This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The comment about TSG being referred to by other officers as the Thick and Stupid Group, or The Spice Girls. Surely this needs a citation? Do all officers refer to TSG as such, or was is this comment used by a small minority and not relevant to this page?
I suspect with a bit of research the Thick and Stupid Group reference could be cited. I used to work as a Police Officer in central London and it is very commmonly used. Whether it is relevant to the article is another matter and I don't think it is the most major change this article needs - the whole thing reads like a recruiting advert for the TSG with comments like "drawn from the elite". Whilst I'm sure it is a popular unit with competition for places it is far from everybody's idea of fun and has clearly been written by a TSG officer or ex-officer just plugging his/her job. Large swathes of the article are clearly opinion and unsuitable for Wiki - if there is significant competition for places it should be stated factually, e.g "Officers wishing to join the TSG face stiff competition with X applicatants for every Y posts (reference here)"
I think this has been vandalised. It seems to claim that the SPG/TSG assault suspects "whether guilty or not". Someone check it out. 213.230.130.56 ( talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a perfectly well referenced opinion, and a published one too, and deserves inclusion. The article at the moment contains no criticism at all. We can't leave out information we think 'is silly', because that in it's self is NPOV ;) ninety: one 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello SmallJim
I noticed you reverted an IPs contributions of:
The TSG has been referred to as the "Thick and Stupid Group" by other Metropolitan Police officers due to the percerption that the group attracts physically stronger, but intellectually weaker, officers.
I reverted this passage too, thinking what enyclopedic value does this have? Although it has been referenced in a "ship - Shoddy" fashion, it is still referenced, but it is also still silly. Do you think it should be taken off? Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Met-police-logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a dispute over at Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson over the inclusion of an erroneous press report that the TSG has access to "submachine guns" as opposed to the actual semi-automatic MP5 carbines used by Authorised Firearms Officers in the unit (which does not have any Specialist Firearms Officers attached to it). Other editors may wish to offer their opinion on the matter. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I would add some material from this article, but it has been locked. Could someone with privileges please do so. A judge said last month that six TSG officers had carried out a "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" attack on a terrorism suspect, Babar Ahmed, six years ago. The team of six officers involved in the attack on Ahmed, who was arrested at his home by the TSG unit, had already been at the centre of as many as 60 complaints about unwarranted assaults on black or Asian men, the Guardian has revealed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/g20-tomlinson-ipcc-investigation-protest-police Mein Kopf ( talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Having looked into it further, I find that the victim was awarded £60,000 damages. In addition, it emerged that the Met had lost "a number of large mail sacks" containing details of other similar allegations against the officers who assaulted him. This should surely be added to the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/18/babar-ahmed-met-police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7950540.stm Mein Kopf ( talk) 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from the Metropolitan Police Service. We respect your right to postings, but on this occassion may we please respectfully request that you kindly remove the organisational chart from this page.
We have received a request from TSG CO20 for it to be removed as it is somewhat out of date, and contains officers names which could compromise their safety.
If you would to talk to a member of the Metropolitan Police Service Territorial Support Group to confirm this request, we would be happy to contact you, directly.
Many thanks indeed.
212.74.97.195 ( talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. If the material in question is covered by some legal restriction, feel free to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. If not, then there is no reason for this material to go unused. If you wish this chart to be removed because it is ourdated, please publish a new version within your publication scheme. ninety: one 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely this would easily qualify as fair use? It's borderline that it actually counts as copyrightable at all, since it's just a chart displaying information - see Feist v. Rural. I guess there's a bare minimum of creativity, but we're talking about things like the choice and colour of font, and the arrangement of the boxes, etc. Stuff that would easily be trumped by fair use - the image is being used to display information relevant to the article, and in no way does it limit the copyright holder. (Plus the discussion doesn't show any kind of consensus - there were two Delete/Unfree votes, and two Keep votes.)
Having said that, I guess now there's the problem that the data would be even more out of date anyway. But if someone were to upload a version, I don't see any problem with copyright (and as Smartse says, there's clearly no problem with making a new image with that information on). Mdwh ( talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware the criticism section is perhaps portraying only one side of the story. Any positive stories about the TSG would be most welcome. Smartse ( talk) 21:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Police pay £30,000 for poll tax riot `assault' PC injured in hammer attack Black officer cleared of cue attack First the murderers walk free. Now the Lawrence police escape justice Sex assault Pc jailed for five years Riot force may sue club Protecting Bush. A member of the TSG, Nina McKay was killed in 1997: [5]. I guess it should be included and the criticism section could be converted to "incidents" or "notable events" or something. Talking about the problems they've faced should make the article more neutral IMO. Smartse ( talk) 14:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The police are not required to wear epaulettes by anyone - they may be supposed to but they don't have to. See Chapter 6 of this report out yesterday. Smartse ( talk) 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Tony Jefferson link as its link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jefferson) refers to an American football player, who, by the way, was born 2 year after the study referenced in this article was published(!)
So please, do not revise this change until an article on the correct Tony Jefferson has been created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojowiha ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good to have some further info about tsg deployment outside London, e.g. in things like 1990s road protests, etc. There is a brief mention of the Battle of the Beanfield in the Academic section, but my recollection was that tsg were quite commonly sent out from London to things like this. Would be great to have some more definitive info on this. 82.71.0.229 ( talk) 18:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t seem to be able to see a space between “also” and “plain clothes officers” link on the web version of Wikipedia on safari iOS Boshjosh1918 ( talk) 22:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The comment about TSG being referred to by other officers as the Thick and Stupid Group, or The Spice Girls. Surely this needs a citation? Do all officers refer to TSG as such, or was is this comment used by a small minority and not relevant to this page?
