GET IN TOUCH
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting WFNEWS to 80360 or email » »
Parks police to be armed
5:53pm Tuesday 27th March 2007
Comments (67)QUESTIONS have been raised over the legality of a council decision to arm Parks Police officers in Redbridge with batons.
The team's chief officer, John Boylin, claims his 12 constables,' who have had responsibility for patrolling the borough's 49 parks and open spaces since May 2006, need the weapons to protect themselves while carrying out their duties.
But fears have been raised that the move is unlawful because the parks police do not come under the Police Act.Speaking to the Guardian, a former Redbridge Metropolitan Police borough commander, says the American ASP extendable batons would also give them the authority they need to deter the aggressive and anti-social behaviour they encounter on a daily basis.
He said: "These batons are vital if the unit is to be treated seriously by people who use the park and they have undergone thorough training in how to use them safely.
"My officers have had several situations where they have been faced with aggressive behaviour and it is only right that they should have the means to defend themselves when threatened."
Opponent, Mike Law, claims there is no legal justification for arming the council-funded unit, because its officers, a mixture of former Met police officers and raw recruits, are not fully police trained and have no greater powers of arrest than ordinary citizens.
Mr Law, who has also protested against plans to arm Parks Police in Newham, says arming the Redbridge unit, which is due to receive the batons within weeks, would set a worrying precedent.
He said: "These constables' are just council workers with local authority issued warrant cards and are simply there to enforce park byelaws.
"Why do you need to be armed with an offensive weapon if all you are doing is telling people to stay off the grass and to pick up litter?
"This unit does not come under the Police Act so they have no lawful authority to carry arms, and if this is the case then what is to stop security guards, bus drivers and other people who face threatening behaviour arming themselves to?"
Your Say YourEast London and West Essex Guardian Series
Suj, Redbridge says...
2:06pm Wed 28 Mar 07
May be Mr Mike Law hasn't seen how the kids behave now a days. Or even adults who should know better.
I wonder how he would react if he was on the receiving end? Yes ideally they should be police officers, but we can't have a community where everyone excep the criminals are police officers can we?
I wonder how he would react if he was on the receiving end? Yes ideally they should be police officers, but we can't have a community where everyone excep the criminals are police officers can we?
Mike Law, Newham says...
5:07pm Wed 28 Mar 07
My main concern has been the way the parks constabulary have been managed and deployed in Newham. On the issue of arming them, people need to be aware that they have no police powers and only have a citizen's power of arrest. They cannot become special constables as that would mean they would have to be under the jurisdiction of the Met and not the council. They have the same (if not less) powers than PCSOs who are employed by the Met, yet the Met do not arm PCSOs. Ultimately, parks constables are just council employees and are not police officers.
Teri Aldridge, walthamstow says...
9:58am Fri 30 Mar 07
Mr Law should do more research. Parks Police swear and oath to the Queen in court in front of a Judge and the warrent cards are signed by that Judge, NOT the council. They do have powers to detain and arrest in parks and open lands, therefore MORE powers than PCSO's. They are employed by the council, do not tell people to get off the grass and are not employed as litter pickers, but deal with and make arrests for crimes in parks such as theft, robbery, criminal damage. No police force has "LAWFULL AUTHORITY" to carry guns, batons, truncheons or the asps you are talking about but they are part of the equipment issued to help them protect the public in any way they have to.
Lots more reading required Mr Law before you speak out!
Lots more reading required Mr Law before you speak out!
sj, essex says...
4:18pm Tue 3 Apr 07
Mr.Law, do you even know the law regarding offensive weapons? Parks Police are sworn Constables regardless of powers, do they have lawful authority or reasonable excuse to carry a baton? YES.
You were unsuccessful in your bid to close the Parks Police in Newham who are going from strength to strength and have moved on to Redbridge. Good luck mate.
You were unsuccessful in your bid to close the Parks Police in Newham who are going from strength to strength and have moved on to Redbridge. Good luck mate.
Mike Law, Newham says...
11:37pm Wed 4 Apr 07
I can assure Teri Aldridge and sj that I have researched the legislation extensively.
If there is a lawful authority for these officers to carry batons, why is it that neither the Home Office nor the Department for Communities and Local Government can say what legislation gives parks constables such "authority"?
It was never my intention to get the Newham parks constabulary closed - I suggest you read the enquiry that highlighted the problems that were rife within the service; it was those problems that I wanted addressed.
I never said they only have powers to pick up litter etc (I know exactly what their lawful powers are).
To the best of my knowledge, it seems the Redbridge parks constabulary are doing an excellent job. I just doubt they have a lawful authority to carry batons.
Their powers of arrest have changed as a result of recent legislation - like the rest of us they have any person's powers and DO NOT have police powers even in a park. However, the any person's powers have been expanded - which is no bad thing.
I'd like to put forward the following for consideration: if a parks constable acts irresponsibly, who do you complain to? It's not the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
If there is a lawful authority for these officers to carry batons, why is it that neither the Home Office nor the Department for Communities and Local Government can say what legislation gives parks constables such "authority"?
It was never my intention to get the Newham parks constabulary closed - I suggest you read the enquiry that highlighted the problems that were rife within the service; it was those problems that I wanted addressed.
I never said they only have powers to pick up litter etc (I know exactly what their lawful powers are).
To the best of my knowledge, it seems the Redbridge parks constabulary are doing an excellent job. I just doubt they have a lawful authority to carry batons.
Their powers of arrest have changed as a result of recent legislation - like the rest of us they have any person's powers and DO NOT have police powers even in a park. However, the any person's powers have been expanded - which is no bad thing.
I'd like to put forward the following for consideration: if a parks constable acts irresponsibly, who do you complain to? It's not the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
JL, Essex. says...
10:49am Thu 5 Apr 07
Mike Law wrote:There are currently discussions taking place to bring Parks Constabularies under the auspicies of the IPCC. Of course what has to be taken into consideration is that Local Authorities have their own disciplinary processes. Using the correspondents own example if a Parks Constable were to act in the way outlined then it is likely that there may be an assault that could lead ultimately to potentially arrest and criminal proceedings. That is exactly the same as a Police Officer who might act in the same way. In all cases it depends on the case, the circumstances and if the reasonableness is established or otherwise.
I can assure Teri Aldridge and sj that I have researched the legislation extensively. If there is a lawful authority for these officers to carry batons, why is it that neither the Home Office nor the Department for Communities and Local Government can say what legislation gives parks constables such \"authority\"? It was never my intention to get the Newham parks constabulary closed - I suggest you read the enquiry that highlighted the problems that were rife within the service; it was those problems that I wanted addressed. I never said they only have powers to pick up litter etc (I know exactly what their lawful powers are). To the best of my knowledge, it seems the Redbridge parks constabulary are doing an excellent job. I just doubt they have a lawful authority to carry batons. Their powers of arrest have changed as a result of recent legislation - like the rest of us they have any person\'s powers and DO NOT have police powers even in a park. However, the any person\'s powers have been expanded - which is no bad thing. I\'d like to put forward the following for consideration: if a parks constable acts irresponsibly, who do you complain to? It\'s not the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
sj, Essex says...
5:56pm Thu 5 Apr 07
If there is a lawful authority for these officers to carry batons, why is it that neither the Home Office nor the Department for Communities and Local Government can say what legislation gives parks constables such "authority"?
Where do home office constable's get their authority from to carry offensive weapons?
Where do home office constable's get their authority from to carry offensive weapons?
Mike Law, Newham says...
9:49pm Thu 5 Apr 07
JL: You may be interested to know that I phoned the IPCC a couple of weeks ago (when I was a councillor with Newham I was told that the Authority were in negotiations with the IPCC to bring parks constables under their remit) the officer I spoke to could find no record of any such attempt being made by Newham or any other authority with a parks constabulary. To double check I submitted a FOIA request over a week ago and will post the info I get back here.
You are right that if a parks constable commits an assault they will be dealt with under the law just the same as a police officer, but the real problem is (as was the case with Newham) things are not quite as cut and dried as that. I know of a case two youths (17 & 14) who were stopped and searched by Newham parks constables on the streets in Redbridge!- way outside their lawful jurisdiction. Their first port of call regarding a complaint was the council which, unsurprisingly, found its officers did nothing unlawful. The boy's parents have consulted a solicitor and I think they are applying for legal aid.
sj: home office constables get their lawful authority to carry arms from 1/ the various Police Acts (they are members of a police force after all; parks constables are not members of a police force) and 2/ the Home Office! I wrote to the Home Office asking under what legislation parks constables have lawful authority to carry batons. The Home Office passed my request on to the Department for Communities and Local Government (because parks constabulary services are not police forces and therefore come under the jurisdiction of their respective local authorities); for the last six weeks I have been told that there is no-one who can answer the question. I called today to complain one more time and was told I should get a response by the end of next week. Again, I'll post the response I get here. Interestingly, I have written to every parks constabulary service in London. On the subject of batons only half issue officers with them; those that do not state that they have no lawful authority to do so. Those that do quote Health and Safety as the reason they arm their officers. Not one has stated what lawful authority they have to carry arms. The H&S reasoning is very bogus: it could potentially be used as a legitimisation for arming shop security guards, postal workers, social workers, bus drivers etc.
Finally, there is one important point I'd like to make. I have absolutely no interest in what other parks constabularies do, or do not do. I have spoken at some length with the senior officers of both Kensington and Chelsea's, and Barking and Dagenham's parks constabularies and both were aware of the problems that have been faced by the Newham service. Both were quite angry that one service could potentially reflect badly on the good work they are doing. From my conversations, I got the impression that both services are run to a highly professional standard. And I am sure the same can be said for Redbridge. The quotes attributed to me in the above article relate to my observations regarding Newham's parks constabulary. I was the councillor who pushed for the independent enquiry into the service; I have a read both the public report and the confidential second appendix to the report. So I'd like to think that I'm better qualified than most who have written her to express concerns about Newham's parks constabulary. On the issue of equipping parks officers with batons, I have strong reservations but, should the Department for Communities etc write to me establishing that parks officers do have lawful authority to carry a baton, so be it. And I'd actually write to the Home Secretary requesting that he consider allowing PCSOs to carry them as they can sometimes find themselves in situations where they have a need to defend themselves.
You are right that if a parks constable commits an assault they will be dealt with under the law just the same as a police officer, but the real problem is (as was the case with Newham) things are not quite as cut and dried as that. I know of a case two youths (17 & 14) who were stopped and searched by Newham parks constables on the streets in Redbridge!- way outside their lawful jurisdiction. Their first port of call regarding a complaint was the council which, unsurprisingly, found its officers did nothing unlawful. The boy's parents have consulted a solicitor and I think they are applying for legal aid.
sj: home office constables get their lawful authority to carry arms from 1/ the various Police Acts (they are members of a police force after all; parks constables are not members of a police force) and 2/ the Home Office! I wrote to the Home Office asking under what legislation parks constables have lawful authority to carry batons. The Home Office passed my request on to the Department for Communities and Local Government (because parks constabulary services are not police forces and therefore come under the jurisdiction of their respective local authorities); for the last six weeks I have been told that there is no-one who can answer the question. I called today to complain one more time and was told I should get a response by the end of next week. Again, I'll post the response I get here. Interestingly, I have written to every parks constabulary service in London. On the subject of batons only half issue officers with them; those that do not state that they have no lawful authority to do so. Those that do quote Health and Safety as the reason they arm their officers. Not one has stated what lawful authority they have to carry arms. The H&S reasoning is very bogus: it could potentially be used as a legitimisation for arming shop security guards, postal workers, social workers, bus drivers etc.
