Talk:Metropolitan Police/Archive 1

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)

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.

Critique

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

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)

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)

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)

.

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Specialist Operations

the current page [11] does not echo the article - which is right please? ninety:one 17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I dont think I understand what you mean. Would you mind re-phrasing possibly? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

sorry, [12] is not the same as what is here [13] ninety:one 18:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Met wasn't first

'The first such service established in Britain. It was the forerunner and model of all later regional police forces in Britain.'??? This is the same information that the Met put out previously before being reminded that the City of Glasgow police force was founded by act of Parliament 29 years before the Met. The Mets own website no longer makes this claim.

This page should be altered to acknowledge the eariler existence of the City of Glasgow Police and have a link to this page in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.138.107.180 (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Met police service was the first orgnaised, good, police service seen in the UK. Never before had uniformed officers been so organised. So what the page says is right. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The City of Glasgow Police article makes them sound pretty organised. I'm sure there's room for a mention in the article. --McGeddon (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this it seems that the Met had little influence on Scottish regional police forces: http://www.police-information.co.uk/policeinscotland.html. Which is hardly surprising...Anyone see the episode of The Sweeney in which Regan is very rude to a visting detective inspector from Glasgow? Colin4C (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I watched The Sweeney, but there is no question about it, MPS was the first organised police service, apart from military enforces, the met was answerable to the public. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

First in England was the Marine Police Force, established by statue (Marine Police Act) 28 July 1800. ninety:one 17:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That acted like a paramilitary force though. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What's in a name?

Scanning through today's story "Boris forces in Blair out" on page one of the Daily Telegraph I find these designations for the Metropolitan Police Service:

• "Met" (three times)
• "Scotland Yard" (two times)
• "Metropolitan Police" (once)
• "Metropolitan Police Service" (once) Colin4C (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Dont take the paper as gospel mate, they will put whatever seems like good reading. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the last three are the most important designations. 'The Met' is a sort of slangy abbreviation equivalant to calling someone named Nicholas, "Nick", so is not necessarily encyclopediac. I have put Scotland Yard in bold as it is a very well known metonym of the Metropolitan Police used as the title of many books and films describing them. I.e. it is useful to know that "Metropolitan Police" = "Scotland Yard" and that they are not separate organisations....Colin4C (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead is more or less fine as it is, although the Scotland Yard mention should be in the present tense ("has also been known as Scotland Yard" seems slightly misleading) and bolded as per WP:MOS.

Watch your reverts, though. We should reach an informed consensus on the talk page rather than reverting back and forth and trying to fit our reasoning into tiny edit summaries. --McGeddon (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure which version you prefer. This one?:

A number of informal names and abbreviations exsist for the MPS, such as "the Met" and "MP"; in statutes it is usually described in lower case as the "metropolitan police" without the appendage "Service". The Met has also been known as Scotland Yard after the location of its headquarters[1][2][3][4], now transferred to New Scotland Yard in Westminster, although administrative functions are increasingly based at the Empress State Building (ESB), and since the end of 2007 all command and control functions have been transferred to the three Metcall complexes.

I think that one is fine, it involves what I think is best, and what Colin4C thinks is best about the Scotland Yard thing. And gives a perspective. If everyone is ok with that, I think we should leave it as it is. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Or this one:

The Metropolitan Police is also known as Scotland Yard after the former location of its headquarters, now transferred to New Scotland Yard in Westminster, although administrative functions are increasingly based at the Empress State Building (ESB), and since the end of 2007 all command and control functions have been transferred to the three Metcall complexes.

Also do you think that all the books about "Scotland Yard" are about a seperate entity to the Metropolitan Police? Are they just histories of ther headquarters building or of the whole force? See Metonymy for other examples. Colin4C (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The one with the greater amount of information seems more useful, it just needs the boldface and the present-tense of the other.

So far as I understand it, and taking a quick look at current Google News stories, "Scotland Yard" can still be used to refer to the whole force, even today. --McGeddon (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some other well known examples:

The Palace = Buckingham Palace = the British monarchy

Downing Street or "Number 10" = Official residence of the Prime Minister = the British Prime Minister and his or her staff

Whitehall = A neighborhood of London in which may be found... the offices of the British government's senior bureaucrats

The City = The City of London = the British financial markets, historically centred in The City

Westminster = The City of Westminster in London = The Parliament of the United Kingdom, located in Westminster.

