" then feel free, but it's really not worth getting a 3RR block over... ninety:one 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made it consistent, because I think that reads better overall. The article previously mixed 'force' with 'service', even in the same paragraph. Wnjr (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute that "Metropolitan Police Service" is the common name. That is surely "Metropolitan Police" (it's what's used on their uniforms and their cars, for instance, and what any normal person who wasn't calling them "the Met" would say). I did raise this issue a while ago, but got no reply then. Proteus (Talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no replies? Proteus (Talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many times has the Met been convicted?

i think this is an important section - any more contributions?93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's duplication of the previous section, and can all be easily accessed in the relevant articles. ninety:one 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of Uniformed officers on duty

I created a new section for this, following recent controversy, containing the following text "Following controversy over alleged assaults by uniformed officers with concealed shoulder identification numbers during the G20 summit, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson stated that "The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty" by their shoulder identification numbers". I am sure that this is important, but not so sure that it deserves its own section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of the obvious, and not important enough to go into the history section. ninety:one 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How, and to whom is it obvious? Apparently even police officers were unaware of it, and I am sure it does not apply to all police forces.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not link the alleged assaults with the hiding of identification numbers. Commented out, because the Commissioner's comments are therefore irrelevant in that section. ninety:one 21:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a second which does, and restored the text.
Wnjr (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this not a slightly strange comment from someone who (as with all officers of or above the rank of Inspector) never displays any shoulder numbers? And there have been several comments in the media that the display of shoulder numbers is a legal requirement (and even that it is an offence for an officer not to display them). Is this the case? Under which enactment? I had always been under the impression that it was simply custom. Proteus (Talk) 15:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although as Commissioner he has a unique rank insignia, and also wears a name badge, as do many mid-to-high ranking officers. I believe it's a legal requirement in Scotland (to be in 'full uniform'), but not in England & Wales.
Wnjr (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like so much over the last few weeks, things have been said and then picked up, and in this case run with for a mile. There is absolutely no legal requirement for an constable to display a shoulder/collar/identification/warrant number on normal duty. Only in the case of Stop and Search is a constable required to provide their name, or warrant number in the case of terrorism cases. Of course, it should be a requirement of their police force that they have their number visible, but it is not one set out in law. ninety:one 20:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen quite a few pictures on the Internet with Met officers having a name badge sown on. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs) 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard ones are velcro not sown, per MPS
Wnjr (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Velcro then. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting

This article is now 99 KB, which is far too large (see WP:AS). Like New York City Police Department, I will split the "History" and "Structure" sections into new articles called History of the Metropolitan Police Service and Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police Service respectively. ninety:one 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, certainly needed splitting. Thanks. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs) 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Much of the section entitled "Area covered and other forces" could be merged to - if it isn't already present in - Metropolitan Police District. Thoughts? ninety:one 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. I support. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs) 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead body

Do we really need to show an image of a dead body on this article? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. [[::User:Police,Mad,Jack|Police,Mad,Jack]] (talk · contribs) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As its been a week and nobody responded saying it should remain i have removed the image. I really do not think its right to show the image of someones dead body in such a way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's 'not censured' on grounds of taste. The question is more a case of "does it add anything to the article?" In this case, I think not. So, you were right to remove it. Kbthompson (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies?

I notice that National Black Police Association Boycott has been added to the list of Notable incidents and investigations. This section was/is intended to list notable accidents, disasters and crimes that involve MPS investigation, NOT internal disputes and politics within the MPS itself. (I should know, I was one of those who created and developed that section originally, along with Escaper7 if I remember rightly). The NBPA Boycott does not belong there. However, I agree that it's a notable internal issue (along with controversies over race within the force), so I suggest that the Notable Convictions section be made into a Notable Convictions and Controversies (or somesuch) and the NBPA Boycott be added there (perhaps as part of an appropriate (ie: balanced, NPOV) summary of the ongoing race concerns/issues involving the Met). Notable controversies involving the Met could include: race, use of firearms, public order control ('kettling'), etc. Any thoughts? - HTUK (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there is a need for a 'Criticisms' or 'Controversies' section. The met have played a very controversial role in many recent events: Jean Charles de Menezes, the handling of the 2009 G-20 (kettling, Ian Tomlinson) and the 2010 student protests (arguments against their tactics as either too soft or too heavy-handed, Jody McIntyre), the News of the World phone hacking scandal... Also further back there have been controversies concerning suggested institutional Racism: Stephen Lawrence inquiry and the Brixton Riots. --86.27.155.40 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Paragraphs

It would appear to me that the opening paragraphs are too long and go into too much detail regarding the naming of the MPS and Scotland Yard and history of buildings. I don't think the opening the article is the right place for all this. I would suggest a separate section for naming and Scotland Yard and keep the opening short and snappy as to what the MPS is? Any thoughts? Dibble999 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the history section was moved to its own page I think the only place to make a summary of its history and titles is the intro, although I agree it does look a little clunky. Maybe remove references to past commissioners and the history of HQ movements and just stick to the current facts. Nasnema (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finally had a bash a trying to re-edit the opening paragraphs of the article to try and make more relevant to the current organisations situation. I’ve made the following edits:
  • Added the fact that the MPS has significant national responsibilities outside the MPD
  • Moved the paragraph re numbers of officers etc up thus giving a brief overview of the organisation for those first reading the article.
  • I’ve removed the bit about the MPS being 2nd largest force in the world, it uncited, and I believe there are several national forces around the world that are bigger.
  • Removed the line about MPS officers referring to themselves as ‘the Job’ – its uncited, and its not unique to the MPS, many Home county forces and BTP in London also use the phrase in slang usage.
  • I’ve greatly slimmed down the bit about Scotland Yard. I felt it went into too much detail for the opening paragraph of the article about the MPS. But there is a link should any reader wish to read more about either Scotland Yard or MPS history. Dibble999 (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Constable Equivalent To...