Finally, there is one important point I'd like to make. I have absolutely no interest in what other parks constabularies do, or do not do. I have spoken at some length with the senior officers of both Kensington and Chelsea's, and Barking and Dagenham's parks constabularies and both were aware of the problems that have been faced by the Newham service. Both were quite angry that one service could potentially reflect badly on the good work they are doing. From my conversations, I got the impression that both services are run to a highly professional standard. And I am sure the same can be said for Redbridge. The quotes attributed to me in the above article relate to my observations regarding Newham's parks constabulary. I was the councillor who pushed for the independent enquiry into the service; I have a read both the public report and the confidential second appendix to the report. So I'd like to think that I'm better qualified than most who have written her to express concerns about Newham's parks constabulary. On the issue of equipping parks officers with batons, I have strong reservations but, should the Department for Communities etc write to me establishing that parks officers do have lawful authority to carry a baton, so be it. And I'd actually write to the Home Secretary requesting that he consider allowing PCSOs to carry them as they can sometimes find themselves in situations where they have a need to defend themselves.
Morris Hickey, Chigwell says...
11:33pm Thu 5 Apr 07
My recollection is that the Parks Police in Newham had themselves operated well beyond their parks, and Mr Law's comment about some of the Newham Parks Police attempting to stop and search some of their suspects on the streets of Redbridge confirms this.
The ideal situation would be, of course, that the Metropolitan Police should have more of their officers patrolling on foot. They should visit parks and open spaces on a regular basis. That they cannot do so is largely due to the requirement of the politically correct Home Office that every minute action should be recorded on a form. One wonders if there is a form to fill in when a police officer breaks wind.
The ideal situation would be, of course, that the Metropolitan Police should have more of their officers patrolling on foot. They should visit parks and open spaces on a regular basis. That they cannot do so is largely due to the requirement of the politically correct Home Office that every minute action should be recorded on a form. One wonders if there is a form to fill in when a police officer breaks wind.
Mike Law, Newham says...
1:02pm Thu 12 Apr 07
This is the response I received from the Department for Communities and Local Government:
Under article 18 of the Order, a London borough can provide for persons to be sworn in as parks constables before a magistrate. The role of parks constables sworn in under this article is limited to the enforcement of laws relating to the authority's open spaces, rather than the general law, including the enforcement of byelaws and regulations affecting those areas. We are not aware of any power which entitles park constables to carry batons.
The law on the use of batons is contained in section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. An offensive weapon is defined as an article made or adapted for use for causing injury or intended by the person carrying it with him for such use.
'Lawful authority' means those occasions where people from time to time are required to carry weapons as a matter of duty, such as police officers or members of the armed forces. I am not aware that the granting of such authority would extend to parks constabulary.
you might be interested to know that the London Borough of Wandsworth attempted to introduce a local Bill which would give park constables full police powers in 2003. This attempt failed as it was felt that it would be inappropriate for such small constabularies to be given greater powers. It was also considered that if parks police were given the full range of police powers, there appeared to be no particular reason why there should be separate constabularies operating within wider Home Office police force areas. It would tend to negate the need for parks police. Witnesses at the Select Committee on the Bill included Wandsworth councillors, the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Authority and Home Office officials.
So that settles that then!
Under article 18 of the Order, a London borough can provide for persons to be sworn in as parks constables before a magistrate. The role of parks constables sworn in under this article is limited to the enforcement of laws relating to the authority's open spaces, rather than the general law, including the enforcement of byelaws and regulations affecting those areas. We are not aware of any power which entitles park constables to carry batons.
The law on the use of batons is contained in section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. An offensive weapon is defined as an article made or adapted for use for causing injury or intended by the person carrying it with him for such use.
'Lawful authority' means those occasions where people from time to time are required to carry weapons as a matter of duty, such as police officers or members of the armed forces. I am not aware that the granting of such authority would extend to parks constabulary.
you might be interested to know that the London Borough of Wandsworth attempted to introduce a local Bill which would give park constables full police powers in 2003. This attempt failed as it was felt that it would be inappropriate for such small constabularies to be given greater powers. It was also considered that if parks police were given the full range of police powers, there appeared to be no particular reason why there should be separate constabularies operating within wider Home Office police force areas. It would tend to negate the need for parks police. Witnesses at the Select Committee on the Bill included Wandsworth councillors, the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Authority and Home Office officials.
So that settles that then!
Morris Hickey, Chigwell says...
9:29am Fri 13 Apr 07
On the contrary!
All law is framed and worded for the ultimate benefit of lawyers!! What Mike Law has reported above includes the less than specific phrase "....to carry an offensiver weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The last three words are a lawyer's paradise, and capable of ultimate determination only by a court. Parliament which is stuffed full of lawyers passes these laws...... So, far from that being that, it all remains as unclear as ever.
All law is framed and worded for the ultimate benefit of lawyers!! What Mike Law has reported above includes the less than specific phrase "....to carry an offensiver weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. The last three words are a lawyer's paradise, and capable of ultimate determination only by a court. Parliament which is stuffed full of lawyers passes these laws...... So, far from that being that, it all remains as unclear as ever.
Mike Law, Newham says...
11:26am Fri 13 Apr 07
Mr Hickey,
So in this instance what do you think would constitute a reasonable excuse?
I would think a store security guard or a CPSO would be able to offer up fairly reasonable excuses for why they should carry batons.
However, do you really want council officials who have the same powers of arrest as you and I, and who get nothing like the full training of a police officer, to carry a baton?
So in this instance what do you think would constitute a reasonable excuse?
I would think a store security guard or a CPSO would be able to offer up fairly reasonable excuses for why they should carry batons.
However, do you really want council officials who have the same powers of arrest as you and I, and who get nothing like the full training of a police officer, to carry a baton?
david padua, ilfod says...
11:30am Fri 13 Apr 07
Are you all mad? These are council employees dressed up as coppers, and according to you lot they should be able to carry offensive weapons.
Why dont we equip bin me with Tazers, parking attendants (who get more stick than parkies) with Pepper Spray, and watch out when you take your library books back late, as you'll get a zap from stun-gun.
Get a grip will you. The only people allowed to have "police" powers, are the POLICE. Hello???
Council sanctioned vigilantes is NOT the answer, it will just add to the problem.
What will it take for you to realise this, someone be killed? Or a council employee in the dock for a brutal assault?
If you think arming council employees is the answer, think again.
Mike Law is spot on, shame there is not more like him.
Why dont we equip bin me with Tazers, parking attendants (who get more stick than parkies) with Pepper Spray, and watch out when you take your library books back late, as you'll get a zap from stun-gun.
Get a grip will you. The only people allowed to have "police" powers, are the POLICE. Hello???
Council sanctioned vigilantes is NOT the answer, it will just add to the problem.
What will it take for you to realise this, someone be killed? Or a council employee in the dock for a brutal assault?
If you think arming council employees is the answer, think again.
Mike Law is spot on, shame there is not more like him.
Morris Hickey, Chigwell says...
12:34pm Fri 13 Apr 07
What I would prefer to see, Mr Law, is the old-fashioned park keeper who took a pride in his work, and supported by instant response arrangements for sorting trouble from the appropriate local police force(Met, Essex, wherever). But park keepers, even when empployed, went into hiding years ago because the police opted out of routine law enforcement. Now everybody is scratching around for alternatives which, when found, do not fit.
As to Mr Padua's comment, nowhere on these postings have I said that the "parks police" should carry weapons. If they are not able legally to act as police (and it would appear that they cannot) then they should be neither called police nor dressed as such. A park ranger is quite distinct from a police officer but, as a council employee, might well have powers to enforce council bylaws on council property. The whole scheme might benefit from a review - in Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Redbridge, and any other area that has them.
As to Mr Padua's comment, nowhere on these postings have I said that the "parks police" should carry weapons. If they are not able legally to act as police (and it would appear that they cannot) then they should be neither called police nor dressed as such. A park ranger is quite distinct from a police officer but, as a council employee, might well have powers to enforce council bylaws on council property. The whole scheme might benefit from a review - in Barking & Dagenham, Newham, Redbridge, and any other area that has them.
david padua, Ilford says...
12:56pm Fri 13 Apr 07
Mr Hickey assertions on arming the Park Police with weapons is a bit rich, considering he stood for the Tories in the last election so would have the ears of the people making the decisions.
Dont tell us what you think Mr Hickey, tell the clowns in the town hall who want an armed vigilante squad patrolling parks!
Park Police powers apply ONLY in parks and open spaces. And these are in keeping order. It does not allow them to carry ASPs, restraints, or anything else!
We have people who can do all of that, and its the Met.
Dont tell us what you think Mr Hickey, tell the clowns in the town hall who want an armed vigilante squad patrolling parks!
Park Police powers apply ONLY in parks and open spaces. And these are in keeping order. It does not allow them to carry ASPs, restraints, or anything else!
We have people who can do all of that, and its the Met.
Morris Hickey, Chigwell says...
1:17pm Fri 13 Apr 07
No such "assertions" Mr Padua!
The Met have packed their bags and gone where law and order are concerned.
The Met have packed their bags and gone where law and order are concerned.
Mike Law, Newham says...
3:04pm Fri 13 Apr 07
Mr Hickey,
I agree with the points you made in your 12:34 posting.
Parks constabulary should stick to doing what they were intended to do, nothing more.
The problem is the use of the word "constable". I agree that the legislation should have referred to them as wardens or rangers. Most people see constable and automatically assume it means police officer; it doesn't.
I agree with the points you made in your 12:34 posting.
Parks constabulary should stick to doing what they were intended to do, nothing more.
The problem is the use of the word "constable". I agree that the legislation should have referred to them as wardens or rangers. Most people see constable and automatically assume it means police officer; it doesn't.
SJ, essex says...
7:03pm Fri 13 Apr 07
The use of the word Constable is because they are sworn in in court as a constable.
I wonder how the likes of BTP and the Royal Parks Constabulary managed all these years, until recently they didn't come under the Police Act either. Even water bailiffs carry handcuffs and batons. Why? Because they can use certain constable powers to deal with some offences just like parks constables, copy and paste below link Mr.Law. I take it you will be contacting the Environment agency to register your disgust or is there no political gain in that? Why don't you stand for councillor in Barking and Dagenham now that you are at a loose end. Their parks police have blue flashing lights, nee-naw sirens, police dogs and batons and do an excellent job.
It may interest you to know that Wandsworth Parks Police have the support of the local Met commander in their bid to be sworn in as special constables. As previously stated not everthing is black and white and the law is open to interpretation and opinion. Regards SJ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447447&in_page_id=1770
I wonder how the likes of BTP and the Royal Parks Constabulary managed all these years, until recently they didn't come under the Police Act either. Even water bailiffs carry handcuffs and batons. Why? Because they can use certain constable powers to deal with some offences just like parks constables, copy and paste below link Mr.Law. I take it you will be contacting the Environment agency to register your disgust or is there no political gain in that? Why don't you stand for councillor in Barking and Dagenham now that you are at a loose end. Their parks police have blue flashing lights, nee-naw sirens, police dogs and batons and do an excellent job.
It may interest you to know that Wandsworth Parks Police have the support of the local Met commander in their bid to be sworn in as special constables. As previously stated not everthing is black and white and the law is open to interpretation and opinion. Regards SJ
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=447447&in_page_id=1770
Mike Law, Newham says...
11:58pm Fri 13 Apr 07
SJ
You're right they are constables, but as I have stated, they are NOT police officers.
I read the article your link relates to and I assume these officer derive their "lawful authority" to carry batons from the legislation that put them in place. I have no interest in contacting the Environment Agency. The Royal Parks Police and the BTP get their lawful authority from the legislation that established those services - they are most definitely police forces.
