Talk:British Transport Police

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The issue of BTP officers jurisdiction[edit]

A bit of an editing war may be about to break out regarding this issue between myself and Richio. So in an effort to try and sort it out I suggest we discuss here first. The large legislation quote that keeps being added is trying to be used to evidence that BTP officers have the same jurisdiction as Home Office police officers. In fact if you look at the legislation closely and are familiar with criminal law and policing it actually supports my contention that BTP officers do not have the same jurisdiction as Home Office force officers.

Home Office police force officers have jurisdiction throughout England and Wales in any situation, at any time, with regards to any criminal matter.

BTP officers normally only have jurisdiction on railway property or off railway property with matters pertaining to railways i.e. theft at a train station, BTP officers go to home address of offender and arrest off railway property.

The legislation which I keep deleting has extended BTP officers jurisdiction off railway property but only if certian conditions are met. I.e. if asked to assist by a Home Office force officer or if a BTP officer off railway property believes an offence has been committed or is being committed there and then and he/needs to act because no local force officer is there and action needs to be taken straight away. Home Office police officers only need to suspect an offence which is a major legal difference, suspicion being a lower threshold then belief. Also this legislation pointedly says it only extends BTP officers jurisdiction for a particular incident not a coverall extension of jurisdiction to match Home Office officers.

Another major difference is that a constable is a constable in a Home Office force even if he is in not in uniform and doesn't happen to have his warrant card on him. This conditional extension of BTP officers jurisdiction actually stipulates that they must be in uniform or have a warrant card on them to use these conditional powers.

I could go into more detail , but by reading the legislation it can be readily seen that BTP officers have not had their jurisdiction extended to match that of Home Office forces.

The aricle may need to be altered to outline this conditional extension more clearly but to those not involved in policing its probably not relevant. In practise the alteration in the 2001 Act has allowed BTP and MDP officers to act in an emergency if there is no Home Office officer to hand but it has not extended these specialist force officers jurisdiction to match that of the Home Office forces of England and Wales. Dibble999 08:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dibble, don't stress it not the beginning of an editing war merely my belief that a minor alteration would improve an

essentially a good page regarding BTP.

Your passage "BTP constables have the powers of a constable off railway property if they are investigating crime which was committed on railway property or if they come across an emergency situation, where waiting for a local police officer to attend would be impracticable.  is where my disagreement lies. This statement does not adequately explain the BTP's powers away from the railway infrastructure. 

The boring bit:


Section 100(2) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 states: Members of the British Transport Police Force have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that area:-

(a) in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence, or

(b) if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or limb or to prevent or minimise personal injury.

What you have written in the discussion here only reflects the Note attached to Subsection (2) "The legislation which I keep deleting has extended BTP officers jurisdiction off railway property but only if certian conditions are met. I.e. if asked to assist by a Home Office force officer or if a BTP officer off railway property believes an offence has been committed or is being committed there and then and he/needs to act because no local force officer is there and action needs to be taken straight away. Home Office police officers only need to suspect an offence which is a major legal difference, suspicion being a lower threshold then belief. Also this legislation pointedly says it only extends BTP officers jurisdiction for a particular incident not a coverall extension of jurisdiction to match Home Office officers"

And finally...

I agree that this is mostly irrelevant to persons with no knowledge to policing and the law, but should someone read this by clicking a link intentionally or by mistake, I feel they would be better informed if it was more accurate. If I click on a page containing a subject of which I know nothing about, I would hope that it was fully correct. I would be pleased to help should there be anything you would like to know regarding BTP or Essex Pol.

