Talk:Metropolitan Police Service

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metropolitan Police Service article.
Article policies
Metropolitan Police Service was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 15, 2007

Contents

[edit] Ian Blair

I would like to suggest that the part "Making Ian Blair effectivly Britain's most senior police officer" is removed. Sir Ian is responsible for the Met only, and has no authority over other forces in the UK. Arguably, the most senior officer is either the Queen's inspector of constabularys, or the Association of Chief Police Officers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.31.112 (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCD=

Not a huge point, but with somebody with edit rights re-order SCD as "SCD1 ... SCD2..." etc, just to make it easier to flick through. Cut and paste will do it.

[edit] Critique

How about a section on critism's of the metropolitan police? sisalto

[edit] Largest Force in the World

Is the Metropolitan Police the worlds largest? I would say that the NYPD is at least as large(larger if you include School Safety Agents and Traffice Enforcement Agents who have limited enforcement power)69.118.180.120 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

What's with the Police numbers entry? Selecting two years at random like this looks like it's trying to make a point that number have fallen, but it's not encyclopaedic. Either put figures for a large number of years showing a trend or delete the information please. Mintguy 13:24, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions on the Metropolitan Police being first modern force

Are you sure about Scotland Yard being first police in the world? What about GFrench Securette founded by that guy, what-was-his-name, Vidocq?
The article is possibly a bit misleading. The Met was the first modern-style civilian police force in the world. It wasn't the first law enforcement organisation, but it was the first to consist of properly uniformed civilian constables with modern police powers, organised on a full territorial basis and making regular patrols (i.e. not plain-clothes agents or soldiers performing police duties or bodies like the Bow Street Runners who effectively functioned as magistrates' officers). -- Necrothesp 15:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Philadelphia Police article and PPD's own website state it was founded in 1751. Doesn't that make it the first? 69.58.248.102 11:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I've had a brief look at the Philadelphia Police Department site and it says a modern organisation was set up in 1850, after the Met. By the looks of this page prior to this a town watch or ad hoc system was in place. If your using this to establish the date of the police force, the Met I think would be older again as there has been town watchmen or Bow Street Runners or other forms of 'policing' in London since Roman times. So I think the widely accepted view in police circles that the Met is the oldest 'modern' police force in the world still stands. Dibble999 12:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The Philadelphia Police Department site states 'By the year 1700, Philadelphia had increased its population to 4,400. As a result of this growth, the citizenry established a method of citizen participation known as "Town Watch." This system remained the basic form of police protection until 1751. In 1751, the General Assembly, in response to the needs of the citizenry, established the first paid police agency. This agency, comprised of wardens and constables, patrolled the city on a limited basis, usually stationed in "watch boxes." These men faithfully served the people of Philadelphia without losing a single officer to violence. Unfortunately, in 1828, Watchman Steve Heimer was the first Philadelphia peace officer to be killed in the line of duty.
Modern police history as we know it began in 1850 when steps were taken to strengthen the force. A police marshal was appointed who not only had control over the police in Philadelphia, but also in outlying districts. Four years later, in 1854, a major change in the structure of the entire city, its government and police services was to be undertaken.'
By that standard, PPD became a police agency paid by the city in 1751, succeeded the "Town Watch." Was the Met also a paid agency at that time also? If so, then I would agree that the definition of the Met as the oldest police force still stands. If not, then maybe that definition needs to be looked at again. 69.58.224.75 05:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think your missing my point, if you notice, the web page you quote above says 'this agency' prior to 1850. It does not say Philideplhia Police Department was set up in 1751. There may be a link from Philidelphia Police Department to these wardens prior to 1850 however the Metropolitan Police can also trace its roots back prior to its establishement in 1829. Prior to 1829, the year the Met officially started, there were agencies such as the Bow Street Runners and more importantly paid watchmen and constables who had been in existence since, quite frankly well before Philidelphia was even founded. These systems couldn't cope with a modern city hence a police force of uniformed constables was set up i.e. the Met. I think your mixing to different things. The Metroplitan Police officically started in 1829, Phildelphia Police Dept officially started in 1850 (though you would have to check the enabling legislation to clarify). Both cities had forms of law enforcement prior to these dates but thats a different issue. Dibble999 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The first modern police force was created in Paris by Gabriel Nicolas de la Reynie in the 1660's. Even the word "police" (in its modern sense) was adopted back then (la Reynie was the first "Lieutenant Général de police" in Paris), and thereafter borrowed in English. It was modern (civilian, with uniforms, territorial, and so on), see the 1667 Royal Edict (in French) for references. Jérôme Plût 12:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

