This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I and a few others, watch out for hostile groups trying to hijack Wikipedia features to promote themselves. It is known from other websites that you have a very hostile vendetta against Power. Your organisation should express its views in another article. I gather you believe that the 7 July 2005 London bombing tragedy was played by actors pretending to be injured, or missing the point that there have been 22 bombs on the London underground since 1885? The ‘Julyseventh’ group who inserted the previous last sentence in the article about Peter Power have been inaccurate and malicious in their intent, as opposed to just informative. Their addition has therefore been removed.You are adding nothing of value to this article, expect to suit your purposes that I and others consider malicious. You are part of the 'julyseventh'campaign has a very hostile vendetta against Power (see many other websites) and you clearly seek to use Wikipedia to further this by adding valueless/malicious additions. Please stop doing this-- Martinfud ( talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC).
I would like to make a few points:
I am the original author of the article and have met Power previously, as have many others. I see no reason at all why he nor indeed anyone else, should justify themselves to a self proclaimed 'truth campaign', nor suffer the vendetta from you and other hostile groups that appear to think 7/7 was make believe. However, I'm the first one to promote freedom of speech and informative debate, but your position and reason to add these additions abuses such an assertion. Notwithstanding this I am quite certain the CPS ultimately said no prosecution. No charges or disciplinary action was ever, as far as I know, taken against Power. Whatever it was alleged he did was an internal matter only - source local Dorset paper 1993. Why not add to the article instead that he drove a Ford motorcar, favourite food was curry and he liked photography? All pointless editions that add nothing whatsoever to the original article.-- Patrick56 ( talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page for a brief period. Can the edit warriors resolve the issues on the talk page please.
There seem to me to be two issues:
I do not believe there to be BLP issues with page as the information is not disputed, but sourcing to a partisan website because it carries a scan of a newspaper clipping seems dubious. It would be better to cite the newspaper directly. CIreland ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Makes sense to me as the pressure group ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ who are very keen to include the new inserts I find most difficult to debate with. Here is how I see it as (a) the original author and (b) someone who has since met Power (who is reluctant to be involved in this matter):
The original article and attachments I researched were I hope, accurate and relevant. Not inspired by any hidden agenda. I was also grateful for a bit of Wikipedia help in the finished work. I also believe anything in this or any Wikipedia article should be not biased or linked to gratuitously antagonistic sources that only want to pursue their own cause. With these thoughts in mind two questions are now asked:
1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? 2. Are any/all the external links suitable?
The final paragraph is indisputably from an organisation that is pursuing a personal and hostile vendetta against Power. Numerous websites confirm this. Indeed, the author does not hide the fact. I find it impossible to accept that any paragraph submitted by this group can be unbiased or not linked to antagonistic sources and a hidden agenda. But are these issues alone sufficient to doubt the source and suitability?
1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? I consider the source has to be weighed against the relevance of the paragraph? What was or might have been reported in a provincial newspaper almost a lifetime ago is not in itself an immediate point of challenge, although it could be. The substance however, is even less newsworthy than say someone who is found not guilty of a minor traffic offence. Power in this sense, was never charged, summonsed or even disciplined. I can confirm from the subject of the article that the CPS did indeed decide that no prosecution was required for an internal/administration matter. However, Power was a senior police officer which meant a full enquiry whenever any allegation is made was bound to occur, even though no charges were ever brought. But the local paper thought his rank merited comment. Otherwise, it was not in the least newsworthy. Within the context of an accurate and relevant article I believe this deliberately selective use of an otherwise distant and pointless news item is intended only to harm Power to suit the organisation that discovered it. Had they looked further there are other newspaper features over the years that tell of Powers awards for gallantry and leadership, but of course these do not support the reason why the ‘July 7 truth campaign’ want to publish this particular and I believe (at best) irrelevant paragraph.
2. Are any/all the external links suitable? Probably the ones that for many months linked to the wider exploits of Power and were not specifically selective, are suitable. They have never been challenged as they are from various sources without any hidden agenda. For example, those linked to all the BBC sites who have reported on Power’s previous actions - without bias. Now suddenly a hostile pressure group with a well known and personal vendetta against Power wants to promote itself by inserting its own external link. I suggest this is neither accurate nor relevant and seeks only to manipulate Wikipedia to promote a single course.
Since the eponymously called ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ has a keen interest in promoting its own view that nothing so far, has been truthfully reported about the tragedy in 2005, can I suggest they consider adding to the already very well covered article on that event, rather than be allowed to conduct a campaign of what appears to be character assignation far removed from anything that is accurate or relevant to the readers of Wikipedia. It seems from other contributors that I am not alone in this view.