I don't know why you made the comment about political gain; to me this is not a "political" issue, it's about ensuring that policing is done in a responsible manner.
This link will give you a true picture of the Met's attitude to Wandsworth's attempt to give its parks constables police powers:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldllauno/30219/3021901.htm
Again, it is highly unlikely that parks constables will be able to be sworn in as special constables as they will have to be under the operational control of the Met. You should look at this:
http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/application_specials_ssq_moreinfo.asp
It's from the Mets website and it lists the exempted professions re special constables. Parks constables are exempt.
I can only assume from your tone that you are either as parks constable or a re related to one. If that is the case, I can understand your frustration, but that doesn't change the facts.
You're right they are constables, but as I have stated, they are NOT police officers.
I read the article your link relates to and I assume these officer derive their "lawful authority" to carry batons from the legislation that put them in place. I have no interest in contacting the Environment Agency. The Royal Parks Police and the BTP get their lawful authority from the legislation that established those services - they are most definitely police forces.
I don't know why you made the comment about political gain; to me this is not a "political" issue, it's about ensuring that policing is done in a responsible manner.
This link will give you a true picture of the Met's attitude to Wandsworth's attempt to give its parks constables police powers:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldllauno/30219/3021901.htm
Again, it is highly unlikely that parks constables will be able to be sworn in as special constables as they will have to be under the operational control of the Met. You should look at this:
http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/application_specials_ssq_moreinfo.asp
It's from the Mets website and it lists the exempted professions re special constables. Parks constables are exempt.
I can only assume from your tone that you are either as parks constable or a re related to one. If that is the case, I can understand your frustration, but that doesn't change the facts.
Mike Law, Newham says...
12:02am Tue 17 Apr 07
Here's the content of the Home Office Report to the House of Lords Select Committee (re Wandsworth's attempt to get police powers for its parks Constabulary:
Clause 32 (powers of Parks Constables)
The Secretary of State opposes the following clause because a proposal to extend the powers of park constables needs to be viewed against the wider picture of plans for the policing of London. While on the one hand it would potentially free-up MPS officers, it could on the other lead to a "Balkanisation" of policing in London, with policing becoming increasingly co-ordinated by local authorities. Wealthy boroughs could increasingly acquire better policing provision than poorer areas as proposals for borough police forces increase. The remit of the Government's Police Reform Act 2002 counters such a "Balkanisation" by seeking to establish Community Support Officers (CSOs) and Accredited Community Safety Officers (ACSOs) under the co-ordination of the MPS to undertake just the sort of low-level crime that borough parks constabularies presently deal with. Extending the powers of parks constabularies could therefore undermine the principles behind the Government's Police Reform Act 2002 in running counter to the co-ordinating policing role of local Home Office forces, in this case the Metropolitan Police Service.
Clause 32 (powers of Parks Constables)
The Secretary of State opposes the following clause because a proposal to extend the powers of park constables needs to be viewed against the wider picture of plans for the policing of London. While on the one hand it would potentially free-up MPS officers, it could on the other lead to a "Balkanisation" of policing in London, with policing becoming increasingly co-ordinated by local authorities. Wealthy boroughs could increasingly acquire better policing provision than poorer areas as proposals for borough police forces increase. The remit of the Government's Police Reform Act 2002 counters such a "Balkanisation" by seeking to establish Community Support Officers (CSOs) and Accredited Community Safety Officers (ACSOs) under the co-ordination of the MPS to undertake just the sort of low-level crime that borough parks constabularies presently deal with. Extending the powers of parks constabularies could therefore undermine the principles behind the Government's Police Reform Act 2002 in running counter to the co-ordinating policing role of local Home Office forces, in this case the Metropolitan Police Service.
JB, London says...
10:38pm Tue 8 May 07
2 quick points:
The Royal Parks Constabulary has been disbanded, and is now an Operational Command Unit of the Met Police.
To be sworn in as a Special Constable gives a standing in law, it is quite different from joining the Met Police as a Special Constable!
The Royal Parks Constabulary has been disbanded, and is now an Operational Command Unit of the Met Police.
To be sworn in as a Special Constable gives a standing in law, it is quite different from joining the Met Police as a Special Constable!
Teri Aldridge, says...
10:05am Fri 11 May 07
With regard to Mike Law (17/04), why is it that everyone (including the Home Office) it would seem, think that only low level crimes happen in parks. It's obviously not only horses that are blinkered then! Are assaults, robberies, arson, theft, rape and many others then classed as low level?? Because these crimes also take place in parks as well as outside them.
Mike Law, Newham says...
11:32pm Sat 12 May 07
Teri,
I'm afraid I cannot answer for the Home Office (nor everyone else!) with regard to the way they describe crime in parks. My own view is that any crime, no matter where it takes place, should be dealt with by the police.
I think parks constabularies have a vital role to play in helping prevent crime (high visibility, regular patrols etc), but I also think it is unwise to arm them - they are not police officers.
I'm afraid I cannot answer for the Home Office (nor everyone else!) with regard to the way they describe crime in parks. My own view is that any crime, no matter where it takes place, should be dealt with by the police.
I think parks constabularies have a vital role to play in helping prevent crime (high visibility, regular patrols etc), but I also think it is unwise to arm them - they are not police officers.
Teri Aldridge, says...
10:55pm Mon 14 May 07
Mike,
High visibility patrols do not prevent crime, they only postpone it until a later time when the patrol is not there. Unfortunately, it would appear that police forces do not have enough personnel to deal with their own problems let alone those that take place in parks.Parks Police are also extra eyes and ears for the Met guys and gals, passing on vital information and in some cases assisting with problems on the streets, such as traffic acciident protection, and first aid to the injured parties, before even the met or L.A.S. have been informed. As for not "arming" them, would you go to deal with say 5 or 6 teenage yobs in a park, high or drunk, you don't know if they have weapons, when the met are unavailable, without some form of protection. I don't think I would. Batons are for defence NOT offence. Sorry mate but those guys need them for what they do.
High visibility patrols do not prevent crime, they only postpone it until a later time when the patrol is not there. Unfortunately, it would appear that police forces do not have enough personnel to deal with their own problems let alone those that take place in parks.Parks Police are also extra eyes and ears for the Met guys and gals, passing on vital information and in some cases assisting with problems on the streets, such as traffic acciident protection, and first aid to the injured parties, before even the met or L.A.S. have been informed. As for not "arming" them, would you go to deal with say 5 or 6 teenage yobs in a park, high or drunk, you don't know if they have weapons, when the met are unavailable, without some form of protection. I don't think I would. Batons are for defence NOT offence. Sorry mate but those guys need them for what they do.
Mike Law, Newham says...
12:23am Tue 15 May 07
Teri,
I disagree with regard to the effectiveness of high visibility patrols. But, you are right when you mention the lack of personnel re the Met.
I think the point is being missed here: if parks constables were vetted like the police, if they received the same level of training, if they came under the same level of scrutiny and if legislation was changed to give them full police powers then I would say go ahead, arm them.
This is most definitely not the case in Newham and I imagine the same can be said for all of the other parks constabularies across London - we know it is not the case regarding legislation.
The picture you paint regarding the role of parks constable seems to be very much like that intended for PCSOs. So why have parks constables? Would it not make much more sense for local authorities to sponsor a number of PCSOs to patrol parks and other areas that authority identifies as needing them?
With regard to what I would do in the scenario you put forward: if I felt another person life or wellbeing was being threatened by them, yes I would intervene; however, I have had a good few years of self defence training. In fact it was as a result of my tackling a person with a knife in Stratford that got me embroiled in the whole parks constabulary issue in Newham. But that being said, I am also aware of what it is to be a victim of knife crime: I've been stabbed 5 times and my lung has been punctured twice.
A baton is a weapon even if it is used in defence; I still fail to see how anyone can argue that council officers should be armed with them.
I disagree with regard to the effectiveness of high visibility patrols. But, you are right when you mention the lack of personnel re the Met.
I think the point is being missed here: if parks constables were vetted like the police, if they received the same level of training, if they came under the same level of scrutiny and if legislation was changed to give them full police powers then I would say go ahead, arm them.
This is most definitely not the case in Newham and I imagine the same can be said for all of the other parks constabularies across London - we know it is not the case regarding legislation.
The picture you paint regarding the role of parks constable seems to be very much like that intended for PCSOs. So why have parks constables? Would it not make much more sense for local authorities to sponsor a number of PCSOs to patrol parks and other areas that authority identifies as needing them?
With regard to what I would do in the scenario you put forward: if I felt another person life or wellbeing was being threatened by them, yes I would intervene; however, I have had a good few years of self defence training. In fact it was as a result of my tackling a person with a knife in Stratford that got me embroiled in the whole parks constabulary issue in Newham. But that being said, I am also aware of what it is to be a victim of knife crime: I've been stabbed 5 times and my lung has been punctured twice.
A baton is a weapon even if it is used in defence; I still fail to see how anyone can argue that council officers should be armed with them.
Teri Aldridge, says...
2:07pm Tue 15 May 07
Mike,
Parks Police are not only Council Officials but are Sworn Constables and are Police checked before they even get to the interview stage. If they received the same amount of training as the police then they would be trained for a lot longer and could join the police service and not the parks service and if you give them full police powers, hey presto, they would be regular full time police officers!
The local authorities probably could soponsor a few PCSO's but then they can't detain and have no powers of arrest due to not being sworn constables. It would be interesting to look at some statistics in parks of crime levels and arrests before and after a parks police service has been instigated, just to compare them.
No disrespect, but years of self defence training won't always overcome a knife wielding idiot hell bent on stealing your wallet or phone but giving parks police a baton will give them a couple of extra feet of space, an extended metal arm that won't bleed if caught by a knife, and a way of disarming the idiot before arresting him / her. I would have thought that somebody who has been on the wrong end of a knife crime would be all in favour of this.
I now feel this discussion has gone full circle more than once and hope that it will soon come to an end.
Regards
Teri.
Parks Police are not only Council Officials but are Sworn Constables and are Police checked before they even get to the interview stage. If they received the same amount of training as the police then they would be trained for a lot longer and could join the police service and not the parks service and if you give them full police powers, hey presto, they would be regular full time police officers!
The local authorities probably could soponsor a few PCSO's but then they can't detain and have no powers of arrest due to not being sworn constables. It would be interesting to look at some statistics in parks of crime levels and arrests before and after a parks police service has been instigated, just to compare them.
No disrespect, but years of self defence training won't always overcome a knife wielding idiot hell bent on stealing your wallet or phone but giving parks police a baton will give them a couple of extra feet of space, an extended metal arm that won't bleed if caught by a knife, and a way of disarming the idiot before arresting him / her. I would have thought that somebody who has been on the wrong end of a knife crime would be all in favour of this.
I now feel this discussion has gone full circle more than once and hope that it will soon come to an end.
Regards
Teri.
Mike Law, Newham says...
11:09pm Tue 15 May 07
Teri,
I too would like this discussion to come to an end, so maybe this will finalise our debate:
It may well be true that officers of parks constabularies other than Newham's have been police checked, but that was not the case pre the Kelly report. It may be a good idea if you read the report, This is the only copy I can find on the web:
http://www.radicalactivistnewham.org.uk/CASBReport.doc
You can find it on the Council's website if you type in "Kelly Report" in the search facility on the top right hand side of the home page. The report is in PDF format and can be accessed via the fourth link down the page.
When you read it you will find that she asserts they are NOT police officers; I noticed in your posting of Friday 30 March you claimed they are police officers because they swear and oath to the Crown. This is the oath they attest to:
"I, ..Esq., of ..