Harley Street = A street in the City of Westminster, home to a high concentration of dentists, surgeons and physicians = the British private medical industry

Fleet Street = A street in London which was the original location of much of... the British newspaper industry.

"Fleet Street" is a similar example to the use of "Scotland Yard" to describe the "Metropolitan Police". Even though most journalists no longer work on that particular street it is still used to describe them. Colin4C (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are we debating this? It already has how it is referred to sometimes, as Scotland Yard. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but I think it should be in bold as it is a very well known and often used alternative name for the Metropolitan Police. Colin4C (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with that. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 20:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Priority boroughs

Police Mad Jack has reverted another editor's submission of "Each BOCU is commanded by a Chief Superintendent, apart from several priority boroughs such as Westminster and Lambeth which are headed by a Commander" back to "apart from Westminster". Which is correct? --McGeddon (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not correct? You can hardly call two boroughs "several". Stop picking at holes, McGeddon. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit is listing the two boroughs as a "such as" example. If several boroughs have commanders, it would be factually incorrect to say that Westminster is the only one. --McGeddon (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Your crafty, I'll give you that. You made out what I have done was wrong, by clever wording. Buddy, give it a rest. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats where your wrong, each borough is not headed by the Metropolitan Police rank "Commander", the only one that does is Westminster and maybe one other. All the others are headed by a "Chief Superintendent". Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's correct, then that's fine. I was just concerned that you were reverting the well-meaning edits of a new user with no explanation, and didn't want to have this conversation in edit war comments. --McGeddon (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ten Departments?

Three are explained in detail. Nine are listed in a table. Where's the tenth? 71.179.82.29 (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Upon further examination, it seems the tenth department is the Criminal Investigation Department. I'm no good at editing things myself, so (assuming that's correct) if someone would please add the CID to the table at least, that'd be very helpful. 71.179.82.29 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Convictions within the Metropolitan Police

Is there anything salvageable in this section? The Met having "the largest number of officers arrested" seems like meaningless tabloid bullet-point filler - the Met is also the largest police force in the UK, so could still have the most arrests even if it was proportionally below the national average.

The Helen O'Mahony case is a similarly vague example, apparently being used here to suggest that because two random officers both have records, this must somehow mean that probably lots of them do. (The "court employee" quote is just attributed to "a source" in the Sun article, which could mean anything from "made-up quote to push the tabloid's point-of-view" upwards.)

A section on convictions might be worth exploring, but none of the current content here seems appropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a more serious section on, say, 'Police Corruption' might be more useful. Reading such stuff as the soaraway Sun's: "a male officer is said to have belonged to an internet forum which revelled in female genitalia" makes me think that it is tabloid journalists who should be brought to book rather than the police. Colin4C (talk) 11:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be worth taking out "the largest number of officers arrested", agreed with Colin. By all means add content about the convictions, but the problem is, in my opinion, that the convictions bit seems like more of a paragraph fuelled by personal dislike, rather than facts. How does people feel on re-wording the sentance? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem an odd, individual case to focus on. Given that the only notable fact about the O'Mahony case is that the other officer involved already had a conviction, I'm not sure it adds anything to the article. There are surely more notable examples of convictions within the Met. --McGeddon (talk) 15:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

How should we proceed with this? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've got a book (somewhere in my house...) by Andrew Morton about the history of police corruption in the Met. Might be worth adding something about this to the History section or creating a new section. Thinking especially of the scandals of the 70's involving bribery of police officers by criminals. Colin4C (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re this from the article:

"The London Metropolitan force tops the list for the largest number of officers arrested - 304 - with 17 quizzed over sex offences as well as 123 for violence." [14]

It is unclear whether the arrested officers were convicted or whether conviction rates for policemen are going up or down.