Richio

Given this is an encyclopedic page for the general public and that we can provide links to s100 & 100 of ATCSA for those who are really interested, how about the following:

British Transport Police officers are constables with the same powers as constables of regional police forces when on railway property and can also exercise their powers in most, though not all, situations throughout England, Wales and Scotland.[1]

The following is an extract from the BTP National Legal Database which may assist:


References[edit]

  1. ^ s100 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
Anyone who is really interested can read the actual text of the act, whilst the general idea that in most circumstances a BTP officer can excercise their powers, is put across? Just a thought from the met...
PS, Richio, you can 'sign' your posts by typing ~~~~. Like this: Sapient 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said my piece and in truth my main issue is the perception that would be given of the jurisdiction where you have written that BTP constables have powers of a constable when investigating railway offences on someone else's patch. To me this seems misleading. Sapient, thanks for the sig tip. New to all this, I've been stuck down tunnels for too many years!!

Richio 20:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I think your suggestion above is great and would be better. Just re-read what I put at the top and I come across as a bit uperty. Sorry about that, must remember not to edit after finishing a bad night shift! The dealings I've had with BTP in my area (GMP) have all been good and I wasn't intending to have a dig at the BTP. Richo, just out of interest, I've heard rumours that the Met want to take over BTP within the M25 like they did with the Royal Parks Constabulary. Any truth to this? Dibble999 15:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Know the feeling of a bad night shift!

The Met absorbing the BTP rumour has been floating around for about 25 years now, what I've heard most recently is from the reports that have emanated since the July bombings. At the moment L Area which is the section funded by London Underground & DLR is policed by around 600 officers in total. Metpol said to cover the area effectively they would need around 2500-3000 officers. Ken Livingstone is pushing desperately for London to have 1 police force, London underground would never agree to the funding that would be needed to meet the Met's requirements. City Pol have also been mentioned and have threatened to relocate the businesses in the corporation of London (which fund City Pol) to Germany should the the City be forced to merge, essentially destroying Britain's financial sector.

The reports also made note that it benefited to have a specialist railway force, this has somewhat been backtracked under pressure from Livingstone. If the BTP within the M25 went to the Met also absorbed would be large parts of H Area (London South) and B Area (London North) which bring in the majority of revenue for those areas within the London stations, now baring in mind H Area covers also Kent, Sussex and Surrey. The BTP outside the M25 would not make enough money to exist and those officers stationed there would most likely be amalgamated into local forces as specialist sections, which would deal with railway problems primarily, the BTP would then cease to exist.

I spoke to the Chief Constable in February and his belief is that the merger realistically is so difficult to co-ordinate that it will continued to be talked about yet never actually take place. Personally I don't believe it would make a great deal of difference to merge or not as I enjoy working with Met units and we most of the time end up dealing with as many jobs of there's as they do our's. I would be disappointed however as another piece of history would be lost.

Richio 22:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any rumours that I may have gone into the back yard of a certain BTP station in London and wound-up a probationer that I was 'checking to see where we would put things when we took over' are wholy without foundation. Honest. But seriously, I've not heard anything from the met side, aside from one rumour saying that the BTP were going to be unable to police Crossrail and that we would have to do it instead... Sapient 22:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crossrail policing I've also heard would be undertaken by MPS, most likely be some new addition to TOCU's tasks. Other than the funding I can't understand why MPS would be interested in it really. BTP would be able to manage it would just mean more new recruits. As for the wind ups, that's what makes this job worth doing sometimes, truthfully I should say most of the time.

Richio 22:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you, at ground level, there is no groundswell of support for taking over the BTP - it's a non-issue! Sapient 22:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit new to this game (Wikipedia) so forgive me if I'm commenting on something which has already been discussed and established: I believe that the issue of "jurisdiction" outwith the railway is academic; although the various acts have not gone far enough for the BTP to have "full jurisdiction" (although even the term "jurisdiction" itself is a notional term) I would challenge anyone to dream up a situation where the BTP would not be able to act (on a legal basis) if required - that's the precise point; officers can still exercise all their powers as required (the wording is academic), as can non BTP officers, but the legislation still recognises that their focus should be on the railway. Perhaps, if anyone feels that there is ambiguity here it might be worth including some reference to the extent of partnership working that exists between local forces and the BTP? That is, perhaps shift the focus to "practice" rather than "legislation" (e.g., as already mentioned, the 8000 off-jurisdiction incidents each year)?Printedinuk (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime on the Railway[edit]