police historians certainly have no consensus as to which was the first modern police force. Robert Peel's 1829 force is widely referred to as the first model for a modern urban police force, and policing agencies already in existence were eventually influenced by the Peelers, regardless of who came first. I believe it's more useful to look at it as an evolution, rather than a specific moment in time, and I think that's what more recent police historiography reflects as well. Certainly the French police were more influential than has been reflected in English-language historiography, but it's also no more accurate to pin-point the birth to the 1660s. The word "police" also had a somewhat different meaning, closer to the related word "policy" prior to the 18th century, ie, "police" agencies were more of an administrative agency of the state than concerned with law and order. And it's also debatable as to the degree the 'modern police' are civilian and not paramilitary. In the US, police initially were ununiformed to distinguish them from the military and to emphasize local control, but they were always armed, whereas bobbies were uniformed to distinguish them from the more secretive government police, and especially create an image distinct from the French gendarmerie. My point is that it's not cut and dry, and is more context-specific than nailing down a time and place suggests, and that even coming up with a list of criteria as to what constitutes "modern" isn't quite so simple. Bobanny 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] .

As per policy, this page should go back to Metropolitan Police. ed g2s • talk 16:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agree with this. -- Necrothesp 16:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the MPS now directly resposible to the Mayor of London rather than the Home Secretary?. It doesn't say this in the article anywhere. G-Man 01:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Structural Changes

The structure of the so-called SO units i.e. SO19 has now been changed - in late 2005 - to CO as in Central Operations, but it's not clear whether the numbers stay the same, or have changed. References are mixed even on the Met's own website but, The reference to CO19 for the firearms command has been changed, updated on Wikipedia and a link provided to the correct new external site. March 2006. --Escaper7 13:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not all SO units became CO units, some stayed in SO, some have gone to SCD. Some of the units left in SO are soon to change to something else completely. When I get round to it I will put a proper structure section in... Sapient 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Now updated! Sapient 00:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added some more CO units which I know to exist; the list is still not comprehensive however.

I've added the new CO10 (CCC/Metcall) and given Metcall/C3I a page of its own - even though it's fairly obscure, it's the biggest change in the MPS for some years (and 2006's structural changes mean Metcall is now the biggest OCU in the Met); it seemed better to give it its own page (and a subsidiary page on the new role of Cad operators) instead of trying to shoehorn it into the existing article. Iridescent 20:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commissioner vs Chief Constable

I'm not sure that the terms commissioner and chief constable are interchangeable. Don't know exactly what the difference is, but is this because of the Met's national responsibilities in some areas, ie anti-terrorism?--Escaper7 08:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Err... it's a little complicated. They are equivalent in some respects (e.g. most senior officer, vicariously liable under certain legislative provisions) but not in others (e.g. pay, responsibility, knighthood). There is no 'official' comparison of met and non-met ranks, though there are a few crumbs, for example in the regulations pertaining to discipline boards a met Commander is eqivalent to a Assistant Chief Constable.
The general view could be put as:
  • Commisioner and Deputy Commisioner have no equivalent.
  • Assistant Commissioner = Chief Constable in other forces
  • Deputy Assistant Commissioner = Deputy Chief Constable
  • Commander = Assistant Chief Constable
Sapient 17:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure my Chief Constable would agree with that list! As Sapient points out its not straight forward, but the Chief Constable of a non Met force is the highest ranking officer for each force and the Commisioner of the Met has no authority over the other forces. So that list is possibly a bit misleading. Its arguable that the only reason the Met has different (such as Commander) and more ranks is due it being over three times the size of its nearest counterpart. It should be born in mind that the head of the smallest Home Office force, the City of London Police, is also lead by a Commissioner, so its arguable that a Commisioner is the equivalent of a Chief Constable. But as already pointed out, there is no legislation over 'equivalents'. Dibble999 23:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