I ask that the final paragraph and external link that now exists be removed and we revert to what was previously published.-- Patrick56 ( talk) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been looking at why Cmain|talk] from the July 7 action group is so keen to change what was a perfectly acceptable article that I think Patrick56 first put up about Power. This seems to be happening more and more where Wikipedia is massaged to suit the purpose of any organisation keen to use it as a platform to promote their own message, rather than just be unbiased and informative. July 7 action group have been having a real personal dig against Power for ages, simply because he ran an exercise on 7/7 with a very similar scenario to the real event – and had the balls to admit it (surely if he was on the inside track he would never do that?) and because he’s not going to jeopardise his client by revealing their name he must be guilty of something, or so July 7 think. I agree with Patrick56: Just leave the article as it was without deliberately dragging up some distant, irrelevant and unnecessary story from 15 years ago miles from London, just to harm Power. Cmain|talk] is wrong when he says “the significance of the suspension is hard to judge. Patrick56 asserts it is less newsworthy than a minor traffic offence, but that is not public knowledge because the alleged offence has never been disclosed”. Patrick56 (who unlike July 7) says he has met Power, made the point that Power was never charged, summonsed or disciplined and probably left the force himself and was not dismissed. At least with a traffic offence someone was actually summonsed to end up in court, which is a lot more than Power ever was as far as I can see. I’ve given this a lot of thought and I think this is just a rather spiteful and unnecessary action by Cmain|talk] and should not be included. Why the witch hunt Cmain|talk]?-- Martinfud ( talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I took time out to look at the July 7 ‘Truth Campaign’ (aka people calling themselves Nick Cooper or Cmain) who all alone, are mad keen on inserting a piece of distant and I believe, malicious and irrelevant information about Power from way back in 1993. Only to them alone it’s not irrelevant. They only seek only to besmirch Power wherever they can because they cannot understand how he ran an exercise on 7/ July 2005 that was so similar to the real thing that day? Hardly the bases for an informative and unbiased addition to an article on an individual that has been on Wikipedia for many months? I’ve suggested before they add their view about what Power did that day (that I think they are entitled to) to the actual well written Wikipedia article on the event, rather than to an individual, but of course that does not help their real objective.
They say that his departure from Dorset ‘has never been explained’. Why does it have to ‘be explained’? What gives them the right to say it must be explained to suit them? Every year 100s of senior police officers retire (unlike Power, many in very mysterious circumstances that are of course of no interest to July 7 Truth Campaign). Their pursuit of this poor sod blinds them to the fact that elsewhere in Wikipedia it’s reported that over 20 bombings have occurred on the London underground since 1885, which makes the London tube system the most bombed place in the UK. A bit of a no brainer it strikes me if you are looking for a London terror exercise scenario - so pretty good idea Power if you ask me.
I cannot comment about who Martinfud is, but just because he/she feels as angry as I do about what the July 7 group are trying to do here (and elsewhere…) and then signs up to Wikipedia just to make en edit(s), does not debar him/her from adding their opinion. It’s utterly disgraceful that Cmain has the sheer arrogance to assert that whatever Martinfud has said is ‘are self-evidently false’. Who says? Damm check to try and strike out what appears to be comments - just as valid as anyone else who wants to chip in.
Taking all this into account I (and others I have invited to read this article) fail to see that a proposed edition that is so obviously motivated by the pursuance of a campaign against Power (which led them to by pass a lot of other information about Power from other newspapers etc) has any bona fide place here.
Let July 7 Campaign add their bit to the obvious article on the subject that has a clue in the title of their campaign. Let this article stay as it was before they tried to hijack it to suit there own cause-- Patrick56 ( talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
All (inc. Martinfud and others who share my view) - I’m getting fed up with this and I have suggested below a solution. First, there has been much written on the July 2005 London bombings. A great deal of it appears to be conspiratorial nonsense aimed at Power and persistently delivered by people who’s motive seems only to attack him (it is my turn to correct you insofar that the London underground remains I believe, the most bombed (de facto) structure in the UK, although Belfast is is indeed likely to be the most bombed town, although I am never sure how many bombs hit the Europa hotel Belfast?). But back to the subject of Power: Second,I think I have a solution and I appeal to Wikipedia to use this as a compromise between two positions that seem opposite each other and have reached an impasse.