Not sure what this section is trying to convey. It states, "BTP officers can deal with..." then goes on to list a number of different crimes?! This is a bit misleading as BTP officers can deal with any crime as any other police officer. Not sure why it is there. Dibble999 21:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now removed the strange list. It is pointless and not accurate. BTP officers can deal with all crime and bye laws on the rail network so the list was somewhat misleading. Dibble999 13:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-npov section[edit]

The BTP's reputation was further lowered following a low-speed train derailment near Glasgow, caused by the track spreading because of thermal expansion in unusually hot weather, when the BTP insisted on treating the accident as a scene of crime, detaining hundreds of passengers for many hours while statements were taken. Says who? It's not cited and not really a very NPOV so perhaps it should be removed, or at least atrributed to whoever said it?? Escaper7 08:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misc[edit]

  • I have expanded the history
  • I have recast a secton on Control Rooms which had an unfairly London-centric view of the force
  • I have, as far as possible, added references.

--Maxburgoyne 00:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm not a fan of long sections on history so far up an article. I think it's extremely detailed and comprehensive which is great; but I think it's in the wrong place and should be further down the article. Just my view. Escaper7 13:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps create a seperate article to allow full history to be published and expanded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.31.176 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Tyne & Wear Metro[edit]

I've just added that BTP polices the Sunderland line of the Tyne and Wear Metro (between Pelaw and South Hylton) However, there is talk that responsibility for the whole of the Tyne and Wear network be changed from Northumbria Police to BTP in the not-so-distant future... BNC85 15:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation[edit]

Can anyone dig up a proper cite for the first group of constables employed solely to protect railways who were:-

  • -railway employees
  • -employed as constables

and were not:-

  • -merely "policemen" in the early railway sense, i.e. persons principally concerned with the control of trains
  • -railwaymen who happened also to be (ordinary non-railway) constables, unless the latter was necessarily done so that a force of railway constables could be formed within the existing workforce

Presumably some of the many railway histories have authoritative references.

The BTP claim of 1829 (unless I've missed an update) fails to quote anything that doesn't verify that the "policemen" are not actually the early signalmen.

This could also give scope for a paragaph listing earlier forces. --MBRZ48 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I have checked with the BTP Historical Society based at Tadworth. It is on an intranet so sadly I cannot provide a link. I appreciate that the responsibilities may well have been closer to a track inspector than a curent police officer; how can we know? A solution may be a paragraph from yourself to that effect.
--MJB 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quote does not however describe them as "constables" which is what the BTP and its predecessors are groups of. This is indirectly warned about on the web page http://www.met.police.uk/history/records.htm of the Metropolitan Police.


I think your additions are an elegant solution to the debate. Thanks.--MJB 07:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading between the lines of the references so far tripped over and adding what we already have it looks like the final (but unconfirmed) result might be that the Special Constables Act 1831 was used by railways to extend the disciplinary/protective function of the (previously not "constables") policemen beyond that of being mere caretakers (if/when they weren't controlling trains) confined to the boundaries of the railways. If so then there might be several effectively simultaneous claimants for the first railway constabulary dedicated specifically to law enforcement. There was an earlier Act in 1820 (according to http://www.policespecials.com/history/history.htm ) but their description suggests it was unlikely to have been used as a back-door method by railways and others to form their own constabularies. Possibly the J R Whitbread book has more detail in it but as it was published in 1961 I'm not expecting to walk into a library and find a copy staring at me. Regarding the frock coat worn by the signal/"police"men, this seems to have been a common mode of dress for assorted figures of authority so the wearing of it by both those persons and constables (or anyone who had a dual function) was possibly expected/natural.--MBRZ48 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Crime on Heritage Ralways[edit]

The statement that BTP does not investigate crime on any transport system it does not have a service agreement with , is incorrect. BTP does have a responsibility for investigating crime on heritage/preserved railways. I have included one link to a newpaper report on an incident in North Wales.--Pandaplodder 12:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I work for the BTP and we do NOT police heritage railways unless, for example, a steam train special is running on the mainline. If you are stuck on the Snowdon railway do not call us. One of the articles cited states N Wales Pol attended and the other is a blog entry from PandsPlodder! --MJB 15:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which is me, the railway in question was the Welsh Highland (Porthmadog), which has had vandalism, unforunately I can't find the other news report in a rail magazine which stated BTP from Bangor was investigating vandalism and an airgun incident, the report staed that BTp had responsibility for Hertitage railways?