Do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that:
I will well and truly serve the Council of the London Borough of Newham in the office of constable in and for the said Council in pursuance of Section 77 of the Public Health Amendment Act 1907 and Article 18 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 without favour of affection, malice or ill will;
And I will to the best of my power secure the observance of the provisions of all enactments relating to parks, and open spaces and of the bye laws and regulations made thereunder, under control of the said Council;
And I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all duties thereof faithfully and according to law while I continue to hold the office of Constable;
And I make, and sign, this my solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true; and according to law by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 and the Interpretation Act 1978."
PCSOs do have a power to detain subject to paragraph 2 part 1 schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
You're right, no amount of self defence training can equip a person to deal with every possible life threatening situation one may encounter. In the current world we live in, it may well be a case that everyone could argue they have a reasonable excuse to go about armed (especially if they live, work or travel through areas of high crime levels). My core argument is really this: it is reasonable for law abiding citizens to expect the POLICE to be staffed and equipped to a level that enables them to combat crime effectively. It is not reasonable, nor desirable, to expect council employees to put themselves at risk of serious injury by carrying out a second tier policing role, using any persons powers of arrest, without the same level of training (and scrutiny) a serving member of a police force receives.
It's just policing on the cheap.
I too would like this discussion to come to an end, so maybe this will finalise our debate:
It may well be true that officers of parks constabularies other than Newham's have been police checked, but that was not the case pre the Kelly report. It may be a good idea if you read the report, This is the only copy I can find on the web:
http://www.radicalactivistnewham.org.uk/CASBReport.doc
You can find it on the Council's website if you type in "Kelly Report" in the search facility on the top right hand side of the home page. The report is in PDF format and can be accessed via the fourth link down the page.
When you read it you will find that she asserts they are NOT police officers; I noticed in your posting of Friday 30 March you claimed they are police officers because they swear and oath to the Crown. This is the oath they attest to:
"I, ..Esq., of ..
Do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that:
I will well and truly serve the Council of the London Borough of Newham in the office of constable in and for the said Council in pursuance of Section 77 of the Public Health Amendment Act 1907 and Article 18 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 without favour of affection, malice or ill will;
And I will to the best of my power secure the observance of the provisions of all enactments relating to parks, and open spaces and of the bye laws and regulations made thereunder, under control of the said Council;
And I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all duties thereof faithfully and according to law while I continue to hold the office of Constable;
And I make, and sign, this my solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true; and according to law by virtue of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 and the Interpretation Act 1978."
PCSOs do have a power to detain subject to paragraph 2 part 1 schedule 4 of the Police Reform Act 2002.
You're right, no amount of self defence training can equip a person to deal with every possible life threatening situation one may encounter. In the current world we live in, it may well be a case that everyone could argue they have a reasonable excuse to go about armed (especially if they live, work or travel through areas of high crime levels). My core argument is really this: it is reasonable for law abiding citizens to expect the POLICE to be staffed and equipped to a level that enables them to combat crime effectively. It is not reasonable, nor desirable, to expect council employees to put themselves at risk of serious injury by carrying out a second tier policing role, using any persons powers of arrest, without the same level of training (and scrutiny) a serving member of a police force receives.
It's just policing on the cheap.
pj, says...
4:22pm Wed 23 May 07
this link explains it all http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Barking_and
_Dagenham_Parks_Cons
tabulary
org/wiki/Barking_and
_Dagenham_Parks_Cons
tabulary
pj, says...
4:23pm Wed 23 May 07
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Barking_and
_Dagenham_Parks_Cons
org/wiki/Barking_and
_Dagenham_Parks_Cons
tm, london says...
9:16am Thu 24 May 07
Epping Forest Constabulary are sworn in as special constable in the Met so contrary to previous posts it can be done.
David Gilbertson, Cambridge says...
12:41pm Thu 24 May 07
I came across this debate whilst researching a matter that is likely to be the subject of civil proceedings - it is extremely useful.
I am a former Scotland Yard Commander and I can state, quite unequivocally, that Mr Laws is right and all his critics are wrong. Newham, Redbridge and all the other so-called local authority 'police' forces have absolutely no legal authority to carry offensive weapons. They are, quite simply, breaking the law. John Boylin should know this only too well as a former Met Chief Superintendent - if he does not then he has either been badly advised or is deluding himself.
This is an important matter. If Mr Laws wishes to contact me I will assist him to confront both local authorities.
I am a former Scotland Yard Commander and I can state, quite unequivocally, that Mr Laws is right and all his critics are wrong. Newham, Redbridge and all the other so-called local authority 'police' forces have absolutely no legal authority to carry offensive weapons. They are, quite simply, breaking the law. John Boylin should know this only too well as a former Met Chief Superintendent - if he does not then he has either been badly advised or is deluding himself.
This is an important matter. If Mr Laws wishes to contact me I will assist him to confront both local authorities.
Mike Law, Newham says...
8:36pm Thu 24 May 07
Commander Gilbertson,
Thanks for making much needed and timely intervention.
I would be interested in making contact. You can e-mail me on:
mikelaw_per@yahoo.co
.uk
Thanks for making much needed and timely intervention.
I would be interested in making contact. You can e-mail me on:
mikelaw_per@yahoo.co
.uk
JS, Essex says...
3:28pm Thu 31 May 07
It appears that this subject is one that is being maintained by the interest in it and the various opinions expressed about it. It interesting to note that a former NSY officer, Dave Gilbertson, has expressed an interest. The legal basis is surely to be found in three specific areas. Section 3 Criminal Law Act, 1967. Section 117 Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 and of course Common Law. There are of course Health and Safety issues to be considered also in terms of the provision of equipment to staff carrying out their roles/jobs. The officers are sworn Constables to the Queen and despite the restrictions in terms of the powers they possess it does not diminish their responsibilities in protecting the public,arresting offenders,(of which there have been many I understand) etc etc. Reasonable force is most usually a question of interpretation and there are many rulings on what it may mean in various yet specific circumstances. The carrying of an asp will only become a problem if it is ever used unlawfully against someone. The test of reasonableness will be adjudged in law. What people need tounderstand that members of the public can walk away from an incident a police officer, whether he/she is 1st tier/2nd tier or whatever is expected to act. The asp is an option and no more than that.
Mike Law, Newham says...
11:34pm Fri 15 Jun 07
Sorry JS,
They are not officers of the crown and they are not police officers... what is a 2nd tier police officer?
However, local authorities do have a duty of care to the public; if one of these parks officers assaults someone with an ASP I'd hate to be in the Chief Execs shoes!
They are not officers of the crown and they are not police officers... what is a 2nd tier police officer?
However, local authorities do have a duty of care to the public; if one of these parks officers assaults someone with an ASP I'd hate to be in the Chief Execs shoes!
Teri Aldridge, Walthamstow says...
11:23pm Sun 17 Jun 07
If they are not officers of the crown then why does the oath taken by parks police officers start with the words "I.....of the London Borough of Redbridge do solemnly and sincerely declare, that I will well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable in the said London Borough in pursuance of sect 77" etc.. etc.. Further on in the oath it states "and that while I continue to hold the said office of Constable". Nobody that I know of has ever siad that they were police officers, only contables, so please stop quoting the word OFFICER. I can only add my thanks to JS and say that at least I'm not the only one who thinks they do a great job in not too easy circumstances. Isn't it time we let them get on with their work and not be worrying about who is ready to pounce on them and push them into court instead of the criminals.
Mike Law, Newham says...
9:57am Mon 18 Jun 07
Teri,
In your posting of 14th May you call them parks police!
They are officers; they are council employees; they are parks constables.
It doesn't matter one iota what the oath they attest to states, it does not make them officers of the Crown!
I have no idea where you get the idea that I do not think Redbridge Parks Constabulary do not do a great job. I've been in touch with every parks constabulary service in London and I am of the impression that they all do a fantastic job. Even within the service in Newham, I know of several serving officers who do a good job and who are dedicated to serving the public.
What I am concerned about is whether or not they should be armed with ASPs. As they do NOT have full police powers I do not see why they should carry weapons.
I've made the point before that there are people who do other jobs that run the risk of assault (store
security guards, social workers, postal workers, bus drivers, and PCSOs ) yet I'm not sure there are many who would advocate arming them.
In your posting of 14th May you call them parks police!
They are officers; they are council employees; they are parks constables.
It doesn't matter one iota what the oath they attest to states, it does not make them officers of the Crown!
I have no idea where you get the idea that I do not think Redbridge Parks Constabulary do not do a great job. I've been in touch with every parks constabulary service in London and I am of the impression that they all do a fantastic job. Even within the service in Newham, I know of several serving officers who do a good job and who are dedicated to serving the public.
What I am concerned about is whether or not they should be armed with ASPs. As they do NOT have full police powers I do not see why they should carry weapons.
I've made the point before that there are people who do other jobs that run the risk of assault (store
security guards, social workers, postal workers, bus drivers, and PCSOs ) yet I'm not sure there are many who would advocate arming them.
JS, Essex says...
9:12am Tue 19 Jun 07
Mr. Law,
The word/title Police is a descriptive term that describes an activity. Policing in its brioadest sense applies to a multitude of functions. The Parks are policed by Parks Constables who have powers associated with their role and which includes the power to arrest not only for those offences which the general public have but also for other offences where the arrest conditions apply in relation to Parks and Open Spaces. The only power they don't have in reality is the power to stop and search. In fact most of the offences that Parks Constables can arrest for are found committing offences and therefore the power of search prior to arrest in unnecessary. In relation to the Asp if the risk assessment gives a clear indication that it is a necessary and appropriate piece of equipment for a Parks Constable to carry then should an incident occur it will be examined. Employers are charged with ensuring the safety of their staff dependant upon the function they perform. Bus drivers have protective shields around their cab area. Security guards have stab vests(covert)and most wear steel capped shoes/boots. As I said previously the asp is an option nothing more. The training associated with it is very much concerned with protection and defense not aggressive activity that might lead to misuse. 2nd tier policing is the PCSO, Street Warden. It is a common reference within the policing environment.
The word/title Police is a descriptive term that describes an activity. Policing in its brioadest sense applies to a multitude of functions. The Parks are policed by Parks Constables who have powers associated with their role and which includes the power to arrest not only for those offences which the general public have but also for other offences where the arrest conditions apply in relation to Parks and Open Spaces. The only power they don't have in reality is the power to stop and search. In fact most of the offences that Parks Constables can arrest for are found committing offences and therefore the power of search prior to arrest in unnecessary. In relation to the Asp if the risk assessment gives a clear indication that it is a necessary and appropriate piece of equipment for a Parks Constable to carry then should an incident occur it will be examined. Employers are charged with ensuring the safety of their staff dependant upon the function they perform. Bus drivers have protective shields around their cab area. Security guards have stab vests(covert)and most wear steel capped shoes/boots. As I said previously the asp is an option nothing more. The training associated with it is very much concerned with protection and defense not aggressive activity that might lead to misuse. 2nd tier policing is the PCSO, Street Warden. It is a common reference within the policing environment.
Mike Law, Newham says...
12:35am Fri 22 Jun 07
JS:
Thanks for explaining 2nd tier policing - you might well note that PCSOs and Street Wardens do not carry batons.
If you are going to base your argument on the powers parks constables do have, those powers are, in effect, the same powers you and I have. Of course, because of the nature of the work they do, they should be equipped to the extent that they are protected from harm (and on this point I have no problem with them being equipped with riot style, full body armour - even if it makes them look like a Star Wars storm trooper). However, I do not think there is any valid argument that can be made for equipping them with items that will enable them to inflict harm on others.