–

As Dibble999 has said, a Chief Constable is the most senior officer in a non-Met force (discount the City of London and bear with me for a moment). After Chief Superintendent in most forces, the rank scale goes Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable, Chief Constable. These are the ACPO ranks. In the Met (my force), after Chief Superintendent, we go Commander, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner - all of which are considered ACPO ranks. HOWEVER, an Assistant Commissioner in the Met is equivalent to a Chief Constable in another force in terms of pay, and the rank markings are the same. If a Chief Constable from another force wanted to go for a job in the Met, they would be put in as an AC on level transfer, or Deputy Commissioner on promotion. This is what happened to our current crop of senior officers. It also happened the other way round; look at the career history of our current Commissioner. He was a Chief Superintendent when he left the Met in 1991, and was appointed on promotion in 1994 to Assistant Chief Constable in Thames Valley Police, and later Deputy Chief Constable as you would expect. When he left as Chief Constable of Surrey police and returned to the Met on promotion again, he was installed as a Deputy Commissioner. As such, Chief Constable is NOT equivalent in rank to the Commissioner; however, I will concede that their functions are the same. The City of London Police rank structure, although headed by a Commissioner, is not the same as the Met's - they go from Chief Superintendent to Commander, but then skip to Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner; as such, they have more in common with all other non-Met forces. The Commissioner of City of London Police would not level-transfer over to the Met as its Commissioner, but as an Assistant Commissioner, and Deputy on promotion. I have amended the MPS web page entry to reflect this. Dynamup 10:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia ?!

The Trivia section in this article appears to have a very negative slant on the Met. I shall try and balance this a bit if get chance by adding such points as, how many thousands of persons arrested and brought to justice by the Met, how much crime has fallen across London, how many hundreds of police officers have been injured/assaulted on duty etc etc. All will of course be have references. Lets try and keep things balanced.

[edit] Ditching 'officialese' language

Very comprehensive article, but it's groaning a bit under the strain of officialese, tautology and is perhaps a little over complicated. As a non 'job' contributor, I've made a few tweaks, and will continue to make it more accessible for non police readers. For example if the MPS "is commonly known as the Metropolitan Police", why would the article then make two subsequent references - longahnd - to the MPS? Any thoughts? --Escaper7 07:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ps: as this is clearly an important article, I've put in Wikireferences, this might help it get nominations for a featured page??? ...and apologies for the mulitple changes but they were made while I was at work. If anyone wants to help with this I'd be grateful - seems very fiddly.

[edit] Name

When did the name change? And what did it? 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is not the MPS also known colloquially as "Scotland Yard" after the former headquarters? User:Shulgi 18 December 2006, 18:10 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'm changing: With over 31,000 officers in the metropolitan service they all start gettin gay and stuff. the ladys start growing beards and become hairy women officers. the Metropolitan Police Service is the largest force by manpower in the United Kingdom

Back to: With over 31,000 officers the Metropolitan Police Service is the largest force by manpower in the United Kingdom Jumaha 00:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] de Menezes

I think this important piece of the Met's history deserves more than just a line in 'Trivia'. It was obviously a significant and recent event, and has recently been added to in the article. Any thoughts? Escaper7 16:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, however it needs to be very carefully written not to be POV. The current version appears to be taking a stance that there was no need for the officers to shoot. This can't be stated, as not cited, the full report hasn't been released and the detail of the actual shooting circumstances is not publicly known. Very neutral language needs to be used. Also the other, 'trivia' piece, that 60 persons have died in Met custody in that time span appears way off and not correct. That needs checking. Unsigned comment by User: Dibble999
Hi. The deaths in custody figures are factually correct, and cited from the MPA's own website so I don't see a problem with those being quoted - it wasn't me that added them, so I'm not particularly bothered. Re Menezes, the very sub heading 'trivia' makes me a little uncomfortable because it was hardly a trivial event, and it's now quite a long piece of text, so I think it should be in a sub-heading of its own. Escaper7 09:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I agree that the number is correct but the actual definition may need explaining. The current form implies that 60 persons have died in 'police custody' however the deaths include any death as a result of police contact. i.e. RTA deaths during a blue light run, someone in a police car who is killed after a car accident, someone who falls to their death whilst being pursued on foot etc etc. Also (when I have time), I may add the results of the inquiries into these deaths. On many occassions (most in fact) the police are not responsible or liable for the deaths. Just think it needs to be balanced. Re Menzes, I am removing POV and statements that can't be known yet. I.e. that he was in full police restraint when shot, which is disputable and as the reports have not yet been released cannot be verified so is speculation. Dibble999 13:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok that sounds good. Why don't you introduce a new sub-heading outlining the stats, then you could add the de Menezes section and beef it up by saying how any of the above deaths are investigated with links to IPCC, coroners' office and so on. I don't have enough specialist knowledge to do this, but it would definitely improve the article. Escaper7 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Vandalism

