Talk:Police Community Support Officer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Police Community Support Officer is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Hello I've added a picture to show the uniform of a PCSO. Whilst the uniform varies across the country this officer from Kent is broadly representative of what people should see on the street.

We took the picture and have released copy right free. Any queries email pcso@bluerubicon.com

Are you sure you really took this picture? because its a Essex PCSO not Kent!--Pandaplodder 19:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Powers 2 Wanted to get a photo.... 3 Reason for PCSO introduction 4 GMP drowning incident 5 Protection 6 Stop and Search Powers 7 Types of PCSO 8 PPE

[edit] Powers

Is this bit right?

"Constable can also choose to extend any part of any power, for instance an individual PCSO may be able to detain a person for up to 30 minutes, *but unable to use force to prevent their escape*."

No, it isn't. I'll fix it. Sapient 18:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's right, the Chief Constable can pick and choose that finely. The example used is that of Lancashire Constabulary whose PCSOs can order a person to remain with them for up to thirty minutes, but is unable to take hold of them to prevent them walking away. Will do a partial revert. Tigz 12:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted to get a photo....

I was at this May Day festival, and I saw a CSO that I wanted to take a picture of for the article. I asked to take his picture, and he asked what for. I told him about this article and that there were no pictures, but there were of police. He said he didn't want to get his picture taken because "he knows what people do to pictures on the internet." I did challenge him by saying police officer photos are already on the internet, and that he was a public servant and I would be within my rights to take a photo, I was just asking permission. There were several policeman with him at the time so when he said NO I didn't want to press the issue, because the officers were obviously waiting to arrest someone! Anyway... He told me if I wanted a picture of a PCSO I would have to contact the force headquarters to get them to release an image to me, as "no CSO would agree to the photo, unless they were vein" (quoted).

I think there are a couple of police officers watching this article, so what do you think about this? I couldn't get a photo, but can you? Jsc83 16:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It sounds more like he personally did not want his image to be used. It likely has little or nothing to do with his uniform, and more to do with faked/offensively edited images he's seen on the internet. As to the officers with him, well, if someone you didn't know wanted to take your picture without your personal consent, wouldn't you hope any nearby uniforms would take a little notice? I suggest you try writing to the force HQ as he suggested and ask for a publicity photo. If that doesn't work (they may not actually have one, so even a Freedom of Information request may be futile) then next time you spot a different PCSO and you have a camera handy, ask again. You never know. You could also try writing to other police forces and asking them.

Finally, about having the right to take a picture of a public servant... I'm not sure but I don't think that you do have that right unless it serves a journalistic purpose (and I don't mean glamour shots). Aside from the personal rights of the uniform's occupant, there's a possible Crown Copyright or other Copyright issue over the uniform (a niggle, but worth checking out) which might invalidate the picture's use and dissemination via wikipedia. I know for a fact even hardened journos with decades of experience won't try to publish a picture that includes a bombsquad or AT officer's face or identifying marks, even if they've already taken it and it has a direct bearing on current public events, because doing so could put that officer's life, or the lives of anyone close (emotionally, or in the less discriminate cases, physically proximate) to them, at risk. This despite their being on the streets doing their jobs and being seen by as many people as would see you or I or a PCSO on a walk through town. The shorthand is, if he as a public servant feels your putting a picture of him on the internet would make his professional or personal life unreasonably difficult or dangerous (more so than simply putting on the uniform), simple tact before any legalities come into play would suggest letting the matter lie. Of course, he's unlikely to be as big a windbag as me, so he'll probably shorten it to "No" or "Hop it sunshine". 172.142.202.55 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Use one off the Merseyside Police website, or even one from behind perhaps. Also, as stated above, anyone who discloses they are a member of the Police Force out of hours is very foolish because people hate the police and you're making yourself a huge target. It also does surprise me when you see sergeants driving to work in uniform! --leopheard 18:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As a special constable I think this comment is desperately sad. People do not "hate the police" in the slightest. Only criminals hate the police, and only a real lunatic is likely to have a go at someone just because they're an off-duty police officer. I have absolutely no problem with people knowing I'm a police officer - I'm proud of what I do. The prohibition against wearing uniform while driving to and from work is to prevent an off-duty officer being stopped by a member of the public to deal with an incident, not because it may make them a target. That would presuppose that a) Britain is a very, very dangerous place, which it isn't, and b) that people look completely different in uniform from out of uniform, which they generally don't (i.e. if a criminal was psychotic enough to go after a police officer because he was a police officer then it would be easy enough to recognise him - we don't go around with masks on when we're on duty; to take an inverse example, I've been recognised several times while in uniform by people who have only otherwise seen me on stage at my local theatre and had no idea I was a police officer!). -- Necrothesp 19:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be offensive mate, but you have a bit of naive attitude there. You just ask the regulars what they think. Officers in my station have recalled experiences where they've been followed home and had to drive to the nearest police station and wait for an hour or so. PCs have had their cars burnt out on their drive around here also. There was even an incident on the briefing sheet a few months back where a prison officer was followed home, attacked on his drive all because the offender "thought he was a PC". Not only that, if you get into an argument with someone down your street (e.g. over parking), there's always the risk of that person saying "They're a police officer, they're here to serve me!" despite you being off duty etc. Next thing you know, you've got PSD investigating the off-duty incident and also your work habits also. They have the full authority to do both investigations. And finally, if people know you're a police officer, all you get is questions on "Now tell me, can I park..." or long-winded stories of how they met a police officer at an incident in 1987 and go on for half an hour with a boring story about how the PC did or did not meet their needs - in otherwords - you get no privacy also! I'm not saying don't be proud, as that is admirable, but it's not just criminals who hate the police, it's their families, their community, their friends (who as far as you may be concerned, have no previous). Add that to the people who watch bad cops on TV, or see JUST ONE using excessive force on a Friday night and you have a great deal of people out there who aren't your buddy. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of those who do, but often in the more affluent areas. Also, if you're off-duty and not even in uniform and a PC - it's your duty to deal with an incident as a PC can come back on duty instantly. Therefore, there's no need to drive to work in uniform advertising the fact. And not only that, you're bringing attention to yourself and your (hopefully good) behaviour. In short, don't let the ever present police arrogance or vanity make you become a target. Why do you think most police officers keep themselves to themselves? --leopheard (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting what I said. I'm not suggesting that you should announce to all and sundry that you're a police officer when you're off duty or travel to and from the station in uniform (I wouldn't do either). But I do take issue with your statement that "people hate the police". Some people hate the police, but the vast majority don't. My force, incidentally, has a policy of putting photos of all its neighbourhood officers on its website, and I don't think it's the only one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right in saying that most people don't hate the police, but as long as you're still aware then there's no harm I guess. And our force has just started this website photo thing - I politely declined for my photo to be taken as many others did! For the best I think. --leopheard (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of my colleagues, regular and special, also declined, and were politely informed that they had to have a very good reason not to have their photos posted! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise! Our force has come out with the very same statement. I went along with it at first towards the end of last year, decided against it & they've reluctantly taken my photo off the website. But I've had to submit a 104 to get my photo from being put up in the enquiry office. Still awaiting a response. If I have to I'll argue Human Rights violation. Turns out they aren't even going to go up in secure cabinets - just stuck to the wall! Obviously open to abuse & not very professional! --leopheard (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for PCSO introduction

