Talk:Special Constabulary

titled talk

Specials were not 'completely unarmed', in fact they carried the same wooden baton as regular officers and could also drive police vehicles. What source do you have for this information?

The fact that much was made in the British police press (who should know) some years ago of specials for the first time being armed and being licensed to drive police vehicles! I can't find the reference, since I don't have the publications to hand, but I can assure you it was the case. It was some time ago (over a decade, although not all forces introduced it at that time), but they were not always armed or able to drive on duty. -- Necrothesp 11:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My father served from 1970 to 1986 and myself from 1995 to date it wasn't the case

-) certainly regarding truncheons.

Handcuffs were not personal issue to either Specials or Regulars until the late 70's however driving of vehicles was usually subject to a 1 day course for non-blues and twos after 2 years of service. It is acccurate to say very few specials have blues and twos training due to it being a three or four week course with limited spaces, then as well as now.

Well, as I said, I remember the publicity. Seems odd they would remark on it if it wasn't anything new. -- Necrothesp 14:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Their powers

I've known this for a long time and I read it again today that SPC's do not have any powers more than a citizen of the UK. They can only execute a citizens arrest. Some are paid up to £26,000 a year.

They're unpaid and they're sworn constables, just like the regulars, with the same powers (hence their title). Don't know where you got that from. See here. -- Necrothesp 23:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you are confusing Police Community Support Officers (PCSO's) with Special Constables. PCSO's are not constables and so have the powers of arrest of any citizen.

All constables do have additional powers to those offered to citizens, as explained in the 'Police and criminal evidence act (PACE) 1984, Section 24(4). "Any person can arrest without warrant anyone whom is in the act of committing an arrestable offence or anyone whom he has reasonabe grounds for suspecting to be commining such and offence". In other words the citizen has to know that there has been an offence and suspect that the person he is arresting is the offender.

Not merely "suspect", the grounds for the suspicion in practice need to be rather more positive than those that a constable might have.--MBRZ48 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

By contrast a constable's powers (or special constable's powers) are explained in section 24(6) as.. "Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an arrestable offence has been committed he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guitly of the offence". Notice that the offence itself is only suspected. Of course the suspicion must be reasonable or the custody seargant will have none of it, declair the arrest to be unlawful and release the detained person.

Both citizen and constable can also arrest if they "have reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence".

The Surrey special constabulary pay no salary, but we are paid 37p per mile for travel expenses, which however not many people bother to collect. In additon we do recieve new boots every 2 years plus all the same personal protection equipment as regular officers, ASP baton, Handcuffs, and CS gas which must be stored at the police station and never taken home.

Please be aware that the PACE (Section 24 and 25) General Arrest has been removed and replaced by SOCAP 2005. --MBRZ48 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)--MBRZ48 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)--MBRZ48 01:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Both citizen and constable can also arrest if they "have reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence". Not true; this is a police-only power, not an any person power. For a non-constable to arrest, an offence must have been committed or be being committed. -- Necrothesp 01:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

-- To add to the above, citizens can also only arrest for Indictable offences being committed or about to be committed, whereas constables (Specials included) can arrest for any offence (Summary as well) in these circumstances, or also on suspicion of having committed, or having committed.

British Transport Police

Removed reference to the effect that BTP do not have a special constabulary. They have had an active Special Constabulary for a number of years and are currently expanding the numbers of volunteer officers: http://www.btp.police.uk/recruitment/special.htm

Readded the reference. Reread it. It says BTP does have a Special Constabulary, not that it doesn't. -- Necrothesp 01:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Grading

This is currently being reviewed with the likelyhood of being implemented in the next year.--Pandaplodder 20:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Powers and Rank Structure

Another exception within the powers section should be that Scottish Specials have thier powers throughout scotland and not only in their neighbouring forces. Also at this point Scotland does not operate a rank structure.

Grammatical inconsistencies

Article had "special constables", "Special Constables", "specials", "Specials" etc. Amended all to either Special Constables or Specials with capital letters, for uniformity (excuse the pun!).