Re this:

"In a recent court December 2007 case at Westminster magistrates the Crown Prosecutors decided that an assault case against another Police Officer Helen O’Mahony to be dropped after it emerged that the victim WPC Smith had Herself been arrested a year earlier and received two cautions for common assault and being drunk and disorderly at a club. A court employee was quoted as saying "It makes you wonder how many police officers have a previous history of offending.” [15]

It seems to be utterly trivial as nobody was convicted in either case (just 'cautioned') and the unattributed 'court employee's opinion, (if it is true at all and not just made up by the journalist)) is also utterly worthless (on the same level as the sublime pronouncements made by the archetypal "man in a pub" IMHO). Colin4C (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a fairly straight cut-and-paste copyvio of the original Sun article, now that I look at it, with the Wikipedia editor inexplicably replacing the anonymous "a source" with "a court employee". --McGeddon (talk) 11:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I agree about "a source" but an example should be given, and I can't think of a better one than this. It's an interesting case that has everything from homophobia, to corruption and police convictions and should be noted for future reference. Jemthepen (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your edits, they are just point scoring. We should keep the first sentance, which is already in the passage before you edited. We do not need to go into intricate detail, of individual incidents. Before reverting, leading to a possible edit war, please reply here. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence was added by User:86.138.234.0 half an hour before - I assume this was Jemthepen before they'd created an account. Given that this is just a tiny, out-of-context piece of tabloid trivia about a particular two-year period in the Met's history (with no conclusion as to whether the 304 arrests are high or low number compared to the country as a whole), I'm removing it. --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've re-added it, because I believe to be important as it highlights several issues within the MET, Homophobia, Corruption and police convictions. Please note I have been a Wiki member for years and contributed to several articles. I feel an independent person should decide on this issue! Jemthepen (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What is dispiuted stays off until an agreement is decided, so I am removing it. We will battle it out here, rather than revert war. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I support McGeddon on this one; typical knee-jerk response to (especially bad) news coverage is to add it to an article. ninety:one 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case it is non-news, just the usual tabloid smoke and mirrors, signifying nothing. Colin4C (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Convictions within the Metropolitan Police

The London Metropolitan force tops the list for the largest number of officers arrested - 304 - with 17 quizzed over sex offences as well as 123 for violence. [2] In December 2007 the Crown Prosecutors at Westminster magistrates court decided that an assault case against a Police Officer to be dropped after it emerged that the victim another officer had herself been arrested a year earlier and received two cautions for common assault. [3]

[2] http://www.people.co.uk/news/news/tm_headline=742-police-nicked&method=full&objectid=20757749&siteid=93463-name_page.html

[3] http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1785330.ece

I've inserted the article here in case people want to read it and note the sources. Met Officers biting each other! LOL. One gets convicted, the other officer gets off because of the conviction. But the important points are, can you be convicted by an officer who has a conviction, and are you told of the convictions, how did the officer know of the other officers' convictions. Why is it non news?

(talk) 21:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talk • contribs)

All you want to do is score points over the Met. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the problem is that your wording makes it out that all Met officers are guilty of the "crimes" you found in your sources. I personally do not think you are interested in adding un-biased information, instead I think that you would rather make the Service look bad. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The second source is when the officers are off duty. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned but police officers shouldn't commit crime on or off duty! LOL Next you would be telling me that arsonist can be a fireman?? Jemthepen (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

That was not the point I was trying to get across. I think the problem is that you are willing to "tar everyone with the same brush" Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "Convicts within the metropolitan police" - this would seem to be supported by the evidence above, which should surely be incorporated within the article.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

New Info Box

I like the new info box that has been added, however there are some errors that I would like to correct. The MPS is not an agency and there are one or two bits that are legally incorrect. I've managed to change the map caption but am not sure how to alter the other bits. Any ideas? Dibble999 (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying it on a few before I go nationwide, and am reporting all issues back to Peet Ern on the template talk page. You are quite correct about the jurisdiction - we can override that manually as you have done. Technically all Police Act police forces are "bodies corporate" - I 'll ask about altering the parameter |nongovernment to fit that in. Anything else? ninety:one 19:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I take it this information box comes from the US? Anyway I think the sub title where it says "Jurisdiction Structure" needs altering to Policing area or something similar to avoid confusion regarding the legal jurisdiction and area of responsibility. I've edited the legal jurisdiction bit to a better summary of the situation in terms of a police constable of England & Wales having limited police powers in Scotland/NI at any time.