Can someone revert this article to the version of 10:07, 15 September 2006 - when correcting an URL I didn't notice that it had been more extensively vandalised. --Oneeye 20:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

No, because there have been further valid edits since then. -- Necrothesp 20:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Cast an eye over this article for vandalism esp to names - I haven't got time to wade through the history, and wouldn't know the names of some of the minor figures anyway, so not sure if right or wrong. Regards. Escaper7 10:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heathrow

There seems to be some ambiguity over the position of the Heathrow station/unit in the Met structure, including on the Met's website which lists both 'Heathrow BOCU' [1] as part of Territorial Policing, and as 'Heathrow ID' [2] as part of Specialist Operations.

Anyone know the current position? Are the Heathrow BOCU and the Aviation Security OCU actually distinct units? Wnjr 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe they are one and the same, i.e. the City airport is looked after by the same unit that looks after Heathrow and it is under territorial policing. However I will check and confirm this next week. There has been some substancial changes to the structure of the Met recently and the force internet site is not quite up to date with all the changes. Dibble999 20:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

SO18, the Aviation Security OCU looks after both Heathrow and London City Airport. It falls under the remit of Specialist Operations, not Territorial Policing, hence the SO. The OCU is, naturally, split in two with seperate sections covering each site, but HQ/admin/etc is centralised and the Heathrow section is far larger than the City airport unit. As hinted though, there will be major changes to the SO units in the future, with SO18 joining up with other SO units that guard buildings to form a security OCU of some description. Sapient 17:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. As already quite rightly pointed out, SO18 is not part of territorial policing. The article will need correcting accordingly (i haven't time at the minute). Dibble999 18:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'police of the metropolis'

I think this wording appears on a card with the badge (warrant card?). I can check this out, unless anyone has better access to a police badge? MRSC • Talk 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

This would certainly warrant checking out (um, sorry). I daresay "police of the metropolis" only occurs as part of stock phrases now. With respect to the other names, Metropolitan Police Service doesn't get any really non-trivial hits at opsi.gov.uk: Metropolitan Police Force or metropolitan police force gets more. I wonder if MPS isn't just some corporate branding adopted unilaterally by the force (and only partly, too). Morwen - Talk 23:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
"Police force" always seemed to be the accepted nomenclature (both inside and outside the police) until some time in the 1990s, when the whole corporate mindset permeated into the public sector, so for the majority of the public "police force" would still be used. However, the Met and Home Office seem to give priority to "service" now, although "force" is still also used interchangeably [3], [4]. I suppose given the parallel existence of both terms the article balance is about right, with MPS as the official (and therefore primary) name for the Met, but with the term "police force" following immediately after it.
I agree about "police of the metropolis" though - if it does appear on officers' warrant cards, then AFAIK that would be the only place the MPS is ever referred to in that term and so perhaps it should be less prominent, in keeping with the principle of WP:NC that "article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". - HTUK 00:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I have checked: The phrase on warrant cards is "The commissioner of the police of the metropolis", it comes directly under the signature of the commissioner. So its use there is nothing more than the job title. MRSC • Talk 08:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The Met have always officially been the "Police of the Metropolis", I believe, but nobody actually calls them that, just as nobody actually calls them the Metropolitan Police Service. They're the Metropolitan Police or the Met to everybody. The police may now officially and politically correctly be a "service", but internally even senior officers still refer to the "force". -- Necrothesp 17:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
The earliest link that could be made between the the MPS and "police of the metropolis" would be A Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis by Patrick Colquhoun in 1797, which led to the Thames Police, which in turn blazed a path for the Met. The phrase is important historically because it draws a clear line between Peel's police and the earlier patchwork of parochial police ("community policing" in modern parlance). It's deep in the institutional fabric of the Met, and not likely to disappear altogether regardless of official designations or popular usage.
I recently noticed that "Police Service" is more commonly the official name of police departments, at least in Canada. I don't know if this is the result of recent name changes, but if it's a 90s thing, it's likely a public relations thing. It's less intimidating to the locals (in the same vein as "community policing"), and city police departments all over were forced to address their waning cred problems in local communities (the Rodney King stuff being the most dramatic illustration of the problem). It also reflects the consensus in academic studies that providing "social services" is by far the bulk of what police work actually consists of, not enforcing the law, hunting murderers, or cracking skulls in riots. But even on websites of departments that have "Police Service" as part of their official name that I've looked at, "police force" is what's actually used. Bobanny 19:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cadets