I suspect with a bit of research the Thick and Stupid Group reference could be cited. I used to work as a Police Officer in central London and it is very commmonly used. Whether it is relevant to the article is another matter and I don't think it is the most major change this article needs - the whole thing reads like a recruiting advert for the TSG with comments like "drawn from the elite". Whilst I'm sure it is a popular unit with competition for places it is far from everybody's idea of fun and has clearly been written by a TSG officer or ex-officer just plugging his/her job. Large swathes of the article are clearly opinion and unsuitable for Wiki - if there is significant competition for places it should be stated factually, e.g "Officers wishing to join the TSG face stiff competition with X applicatants for every Y posts (reference here)"
I think this has been vandalised. It seems to claim that the SPG/TSG assault suspects "whether guilty or not". Someone check it out. 213.230.130.56 ( talk) 20:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a perfectly well referenced opinion, and a published one too, and deserves inclusion. The article at the moment contains no criticism at all. We can't leave out information we think 'is silly', because that in it's self is NPOV ;) ninety: one 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello SmallJim
I noticed you reverted an IPs contributions of:
The TSG has been referred to as the "Thick and Stupid Group" by other Metropolitan Police officers due to the percerption that the group attracts physically stronger, but intellectually weaker, officers.
I reverted this passage too, thinking what enyclopedic value does this have? Although it has been referenced in a "ship - Shoddy" fashion, it is still referenced, but it is also still silly. Do you think it should be taken off? Police,Mad,Jack ( talk · contribs)☺ 10:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Met-police-logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 05:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a dispute over at Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson over the inclusion of an erroneous press report that the TSG has access to "submachine guns" as opposed to the actual semi-automatic MP5 carbines used by Authorised Firearms Officers in the unit (which does not have any Specialist Firearms Officers attached to it). Other editors may wish to offer their opinion on the matter. Nick Cooper ( talk) 09:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I would add some material from this article, but it has been locked. Could someone with privileges please do so. A judge said last month that six TSG officers had carried out a "serious, gratuitous and prolonged" attack on a terrorism suspect, Babar Ahmed, six years ago. The team of six officers involved in the attack on Ahmed, who was arrested at his home by the TSG unit, had already been at the centre of as many as 60 complaints about unwarranted assaults on black or Asian men, the Guardian has revealed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/16/g20-tomlinson-ipcc-investigation-protest-police Mein Kopf ( talk) 01:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Having looked into it further, I find that the victim was awarded £60,000 damages. In addition, it emerged that the Met had lost "a number of large mail sacks" containing details of other similar allegations against the officers who assaulted him. This should surely be added to the article. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/18/babar-ahmed-met-police http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7950540.stm Mein Kopf ( talk) 06:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from the Metropolitan Police Service. We respect your right to postings, but on this occassion may we please respectfully request that you kindly remove the organisational chart from this page.
We have received a request from TSG CO20 for it to be removed as it is somewhat out of date, and contains officers names which could compromise their safety.
If you would to talk to a member of the Metropolitan Police Service Territorial Support Group to confirm this request, we would be happy to contact you, directly.
Many thanks indeed.
212.74.97.195 ( talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember, Wikipedia is not censored. If the material in question is covered by some legal restriction, feel free to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. If not, then there is no reason for this material to go unused. If you wish this chart to be removed because it is ourdated, please publish a new version within your publication scheme. ninety: one 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Surely this would easily qualify as fair use? It's borderline that it actually counts as copyrightable at all, since it's just a chart displaying information - see Feist v. Rural. I guess there's a bare minimum of creativity, but we're talking about things like the choice and colour of font, and the arrangement of the boxes, etc. Stuff that would easily be trumped by fair use - the image is being used to display information relevant to the article, and in no way does it limit the copyright holder. (Plus the discussion doesn't show any kind of consensus - there were two Delete/Unfree votes, and two Keep votes.)
Having said that, I guess now there's the problem that the data would be even more out of date anyway. But if someone were to upload a version, I don't see any problem with copyright (and as Smartse says, there's clearly no problem with making a new image with that information on). Mdwh ( talk) 01:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware the criticism section is perhaps portraying only one side of the story. Any positive stories about the TSG would be most welcome. Smartse ( talk) 21:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Police pay £30,000 for poll tax riot `assault' PC injured in hammer attack Black officer cleared of cue attack First the murderers walk free. Now the Lawrence police escape justice Sex assault Pc jailed for five years Riot force may sue club Protecting Bush. A member of the TSG, Nina McKay was killed in 1997: [5]. I guess it should be included and the criticism section could be converted to "incidents" or "notable events" or something. Talking about the problems they've faced should make the article more neutral IMO. Smartse ( talk) 14:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
The police are not required to wear epaulettes by anyone - they may be supposed to but they don't have to. See Chapter 6 of this report out yesterday. Smartse ( talk) 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the Tony Jefferson link as its link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Jefferson) refers to an American football player, who, by the way, was born 2 year after the study referenced in this article was published(!)
So please, do not revise this change until an article on the correct Tony Jefferson has been created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojowiha ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good to have some further info about tsg deployment outside London, e.g. in things like 1990s road protests, etc. There is a brief mention of the Battle of the Beanfield in the Academic section, but my recollection was that tsg were quite commonly sent out from London to things like this. Would be great to have some more definitive info on this. 82.71.0.229 ( talk) 18:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I don’t seem to be able to see a space between “also” and “plain clothes officers” link on the web version of Wikipedia on safari iOS Boshjosh1918 ( talk) 22:39, 28 August 2021 (UTC)