For the Met specifically under general nature it says local civilian force which isn't reflective of the Mets national role in certain arenas. "Minister Responsible" is going to be the same for the 43 forces in England and Wales and may infer some operational control - which isn't there, is it really relevant?. "Agency Executive" needs to be changed - not an agency and the term Chief Officer or Commanding Officer might be better. Generally though I like the box just needs tweaking to the system we have here. Regards Dibble999 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• They guy who wrote it is Australian, but it's designed to fit any country.
• "Jurisdiction Structure" is supposed to be a subheading, so doesn't need changing.
• I've already asked about changing "Agency executive".
• I put "Minister responsible" because the HS has more control over the Met than she does over other forces - specifically the appointment of the Commissioner. (I toyed with putting Boris :p)
• |local=yes was a parameter I automatically included at first. Removed it. ninety:one 20:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Jurisdictional Structure" doesn't quite work though in our system as the jurisdiction of the Met or any other of the 43 territorial forces in England & Wales is throughout this part of the UK. It should be "Geographic Police Area" or something similar. Also under this heading its says "Operations jurisdiction" which is not accurate. There are many specialist units of the Met often operating outside the MPD plus the Met has a unique national remit in certain areas such counter terrorism and personal protection. "Operations Jurisdiction" would be better as "Geographic area of primary responsibilty/or primacy".
• Regarding the HS its not quite as clear as that (even with Boris sticking his oar in!). The HS has powers in relation to all Chief Constables - admittedly the Met has certain historical throwbacks that are fairly unique. However, I think sticking this in an info box which passsing readers from any country might read gives the wrong impression. Operationally the HS has no control of police forces (in theory at least) and, in my opinion should not be part of the info box. Better to be explained in the main text. Dibble999 (talk) 20:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Jurisdictional Structure" is supposed to be a subheading for everything down to "Operational Structure", and is acceptable as that, because all the information below it relates to the jurisdiction. However, "Divisional agency (Operations jurisdiction)" is very confusing indeed! I think "Geographic area of primary responsibility" would be a good replacement actually. I'll add that to the growing list on the template talk!
• Fair point - I can see how it would be easily misunderstood. Removed. ninety:one 20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

(in response to request on Template talk:Infobox Law enforcement agency) "HS" = Home Secretary, an elected MP - she has more power over the Met than over other forces. "Boris" refers to Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London who is chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority and effectively sacked the current commissioner, Sir Ian Blair. This is an issue as this is the first time the situation has occurred, as both the Mayor and the Authority are new creations. ninety:one 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Peet Ern (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New Image

I uploaded this image for use in The Bill project banner. Just thought I'd let you all know, in case you want to use it on this page. I couldn't really find an appropriate place to put it myself, but I'm sure that there are people who can find a place. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly a nice picture, I dont think it would be a bad idea to put it on Custodian helmet, Law enforcement in the United Kingdom, this page of course, or Police uniforms and equipment in the United Kingdom. Up to you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 08:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision by MadJack

I changed the top section, removing the focus on the transition from Ian Blair to Paul Stephenson, and focusing more on Stephenson, while mentioning that he replaced Blair. Surely this is more appropriate than the current form of the article as reverted by MadJack...? Jamesblythe (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not so sure your changes are better, both versions included the same thing anyway with only a few wording differences. Was it really that bad in the first place to change? As I have included before, both revisions read the same, just slightly different, what is in it? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Why was trivia section removed?

Why was triv section removed without discussion? Jemthepen (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In 1981 a report by Lord Scarman stated that London's Metropolitan Police were guilty of racial discrimination.Q&A The Scarman Report. BBC News (2004-04-27). Retrieved on 2006-07-20. The issue arose again in the 1999 Macpherson Report, which stated that there was institutional racism.The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. TSO (1999-02-24). Retrieved on 2006-07-19.

In 2000, more than 25% of the population of London are from ethnic minorities, while 15% of Met police officers are as of 2004.Ethnic minority Met officers at record high. BBC News (2000-02-22). Retrieved on 2006-09-17.

In 2003/04, there were 6,202 accidents involving Metropolitan Police vehicles, the City of Westminster having the highest number in the three years to 2003/04, with 847.Liberal Democrats: Met Police collision deaths rise 17% in three years. Liberal Democrats (2005-01-17). Retrieved on 2006-07-19. Between 1998 and 2005, 60 people died in Metropolitan Police custody.Deaths in Custody. MPA (November 2002). Retrieved on 2006-07-19.

Between 1990 and 2005, 41 serving Metropolitan Police officers died in the execution of their duty, eight of these were murdered or fatally injured by an assailant.History of the Metropolitan Police: Book Of Remembrance The last death of a serving police officer in a violent incident was in 1997.Blair's tribute to 'remarkable' officer. BBC News (1998-10-22). Retrieved on 2006-09-17.