The article is wrong. I am not sure that a blog entry by yourself counts as a citation. Near Porthmadog the mainline and the heritage line run parallel which may cause confusion. Similarly, at Aberystwyth the Vale of Rheidol railway does, I believe, share the same railstn as the mainline. Heritage railways cannot, I am afraid, afford BTP! --MJB 14:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEW INFO - Just been reading this and confirm that BTP do Police some heritage railways. I know of one for a fact which is the North Yorks Moors Railway. This agreement has been in place I believe for around 4 years and is covered by an annual payment. I've included a newspaper report of a recent case which confirms this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-18150355 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTP Specials Jurisdiction[edit]

The section on BTP Specials currently makes a claim that they have more powers than BTP regulars! My reading of the law would dispute this. As far as I am aware BTP specials have the same jurisdiction as BTP regulars and the recent ammendment to Specials jurisdiction only applies to Home Office (territorial) forces Special Constables. Any BTP colleagues out there who can confirm this?

I have done some research and the assertion currently in this section that BTP Specials have more jurisdiction than BTP regulars is incorrect. The recent ammendment to the law alligning Specials to have the same jurisdiction as regulars applies only to the Police Act 1996 i.e. Home Office forces. BTP specials do not get their powers through this but BTP specific legislation as they are not a 'Home Office' force. So the recent change to Home Office force Specials has not altered BTP Specials jurisdiction which remains exactly the same as BTP regulars. I have changed the article accordingly. Dibble999 12:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


reference organization[edit]

The ref numbers don't seem to add up. Is there a straight forward reason for this in articles? --maxrspct ping me 10:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Be more specific? --MJB 22:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds Control Room[edit]

I've updated the section to read that Leeds Control Room has now closed. I am unsure as to whether Manchester and Glasgow for North Western and Scotland have closed as of yet, but the North Eastern area is now dealt with by Birmingham. BNC85 (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


As per the update, Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow and Cardiff are all now closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.131.133 (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'+ern' suffix for Area Names[edit]

I've just added the '+ern' suffixes to North East and North West as these are their official titles. BNC85 (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTP Force Areas[edit]

There are some significant differences between the different force areas. In particular, the Scottish Area has the complication of a different legal system (which also affects things such as custody, case management etc). I was wondering about writing a section to include this but was unsure what approach to take; should I just go ahead and create a section for (peculiarities of) the Scottish Area or should a section be created for each of the Force areas? What does everyone think? Printedinuk (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jurisdiction[edit]

from reading the railways and transport safety act 2003, in conjunction with the transport and works act 1992, it appears that BTP constables have jurisdiction over any standard gauge railway. can we make a clearer distinction between where they can police and where they do police? ninety:one 15:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 aspects to the question: (1) BTP jurisdiction. As a force, BTP has "jurisdiction" over all NWR administered railways and those other railways (light, tram and full-gauge) that it has "agreed" to police. This is a quasi-commercial arrangement; For example, BTP and West Mids Police both bid for the Midland Metro contract. Not all standard guage railways are BTP jurisdiction - the Great Central Railway and the Severn Valley are just two examples. (2) BTP Constable's jurisdiction. BTP officers have a limited jurisdiction anywhere in England, Wales & Scotland. This is addressed thoroughly in the article.