Can someone explain the difference between volunteer cadets, and paid cadets who join the Met at a young age with a view to becoming a serving officer at a later age, or has the latter scheme been scrapped? Also some of the 'officialese' language is creeping back in this article making it hard for non 'job' readers to understand. Any thoughts? Escaper7 11:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Geographical remit in first paragraph

I've restored the "except for railway owned property and military installations" in the first paragraph; I realise it duplicates the 'areas covered' further on, but I think it's an important clarification, given how much of London is taken up by one or the other - the MPS has no jurisdiction over either (MPS issue Airwaves don't even work on the LU network). Iridescent 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the railways - if you're suggesting the Met has no jurisdiction on the railways, that's wrong, in my experience, it does, and it attends many types of incidents: fires, persons under trains bomb threats and so on both on railway and underground stations and p.ways. Escaper7 12:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no - MPS officers will attend incidents on the railways on certain occasions - generally in outer London where the nearest BTP officer may be some time away, incidents they come across direct whilst travelling, or major incidents where BTP don't have the personnel to cope - but the incident will always be non-met-crimed and passed to BTP to ultimately deal; exactly the same situation as pertains to cross-border incidents on the MPS boundary (particularly the M25). Since the introduction of CHS, calls to railway property are generally routed direct to BTP and are no longer even seen at OM unless the BTP passes them to the Met for assistance or information. Possible terrorist incidents are slightly different due to ATB/SB's nationwide remits. Iridescent 16:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I've attended several incidents that have been supported by the Met including the Paddington train crash where the BTP has a limited capacity to cope initially, along with other cases (crime related). As you say it's a case of yes and no so to say the Met's jurisdiction doesn't include the railways in the first par, isn't helpful to an uninformed reader. Can I suggest deleting it from the opening, and explaining it in more detail in the Area Covered section which follows, we could beef that up with bullet points. There are too many possible scenarios, but at the end of the day, if you trip over a Met area car outside a railway station that's on fire or where there's been a security alert - they won't say it's out of their jurisdiction. Regards Escaper7 17:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree entirely with moving the detail down as most people couldn't care less, but I do think the exception needs to be made clear - obviously MPS, BTP, City, MOD, Kew & Heath will all deal with each others calls (and MPS medics will deal with injuries if they're on scene before LAS) regardless of who's territory they're technically on - but after the initial call's over, there's invariably a bout of 'not-in-my-remit' over who will do any investigating. I've seen (and I imagine you have too) enough "no, that technically happened in the station car park" to realise that it's an issue; and the General Reader is probably going to be most interested in it from the "I was robbed on the station platform, who do I report it to?" perspective. Iridescent 17:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a misleading sentence in the opening paragraph re military establishments. It now reads that the Met cover the whole of Greater London apart from the City (covered by the City police) which is a truer reflection on reality. Although the MOD/Railways do have their own police organisations the Met is responsible in law for policing the Greater London area. On a practical level what this means is that if a serious (i.e. murder) or terrorist incident occurs on MOD or BTP property within Greater London the Met have primacy and will be the leading force. This can be found in legislation and Home Office circulars. Operationally I have come across this on a number of occassions having served in GMP and now the Met (The 7/7 bombings were mainly committed on BTP area but the lead force in terms of investigation were the Met ably assisted by BTP officers - this is no reflection on BTP, its what the law states should happen).

Regarding jurisdictions, I think some clarification needs to be made regarding what this word means. Any Met officer (as does any officer of any Home Office force) has jurisdiction throughout the whole of England and Wales and the surrounding waters. To state that the Met has no jurisdiction on the railways or millitary establishments is quite frankly wrong. I realise Airwave doesn't work underground but thats a technology failing (but thats nothing new!!) but the Met still have jurisdiction. What would be more accurate to say is that BTP are responsible for policing the railways and underground, the MOD plod or millitary police for MOD establishments and there are also some limited power parks police forces with some police functions in certain parks. But working with all of them, assisting (and sometimes leading if its a big/serious incident) is the Met if its within Greater London.