In 2005 pay scales for the MPS differed from other areas in the UK to take account of the cost of living and working in the capital. New constables in the MPS are paid a starting salary of £27,402 (including London weighting), rising to £29,847 on completion of initial training. This continues to rise after probation incrementally, up to a ceiling level of £39,373 after ten years' service (as of September 2006).Metropolitan Police Careers Service FAQ. Metropolitan Police Careers Service (2006-09-01). Retrieved on 2007-04-07. The Metropolitan Police Federation is the staff association for all police officers below the rank of Superintendent.

In July 2006, The Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that it would not be pursuing charges against any MPS officers involved in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. De Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder. The MPS claimed immediately after the incident that de Menezes was a suspected suicide bomber. It later emerged he was innocent and unarmed. CPS senior lawyer Stephen O'Doherty said, "There is insufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against any individual police officer."CPS statement on Menezes report. BBC News (2006-07-17). Retrieved on 2006-07-19. However, the MPS as an organisation is due to face charges under health and safely laws.Q&A: Met health and safety charges

One police officer in London was found guilty of drunk driving every month during the past three years of 2004 to 2007. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talk • contribs) 16:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It was removed in good faith by User:Ninetyone, an edit which I support. All the information that was important was placed in the appropriate section, all other trivia was disregarded. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia sections are discouraged under the manual of style - important material should be incorporated into the main text - and if not notable enough to be worth including, then discarded. That appears to be what has happened here ... nothing to see, move along. Cheers Kbthompson (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

sorry I forgot one:-

Since 2000 only 1 per cent of all public complaints of rape and sexual assault against Met staff were upheld by an internal police investigation

[[16]]

Anyone would think you have something to hide?

Can I write an article about corruption within the MET? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jemthepen (talk • contribs) 16:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's a notable 'event' and it's ref'd to mainstream media (or, say police authority stats). Then, please do include it in the main article - otherwise, please do read wikipedia policy on trivia sections. There's no attempt to 'hide anything', merely to follow wikipedia policy on improving articles. You might also want to read WP:COAT. They'd certainly be an argument for talking about ethnicity and notable corruption cases within the article. There's a section Notable incidents and investigations, where it mentions the Menendez case, in précis. Does this require expansion? A link to Scarman should probably be included under the Brixton Riots section. Where of course, readers can see full details of what the results were. The intention of the guidance is to improve the readability of the article and to ensure there is not massive repetition between articles. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem I think we have Jemthepen is that as we have discussed before, you are not interested in adding unbiased information towards the Metropolitan Police. You do this as if you have a personal vendetta against them, and obviously this is not appropriate. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your comment "Anyone would think you have something to hide?", maybe you could explain? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These FACTS have all come out via the Freedom of Information Act, It's not a police state on Wiki. The fact you don't let people write anything regarding recent issues, Police officers with convictions which the Met has the highest, sexual assaults 1% convictions etc.

I think you're the one who is biased, you don't produce any counter facts, you just delete what you don't like. You can't pretend things are not happening by hiding them. I think we should have someone of a higher authority to decide on what can be written.

Jemthepen (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of God will I do? (although, I think s/he might be acquiring a wikipedia account as soon as they get off the cleft stick protocol) - I'm an admin. We don't tend to do things around here by me waving a big stick - but by consensus. Some of the material that you added does have a place, but it doesn't have a place in a trivia section - is that OK? Let's address specific concerns, and add them to the right place, with the right level of detail here, and links to more detailed expositions under the relevant article. Can we at least agree on that? Kbthompson (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The information you complain about was in the trivia list, so it was included.I did not delete it. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the MPS a police force or not?

I changed several occurrences of 'service' to 'force', I think for clarity the article should consistently refer to the MPS as a force, since that is its legal status and title. Wnjr (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the Metropolitan Police encyclopedia, the Metropolitan Police Force was changed to Service as part of the "PLUS Programme" in 1989, under the then Commissioner Sir Peter Imbert. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Then that should be mentioned in the article.

Wnjr (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the website says Metropolitan Police Service, and it will not get any more concrete than that. So I think it would be logical to change it back to service, considering its own Website calls itself a service. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Although the name changed it remains a police force. I see no logic to referring to it as a 'service', especially in the History section. Would you refer to the British Transport Police as a 'police'?