Furthermore, there is an important issue that has not been addressed here. We have touched briefly on accountability: does anyone really think it acceptable for a council service to operate as a fully fledged police force without the same checks and balances that forces that are subject to the various Police Acts must adhere to? A police force answers to a police authority; parks constabularies do not.
Thanks for explaining 2nd tier policing - you might well note that PCSOs and Street Wardens do not carry batons.
If you are going to base your argument on the powers parks constables do have, those powers are, in effect, the same powers you and I have. Of course, because of the nature of the work they do, they should be equipped to the extent that they are protected from harm (and on this point I have no problem with them being equipped with riot style, full body armour - even if it makes them look like a Star Wars storm trooper). However, I do not think there is any valid argument that can be made for equipping them with items that will enable them to inflict harm on others.
Furthermore, there is an important issue that has not been addressed here. We have touched briefly on accountability: does anyone really think it acceptable for a council service to operate as a fully fledged police force without the same checks and balances that forces that are subject to the various Police Acts must adhere to? A police force answers to a police authority; parks constabularies do not.
JS, Essex says...
3:33pm Fri 22 Jun 07
Mike,
God forbid it happens but wait for the outcry should a PCSO or Street Warden get seriously injured in doing their job. Most PCSO's that I know would wish to have an increased level of personal protection. Whether that means batons or not I am unsure. I know that it will become more difficult for them. They could run away from danger? That would be encouraging to the public. We now have them on buses in a closed environment, no where to run then, potential for harm - yes probably. It is always going to be a difficult call for managers. You or I cannot arrest for breaches of byelaws which is bread and butter Parks Constables can. As a member of the public if you are threatened by a youth with a knife you can walk away from it. A uniformed Parks Constable if called by you to that incident because no-one else is available cannot. The MPS are not always available. Tact, discretion and diplomacy are great when they work but when they don't? Batons are an offensive weapon that is accepted.The law talks about lawful authority or reasonable excuse the proof whereof shall lie on him. I don't think there will be many that will not see the reasonable excuse argument favourably should it ever arise. That is what the ParksPOlice would, I am sure, rely upon. Until that situation arises we will go round in circles. It is an option and nothing more. By way of an asie have you contacted Wandsworth whose officers carry batons, or Hampstead Heath constabulary whose officers carry batons or any of the other similar services. How about Fisheries officers. Itb is a wider discussion that Parks Constabularies.
God forbid it happens but wait for the outcry should a PCSO or Street Warden get seriously injured in doing their job. Most PCSO's that I know would wish to have an increased level of personal protection. Whether that means batons or not I am unsure. I know that it will become more difficult for them. They could run away from danger? That would be encouraging to the public. We now have them on buses in a closed environment, no where to run then, potential for harm - yes probably. It is always going to be a difficult call for managers. You or I cannot arrest for breaches of byelaws which is bread and butter Parks Constables can. As a member of the public if you are threatened by a youth with a knife you can walk away from it. A uniformed Parks Constable if called by you to that incident because no-one else is available cannot. The MPS are not always available. Tact, discretion and diplomacy are great when they work but when they don't? Batons are an offensive weapon that is accepted.The law talks about lawful authority or reasonable excuse the proof whereof shall lie on him. I don't think there will be many that will not see the reasonable excuse argument favourably should it ever arise. That is what the ParksPOlice would, I am sure, rely upon. Until that situation arises we will go round in circles. It is an option and nothing more. By way of an asie have you contacted Wandsworth whose officers carry batons, or Hampstead Heath constabulary whose officers carry batons or any of the other similar services. How about Fisheries officers. Itb is a wider discussion that Parks Constabularies.
Mike Law, Newham says...
11:50pm Tue 26 Jun 07
JS:
Erm in December last year a PCSO was seriously injured doing his job! See:
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/manch
ester/6207230.stm
While I think that PCSOs and parks constables perform a valuable service to the public it must be accepted that they are not police officers. They do carry out a useful function insofar as they are a uniformed presence that the public can call upon for assistance - a major part of that assistance should be that they (the PCSOs and parks constables) can call for Met back-up should that be required.
In the case of parks constables, yes they can detain someone with regard to a breach of parks byelaws but as Section 19 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 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.
A very similar power of detention that is given to PCSOs.
Your point about being able to walk away from a youth with a knife needs clarification. If you are talking about a parks constable coming to the assistance of some member of the public who is threatened in such a way, I would say that he or she should make the same judgement call any other person would make in the same situation - after all, in this instance they have exactly the same legal authority as any other person. So, if they have been trained to a level that provides them with the skills to "overpower" the aggressor, and they are confident they can do so without coming to any harm, I would say it might well be worth the risk. If on the other hand, the parks constable is faced with a knife wielding youth and there is no-one else about, I don't see why that constable cannot walk away from the situation.
But like you, this is just my opinion.
I have made enquiries of the following parks constabularies: Kensington & Chelsea; Barking & Dagenham; Haringey; Redbridge; Wandsworth; Hammersmith & Fulham; Sutton; and, Hillingdon. This has only been as a matter of comparison with Newham. I have not made enquiries of Hampstead Heath constabulary nor any Fisheries agencies. From the varied responses I have received from those services I have contacted, I would agree with you that this is potentially a much wider issue.
My take on all this is that, although among the majority of parks constabularies in operation across London there seems to be a genuine will to provide a first rate service to the public (and no other service, other than Newham, have tried to police the streets as a "community constabulary"), arming parks officers - council employees - and expecting them to deal with potentially violent situations is policing on the cheap and any senior council officer or elected member who condones it should be ashamed.
Erm in December last year a PCSO was seriously injured doing his job! See:
http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/manch
ester/6207230.stm
While I think that PCSOs and parks constables perform a valuable service to the public it must be accepted that they are not police officers. They do carry out a useful function insofar as they are a uniformed presence that the public can call upon for assistance - a major part of that assistance should be that they (the PCSOs and parks constables) can call for Met back-up should that be required.
In the case of parks constables, yes they can detain someone with regard to a breach of parks byelaws but as Section 19 of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967 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.
A very similar power of detention that is given to PCSOs.
Your point about being able to walk away from a youth with a knife needs clarification. If you are talking about a parks constable coming to the assistance of some member of the public who is threatened in such a way, I would say that he or she should make the same judgement call any other person would make in the same situation - after all, in this instance they have exactly the same legal authority as any other person. So, if they have been trained to a level that provides them with the skills to "overpower" the aggressor, and they are confident they can do so without coming to any harm, I would say it might well be worth the risk. If on the other hand, the parks constable is faced with a knife wielding youth and there is no-one else about, I don't see why that constable cannot walk away from the situation.
But like you, this is just my opinion.
I have made enquiries of the following parks constabularies: Kensington & Chelsea; Barking & Dagenham; Haringey; Redbridge; Wandsworth; Hammersmith & Fulham; Sutton; and, Hillingdon. This has only been as a matter of comparison with Newham. I have not made enquiries of Hampstead Heath constabulary nor any Fisheries agencies. From the varied responses I have received from those services I have contacted, I would agree with you that this is potentially a much wider issue.
My take on all this is that, although among the majority of parks constabularies in operation across London there seems to be a genuine will to provide a first rate service to the public (and no other service, other than Newham, have tried to police the streets as a "community constabulary"), arming parks officers - council employees - and expecting them to deal with potentially violent situations is policing on the cheap and any senior council officer or elected member who condones it should be ashamed.
MP, Newham says...
5:53am Wed 27 Jun 07
sj,
Re, your posting 22/06/07.
Can I educate you on the fact, NO bylaw offence is arresable. When a bylaw offence has been committed, the suspect only becomes arrestable if he/she fails to provide a serviceable name and address. That is when the officer in question get on his/her radio to their respective control rooms and requests assistance from the Met. Please get your facts right before you attempt to educate others! cheers
Re, your posting 22/06/07.
Can I educate you on the fact, NO bylaw offence is arresable. When a bylaw offence has been committed, the suspect only becomes arrestable if he/she fails to provide a serviceable name and address. That is when the officer in question get on his/her radio to their respective control rooms and requests assistance from the Met. Please get your facts right before you attempt to educate others! cheers
JS, Essex says...
3:14pm Wed 27 Jun 07
MP,
Please read all my threads about arrest and you will see I covered the arrest for byelaw breaches in ' if the arrest conditions are satisfied '(19/6/07).
Mike,
Section 19 is no longer in existance. It was repealed by both PACE and then the SOCA.
Please read all my threads about arrest and you will see I covered the arrest for byelaw breaches in ' if the arrest conditions are satisfied '(19/6/07).
Mike,
Section 19 is no longer in existance. It was repealed by both PACE and then the SOCA.
Mike Law, Newham says...
7:44pm Wed 27 Jun 07
MP: Precisely!
JS: you are still referring to any person's powers.
Incidentally, this appeared in today's Newham Recorder:
"Police are appealing for witnesses and information after two plain-clothes officers were attacked in Plaistow, Leaving one of them requiring hospital treatment.
They intervened when four men were involved in an altercation with door staff at The Greengate pub in Barking Road, Plaistow.
The men turned on the officers and one of them was punched. His colleague had his baton taken from him and was struck twice over the back of the head with it .
The officer was also kicked in the head and needed hospital treatment for the serious injuries that he sustained.
The incident happened at 1am on June 9 and police are appealing for anyone who saw the attack or has information to come forward.
They should contact Det Con Caroline Bartle at Plaistow CID on (020) 7275 5853 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 "
JS: you are still referring to any person's powers.
Incidentally, this appeared in today's Newham Recorder:
"Police are appealing for witnesses and information after two plain-clothes officers were attacked in Plaistow, Leaving one of them requiring hospital treatment.
They intervened when four men were involved in an altercation with door staff at The Greengate pub in Barking Road, Plaistow.
The men turned on the officers and one of them was punched. His colleague had his baton taken from him and was struck twice over the back of the head with it .
The officer was also kicked in the head and needed hospital treatment for the serious injuries that he sustained.
The incident happened at 1am on June 9 and police are appealing for anyone who saw the attack or has information to come forward.
They should contact Det Con Caroline Bartle at Plaistow CID on (020) 7275 5853 or call Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 "
pj, kent says...
11:32pm Wed 27 Jun 07
Mr. Law
You need to get with the times regarding an arrest for a by law offence.
Your statement about detaining for a name and address only is not correct. This power in article 19 was repealed as JS states and was replaced by PACE and SOCA legislation. Arrests can be made for any one of 10 reasons, name and address are only two of these.
You need to get with the times regarding an arrest for a by law offence.
Your statement about detaining for a name and address only is not correct. This power in article 19 was repealed as JS states and was replaced by PACE and SOCA legislation. Arrests can be made for any one of 10 reasons, name and address are only two of these.
Mike Law, Newham says...
1:17am Thu 28 Jun 07
pj;
I am aware that article 19 has been repealed. I was illustrating how the ORIGINAL legislation did not give parks constables full police powers.
Neither PACE nor SOCA give parks constables police powers.
If you (or anyone else who thinks I'm wrong) happen to be a parks constable it would be refreshing (and enlightening) if you posted here exactly what you think your powers of arrest are.
I am aware that article 19 has been repealed. I was illustrating how the ORIGINAL legislation did not give parks constables full police powers.
Neither PACE nor SOCA give parks constables police powers.
If you (or anyone else who thinks I'm wrong) happen to be a parks constable it would be refreshing (and enlightening) if you posted here exactly what you think your powers of arrest are.
pj, kent says...
9:17am Thu 28 Jun 07
I didn't say it gave them full police powers. SOCA and PACE give them police powers to deal with a by law offence including making an arrest if any of the ten arrest conditions are met.
Mike Law, Newham says...