(A) Simply say that Power served in the Metropolitan Police 1971 - 1990 and the Dorset Police 1990 - 1993. To add anything more than this seems gratuitously unnecessary as I and Martinfud have asserted many times. (B) Remove the link to the so called ‘July 7 Truth Campaign’ that is obviously a very controversial insertion from an organisation I firmly believe to have a personal vendetta against Power. Indeed, it seems impossible to draw any other conclusion when you read the link.
I hope this makes sense. I have given some ground on this and I now hope that those expressing a different view to mine will do likewise. Whoever edits this in Wikipedia can you please accept this as final?-- Patrick56 ( talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. I think this is the solution. Well done Patrick56 for suggesting an obvious way to solve this propblem. Oh and by the way, I really do exist!-- Martinfud ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For goodness sake, can we now stop messing with this article. The very recent change in main article body made it appear subject moved to Dorset directly after 1985 (incorrect). Also, unnecessary link to July 7 Truth campaign has, once again,removed – as per discussions-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) above-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
I rather think this is getting a bit silly and I’m fed up with the endless debate on just one article. Let's try and find a solution: First J7 just keep adding their own website as part of what I (and others) firmly believe is no more than an anti Power campaign on the back of what they think is the truth about 7 July 2005. I just cannot agree that this is relevant here, but might be under the 7/7 article? I therefore ask J7 to do just that and take their argument to the correct article. Next, to the best of my knowledge from researching whatever sources I can (e.g. a police officer who served at the time) I have no doubt that Power was indeed suspended. The Echo newspaper refers to a comment from the then Deputy Chief Constable saying the incident was solely an internal matter. However, his rank required that the Crown Prosecution Service had to make the decision about weather to prosecute on whatever papers had to be sent to them and they said no. Only then did Power retire, having I presume (?) stayed in the force to clear his name - if required. It has never been put in the public domain exactly why he was ever investigated, but since he was never charged, summonsed or so it seems even disciplined there seems to have been no reason for him to clear his name and I think to contimnually drill into this matter makes no sense to me? Had he been charged with anything at all that would be a different matter and I would be the first to add such detail to what I originally put up about Power. Can we therefore leave it at that? I take exception with people who seem to have an obsession about conducting what appears to be a never ending witch hunt on the spurious belief that Power has to answer to J7 for an incident a lifetime ago that resulted in no action taken against him at all? Maybe Power himself would like to comment?-- Patrick56 ( talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now added the narrative, having restricted it to the contents of the known press reports on the matter. Nick Cooper ( talk) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can the numerous contributers on this page pause for a moment. My name is Peter Power and I am the subject of this article. As such I have a reasonable claim to express my view on what has been written. I am grateful to people who refer to themselves as Patrick 56 and Martinfud for trying to get a balanced article, in the face of other people who are determined to write a rather spiteful and nasty feature that despite a varied career lasting nearly 40 years is totally dominated by a singe event that lasted a few months.
I am 57 years old and have previously served in or been attached to the Airborne Forces and several operational police units in London, plus a very short spell in Dorset. During this time I have been at the front major events ranging from terrorist sieges to bomb scenes and fires. I retired fro the UK police in 1993.
Thirteen years ago I set up my own company. Since 1995 our work has taken my team and I across the world running numerous workshops and exercises and I consider myself very fortunate in doing this. However, little or any of this has surfaced in any of the article(s) I have seen.
I’m not at all sure how or why Wikipedia works but I guess it allows anyone to say just about anything on anyone and in so doing provides a global platform for a bunch of rather lonely people to express their thinly disguised campaigns, no matter how bizarre or invalid?
What keeps appearing in Wikipedia is dominated by a personal and rather nasty vendetta against me by J7 and others, who cannot understand why my organisation ran a scenario based exercise in 2005 that featured, in one very small part, a series of imaginary incendiary bombs on the London Underground, very similar to the IRA attack in 1992. To suit their purpose they dwell only on a few months in Dorset a lifetime ago because they feel this is how to attack me. Anyone reading the article can see this – which is why it was brought to my attention yesterday.