Wnjr (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But like it or not, since 1989 that is its name. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to its function, which is as a police force.

Wnjr (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Legally it is the "metropolitan police force" (no initial caps). They call themselves the "Metropolitan Police Service", and in the case of titles we go with the most commonly used name, which is the second one. However, if used by themselves, "force" and "service" are analogous and there is no need to change any instance of either. ninety:one 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with the title. However, I do not agree that "force" and "service" are analogous.

Wnjr (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So is this conversation conclusive enough to change back to service, what Wnjr changed to force? Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 09:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Use common sense. If "force" reads better, then use it. If "service" reads better, then use that. If people want to revert over "force" vs. "service" then feel free, but it's really not worth getting a 3RR block over... ninety:one 23:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I made it consistent, because I think that reads better overall. The article previously mixed 'force' with 'service', even in the same paragraph. Wnjr (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I would dispute that "Metropolitan Police Service" is the common name. That is surely "Metropolitan Police" (it's what's used on their uniforms and their cars, for instance, and what any normal person who wasn't calling them "the Met" would say). I did raise this issue a while ago, but got no reply then. Proteus (Talk) 15:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Still no replies? Proteus (Talk) 13:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How many times has the Met been convicted?

i think this is an important section - any more contributions?93.96.148.42 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's duplication of the previous section, and can all be easily accessed in the relevant articles. ninety:one 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Identification of Uniformed officers on duty

I created a new section for this, following recent controversy, containing the following text "Following controversy over alleged assaults by uniformed officers with concealed shoulder identification numbers during the G20 summit, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson stated that "The public has a right to be able to identify any uniformed officer whilst performing their duty" by their shoulder identification numbers". I am sure that this is important, but not so sure that it deserves its own section.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a statement of the obvious, and not important enough to go into the history section. ninety:one 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

How, and to whom is it obvious? Apparently even police officers were unaware of it, and I am sure it does not apply to all police forces.93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The source does not link the alleged assaults with the hiding of identification numbers. Commented out, because the Commissioner's comments are therefore irrelevant in that section. ninety:one 21:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a second which does, and restored the text.

Wnjr (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Is this not a slightly strange comment from someone who (as with all officers of or above the rank of Inspector) never displays any shoulder numbers? And there have been several comments in the media that the display of shoulder numbers is a legal requirement (and even that it is an offence for an officer not to display them). Is this the case? Under which enactment? I had always been under the impression that it was simply custom. Proteus (Talk) 15:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although as Commissioner he has a unique rank insignia, and also wears a name badge, as do many mid-to-high ranking officers. I believe it's a legal requirement in Scotland (to be in 'full uniform'), but not in England & Wales.

Wnjr (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Like so much over the last few weeks, things have been said and then picked up, and in this case run with for a mile. There is absolutely no legal requirement for an constable to display a shoulder/collar/identification/warrant number on normal duty. Only in the case of Stop and Search is a constable required to provide their name, or warrant number in the case of terrorism cases. Of course, it should be a requirement of their police force that they have their number visible, but it is not one set out in law. ninety:one 20:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen quite a few pictures on the Internet with Met officers having a name badge sown on. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Standard ones are velcro not sown, per MPS

Wnjr (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Velcro then. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

This article is now 99 KB, which is far too large (see WP:AS). Like New York City Police Department, I will split the "History" and "Structure" sections into new articles called History of the Metropolitan Police Service and Organisation and structure of the Metropolitan Police Service respectively. ninety:one 18:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, certainly needed splitting. Thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Much of the section entitled "Area covered and other forces" could be merged to - if it isn't already present in - Metropolitan Police District. Thoughts? ninety:one 19:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I support. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 19:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dead body

Do we really need to show an image of a dead body on this article? BritishWatcher (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I quite agree. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As its been a week and nobody responded saying it should remain i have removed the image. I really do not think its right to show the image of someones dead body in such a way. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 'not censured' on grounds of taste. The question is more a case of "does it add anything to the article?" In this case, I think not. So, you were right to remove it. Kbthompson (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraphs

