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.
NEWLI