So let me have my turn suggesting words for an article that someone might like to write that I actually think is much better than what Patrick56 first wrote (sorry, but I wish you hadn’t…) and is not saturated with gratuitous hostility towards me. Can I suggest that Patrick56 might now update his earlier article with something like the following:
“Peter Power was born in the UK in 1951. He served in the 10 Battalion Parachute Regiment 1969 - 1971 before joining the Metropolitan Police in 1971. His service in that force included the Special Patrol Group and attachments to the Anti Terrorist Branch and other front line units. He received several commendations for leadership etc. and in 1985 became the primary author of the Gold Silver Bronze Command Structure. He also designed several mnemonics for dealing with terrorist bombs during the IRA campaign. In 1990 he transferred on promotion to Dorset. An investigation against him in Dorset for an alleged internal irregularity did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him. He retired from Dorset in 1993. In 1995 Power set up his own company in central London. He is quoted in the UK Government Guide on Integrated Emergency Management and he is the author of many other advice guidebooks including the original UK Govt. (DTI) booklet ‘Preventing Chaos in a Crisis'. Power is a Special Advisor to a number of key organisations including the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness and the Business Continuity (BC) Institute London Forum. He is in addition, a Special Advisor to the editorial board of Continuity Professional Magazine in the USA and is listed in the UK Register of Expert Witnesses. He is a Fellow of numerous industry associations and member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London. -- Peterpowervisor ( talk) 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not long ago I asked if Power himself read his article and it seems he has. I have just looked through what he (I guess it is he?) has said and feel his point is valid. What appeared overnight was a bizarre article that expanded beyond all reasonable proportion the 40 or so years of his career. What I have put up now is more concise and relevant and just because it uses a lot of what Power has himself has outlined makes it no less valid. Indeed, it introduces new information that I did now know-- Patrick56 ( talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC).
I would much rather nothing was written about me and what I now see is so selective, vindictive and pointless I wonder if anyone who keeps writing this has a real life? Patrick56 - if you want to liaise with me please do so via our company website (Visor Consultants)-- Peterpowervisor ( talk) 11:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick Cooper - I really do think there is much to much here about Power. What lasted for a long time as a short/factual article before you decided to change everything was perfectly fine. Can you please leave it as it is now (11.20am). I will attempt to email Power (see above)-- Patrick56 ( talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to repeated reverting [1], I have locked the page for 2 weeks. Please try to come some sort of an agreement in that time so that this constant back-and-forth between versions can cease. If involved editors do reach an agreement before the 2 weeks are over, drop a note on my talk page and we can lift the protection early. CIreland ( talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I request that the following sentence be deleted:
An investigation against him in Dorset for an alleged internal irregularity did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him.
The claim that the investigation "did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him" is not verifiable. Cmain ( talk) 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I could not agree more. I guess as the subject under whatever Wikipedia rules apply, I have no final say in this obviously vexatious (and to me personal) matter that has more to do some J7 pressure groups and others trying just to dig any dirt they can on me, rather than create a balanced article. I still have a right to express my view. Just leave it. It says enough, although I would much rather the entire thing was wiped.-- Peterpowervisor ( talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter - I hope Wikipedia listens to you as well as me and Martinfud. I'm reluctant to say wipe your article, but as it reads right now it makes sense.-- Patrick56 ( talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick Cooper - for everyone's sake why not just leave this as it is? So far three people have suggested just that. I sense you have an unnatural obsession about Power and the need to leave no stone unturned in your quest to find something to besmirch him. Why?-- Patrick56 ( talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Patrick56 has persistently claimed that Power retired after the CPS decided not to prosecute. The CPS has today confirmed that Power retired before it made its decision. I have published the full text on my talk page. Cmain ( talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this page is a former high-ranking British police officer, who in that capacity was involved in a number of notable events, as well as at least one major innovation in British policing practice. Since retiring from the police he has worked in crisis management, and is a frequent media commentator on such matters in the UK broadcast media.
This page was originally created by Rye1967 on 18 June 2007 [2] with text inappropriately added to Peter Power (politician) by Patrick56, who was the last person to edit the page on 24 October 2007 [3] until 7 February 2008 [4], when Cmain added a link to new material on the subject on the website of the The July 7th Truth Campaign ("J7"). This material concerns the subject's service with Dorset Police, and his subsequent departure from the force in 1993. Previously this page gave the impression that the subject's Metropolitan Police service was contiguous with his moving to the private sector in 1995. These details of his police career were reported contemporaneously, but have recently been "rediscovered" by people investigating the 7 July London bombings, some of whom see a connection between those events and the subject. The latter is a view I do not personally hold, but the "new" material undeniably remains significant in terms of the subject's biography.
After several days of rapid changes and a certain degree of vandalism, Patrick56 deleted the new material and the J7 link on 10 February [5], claiming it "appears irrelevant and most likely inserted with malicious intent." There then followed a period of reversion and counter-reversion, with both Patrick56 and Martinfud (who has edited no other pages and may be a sock puppet) seeking to suppress the new material. Initial objections seemed to focus more on the source rather than the veracity of the information, with both of the aforementioned editors applying such unhelpful terms as "anti government", "anarchist", or "personal hate campaign against (the subject)" to J7.
