Talk:Port of Dover Police

message: Can anyone shed some light on the claim that Ports of Dover Police have wider jurisdiction than the legislation states i.e. up to 1 mile from the port.  This article and the Port Police website itself claim that due to buildings being owned by the port authority throughout Dover their jurisdicition extends from each building up to 1 mile i.e. covering most of Dover and surrounding area.  This appears to be different to other port forces established under the same legislation.  It doesn't seem logical either, otherwise if the Dover port authority owned a building in say, London this view of the legislation would mean that Port of Dover police officers would have jurisdiction in London at that building and up to a mile around it!  This is clearly not the case and I have edited the article until someone can point to some clarification. Dibble999 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh? The law says "the limits of the harbour, dock, pier, and premises of the undertakers, and within one mile of the same". That's quite clear... ninety:one   17:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

text: In fact, this was discussed time ago and another editor reached much the same conclusion... ninety:one   17:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, this has been discussed before! I have the greatest respect for Dibble999, who is an experienced editor, and also has professional insight (in the wider sense) here; however, we have to approach this with common sense. One editor believes his interpretation of the Law is correct; balanced against this is the alternative interpretation of that Law by other editors AND the unambiguous statement of the Port of Dover Police on their own official website AND the actual operational practices of Port of Dover Police (which are clearly observable to anyone who lives, or has lived, in that place (myself included)). This article must represent what actually happens, and what the original sources state. If Port of Dover Police are operating unlawfully in Dover (and have been doing so for so many years) then it is very odd that they have not been challenged by Kent Police, or indeed by the Home Office, to whose scrutiny they choose voluntarily to submit. I'm therefore going to restore the text recently removed from the article. I can't see any objection to an alternative view also being placed in the article, although it would need to be worded carefully, so as not to be simply one editor's POV or legal interpretation. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 08:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I echo Timothy's sentiments. Dibble, whilst you present a logical argument; the fact is that the letter of the law could permit them to exercise their powers, regardless of the spirit of the law, and the PDP website specifically states that they do so. Your best option is to write to them and ask for clarification, because when it comes to personal opinion vs. a reliable source, we have to choose the latter. ninety:one   20:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Interesting note: in S2, which is the interpretation section, "harbour dock and pier" has a special meaning, namely "the harbour, dock, or pier, and the works connected therewith, by the special Act authorized to be constructed". Further, there is another special meaning; namely "the prescribed limits" which means "the distance measured from the harbour, dock, or pier, or other local limits (if any) beyond the harbour, dock, or pier, within which the powers of the harbour master, dock master, or pier master, for the regulation of the harbour dock, or pier, shall by the special Act be authorized to be exercised". I think that if they intended the constable to be limited to the actual port area, they would have just used one of those two and not added "and premises" on the end of the sentence in S79. We'll never know though! ninety:one   21:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jurisdiction