I've added {{cn}} to the first para because it's suspect: what evidence is there that people were concerned about low police visibility? I'm thinking extensive independent surveys, pressure group membership numbers, officially received petitions, recorded speeches in Parliament by MP's who cite public concern from their own constituency as a factor in supporting the Bill as it passed through. Anything? If not, this sentence can end on "Police Reform Act 2002[1]."172.142.202.55 14:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GMP drowning incident

This seems to give a very pro-police version of the incident, some of the details are contradicted by eye-witnesses at the scene. The PCSO did not of course give evidence at the inquest. Perhaps it can give both sides and also cover some of the criticism in the press of the lack of training of PCSOs --jmb 15:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the BBC's picture does not look like a "large flooded quarry", and most press descriptions are of a "lake" or even "pond". To describe it as a "large flooded quarry" is clearly on the optimistic side, and implicitly defends the police, and is therefore a non-neutral POV. I tried editing the article to use the police's own words ("lake"), as taken from the BBC article referenced, and someone promptly removed my changes. Make of this what you will.

[edit] Protection

Travis1985 (talk · contribs) and an anon IP have been making large-scale revisions of content & deletions of large amounts of sourced material from this page with no discussion either here or at WP:LE. I have temporarily protected The Wrong Version of this article pending discussion to achieve consensus. — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop and Search Powers

I have noticed that some of the powers of stop and search are not complete. The terrorism act only gives the power to stop and search if there is a Police Officer present to supervise. To search for Alcohol or Tobacco then the PCSO must get the persmission of the person, unless the person has been lawfully detained (does not require a constable present). they must also get consent if they seize anything found during the search. The PCSO can stop and search a person and seize anything unlawful without consent is if they are under the suspcion that the person is carrying something which can cause injury to the person or the PCSO, or any item which aids an escape. all of these were found under Code A of the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which i got from the Home Office, i would put this myself on the article but im inexperienced at HTML coding and it isn't from idleness. Mattrimmer86 19:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Types of PCSO

Hey guys

I added quite a large section on types of PCSO's in the Metropolitan Police. Any problems leave me a message on my talk page.

Police,Mad,Jack

I have removed this addition - see the warning on your talk page. Quite apart from the fact that it is blatantly an illegal cut & paste copyright violation from the Met Police website, it violates multiple Wikipedia policies, most notably Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — iridescent 20:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PPE

I have changed the equipment section to describe CS gas and batons as weapons, not protective equipment. CS gas reguires a Home Office licence to possess, and is restricted to police officers. Batons are also legally restricted. Neither can be described a protective. Dolive21 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, they are so described by the police. They are only used in self-defence, hence they are classed as protective equipment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)