4:16pm Thu 28 Jun 07
It seems to me that there are several who contribute here who may well be serving parks constables (or are related to, or friends of, parks officers).
I think it would be useful to this debate if a parks constable listed here what the ten arrest conditions are; what powers of arrest parks constables have; and, the legislation that confirms those powers.
It would also be useful if the constable could state which parks constabulary s/he is an officer of.
I think it would be useful to this debate if a parks constable listed here what the ten arrest conditions are; what powers of arrest parks constables have; and, the legislation that confirms those powers.
It would also be useful if the constable could state which parks constabulary s/he is an officer of.
David P, says...
12:41pm Sat 4 Aug 07
I think that Mike Law has presented a very narrow and selective argument. Whilst the Home Office may not be able to identify the legislation that specifically empowers 'parks constables' to carry a baton, I believe the same applies to members of a police force.
Similarities have been drawn with PCSOs. It may interest Mike Law to know that ACPO hold the view that PCSOs could lawfully carry batons (and CS spray), if authorised by a Chief Officer:
http://www.acpo.poli
ce.uk/asp/policies/D
ata/pcso_guide_websi
te_updated_june2005_
22x06x05.doc
I guess what Mike Law is arguing is that this 'lawful authority' can only be granted by a Chief (police) Officer. Whereas, it would seem that the 'lawful authority' for 'parks constables' is derived from the Chief Executive of the Council authorising it, as being the highest person responsible for the constabulary.
Constables, of many sorts, have carried truncheons for many years before the 1953 Act. Many of those constables were members of 'private constabularies'. Moreover, during the period of 1953 to the mass Police Reform in 1964 many of those 'private constabularies' continued to carry weapons of offence to fulfill their duties. I would go so far as saying the right for a constable to carry a truncheon / baton is enshrined in common law.
Mike Law also paints a very narrow view of the powers of these constables. Under the new arrest powers afforded to any constable, these constables have a power of arrest to allow the prompt investigation of the offence or the person's conduct.
Many criminal offences would overlap with park by-laws, such as assaults, robberies, drink driving, public order, criminal damage etc. Whilst these constables would only have the powers of any person to deal with the substantive criminal matter, they would have the powers of a constable to arrest if the behaviour in question violated a park by-law. That would also then allow them to search under Section 32 of PACE, if grounds existed. In effect, most criminal offences that are committed in a park would normally give reason to suspect a violation of park by-laws. Many park by-laws go back to Victorian times and are very restrictive.
Mike Law also is falling to consider how other agencies carry batons. Prison Officer, SOCA Officers and Environment Agency Baliffs carry batons on the grounds that they hold the powers of a constable (although the latter only has some powers), despite not holding the office of such. Moreover, Immigration Officers now carry batons when engaged in enforcement operations. The lawful authority for which would come from their organisation granting them this privilege- they did not go knocking on the door of the local police asking for permission. So, by the logic of this flawed argument these agencies are also breaking the law. The power to grant lawful authority is not the exclusive privilege of a Chief Officer of police.
I do share concerns around the lack of governance, training and accountability of these constabularies. I also believe that a constable who cannot arrest someone under criminal law is NOT a police officer. Frankly, to suggest that these local authority constabularies are police is ridiculous. However, I fully support their worth and fully support them having the status of being a constable.
As a final contribution to this thread, I would like to clarify that these parks constables are NOT park constables- they are constables. Only the Constables of the Royal Parks Constabulary were sworn in as parks constables, yet this term is often misapplied to the officers of these constabularies.
(I am not a parks constable but a police officer. Nonetheless, my comments are my own personal, off-duty views and should not be seen to represent the police service or any official body).
Similarities have been drawn with PCSOs. It may interest Mike Law to know that ACPO hold the view that PCSOs could lawfully carry batons (and CS spray), if authorised by a Chief Officer:
4. A baton is an offensive weapon by virtue of Section 1 (1) Prevention of Crime Act 1953, being specifically made for causing injury. Possession of such an item is not an offence where lawful authority exists. It is considered that possession of a baton by a PCSO on duty, where authorised by a Chief Officer, will therefore be lawful.
http://www.acpo.poli
ce.uk/asp/policies/D
ata/pcso_guide_websi
te_updated_june2005_
22x06x05.doc
I guess what Mike Law is arguing is that this 'lawful authority' can only be granted by a Chief (police) Officer. Whereas, it would seem that the 'lawful authority' for 'parks constables' is derived from the Chief Executive of the Council authorising it, as being the highest person responsible for the constabulary.
Constables, of many sorts, have carried truncheons for many years before the 1953 Act. Many of those constables were members of 'private constabularies'. Moreover, during the period of 1953 to the mass Police Reform in 1964 many of those 'private constabularies' continued to carry weapons of offence to fulfill their duties. I would go so far as saying the right for a constable to carry a truncheon / baton is enshrined in common law.
Mike Law also paints a very narrow view of the powers of these constables. Under the new arrest powers afforded to any constable, these constables have a power of arrest to allow the prompt investigation of the offence or the person's conduct.
Many criminal offences would overlap with park by-laws, such as assaults, robberies, drink driving, public order, criminal damage etc. Whilst these constables would only have the powers of any person to deal with the substantive criminal matter, they would have the powers of a constable to arrest if the behaviour in question violated a park by-law. That would also then allow them to search under Section 32 of PACE, if grounds existed. In effect, most criminal offences that are committed in a park would normally give reason to suspect a violation of park by-laws. Many park by-laws go back to Victorian times and are very restrictive.
Mike Law also is falling to consider how other agencies carry batons. Prison Officer, SOCA Officers and Environment Agency Baliffs carry batons on the grounds that they hold the powers of a constable (although the latter only has some powers), despite not holding the office of such. Moreover, Immigration Officers now carry batons when engaged in enforcement operations. The lawful authority for which would come from their organisation granting them this privilege- they did not go knocking on the door of the local police asking for permission. So, by the logic of this flawed argument these agencies are also breaking the law. The power to grant lawful authority is not the exclusive privilege of a Chief Officer of police.
I do share concerns around the lack of governance, training and accountability of these constabularies. I also believe that a constable who cannot arrest someone under criminal law is NOT a police officer. Frankly, to suggest that these local authority constabularies are police is ridiculous. However, I fully support their worth and fully support them having the status of being a constable.
As a final contribution to this thread, I would like to clarify that these parks constables are NOT park constables- they are constables. Only the Constables of the Royal Parks Constabulary were sworn in as parks constables, yet this term is often misapplied to the officers of these constabularies.
(I am not a parks constable but a police officer. Nonetheless, my comments are my own personal, off-duty views and should not be seen to represent the police service or any official body).
Richard J, London says...
3:12pm Sat 6 Oct 07
I have read with interest all of the posts on here. Perhaps I could add my thoughts on the subject.
The fact is the Police Service as a whole is underfunded and understaffed, and tied up in an unacceptable level of red tape and paperwork. This means that less time is spent on the street (or in the parks) and more time at a desk.
Ideally we would have Police Officers on every street corner and in every park, and every school and hospital in the country...but we simply can't!
So some local authorities used legislation to establish their own Constabularies to 'police' their parks and open spaces. The law allows this to happen. Officers serving them are sworn in (at Court) as Constables and as such have certain powers within their area, these powers do include powers of arrest and detention, etc. If, in order to execute their duty of office they need to carry/use cuffs, batons, etc then this is both acceptable and lawful. There is no specific law that says that a Met, BTP, Essex or Kent Police Officer can carry such equipment, but they do in order to facilitate them in the execution of their duty.
I say to Mr Law and the other doubters, that perhaps if you were walking in one of these parks and somebody was assaulting you, or pulled a knife on you, and one of these Constables came to your aid with his/her baton in hand then your views would be changed.
You can be sure that these Constables would not hesitate in assisting you, but if one of them was being attacked and you were unarmed would you assist them? I doubt it!
I believe that they do a valuble job, and yes, they should be regulated, but until such time they are answerable to the local Council, and therefore the local Councillors, of which I believe that you were one Mr Law?
Get on with the real issue of tackling crime and anti-social behaviour and stop worrying so much on whether these people, serving their local communities, making your parks safer, should be carrying little sticks to potentially protect themselves and YOU!
I am a serving Police Officer and have been for many years, my rank is Chief Inspector, and I can say that my colleagues share the same views as I
The fact is the Police Service as a whole is underfunded and understaffed, and tied up in an unacceptable level of red tape and paperwork. This means that less time is spent on the street (or in the parks) and more time at a desk.
Ideally we would have Police Officers on every street corner and in every park, and every school and hospital in the country...but we simply can't!
So some local authorities used legislation to establish their own Constabularies to 'police' their parks and open spaces. The law allows this to happen. Officers serving them are sworn in (at Court) as Constables and as such have certain powers within their area, these powers do include powers of arrest and detention, etc. If, in order to execute their duty of office they need to carry/use cuffs, batons, etc then this is both acceptable and lawful. There is no specific law that says that a Met, BTP, Essex or Kent Police Officer can carry such equipment, but they do in order to facilitate them in the execution of their duty.
I say to Mr Law and the other doubters, that perhaps if you were walking in one of these parks and somebody was assaulting you, or pulled a knife on you, and one of these Constables came to your aid with his/her baton in hand then your views would be changed.
You can be sure that these Constables would not hesitate in assisting you, but if one of them was being attacked and you were unarmed would you assist them? I doubt it!
I believe that they do a valuble job, and yes, they should be regulated, but until such time they are answerable to the local Council, and therefore the local Councillors, of which I believe that you were one Mr Law?
Get on with the real issue of tackling crime and anti-social behaviour and stop worrying so much on whether these people, serving their local communities, making your parks safer, should be carrying little sticks to potentially protect themselves and YOU!
I am a serving Police Officer and have been for many years, my rank is Chief Inspector, and I can say that my colleagues share the same views as I
Mike Law, Newham says...
12:30am Sun 7 Oct 07
Those who have posted here supporting the arming of parks constables and who claim to be serving police officers seem to be among the exception rather than the rule. I have spoken to MANY police officers in the Met (Newham and other boroughs and CO18); I have spoken to officers in the BTP and officers in other forces (Essex, Kent, Greater Manchester) and I have yet to come across one that thinks it's a good idea to arm parks constables (once explained to those who didn't know what they are) or PCSOs.
Remember, my main point of concern is the arming of NEWHAM parks constables (I really could care less about the parks constabularies elsewhere in London - but I still think the legality in arming them is dubious).
Recent events seem to back up my concerns (the most senior officer of Newham parks constabulary has been dismissed for gross misconduct and a black officer has made a formal complaint against his three (white) sergeants for intimidation etc.
From the moment the Mayor of Newham decided he was going to have his own private militia and called the parks constabulary the community constabulary the whole concept went pear-shaped.
It doesn't matter how much you kick and scream against reality... Parks Constables are NOT police officers.
Answerable to local councillors... Richard J. you are a fool if you think that a service developed to protect and serve the general public (such as police services) should be answerable to politicians and not the public by way of independent scrutiny (IPCC). In Newham, Labour councillors tried to use the parks constabulary in its community constabulary phase to break up a LAWFUL public meeting because they were being asked awkward questions.
For your information with regard to my needing assistance or offering it. I got embroiled in the whole Newham Parks fiasco because I was at the Borough Commander's awards ceremony where the original whistle-blower did his bit. Why was I there? I was receiving a Borough Commander's commendation for making a citizens arrest of a man wielding a knife threatening others in a public place - no ASP, Baton or little stick just training.
In any event, your personal attack still doesn't change the fact that parks constables are not police officers ...
I wonder if you have the same balanced, non-judgmental approach when you are doing your day-job?