Throughout this dispute Patrick56 has failed to engage in appropriate debate, frequently contending that the new material is "not important", or that it should go on 7 July London bombings rather than the subject's biography, simply by virtue of it being brought to light by people interested in that particular subject. He has occasionally referred to his original authorship of this page, suggesting a belief that this confers some form of ownership - and therefore control - over it. He has frequently falsely attributed statements, motivations and actions to both myself and other editors, and has ignored direct requests to retract them. In fairness, however, this may simply be attributable to an unfamiliarity by Patrick56 with Wikipedia discussion etiquette, and a consequent failure to understand that he has been dealing with more than one person.
In an effort to resolve the matter, I presented the new material in a narrative form based on the verbatim reproductions of the associated contemporary press reports on the J7 site, but referenced the reports themselves, rather than that site. Patrick56 did not accept this compromise and reverted the page to an earlier version. Around the same time, an editor claiming to be the subject himself ( Peterpowervisor) suggested his own text, which Patrick56 promptly used. I reverted this to my own version with the narrative account and sought administrator intervention, but between that time and the page being locked, Patrick56 again reverted to the "subject-written" text. This is the current form of the page, which is poorly-formatted, with clearly avoidable red links, and is far less comprehensive than previous versions.
I have drafted a new version of the page text, which can be found at User:Nick Cooper/Draft 1. This is based on my last version of 27 February, but with a few amendments to reintroduce other (largely non-controversial) detail lost in the course of this dispute, as well as more conventional referencing. The proposal is that when the block on this page is lifted, this draft text should be used, subject to agreed constructive amendments.
The subject is clearly a notable individual - and considering his media profile and the current political climate will continue to be - and there is a wealth of verifiable source material to draw upon in compiling an accurate and comprehensive biography of him for Wikipedia. Indeed, Patrick56 himself originally added much of the detail on him under a justification of, "This Peter Power has a great many hits on Google and I think deserves his own feature" [6] Nick Cooper ( talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Cmain ( talk · contribs) asked me on my talk page to comment here. I am somewhat wary of doing so because I have taken administrative action in protecting the page; contrary to the impression some seem to have, my opinion carries no special weight because I happen to be an admin.
CIreland ( talk) 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
CIreland & Nick Cooper: As the original author of of this somewhat contentious article - and accepting this confers not rights at all - I'm happy with the draft 2 mentioned above. I would only ask that the following should be considered for insertion in it (as has already been identified):
• Prior to joining the Police he spent three years in the
Parachute Regiment
Territorial Army.
• Whilst attached to the
Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch he designed a series of counter terrorist
Improvised Explosive Device mnemonics.
Let's hope that is it. Please....I have added another comment or two on the CIreland talk page, including part of a message J7 actually put on Power's talk page that makes it very obvious indeed they are out to get him -- Patrick56 ( talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out that despite me leaving a polite note on Patrick56's talk page disclaiming responsibility for the latest edit (and even providing assistance in identifying the true editor), Patrick56's latest reversion comment attempts to implicate J7. Cmain ( talk) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What company did Peter Power form? It is mentioned but unspecified. This is needed for the article. Beligaronia ( talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that no mention is made of the interview the article's subject gave to ITV about his firm ("Visor Consultants") coincidentally conducting an exercise involving a simulated bombing scenario on the very day of the July 7 attacks? E.g. see YouTube link 1 or YouTube link 2. Irrespective of its status as a bit of "conspiracy lore," it seems notable enough and of sufficient interest to WP users, independent of the motives of the individuals who post it around the Web. IslandGyrl ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This simple sentence shoudl be allowed to stand. It is a fact. Facts are sometimes strange. Wikipedia reports on drunkeness of hollywood stars, too.
Peter Power (crisis management specialist) appeared on ITV and BBC Radio saying that he was involved in a rehearsal of exactly the bombing scenario that morning.
[1]
A highly relevant entry that shows much about the doubtful personality of Peter Power. He goes on TV and Radio on the same day of the london terror attacks (his motive is clear, he wants publicity, he most likely fears something). He claims (with HIS emphasis, not mine) some incedible tale (HIS neck hairs, not mine) Then later pathetic attempts to "put things into perspective" only raise more questions. CLEARLY this is an addition to the article. The beat-to-death-argument "conspiracy theory" does not even apply here. Peter Power went on BBC Radio and National TV in order to achieve something. He could have said nothing, no reporter obligated him to come on air, he did it himself. This wikipedia article is about him and WHAT HE DOES. He goes on TV. He is in the SECURITY BUSINESS, it was his big day. It is prominent in his resumé, Snowded must not censor it.