Relationship with Regulars

Changed "whose main role was seen as preventing 'real' regular officers from earning overtime pay" to "and were often considered to be preventing 'real' regular officers from earning overtime pay". The first version is point-of-view and un-encyclopaedic, and also untrue - whilst some anti-Special regulars did indeed see Specials as overtime takers, I doubt any considered it our primary role and it's absurd to suggest such. Liverpool Scouse 22:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have worked as a Special for almost 25 years and have been involved in many inter-county Special Constabulary seminars, and in my findings the concensus is that there are still lots of issues between Specials and Regulars and that most people cannot see this changing.

I have to say that I thought the overtime issue was well and truly a thing of the past. -- Necrothesp 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the above, whilst yes, there are issues, the issue of overtime is (for the most part) on its way out. Liverpool Scouse 23:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

History section needed

Just wanted to note that a brief history of specials going back to the Great War would add much to this article. I don't have time now, and will try to get to this later, but if someone else feels the same way ... Bobanny 18:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We were celebrating our 175 year anniversary on Sunday 29th October, so the history goes back somewhat further than World War One and it might aswell all be in there :)--SGGH 13:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that at some point the specials went from an ad hoc measure in times of crisis to a permanent auxiliary force as a complement to the regular force, as well as a vehicle for recruiting newbies (as noted in the article). I'm guessing it was the 1930s, or perhaps the result of lessons learned from the 1926 strike. Seems that would be an important chapter in the development of the organization, (and maybe even a better date of origin for the present organization -- but I won't push that point here... Historians still can't agree whether to date the "modern" regular police to 1829, to the Bow Street Runners, or earlier;) Also, I believe their primary role in WWI was to compensate for the loss of regular police that went off to war, though at the time that job description would've included watching out for those dastardly German agents lurking in every corner.Bobanny 00:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Merging article with Special Constable

I cannot see what merging this would achieve, as the term Special Constable means different things in different countries (In these countries where they do have Special Constables they don't have special constabularies (Canada being a prime example)therefore this article does not relate to Special Constables outside of the UK.--Pandaplodder 10:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not merging is appropriate but if other articles are created dealing deal with SCs elsewhere then this article name should possibly change to reflect the territorial scope, not forgetting that in the present form it deals with more than half a dozen jurisdictions (not just UK - Crown Dependencies are included) without much separation.--MBRZ48 07:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think several police-related articles need to be rethought in terms of names, categories, etc., such as Security police, Special police, National police, Federal police, and Secret police to make them more universally applicable. A number of them fail to define the distinction of the term in question relative to various contexts, and as a body, confuse more than they clarify. It seems to me Auxiliary police is often the equivilent in other locales but are not a separate, special constabulary. On the other hand, Special constabularies do exist in Canada and likley elsewhere as Transit police and for other specialized areas, meaning they don't have full police powers. Likely the ideal in this case would be a disambiguation page listing other forces that are or can be referred to by this term, with the UK specials retaining the name for that specific context. The merge idea seems to off the table since Pandaplodder and others have done some work on these articles, but this bigger issue remains, IMO. Bobanny 17:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Special Constables do not exsist in Canada - but they are employed and paid/do duties that do not reflect what a Special Constable does in the UK meaning, in Canda the equivalent of a UK Special is a 'Auxiliary Constable' which absolutely has nothing what so ever to do with the Canadian term 'Special Constable'

I'm not sure where you get such a hard distinction. The use of specials and auxiliaries in practice varies in different contexts in Canada, and the difference between the two certainly isn't that clear. Here's an example from the BC police act:

“a special provincial constable has the powers, duties and immunities of a provincial constable.”

“an auxiliary constable has the powers, duties and immunities of a provincial constable.”

“An auxiliary constable must assist the provincial police force in the performance of its duties.”