It would appear to me that the opening paragraphs are too long and go into too much detail regarding the naming of the MPS and Scotland Yard and history of buildings. I don't think the opening the article is the right place for all this. I would suggest a separate section for naming and Scotland Yard and keep the opening short and snappy as to what the MPS is? Any thoughts? Dibble999 (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the history section was moved to its own page I think the only place to make a summary of its history and titles is the intro, although I agree it does look a little clunky. Maybe remove references to past commissioners and the history of HQ movements and just stick to the current facts. Nasnema (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Finally had a bash a trying to re-edit the opening paragraphs of the article to try and make more relevant to the current organisations situation. I’ve made the following edits:

• Added the fact that the MPS has significant national responsibilities outside the MPD
• Moved the paragraph re numbers of officers etc up thus giving a brief overview of the organisation for those first reading the article.
• I’ve removed the bit about the MPS being 2nd largest force in the world, it uncited, and I believe there are several national forces around the world that are bigger.
• Removed the line about MPS officers referring to themselves as ‘the Job’ – its uncited, and its not unique to the MPS, many Home county forces and BTP in London also use the phrase in slang usage.
• I’ve greatly slimmed down the bit about Scotland Yard. I felt it went into too much detail for the opening paragraph of the article about the MPS. But there is a link should any reader wish to read more about either Scotland Yard or MPS history. Dibble999 (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Chief Constable Equivalent To...

Dibble, please give reasons why a Chief constable is not equivalent to Assistant commissioner of the Met. How can any police officer be senior to the commissioner? Nasnema  Chat  23:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)t

I'm not suggesting any police officer is senior to the Commissioner of the Met however the statement that an Ass Commissioner in the Met is equivalent to a Chief Constable of a county force is not legally or technically correct although I can see how this misconception arose. Legally each Chief Constable or Commissioner is of equivalent rank as they are the Chief Officer of their respective force i.e. they have full operational control of policing within their respective force area. The Commissioner of the Met has no power over policing in another force area such as West Midlands, North Yorkshire etc etc.

However as the Met is the biggest force by some margin the media often portray the Met Commissioner as the most senior police officer in the country although legally this is not correct - there is no basis for this statement in law. It is the ultimate job for those aspiring to these lofty ranks but trying to draw equivalents is not really possible. When the Commissioner job comes up every few years, only those Chief Constables of sufficiently large forces (or very senior officers within the Met itself) would ever be considered for the Met Commissioner role.

In practise the 'seniority' of Chief Officers relates more to size of force/responsibilty and it is far too simplistic to make a direct equivlalents statement such as a Met Ass Commissioner is the same as all county Chief Constables due to the extreme variances. It is arguable that an Assistant Chief Constable of a large force such as West Midlands Police is 'senior' to a Chief Constable of a small rural force such as Dyfed-Powys Police. Or on the other hand there are borough/division commanders in the larger forces who are responsible for more officers than the Chief Constable of small forces such as the Northern Constabulary and Warwickshire Police or the Commissioner of the City of London Police.

In short the Chief Officer of every force (be that Chief Constable or Commissioner) are legally the same rank. They are all the chief police officer for their police force and responsible for their respective force areas. And due to the variance of size and responsibility of each force it is difficult, inaccurate and meaningless to draw broad brush stroke equivalents between forces. Dibble999 (talk) 12:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In truth, the commissioners of the Met and CoLP are not really comparable to the chief constables of the other forces, but it is certainly not true to say that CCs are at a similar level to a Met AC. Dibble, you're spot on (obviously!) ninety:one 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Exellent answer, and I concur: just needed it to be clarified. Nasnema  Chat  22:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

London police do not carry guns

One of the most famous and unique aspects of London police is that (outside of a few specialized armed units) they do not normally carry guns. This articles does not mention this. I think this information ought to be included (as well as background info about why London police don't carry guns, in contrast to the vast majority of police units worldwide). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.86.119.173 (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not unique to London or the Metropolitan Police at all. All territorial police forces in the United Kingdom are generally unarmed (apart from the PSNI). Granted we are one of the few countries in the world where police do not routinely carry guns but this not specific to the Met so it would not be appropriate to add this to this particular article. I believe it is mentioned on the Law enforcement in the United Kingdom page. Dibble999 (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the only routinely unarmed forces are in Great Britain, Irish Republic, New Zealand, Norway, and Malta, so it's hardly surprising that those outside of those countries regard it as unusual. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Police Rank Images