I just mention it here, then the wikipedia-overlords label it a heresy and delete it. I am appalled. What century does User:Snowded live in? I would like to lodge a complaint about him.
On second sighting I see this theme has been here before. Snowded, if you must, you need to find a wording that leaves your world-view intact. If you absolutely need to discredt people a priori and denigrate their arguments, then do it. But this surely can't be in the name of wikipedia. Where does one lodge a complaint about you?
85.197.19.228 ( talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
BBC Radio 5 Live (afternoon of 7.July 2005) [4]
Peter Power: ... at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for -- ah over -- a company of over a 1000 people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!
BBC Interviewer: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
Peter Power: Precisely, and it was, er, about half-past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, 'this is the real one' and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from 'slow time' to 'quick time' thinking and so on.
ITV News (8:20 p.m. 7.July 2005) [5]
Peter Power: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector - and we sat everybody down, in the city - 1,000 people involved in the whole organisation - but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was, we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from 'fictional' to 'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time -
ITV News: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?
Peter Power: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 oclock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the hair....
It would be too long to include in full, but I can't see how else a NPOV can be maintained. 85.197.19.228 ( talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
References
I edited this article yesterday adding details of an interview Peter Power gave on BBC Breakfast News at 6.20am on August 2011 saying that his company Visor Consulting was preparing a report that dealt with recommendations for new Police powers that dealt with the exact same situations as were being experienced as part of the 2011 England Riots.
This has been removed.
I also added a link to the television interview with Peter Power & the BBC on 7/7 as a citation
but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.101.217 ( talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So much of the comment below is entirely subjective about the alleged 'hostility' of some critics. This page does not mention the many other incidents Mr Power has been involved in, such as taking control of a tube train, involvement in the Kings Cross fire and numerous other events in London. Extrapolation of whether these were a matter of him just being in those places by coincidence or not is irrelevant and speculation should be avoided, but the reported facts of these events do not. The extensive and excessive comments below suggest a lack of impartiality on both sides. This talk page is considerably longer than the article itself and more time should be spent on putting FACTS in the article and less on bickering on here in my view. I know two people who died in the bombings and am quite certain they weren't actors. Mr Power does seem to be most unfortunate in being so frequently present at the time and location of numerous attacks/disasters. I repeat, we should not speculate, but we should not have an incomplete article, and should not accept the suppression of information about the concerns of many about Mr Powers, whether or not we agree with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.102.83 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 April 2013
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
I and a few others, watch out for hostile groups trying to hijack Wikipedia features to promote themselves. It is known from other websites that you have a very hostile vendetta against Power. Your organisation should express its views in another article. I gather you believe that the 7 July 2005 London bombing tragedy was played by actors pretending to be injured, or missing the point that there have been 22 bombs on the London underground since 1885? The ‘Julyseventh’ group who inserted the previous last sentence in the article about Peter Power have been inaccurate and malicious in their intent, as opposed to just informative. Their addition has therefore been removed.You are adding nothing of value to this article, expect to suit your purposes that I and others consider malicious. You are part of the 'julyseventh'campaign has a very hostile vendetta against Power (see many other websites) and you clearly seek to use Wikipedia to further this by adding valueless/malicious additions. Please stop doing this-- Martinfud ( talk) 17:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC).
I would like to make a few points:
I am the original author of the article and have met Power previously, as have many others. I see no reason at all why he nor indeed anyone else, should justify themselves to a self proclaimed 'truth campaign', nor suffer the vendetta from you and other hostile groups that appear to think 7/7 was make believe. However, I'm the first one to promote freedom of speech and informative debate, but your position and reason to add these additions abuses such an assertion. Notwithstanding this I am quite certain the CPS ultimately said no prosecution. No charges or disciplinary action was ever, as far as I know, taken against Power. Whatever it was alleged he did was an internal matter only - source local Dorset paper 1993. Why not add to the article instead that he drove a Ford motorcar, favourite food was curry and he liked photography? All pointless editions that add nothing whatsoever to the original article.-- Patrick56 ( talk) 18:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I've protected the page for a brief period. Can the edit warriors resolve the issues on the talk page please.