“A special municipal constable must assist the municipal police department in the performance of its duties.” Bobanny 19:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Special Constable - UK, Auxilliary Constable - Canada - Garda Reserve - RoI = unpaid volunteer Special Constable - Canada = Paid limited police duties

Its all very well to quote one document but it does not define duties. --Pandaplodder 13:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Duties Of Special Constables The duties of a Special Constable include:

1. Transporting prisoners to and from various courts and institutions. Maintain security and wellbeing of prisoners during transportation and in court. 2. Maintain security of court rooms and buildings 3. Effect arrests, search and seizure as required. Physically capable of restraining and subduing prisoners. 4. Related clerical/administrative duties as assigned. 5. Report writing as required. 6. Act as a witness during statement taking of accused persons or prisoners and recording witness statements if required. 7. Fingerprint and photograph accused persons. 8. Assist Police Officers in court and related duties as required 9. Testify in court when required. 10. Maintain detailed legible notes regarding events, investigations, interviews and other pertinent information during their tour of duty in their duty books. Place their duty books in the proper receptacle at the end of their tour of duty. 11. Assist the Officer-in-Charge of the lock-up in monitoring and caring for prisoners. 5 12. Required to use police equipment such as ASP Baton, handcuffs, pepper spray, computer, or any other related items. 13. Must successfully complete Use of Force Training (on the Use of Force options issued) on a yearly basis. 14. Any other duties as may be assigned from time to time." St Thomas Police Dept, Ontario http://www.stps.on.ca/docs/applicantreferenceguide_specialconstable2003.pdf

"A special constable is a peace officer appointed by Alberta's Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security, under the Police Act, to enforce specific provincial and federal legislation. There are about 3,000 special constables employed in Alberta. Employers must be authorized by Alberta Solicitor General and Public Security to employ special constables and traditionally include municipal governments, police services, provincial government departments, the SPCA and First Nations. The enforcement carried out by special constables is recognized as supplemental to, and not a replacement for, the police service.

To be a special constable, you must be at least 18 years of age and either a Canadian citizen or a legal permanent resident. The Solicitor General and Minister of Public Security has the right to waive the citizenship requirement in the interest of improving law enforcement in Alberta.

Special constables must be of good character with no indictable or summary offence convictions, unless they are eligible for a pardon for that offence. They must also be qualified to carry out the services required and capable of meeting the minimum training standards.

To become a special constable, you must either be employed by an authorized employer or have a written agreement that you will be hired by that employer if you qualify for appointment." http://www.solgen.gov.ab.ca/special_constable/default.aspx?id=921

--Pandaplodder 13:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You may find the Alberta Special Constable Association website useful: http://ascaweb.ca/node/21

Special constables are a very important component of law enforcement in Alberta. The province has endorsed enforcement activities through the following levels:

• Police officer (RCMP, municipal police services) - this actually includes Auxilliary Constables
• Special constable (county & urban) - meaning Special Consatbles who are employed by a local authority that is neither Federal/national, Provincial nor Municipal Police to underatke specific duties such as Court officer or Traffic Enforcement.
• Bylaw enforcement officer (animal control, parking control)

The other thing to remember this article is about the Special Constabulary not Special Constables - Just because somewhere uses the term Special Constable does not mean there is a Special Constabulary.

--Pandaplodder 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I agree that Special constable and Special Constabulary shouldn't be merged, and that the latter should continue to refer to this particular Special Constabulary, and if the need arises, a disambiguation page should be used for other Special Constabularies rather than convoluting this article.

Special constables, or police generally, aren't defined by their specific duties, because these could include almost anything depending on the context. The situation in Canada is not clear-cut because policing is a provincial responsibility so there are substantial variations across the country, and there are American, British, and homegrown influences on the styles of policing. The current "auxiliary police" might be the closest equivilent to the English SC, but those are simply a unit of specials attached to a police force.