Remember, my main point of concern is the arming of NEWHAM parks constables (I really could care less about the parks constabularies elsewhere in London - but I still think the legality in arming them is dubious).
Recent events seem to back up my concerns (the most senior officer of Newham parks constabulary has been dismissed for gross misconduct and a black officer has made a formal complaint against his three (white) sergeants for intimidation etc.
From the moment the Mayor of Newham decided he was going to have his own private militia and called the parks constabulary the community constabulary the whole concept went pear-shaped.
It doesn't matter how much you kick and scream against reality... Parks Constables are NOT police officers.
Answerable to local councillors... Richard J. you are a fool if you think that a service developed to protect and serve the general public (such as police services) should be answerable to politicians and not the public by way of independent scrutiny (IPCC). In Newham, Labour councillors tried to use the parks constabulary in its community constabulary phase to break up a LAWFUL public meeting because they were being asked awkward questions.
For your information with regard to my needing assistance or offering it. I got embroiled in the whole Newham Parks fiasco because I was at the Borough Commander's awards ceremony where the original whistle-blower did his bit. Why was I there? I was receiving a Borough Commander's commendation for making a citizens arrest of a man wielding a knife threatening others in a public place - no ASP, Baton or little stick just training.
In any event, your personal attack still doesn't change the fact that parks constables are not police officers ...
I wonder if you have the same balanced, non-judgmental approach when you are doing your day-job?
Richard J, London says...
6:44pm Thu 11 Oct 07
Mr Law,
If you read my post correctly and in full then what I actually said was "yes, they should be regulated". This meant, ideally by a body such as the IPCC. But until such regulation is put into place they are answerable to the local authority that employ them, and as such to the elected officers of that authority. These councillors are elected in democratic elections and are meant to represent the people (public), so in a roundabout way they are answerable to the public.
Believe me, the IPCC are not the be all and end all when it comes to regulation, etc. They also have problems and who are they answerable to? It's not the public, it is politicians.
Can I ask why you have such an issue with Newham in particular? You say that you could not care less about other constabularies, surely if you are against Newham carrying asps' then you'd be against the whole principle fo others carrying such items.
It does seem that you have an issue in general with Newham, and in particular, the mayor. Maybe this is a personal thing.
I do agree with you that the constables should not be used to break up a lawful meeting just because the questions are getting awkward...this is totally wrong and highly unacceptable.
In order to be able to carry an asp the person, whether a police officer or park constable or immigration officer (they carry them), etc must successfully complete a course of training. The layout of the course is endorsed by the Home office. This should ensure that the user knows how to use the asp correctly, thus making it highly unlikely that they are going to hit someone over the head with it. There are parts of the body where a correct strike has the desired effect with minimal injury to the 'suspect'.
There are fully fledged police officers out there who personally I wouldn't trust with a daffodil, let alone an asp. Likewise, I would say that Newham must have some good constables who can be trusted and will use their skills and equipment wisely.
Do you have an issue with them carrying restraints (cuffs) or is it just the asp?
I do have a non-judgemental and balanced approach in my day-job, and for that matter I even work nights. I have a lot of respect from the community I serve and the officers who I work with, both under my command and those above me.
Although I am a senior officer I spend as much time as I can out 'on the beat', including Friday and Saturday nights. I don not do it for the photo opportunity or a publicity stunt, I do it because it is my job, a job which I am good at and enjoy, and to pro-actively serve the public who pay me.
My arrest rate good, as is my detection rate (crimes solved), and I have had 3 public complaints in the last year. All from people who I arrested, one for murder of a child, one for rape and one for breach of the peace. I have been stabbed twice and shot at, but I carry on because I believe that I can make a difference.
Park Constables are NOT Police Officers in the real sense of the word, but I would rather have them walking in ours parks than rapists, drug dealers, muggers, murderers, etc. I think that you will agree with that.
If you read my post correctly and in full then what I actually said was "yes, they should be regulated". This meant, ideally by a body such as the IPCC. But until such regulation is put into place they are answerable to the local authority that employ them, and as such to the elected officers of that authority. These councillors are elected in democratic elections and are meant to represent the people (public), so in a roundabout way they are answerable to the public.
Believe me, the IPCC are not the be all and end all when it comes to regulation, etc. They also have problems and who are they answerable to? It's not the public, it is politicians.
Can I ask why you have such an issue with Newham in particular? You say that you could not care less about other constabularies, surely if you are against Newham carrying asps' then you'd be against the whole principle fo others carrying such items.
It does seem that you have an issue in general with Newham, and in particular, the mayor. Maybe this is a personal thing.
I do agree with you that the constables should not be used to break up a lawful meeting just because the questions are getting awkward...this is totally wrong and highly unacceptable.
In order to be able to carry an asp the person, whether a police officer or park constable or immigration officer (they carry them), etc must successfully complete a course of training. The layout of the course is endorsed by the Home office. This should ensure that the user knows how to use the asp correctly, thus making it highly unlikely that they are going to hit someone over the head with it. There are parts of the body where a correct strike has the desired effect with minimal injury to the 'suspect'.
There are fully fledged police officers out there who personally I wouldn't trust with a daffodil, let alone an asp. Likewise, I would say that Newham must have some good constables who can be trusted and will use their skills and equipment wisely.
Do you have an issue with them carrying restraints (cuffs) or is it just the asp?
I do have a non-judgemental and balanced approach in my day-job, and for that matter I even work nights. I have a lot of respect from the community I serve and the officers who I work with, both under my command and those above me.
Although I am a senior officer I spend as much time as I can out 'on the beat', including Friday and Saturday nights. I don not do it for the photo opportunity or a publicity stunt, I do it because it is my job, a job which I am good at and enjoy, and to pro-actively serve the public who pay me.
My arrest rate good, as is my detection rate (crimes solved), and I have had 3 public complaints in the last year. All from people who I arrested, one for murder of a child, one for rape and one for breach of the peace. I have been stabbed twice and shot at, but I carry on because I believe that I can make a difference.
Park Constables are NOT Police Officers in the real sense of the word, but I would rather have them walking in ours parks than rapists, drug dealers, muggers, murderers, etc. I think that you will agree with that.
Dave p, Kent says...
9:46am Fri 12 Oct 07
Mr.Law
I suggest you carry out a bit more research about accountabilty of these parks police services. Most if not all have signed agreements with the IPCC who will investigate complaints against parks officers if necessary. Don't take my word for it, check their website. May I say your long running campaign against Newham is becoming tiresome and a tad embarrasing. I wish we had parks police where I live as I won't let my kids enter them on their own, the local police are understandably far too busy to provide patrols.
I suggest you carry out a bit more research about accountabilty of these parks police services. Most if not all have signed agreements with the IPCC who will investigate complaints against parks officers if necessary. Don't take my word for it, check their website. May I say your long running campaign against Newham is becoming tiresome and a tad embarrasing. I wish we had parks police where I live as I won't let my kids enter them on their own, the local police are understandably far too busy to provide patrols.
JG, Bromley says...
11:22am Mon 15 Oct 07
I've been in the job for 12 years and until 2006 I was stationed in Newham.
Mr Law is right to be concerned about the parks constabulary in Newham.
They are a liability!
Mr Law is right to be concerned about the parks constabulary in Newham.
They are a liability!
Jamie, Warwickshire says...
5:59pm Sat 27 Oct 07
Mike Law wrote:Mike Law, as a serving Police Constable, I believe you are wrong to dismiss a Constables oath by stating it does not matter.If the aspiring Constable swears to Serve the Queen they ARE 'Officers' of the Crown. Do not confuse yourself by this. The position of Constable itself is an Official independant office and this is where the term Police Officer is derived from: - From Wikipedia: In the legal systems of the United Kingdom and similar jurisdictions, a constable has the additional legal powers of arrest and control of the public given to him or her directly by a sworn oath and warrant, rather than being delegated powers that he or she has simply because of employment as a police officer. Technically this means that each sworn constable is an independent legal official rather than simply an agent of the police. It also means that all sworn police officers of all ranks in these countries legally are constables, since it is from this office that they derive their powers, although the term usually refers to a police officer who holds no rank.
Teri, In your posting of 14th May you call them parks police! They are officers; they are council employees; they are parks constables. It doesn\\\'t matter one iota what the oath they attest to states, it does not make them officers of the Crown! I have no idea where you get the idea that I do not think Redbridge Parks Constabulary do not do a great job. I\\\'ve been in touch with every parks constabulary service in London and I am of the impression that they all do a fantastic job. Even within the service in Newham, I know of several serving officers who do a good job and who are dedicated to serving the public. What I am concerned about is whether or not they should be armed with ASPs. As they do NOT have full police powers I do not see why they should carry weapons. I\\\'ve made the point before that there are people who do other jobs that run the risk of assault (store security guards, social workers, postal workers, bus drivers, and PCSOs ) yet I\\\'m not sure there are many who would advocate arming them.
This would suggest that the various Parks Constables are inded 'sworn' Constables with full powers of arrest.
(Blows your argument out of the water me thinks!)
Arrests are confrontational as you are suspending a persons civil liberties for a period of time with serious consequences.
With regard to Section 3 Criminal Law Act:
Section 3 replaces the common law rules on self-defence, such as the duty to retreat. It simply requires that any force used must be "reasonable in the circumstances." It is still in force today and states:
3. (1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall replace the rules of the common law on the question when force used for a purpose mentioned in the subsection is justified by that purpose
It does not authorise Police Constables to carry batons.
However, Parks Police are sworn Constables with powers of arrest,they are entitled to and must abide by the above legislation as Home Office Police & members of the Public.
Mike Law -as you previously posted : The law on the use of batons is contained in section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which makes it an offence to carry an offensive weapon in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. An offensive weapon is defined as an article made or adapted for use for causing injury or intended by the person carrying it with him for such use.
Parks Police may not have a known lawful authority to carry a baton - but due to the fact that they are sworn Constables charged with the prevention and detection of crime and under S3 Criminal Law Act they can use 'reasonable ' force to prevent crime then a Parks Constable has a reasonable excuse in law to carry one for protection and if need be to execute a lawful duty.How the individual Constable uses a baton and under what circumstance is down to that individual to evidence and a court to decide if the use of a baton was lawful.
Jamie.
Jamie, Warwickshire says...
6:12pm Sat 27 Oct 07
Mike Law, are you also aware that there is a Police Service called - Civil Nuclear Police - they have jurisdiction at Nuclear sites and guess what ? They are authorised to carry guns and a baton and CS Spray and handcuffs! Yes, it's true. But guess what all Police services have in common including Parks Police - to provide a safe secure environment, to protect the public from harm & crime - generally they are there for the greater good, paid for by the public to serve the public. The Parks Police serve a very good purpose - so give them their batons, you cannot justify not to.
David P, London (I'm not the Dave P from Kent) says...
5:13pm Fri 9 Nov 07
Jamie- Unforutnately, these constables do not have constabulary powers to enforce criminal law; so they are not police officers. Their powers are more than sufficient for their role, but they are no where near as broad as those available to real police. Whilst they may hold the office of constable the parameters of that office is extremely narrow in their case.
Also, the CNC are a proper police force: they have a Police Authority and their constitution is prescribed in law (the Energy Act, 2004). These parks constabularies do not have such prescription on their constitution, accountability and governance arrangements, so it's not really fair to compare them to a police force.
Nonetheless, I support the role of these parks constabularies and their right to carry a baton. I do not, however, support them when they act as pseduo-police forces. They are not police. Simple as.
Also, the CNC are a proper police force: they have a Police Authority and their constitution is prescribed in law (the Energy Act, 2004). These parks constabularies do not have such prescription on their constitution, accountability and governance arrangements, so it's not really fair to compare them to a police force.