There seem to me to be two issues:
I do not believe there to be BLP issues with page as the information is not disputed, but sourcing to a partisan website because it carries a scan of a newspaper clipping seems dubious. It would be better to cite the newspaper directly. CIreland ( talk) 18:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Makes sense to me as the pressure group ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ who are very keen to include the new inserts I find most difficult to debate with. Here is how I see it as (a) the original author and (b) someone who has since met Power (who is reluctant to be involved in this matter):
The original article and attachments I researched were I hope, accurate and relevant. Not inspired by any hidden agenda. I was also grateful for a bit of Wikipedia help in the finished work. I also believe anything in this or any Wikipedia article should be not biased or linked to gratuitously antagonistic sources that only want to pursue their own cause. With these thoughts in mind two questions are now asked:
1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? 2. Are any/all the external links suitable?
The final paragraph is indisputably from an organisation that is pursuing a personal and hostile vendetta against Power. Numerous websites confirm this. Indeed, the author does not hide the fact. I find it impossible to accept that any paragraph submitted by this group can be unbiased or not linked to antagonistic sources and a hidden agenda. But are these issues alone sufficient to doubt the source and suitability?
1. Is the final paragraph appropriately sourced? I consider the source has to be weighed against the relevance of the paragraph? What was or might have been reported in a provincial newspaper almost a lifetime ago is not in itself an immediate point of challenge, although it could be. The substance however, is even less newsworthy than say someone who is found not guilty of a minor traffic offence. Power in this sense, was never charged, summonsed or even disciplined. I can confirm from the subject of the article that the CPS did indeed decide that no prosecution was required for an internal/administration matter. However, Power was a senior police officer which meant a full enquiry whenever any allegation is made was bound to occur, even though no charges were ever brought. But the local paper thought his rank merited comment. Otherwise, it was not in the least newsworthy. Within the context of an accurate and relevant article I believe this deliberately selective use of an otherwise distant and pointless news item is intended only to harm Power to suit the organisation that discovered it. Had they looked further there are other newspaper features over the years that tell of Powers awards for gallantry and leadership, but of course these do not support the reason why the ‘July 7 truth campaign’ want to publish this particular and I believe (at best) irrelevant paragraph.
2. Are any/all the external links suitable? Probably the ones that for many months linked to the wider exploits of Power and were not specifically selective, are suitable. They have never been challenged as they are from various sources without any hidden agenda. For example, those linked to all the BBC sites who have reported on Power’s previous actions - without bias. Now suddenly a hostile pressure group with a well known and personal vendetta against Power wants to promote itself by inserting its own external link. I suggest this is neither accurate nor relevant and seeks only to manipulate Wikipedia to promote a single course.
Since the eponymously called ‘July 7 truth Campaign’ has a keen interest in promoting its own view that nothing so far, has been truthfully reported about the tragedy in 2005, can I suggest they consider adding to the already very well covered article on that event, rather than be allowed to conduct a campaign of what appears to be character assignation far removed from anything that is accurate or relevant to the readers of Wikipedia. It seems from other contributors that I am not alone in this view.
I ask that the final paragraph and external link that now exists be removed and we revert to what was previously published.-- Patrick56 ( talk) 22:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I’ve been looking at why Cmain|talk] from the July 7 action group is so keen to change what was a perfectly acceptable article that I think Patrick56 first put up about Power. This seems to be happening more and more where Wikipedia is massaged to suit the purpose of any organisation keen to use it as a platform to promote their own message, rather than just be unbiased and informative. July 7 action group have been having a real personal dig against Power for ages, simply because he ran an exercise on 7/7 with a very similar scenario to the real event – and had the balls to admit it (surely if he was on the inside track he would never do that?) and because he’s not going to jeopardise his client by revealing their name he must be guilty of something, or so July 7 think. I agree with Patrick56: Just leave the article as it was without deliberately dragging up some distant, irrelevant and unnecessary story from 15 years ago miles from London, just to harm Power. Cmain|talk] is wrong when he says “the significance of the suspension is hard to judge. Patrick56 asserts it is less newsworthy than a minor traffic offence, but that is not public knowledge because the alleged offence has never been disclosed”. Patrick56 (who unlike July 7) says he has met Power, made the point that Power was never charged, summonsed or disciplined and probably left the force himself and was not dismissed. At least with a traffic offence someone was actually summonsed to end up in court, which is a lot more than Power ever was as far as I can see. I’ve given this a lot of thought and I think this is just a rather spiteful and unnecessary action by Cmain|talk] and should not be included. Why the witch hunt Cmain|talk]?-- Martinfud ( talk) 23:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yesterday I took time out to look at the July 7 ‘Truth Campaign’ (aka people calling themselves Nick Cooper or Cmain) who all alone, are mad keen on inserting a piece of distant and I believe, malicious and irrelevant information about Power from way back in 1993. Only to them alone it’s not irrelevant. They only seek only to besmirch Power wherever they can because they cannot understand how he ran an exercise on 7/ July 2005 that was so similar to the real thing that day? Hardly the bases for an informative and unbiased addition to an article on an individual that has been on Wikipedia for many months? I’ve suggested before they add their view about what Power did that day (that I think they are entitled to) to the actual well written Wikipedia article on the event, rather than to an individual, but of course that does not help their real objective.