And for the general reader the way it should work is, if they are wanting to report a crime, they go to whichever police force is closest to them, report it to them and that force should pass it to onto the relevant force if its different (BTP, Sussex whatever). Dibble999 11:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement

Since this article's been nominated for "Good Article" status, I thought I'd list some ways it could be improved:

  • Citations: The history section has no citations.
  • Dates: Full dates should be wikilinked (not partial dates, however). Right now, some are, some aren't.
  • Listy: Some of the lists might be unavoidable for a topic like this, but much of it should probably be converted to prose format. Editors familiar with the subject might also want to reflect on whether all the info listed is necessary for an introduction to the organization. The "Notable incidents and investigations" section might even warrant its own page.
  • Redlinks: If something is a redlink, it should be delinked unless it's deserving of its own article. If it is, creating stubs for those topics would improve this article.
  • Format references. They should be formatted with the {{cite web}} template and made consistent.

The article is fairly comprehensive, with lots of relevant info, and good images to illustrate the topic. However, these technical/formatting issues should be addressed before it's status is elevated. bobanny 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomatic Police

As of recently this department is or is in the process of moving out of this section of police. Rogsmer 14:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Which section?
Wnjr 14:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
If DPG's moving anywhere it's the first I've heard of it — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I've gone through the article, and it seems there's still a couple of things to work on:

1. The points made above by bobanny still need some work.

2. In addition, further citations are needed throughout the article, primarily in areas covered and the structure.

3. Police ranks should be reordered to go from highest to lowest, not a major issue, but it seems more natural to list the highest level of the chain of command first.

4. History section could be expanded on, for an organisation as large as, and affecting as many people as the main police service of London, there does not appear to be a strong emphasis on its history, especially during the 20th century.

Supaluminal 05:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


I think the article needs to reflect some of the problems the modern met has faced, probably in the history section. I'm not sure why the de menizes episode is in "facts and figures". There is no mention of Stephen Lawrence either, which is probably crucial to understanding the political climate the current force act within 3tmx 09:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second largest force in the world

I would really like to see a source for this. I would say that both the NYPD and the Met are far from being the largest police forces in the world. Tokyo Police has more than 40,000 officers, São Paulo has well over 100,000, and I would be very surprised if there were no police forces in China or India larger than the Met. Jcmo 13:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SCD Restructuring

SCD has recently been completely restructured. Can somebody who understands the new structure update the SCD bit ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.114.23 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Notable incidents and investigations" - Rail Accidents

In this section, there are a number of railway incidents such as:

  • Paddington rail crash
  • Cannon Street train crash
  • Clapham train crash
  • Kings Cross Fire
  • Railway Rapists
  • Moorgate Tube train crash

Although occuring in London, 'ownership' and investigation of such events would have been handled by the British Transport Police. In regards to the references given [5], [6], [7], [8] & [9], most do not mention the Metropolitan Police, infact - the Paddington rail crash reference overtly mentions the BTP [10].

No doubt the Met assisted with these investigations, the way that these rail incidents are listed along with other major Met operations, it appears to the reader that the Met investigated these also (which would render the British Transport Police useless!) I suggest that these incidents are either removed, or stated somewhere that the Met assisted the BTP with these incidents.

Just a thought - what do other people think? BNC85 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name

Firstly, the Met is generally not referred to in statutes as the "metropolitan police", but as the "metropolitan police force" (see the Police Act 1996 for obvious examples) (and capitalisation is very rarely significant in statutes). Secondly, why are we going along with the Met's corporate nonsense and referring to it as "the MPS" as if that's even a remotely normal way of referring to it by anyone not actually working for it? It's not a company, it's an organisation created by statute, and therefore legally unable to change its own name, but even it it were able to rename itself "the Metropolitan Police Service", it hasn't really tried to do so. Yes, the corporate stuff it pumps out (like the website) certainly calls it that, but the logo still says "Metropolitan Police", as do all its vehicles, it's police stations, its body armour, the writing on the back of its high-visibility jackets, etc. etc. So if "Metropolitan Police Service" isn't its legal name, it isn't the name it uses most often, and it isn't what people call it, what is it exactly? And, more importantly, why are we using it as if it's "correct" and the other versions are all informal? At least "Metropolitan Police" is the name of the Act of Parliament that created it. In my opinion, the opening should be "The Metropolitan Police (legally the Metropolitan Police Force, commonly referred to as the Met, abbreviated operationally as MP and referred to internally as the Metropolitan Police Service or the MPS) is...". Proteus (Talk) 13:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and most importantly, this article should be moved to Metropolitan Police. The current title is clearly in breach of the "most common name" policy. Proteus (Talk) 13:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)