Nonetheless, I support the role of these parks constabularies and their right to carry a baton. I do not, however, support them when they act as pseduo-police forces. They are not police. Simple as.
matt_w, Nottm says...
8:47am Tue 20 Nov 07
Mr Law: Ask the Home Office where HO Forces get their lawful authority from and they will tell you that it comes from the common law-if you are certain that it instead comes from the Police Act, please be so kind as to quote exactly which Police Act you are thinking about.
chris, London says...
5:54pm Sat 15 Dec 07
Mr Law, you seem to miss the point on offensive weapon... a baton is not an offensive weapon at all, its only an offensive weapon when a person is deliberatly setting out to harm another person ... PARKS POLICE do not go out to harm persons, and need all teh protection they can get .... was you refused entry into the parks police as you seem very bitter towards them. As for "Crown Officers" the Highways Agency have HATO's they are Crown Officers but they do not have power of arrest but it can be apposed on them at any time under the traffic management act 2004 are these the next on your hit list ... the sooner every council get parks polcie in the better!
John, says...
3:00pm Sat 29 Dec 07
Before today, I had only read about Newham's "private police force" in Private Eye, but it was a real eye-opener to read the 67 pages of the council-funded report which can be read at www.radicalactivistn
ewham.org.uk/CASBRep
ort.doc
One of the statements in the conclusion to the report is: "As one member of staff said to me the Service has lost its way. It is important for all concerned the staff, managers, the Council and local communities - that it gets back on track as soon as possible"
Read this report (it will take you a while) if you want to see what Mike Law is really talking about.
It is not really about who can be called police; it is about all rules for democratic decisions being ignored or overridden by people who should not be running anything at all, never mind the sort of parties that are known to occur sometimes at breweries.
ewham.org.uk/CASBRep
ort.doc
One of the statements in the conclusion to the report is: "As one member of staff said to me the Service has lost its way. It is important for all concerned the staff, managers, the Council and local communities - that it gets back on track as soon as possible"
Read this report (it will take you a while) if you want to see what Mike Law is really talking about.
It is not really about who can be called police; it is about all rules for democratic decisions being ignored or overridden by people who should not be running anything at all, never mind the sort of parties that are known to occur sometimes at breweries.
John, says...
4:02pm Sat 29 Dec 07
And by the way, all of this stuff started when the beloved "new labour" Tony Blair came in to heal all your wounds. That is why you also have the highest concentration of CCTV in the world.
Maybe the world of change promised by Gordon will help (snigger)
Maybe the world of change promised by Gordon will help (snigger)
Chris Hartnett, Bournemouth says...
6:22pm Sat 29 Dec 07
i have read several of the posts above but not all, so i am not aware of every post but i have a few questions. as it has been stated the park wardens or rangers as you call them do not have police powers correct? as i see it they are civilians doing a security role. i have been in the security industry for 3 years and to this day i have never heard of anyone carrying batons legally other than the police, if this is the case would it be fair to say security staff should be allowed to carry and or use batons for their job, as your wardens can do so in thiers? an interesting subject i have discussed many times. your response would be greatly appreciated
John, says...
6:43pm Sat 29 Dec 07
Chris Hartnett wrote:Chris,
i have read several of the posts above but not all, so i am not aware of every post but i have a few questions. as it has been stated the park wardens or rangers as you call them do not have police powers correct? as i see it they are civilians doing a security role. i have been in the security industry for 3 years and to this day i have never heard of anyone carrying batons legally other than the police, if this is the case would it be fair to say security staff should be allowed to carry and or use batons for their job, as your wardens can do so in thiers? an interesting subject i have discussed many times. your response would be greatly appreciated
Read my earlier comments for today. You are, or course right; if they can carry batons, so can we all.
G W, london/essex says...
6:50pm Thu 17 Jan 08
just to clarify some points. Friction lock batons or Asps are defined in law as an offensive weapon because they are made to cause harm to another. whether that harm is justified or not is not significant.
2) Police officers carry them and they are authorised to do so by the home office, hence if a PC turns up for work with his own batons, knuckle duster etc. the lawful authority excuse is blown out of the water. The police scientific branch or whatever their name is now test all police equipment and with ACPO approve it for use. Water Bailifs/Fisheries enforcement officers derive their authority to carry such equipment from the government agency they work for, same as imigration officers, customs officers etc. No government agency/department authorises parks constables to carry such equipment, or tests it and approves it. Thus the Lawful Authority simply isn't present.
3) Reasonable excuse - it has been held in court that having a weapon for self defence is not generally allowed, and as park's constables should not by definition by enforcing criminal law, it appears that they can not carry weapons for general self defence!!
4) Bye-laws, whilst important, are not important enough to justify placing oneself in a position where such equipment would be necessary, in my opinion.
Also, re: arresting for a bye-law offence - it can be done if the offence is committed and it fulfills the necessity criteria set out in PACE and SOCPA. If a name and addresss is given and there is not enough reason to doubt it I think that in most cases an arrest would be unlawful as it does not meet one of these criteria. (NO, most bye-law offences do not require prompt and effective investigation by means of a tape recorded interview at the police station!!!!) If it is seen by witnesses report the offender for summons and leave it at that, just like trafic officers do for most minor trafic offences. Human rights wise it is not proportionate or necesary to deprive someone of their freedom and liberty for a minor bye-law offence, where it can be dealt with any other way.
5) Finally, if there are any parks constables on here then this is not meant to be dis-respectful at all, but as with most council/government ideas, they are not planned long term and evolve without oversight and confuse everyone. However, if you do carry an asp/baton at work IT IS ILLEGAL, and if i came accross this situation then i would have no choice BUT TO ARREST THE PARKS CONSTABLE for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. If your boss/council are making you carry it then this is illegal to and needs to be reported asap, as it ammounts to one of aiding/abetting/coun
selling or procuring the offence (in my opionion)
DONT DO IT, its not worth losing so much in life by being convicted of this type of offence (it has already happened). If someone is aggressive over a bye-law walk away, radio met/local force
one final analogy. Off duty PC, PC X is walking home one night and sees a fight, he feels bad he's unable to do anything to help and so the next day he takes his asp home with him, he's driving along and gets pulled over by trafic officers. They notice the asp, he is asked about it and offers the i'm a police officer, i need it incase i have to get involved and help someone, have been trained etc. He was arrested (no lawful authority or reasonable excuse) and was charged. found guilty. lost his job and his pension.
2) Police officers carry them and they are authorised to do so by the home office, hence if a PC turns up for work with his own batons, knuckle duster etc. the lawful authority excuse is blown out of the water. The police scientific branch or whatever their name is now test all police equipment and with ACPO approve it for use. Water Bailifs/Fisheries enforcement officers derive their authority to carry such equipment from the government agency they work for, same as imigration officers, customs officers etc. No government agency/department authorises parks constables to carry such equipment, or tests it and approves it. Thus the Lawful Authority simply isn't present.
3) Reasonable excuse - it has been held in court that having a weapon for self defence is not generally allowed, and as park's constables should not by definition by enforcing criminal law, it appears that they can not carry weapons for general self defence!!
4) Bye-laws, whilst important, are not important enough to justify placing oneself in a position where such equipment would be necessary, in my opinion.
Also, re: arresting for a bye-law offence - it can be done if the offence is committed and it fulfills the necessity criteria set out in PACE and SOCPA. If a name and addresss is given and there is not enough reason to doubt it I think that in most cases an arrest would be unlawful as it does not meet one of these criteria. (NO, most bye-law offences do not require prompt and effective investigation by means of a tape recorded interview at the police station!!!!) If it is seen by witnesses report the offender for summons and leave it at that, just like trafic officers do for most minor trafic offences. Human rights wise it is not proportionate or necesary to deprive someone of their freedom and liberty for a minor bye-law offence, where it can be dealt with any other way.
5) Finally, if there are any parks constables on here then this is not meant to be dis-respectful at all, but as with most council/government ideas, they are not planned long term and evolve without oversight and confuse everyone. However, if you do carry an asp/baton at work IT IS ILLEGAL, and if i came accross this situation then i would have no choice BUT TO ARREST THE PARKS CONSTABLE for possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. If your boss/council are making you carry it then this is illegal to and needs to be reported asap, as it ammounts to one of aiding/abetting/coun
selling or procuring the offence (in my opionion)
DONT DO IT, its not worth losing so much in life by being convicted of this type of offence (it has already happened). If someone is aggressive over a bye-law walk away, radio met/local force
one final analogy. Off duty PC, PC X is walking home one night and sees a fight, he feels bad he's unable to do anything to help and so the next day he takes his asp home with him, he's driving along and gets pulled over by trafic officers. They notice the asp, he is asked about it and offers the i'm a police officer, i need it incase i have to get involved and help someone, have been trained etc. He was arrested (no lawful authority or reasonable excuse) and was charged. found guilty. lost his job and his pension.
Eileen, Woodford says...
10:38pm Wed 23 Jan 08
I flipping well don't care if it's the police or council. So long as there are patrols by a legitimate authority which the council is, and I feel safer walking around my area. PS I wonder how many of you lot are women or are you critics a bunch of male busybodies? And anyway, why are people from Newham giving off about Redbridge? Lay off!
Jiri Olomouc, Earth says...
2:53am Thu 31 Jan 08
I would say that Parks Constables derive their right to carry batons from their appointment as limited-authority Constables. I think all Parks Constables should be equiped with batons, stab vests, and handcuffs in order to carry out their enforcement duties safely.
In saying the above, Parks Constables are not Police Officers, but instead a limited-authority Constable with a specific duty, their uniform should be law-enforcement like, but different enought not to cause confusion with Home-Office Police Forces (in the same manner that most PCSO uniforms look different enough from Police Officers to avoid confusion)
In saying the above, Parks Constables are not Police Officers, but instead a limited-authority Constable with a specific duty, their uniform should be law-enforcement like, but different enought not to cause confusion with Home-Office Police Forces (in the same manner that most PCSO uniforms look different enough from Police Officers to avoid confusion)
M Hart, Canada says...
9:42pm today Mon 10 Mar 08
There are several points of issue in this case.
Firstly that the Parks Csts cannot carry weapons.
I would be interested to see if anyone can show me where in legislation it is written that Police Officers can. There is an assumption that they can but I have never seen anything that specifies this.
I believe that there should be strict rules on what people wear when carrying out a law enforcement role and that any person designated as a Police Officer should receive full police trg, as the Royal Parks Officers did along with BTP.
Firstly that the Parks Csts cannot carry weapons.
I would be interested to see if anyone can show me where in legislation it is written that Police Officers can. There is an assumption that they can but I have never seen anything that specifies this.
I believe that there should be strict rules on what people wear when carrying out a law enforcement role and that any person designated as a Police Officer should receive full police trg, as the Royal Parks Officers did along with BTP.
In this section
- ILFORD: Seriously injured man may have been attacked twice
- WANSTEAD: Brave shop staff chase down knife-wielding thief
- ILFORD: Illegal immigrants arrested at unlicensed shisha bar
- WANSTEAD: Pressure mounts on Harry Cohen to stand down now
- HAINAULT: Ill model is handed a life-line
- ILFORD: Road closed after attack
- BARKINGSIDE: Students get doughy-eyed for bagels
- WOODFORD GRN: School celebrates large-scale expansion
- WANSTEAD: Boris pledges to meet with angry commuters over station closure
- REDBRIDGE: Family Guide to Summer Fun out now!
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Morris Hickey, Chigwell says...
9:34pm Tue 27 Mar 07
Surely the obvious answer is to have these parks police formally sworn in as special constables?