Toronto's TTC police are explicitly a "Special Constabulary," as was Vancouver's transit police until recently when they became an actual constabulary (noted either by you or another Panda plodder on the British website, policespecials.com [1]). Campus police for large universities are also Special Constabularies in Canada. These are not auxiliaries because they are not attached to a police force, as with the RCMP or St. Thomas auxiliaries, and their duties are determined by what it is they are policing. Specials can be either paid or unpaid, part of a reserve or auxiliary of a regular police force, or a specialized security service. Often, they are probationers effectively getting on the job training, but not necessarily. I'm also guessing some of the difference between places like laissez-faire Alberta and left-coast BC in part have to do with the strength of the police union, i.e., that specials are a way to get police work done on the cheap. (It'd be interesting to see any changes to the RCMP auxiliary when (if) they win the right to unionize). This is splitting hairs as far as Wikipedia goes, but my point is that "special" is a vague word when used with "constable," and all it really tells us is that they aren't regulars. This is different in the UK only because it's associated with a stable institution. Bobanny 19:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is splitting hairs but my own view was that if both were mixed then it would only serve to dillute and confuse. As far as Pandaplodder on PS.com goes we are the same person :)

Oh good, I was gonna suggest you call the police to report identity theft ;) Yeah, the more clarity the better. The Canadian "special constabularies" I've come across fit better under 'transit police' or 'campus police' anyway. Bobanny 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Australia

Certainly does not have Special Constables, the Northern Territories Police do employ Aboriginal trackers who may be termed Specials but they are do provide any normal policing, reference removed. --Pandaplodder 20:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, there's also a section on Australia on the Special constable article, but it looks to be consistent with your remarks here. Bobanny 21:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Police are heavily unionised and won't tolerate anything resembling Specials.--Pandaplodder 22:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Level 2 PSU

It would be useful to explain what this is in greater detail, for the benfit of non-police readers. In other words, what's the significance of this level of training etc? Regards. Escaper7 16:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC) In hand - I will get round to this next week,--Pandaplodder 23:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

History (requirement to assist)

AFAIAA there is currently no specific obligation to assist a constable in England and Wales. Is there a source to support such an obligation existing in the past?--MBRZ48 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC) --MBRZ48 01:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is an offence for a member of the public to not assist a constable if the constable requests the assistance of that member of the public, assuming the member of the public doesn't have a good reason for not helping. Is this what you mean? If so, it is an offence, can be found in the Beat Companion (a good source for many offences). SGGH 23:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Additon of "Application" section

Hi,

I just wondered if it is a really good idea to add this section. Wiltshire for example takes a lot less than the time specified (6 months application to attestation is not uncommon) and has no fitness test. Millis 16:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the section to make it more general. Attestation in my force, for example, comes after basic training, not before, we do now have a fitness test (although we didn't when I joined), which is, I believe, identical to that of the regulars, and the application process takes a fraction of 16-18 months. -- Necrothesp 17:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

Since this article deals pretty much exclusively with the UK, I suggest it be renamed Special Constabulary of the United Kingdom or British Special Constabulary or similar. --Helenalex (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Application

Applicants must pass a security check (which is generally the longest process, as the checks have to be sent away to be completed), followed by a written Police Initial Recruitment Test (PIRT; identical to that taken by regulars), an interview normally held with two or three current officers and/or civilian staff,

My application actually had a PIRT followed by a security check, then an interview with a terrorism and financial check followed by a eye test and a medical questionnaire. Is that just specific to my local force (Merseyside) or is the above way mentioned in the article more commonplace? Uksam88 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I am going to take out the link to policespecials.com as this is a privately owned un-official site which relys on membership fees and advertising, this falls foul of wiki's guidelines on advertising commercial sites.--Pandaplodder (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's rather a shame, as it is the #1 site in the UK for Specials (as you know!). Millis (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Who says? its just a forum with a rather poor website attached, this is meant to be an encyclopedic entry about the Special Constabulary not free advertising for Andrew Oldham--Pandaplodder (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again someone has decided to include this link, it has been removed as it leads to a paid for membership site that all relies on advertising. Non of the sources on the site are notable and as its a private site should really not be quoted (It is not an official site)--Pandaplodder (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am perplexed why its being removed ( i never added it orginally just reversed what i think is a wrong decision). Yes it relies on advertising, nearly every single site used as a source on wikipedia does. Yes it does allow you to become a paid member (you dont have to be, i've been a free member of it for far too long), but then again so does imdb.com. imdb also has advertisements, should we remove every single link to imdb on wikipedia because it has adverts and allows you to become a paid member?