--MJB (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as a force, BTP doesn't have a "jurisdiction" the same way a constable does (i know you know, others might not). the use of the word "jurisdiction" is confusing in the first section. ninety:one 16:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Could somebody help by providing a PNG or SVG logo? In the meantime I am going to try and upload a non-free JPG logo. CrossHouses (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTP Specials Jurisdiction[edit]

As above, a BTP officer has conditional jurisdiction outside their force area (the railway), only if in uniform or with documentary evidence (warrant card), and only if they believe a crime has been committed or it's necessary to preserve life.

However, for Specials, there are the Schedule 2 amendments to the Police Act 2006 which say: "A special constable shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout England and Wales and the adjacent United Kingdom waters."

Is there anything to suggest that this does not apply to BTP Specials? Is this still subject to the uniform/evidence/crime/life conditions above? Gerardtalk 19:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fanciful myth I'm afraid! The amendment wasn't drafted correctly - it should have read "A special constable appointed for a police area shall have all the powers and privileges of a constable throughout England and Wales and the adjacent United Kingdom waters". Nonetheless, it is quite clear that the intention of the amendment was to refer to territorial special constables, and any court would hold as such (see the explanatory notes). In theory, it could be argued that it extended to BTP & port police, but again, I don't think any court would ever put that construction on it. ninety:one 21:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Units[edit]

As reported by the BBC and numerous other media sources (May 2011) - 'Armed teams of British Transport Police (BTP) are to start patrolling the railways and London Underground to counter terrorism.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13521747

About BTP Armed Units on the BTP Website

http://www.btp.police.uk/about_us/btp_firearms_unit.aspx

Post-2014 New Divisional Structure[edit]

I've updated the article with the new divisional structure (A, B, C & D Divisions) and their sub-divisions. BNC85 (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on British Transport Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Transport Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on British Transport Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on British Transport Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Transport Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Transport Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Transport Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction[edit]

The lead says 75% of funding for the BTP comes from the train operating companies whilst the funding section says 95%. Which is it? Stifle (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared up, no source for the 75% claim so I've removed it and replaced with more general wording from a Government report. --07Alpha55 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T&W Metro jurisdiction[edit]

According to the article BTP are only responsible for part of the Tyne and Wear Metro. That information has been in the article for years and never challenged. I can't see any online reference, and I've searched and searched, for references that confirm it. However social media posts from BTP and Northumbria Police of their activities on the Metro would seem to back it up. Can anyone identify a reliable sources that says who has jurisdiction of which part of the Metro network? 10mmsocket (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no source, I would be bold and chuck it. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know they are there - I see them when I'm back home, but of course can't prove it reliably, verifiably, etc. I have just reached out to the editor who added it in 2007 (he's still active!) Let's see what develops. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, hope you are well. I've taken a look and have found these two articles which reference Northumbria Police and BTP on "the Sunderland line": (a) https://www.nexus.org.uk/news/item/sunderland-metro-network-has-dedicated-police-force-very-dedicated-fact and (b) https://northumbria-pcc.gov.uk/kim-mcguinness-announces-metro-to-get-security-teams-on-the-majority-of-evening-train-services/. The latter states: “The security team will work alongside the dedicated police patrols we get from the Northumbria Force, and from the British Transport Police on the Sunderland line". I'll keep looking if more is needed! Cheers! Ben. BNC85 (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one thanks. I had seen the Nexus article, just forgotten it. That at least confirms they operated on the Sunderland branch. The PCC article however brings that right up to date and confirms the division of jurisdiction - assuming I can find a definition of what the Sunderland branch or line actually means. If I can't find a list of stations then I'll just refer to it as "Sunderland branch". 10mmsocket (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! It's difficult to define - the Sunderland extension opened in 2002 running from Pelaw to South Hylton. The line is shared between T&W Metro and Network Rail between Pelaw and Sunderland, with sole T&W Metro running between Sunderland and South Hylton. I think BTP cover between Pelaw and South Hylton, however I reckon 'Sunderland branch' may be easier to reference! BNC85 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thank you! Nothing more to see here. Move along please. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Transport_Police&oldid=1206439655"