Dibble, please give reasons why a Chief constable is not equivalent to Assistant commissioner of the Met. How can any police officer be senior to the commissioner? Nasnema  Chat  23:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)t[reply]

I'm not suggesting any police officer is senior to the Commissioner of the Met however the statement that an Ass Commissioner in the Met is equivalent to a Chief Constable of a county force is not legally or technically correct although I can see how this misconception arose. Legally each Chief Constable or Commissioner is of equivalent rank as they are the Chief Officer of their respective force i.e. they have full operational control of policing within their respective force area. The Commissioner of the Met has no power over policing in another force area such as West Midlands, North Yorkshire etc etc.

However as the Met is the biggest force by some margin the media often portray the Met Commissioner as the most senior police officer in the country although legally this is not correct - there is no basis for this statement in law. It is the ultimate job for those aspiring to these lofty ranks but trying to draw equivalents is not really possible. When the Commissioner job comes up every few years, only those Chief Constables of sufficiently large forces (or very senior officers within the Met itself) would ever be considered for the Met Commissioner role.

In practise the 'seniority' of Chief Officers relates more to size of force/responsibilty and it is far too simplistic to make a direct equivlalents statement such as a Met Ass Commissioner is the same as all county Chief Constables due to the extreme variances. It is arguable that an Assistant Chief Constable of a large force such as West Midlands Police is 'senior' to a Chief Constable of a small rural force such as Dyfed-Powys Police. Or on the other hand there are borough/division commanders in the larger forces who are responsible for more officers than the Chief Constable of small forces such as the Northern Constabulary and Warwickshire Police or the Commissioner of the City of London Police.

In short the Chief Officer of every force (be that Chief Constable or Commissioner) are legally the same rank. They are all the chief police officer for their police force and responsible for their respective force areas. And due to the variance of size and responsibility of each force it is difficult, inaccurate and meaningless to draw broad brush stroke equivalents between forces. Dibble999 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, the commissioners of the Met and CoLP are not really comparable to the chief constables of the other forces, but it is certainly not true to say that CCs are at a similar level to a Met AC. Dibble, you're spot on (obviously!) ninety:one 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exellent answer, and I concur: just needed it to be clarified. Nasnema  Chat  22:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MET Flag

The flag used in this article is a GIF image. I was wondering what are the chances for the uploader/author to upload an SVG version of the flag, like most flags within Wikipedia. --189.60.107.1 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London police do not carry guns

One of the most famous and unique aspects of London police is that (outside of a few specialized armed units) they do not normally carry guns. This articles does not mention this. I think this information ought to be included (as well as background info about why London police don't carry guns, in contrast to the vast majority of police units worldwide). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not unique to London or the Metropolitan Police at all. All territorial police forces in the United Kingdom are generally unarmed (apart from the PSNI). Granted we are one of the few countries in the world where police do not routinely carry guns but this not specific to the Met so it would not be appropriate to add this to this particular article. I believe it is mentioned on the Law enforcement in the United Kingdom page. Dibble999 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK the only routinely unarmed forces are in Great Britain, Irish Republic, New Zealand, Norway, and Malta, so it's hardly surprising that those outside of those countries regard it as unusual. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Police Rank Images

The Badges of Rank are too wide and have to scroll right to see them and some are hidden behind the ilayer with the picture of the London Gherkin at the top. They need to be split from Commander to a new line. I would have a go at this but don't want to break what is there now. If one of you experts are able to do so people not using super wide screens will be able to see them fully. HuttonIT (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox parameters

79.76.190.60 has changed the parameter "governingbody" from Metropolitan Police Authority to Parliament of the United Kingdom. Where it is used on other UK police force articles, it is almost exclusively used to mean the police authority for the respective force, which is the most relevant and most useful meaning for it to have. In the United Kingdom, the police are not particularly accountable to anyone - not the government (executive) and not parliament (the legislature). The only body that could actually fit into the parameter is the police authority. Furthermore, if it is to be changed here then consensus needs to be established for a UK-wide change. ninety:one 16:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on an oft-repeated error? Read the parameters again; The lawmaking body that created every UK police force is the Parliament of the United Kingdom - this field is even followed by one that refers to the laws by which that force was created.
"Name of the governing body which is responsible for the agency, the law making body. Do not confuse with the overviewbody parameter below"
Just look at the examples shown on the template page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_law_enforcement_agency
Thanks for your reply. Template documentation is not canon - it doesn't have to be the same for every instance in which the template is used. As I explained above, what might work for other countries - putting an branch of the government in - doesn't work for the UK, because our system is quite different. The police authority of every force is not an overview body, but a governing body - its functions are completely different to HMIC and the IPCC. ninety:one 18:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obscene Publications Squad re-direction

I don't see why the Obscene Publications Squad article re-directs here since there's no mention of it at all in the article. - 188.141.61.64 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Sir Ronald Howe (1965) The Rise of Scotland Yard
  2. ^ Douglas Browne (1956) The Rise of Scotland Yard: A History of the Metropolitan Police
  3. ^ Martin Fido and Keith Skinner (1999) The Official Encyclopedia of Scotland Yard
  4. ^ http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/social/pathology/criminal/police/region/scotyard.htm Scotland Yard