The Badges of Rank are too wide and have to scroll right to see them and some are hidden behind the ilayer with the picture of the London Gherkin at the top. They need to be split from Commander to a new line. I would have a go at this but don't want to break what is there now. If one of you experts are able to do so people not using super wide screens will be able to see them fully. HuttonIT (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox parameters

79.76.190.60 has changed the parameter "governingbody" from Metropolitan Police Authority to Parliament of the United Kingdom. Where it is used on other UK police force articles, it is almost exclusively used to mean the police authority for the respective force, which is the most relevant and most useful meaning for it to have. In the United Kingdom, the police are not particularly accountable to anyone - not the government (executive) and not parliament (the legislature). The only body that could actually fit into the parameter is the police authority. Furthermore, if it is to be changed here then consensus needs to be established for a UK-wide change. ninety:one 16:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus on an oft-repeated error? Read the parameters again; The lawmaking body that created every UK police force is the Parliament of the United Kingdom - this field is even followed by one that refers to the laws by which that force was created.

"Name of the governing body which is responsible for the agency, the law making body. Do not confuse with the overviewbody parameter below"

Just look at the examples shown on the template page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_law_enforcement_agency

Thanks for your reply. Template documentation is not canon - it doesn't have to be the same for every instance in which the template is used. As I explained above, what might work for other countries - putting an branch of the government in - doesn't work for the UK, because our system is quite different. The police authority of every force is not an overview body, but a governing body - its functions are completely different to HMIC and the IPCC. ninety:one 18:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Obscene Publications Squad re-direction

I don't see why the Obscene Publications Squad article re-directs here since there's no mention of it at all in the article. - 188.141.61.64 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Secret Met aircraft and monitoring of mobile phones

Depending on what people think, something from the following article about secret aircraft could be added to this page:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8857517/Met-Police-spends-millions-of-pounds-on-secret-aircraft.html

85.210.149.203 (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And perhaps a mention of the following about the monitoring of mobile phones:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/metropolitan-police-mobile-phone-surveillance

85.210.149.203 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

MPS or Met

The article generally refers to the service in short as "MPS" although surely the most common abbreviation for it and the one best-known and most-commonly used is "the Met"? I suggest we replace the use of "MPS" with "the Met". Thoughts? --TBM10 (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Metropolitan police car.PNG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Metropolitan police car.PNG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Metropolitan police car.PNG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Killed by the police

The table listing names of police officers killed while on duty is nice, if a little one-sided. Some balance would be provided if there was a similar table providing a list of names of everyone killed by police officers on duty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.133.245 (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

JEAN CHARLES DE MENEZES

In the section on notable cases and investigations the case of MENEZES appears not to be featured. If I am correct I would strongly suggest that the MENEZES case should be written up for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 17:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It is included, under the 2005 bombings bulletpoint. --TBM10 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

MPS or Met

Throughout the article, the service is referred to as "the MPS". I have never heard it called this in normal conversation or in the media. I propose changing the reference to the service throughout the article to "the Met", which is the common name and the one people are most familiar with. Any comments/agreement? Thanks. --TBM10 (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Just realised I sought people's opinion on this back in January, with no response. On that basis, I'll go ahead and make the change. --TBM10 (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Definition of "killed on duty"

I believe Philip Olds, tragically, committed suicide sometime after the shooting. This in no way detracts from his bravery in tackling an armed robber, but technically he did not die as a result of being shot. Is it correct to include him in the list? Or are there others who are also debatable technically? How tight does the definition need to be? kritikos99 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the phrase is "killed in the line of duty", specifically whilst preventing or attempting to prevent a criminal act in progress. Thousands of officers have died in car crashes or other tragic circumstances whilst "at work", but only notable for the purpose of this list are those who died or were killed/murdered whilst doing the most important aspect of policing: preventing crime. --TBM10 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

MET Flag

The flag used in this article is a GIF image. I was wondering what are the chances for the uploader/author to upload an SVG version of the flag, like most flags within Wikipedia. --189.60.107.1 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been working hard to make an SVG file of the MET police for years. It all started with y converting a low-res GIF file into an SVG using Inkscape. With the help of the community we managed to add a better crown and we've been improving the flag significantly over the years. In my last update includes fixing the queen's monogram as well as the titles around the flag. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metropolitan_Police_Flag_(SVG).svg --Pinnecco (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)