The rule you presume you mean is: "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation" Clearly does not apply. You DO NOT have to pay to get the much valued information from that site so it does not fall foul that of wiki guidelines. I'm going to ask for an opinion on the site at Wikipedia:ELN because i think information on the site and the forum is useful to those wanting to join the specials.

Oddly you point out its not an official site. Are you implying we can't add unoffical or privately run sites to the encyclopaedia?

I should also point out i have no officially affiliation to the site what so ever, in the years i've been a member i think i have made one post but the information the site gave me, the links and the forum were invaluable in joining. Uksam88 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect Pandaplodder, just because you have been banned from the forum does not mean that it should not be listed here. (Lest anyone think that is an attempt at outing, the information is readily available by a simple Google search)It is undoubtedly the most relevant of all external sites after the HO and NPIA. I am satisfied that the link does meet our guidelines so am re-instating it. ninety:one 22:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect the link is for a site owned by a company called Patrol Store and is in breach of wiki guidelines on spam advertisng.Pandaplodder (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02 - I'm not sure where this link was but a blanket policy against links to policespecials.com from this article seems a little overzealous given its prominence and wide use by serving specials. Harry Metcalfe (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Olympics 2012

I've added a small section to the page about the Olypics and the role the Special constabluary will have in the overall security at the event. As I feel it's an important part of the direction of the Special Constabulary. Please add to it any more relavent information. --Kingsmill (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As an SC i can safely say most of the 10,000 will be taken from other forces who will then be paid a wage to make sure they don't go awol.Uksam88 (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI that plan has now changed in most forces to regs going with specials backfilling. Obviously liable to change. Narom (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Link to PoliceSpecials.com

The link to PoliceSpecials.com has been repeatedly removed and re-added in what amounts to a slow edit war. We need to reach consensus as to whether this link is included or not. This has been discussed before (see above). The arguments that were put forward for its removal then were that:

• it is a paid-for membership site (contrary to #6 on WP:ELNO), and
• it carries advertising (not against any particular part of WP:ELNO).

In terms of the first argument: yes, it does have a paid-for membership option, but this simply grants access to a very small part of the forum and provides a few additional features. It absolutely does not constitute a "site that require[s] payment or registration to view the relevant content" (#6) and this argument is irrelevant. The vast majority of the content is freely accessible. In terms of the second argument: again, yes, there is advertising. This is true for almost every single website on the internet. However, the advertising on this site is not substantial: the site does not exist simply to host adverts, and is therefore not a "spam website". Again, it does not breach any part of the guidelines on external links.

I would appreciate any opposing views/further discussion. (Full disclosure: I am a member of the site in question and have been for two years, but I am not a paid-up member and am certainly not a member of staff, and I do not derive any benefit from it.) ninety:one 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It has previously been agreed elsewhere that it is an acceptable link due to it being an excellent source of information (FAQ, not forum so does not fall foul on linking to a forum). Pandaplodder has a personal vendetta against the site and its owner since falling out on there and getting banned. Any act of removal of the link could be seen as vandalism and will just keep getting reverted. Narom (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no place for childish insults narom, the link can stay as far as I'm concerned#### Pandaplodder (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2012‎ (UTC)

I have restored the text Pandaplodder removed with italics to highlight what was removed as otherwise his comments in reply lack context and are therefore confusing. JonEastham (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

PoliceSpecials.com is owned by NSI and is plagued with spam, as well as hosting a forum on very very very old software. The members of staff have all been previously banned from the forum, yet they have somehow mysteriously arrived back as staff members! Trust them at your peril, further use the forum at your own risk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.119.65.148 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)