They say that his departure from Dorset ‘has never been explained’. Why does it have to ‘be explained’? What gives them the right to say it must be explained to suit them? Every year 100s of senior police officers retire (unlike Power, many in very mysterious circumstances that are of course of no interest to July 7 Truth Campaign). Their pursuit of this poor sod blinds them to the fact that elsewhere in Wikipedia it’s reported that over 20 bombings have occurred on the London underground since 1885, which makes the London tube system the most bombed place in the UK. A bit of a no brainer it strikes me if you are looking for a London terror exercise scenario - so pretty good idea Power if you ask me.
I cannot comment about who Martinfud is, but just because he/she feels as angry as I do about what the July 7 group are trying to do here (and elsewhere…) and then signs up to Wikipedia just to make en edit(s), does not debar him/her from adding their opinion. It’s utterly disgraceful that Cmain has the sheer arrogance to assert that whatever Martinfud has said is ‘are self-evidently false’. Who says? Damm check to try and strike out what appears to be comments - just as valid as anyone else who wants to chip in.
Taking all this into account I (and others I have invited to read this article) fail to see that a proposed edition that is so obviously motivated by the pursuance of a campaign against Power (which led them to by pass a lot of other information about Power from other newspapers etc) has any bona fide place here.
Let July 7 Campaign add their bit to the obvious article on the subject that has a clue in the title of their campaign. Let this article stay as it was before they tried to hijack it to suit there own cause-- Patrick56 ( talk) 21:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC).
All (inc. Martinfud and others who share my view) - I’m getting fed up with this and I have suggested below a solution. First, there has been much written on the July 2005 London bombings. A great deal of it appears to be conspiratorial nonsense aimed at Power and persistently delivered by people who’s motive seems only to attack him (it is my turn to correct you insofar that the London underground remains I believe, the most bombed (de facto) structure in the UK, although Belfast is is indeed likely to be the most bombed town, although I am never sure how many bombs hit the Europa hotel Belfast?). But back to the subject of Power: Second,I think I have a solution and I appeal to Wikipedia to use this as a compromise between two positions that seem opposite each other and have reached an impasse.
(A) Simply say that Power served in the Metropolitan Police 1971 - 1990 and the Dorset Police 1990 - 1993. To add anything more than this seems gratuitously unnecessary as I and Martinfud have asserted many times. (B) Remove the link to the so called ‘July 7 Truth Campaign’ that is obviously a very controversial insertion from an organisation I firmly believe to have a personal vendetta against Power. Indeed, it seems impossible to draw any other conclusion when you read the link.
I hope this makes sense. I have given some ground on this and I now hope that those expressing a different view to mine will do likewise. Whoever edits this in Wikipedia can you please accept this as final?-- Patrick56 ( talk) 10:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Go for it. I think this is the solution. Well done Patrick56 for suggesting an obvious way to solve this propblem. Oh and by the way, I really do exist!-- Martinfud ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
For goodness sake, can we now stop messing with this article. The very recent change in main article body made it appear subject moved to Dorset directly after 1985 (incorrect). Also, unnecessary link to July 7 Truth campaign has, once again,removed – as per discussions-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC) above-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)-- Patrick56 ( talk) 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC).
I rather think this is getting a bit silly and I’m fed up with the endless debate on just one article. Let's try and find a solution: First J7 just keep adding their own website as part of what I (and others) firmly believe is no more than an anti Power campaign on the back of what they think is the truth about 7 July 2005. I just cannot agree that this is relevant here, but might be under the 7/7 article? I therefore ask J7 to do just that and take their argument to the correct article. Next, to the best of my knowledge from researching whatever sources I can (e.g. a police officer who served at the time) I have no doubt that Power was indeed suspended. The Echo newspaper refers to a comment from the then Deputy Chief Constable saying the incident was solely an internal matter. However, his rank required that the Crown Prosecution Service had to make the decision about weather to prosecute on whatever papers had to be sent to them and they said no. Only then did Power retire, having I presume (?) stayed in the force to clear his name - if required. It has never been put in the public domain exactly why he was ever investigated, but since he was never charged, summonsed or so it seems even disciplined there seems to have been no reason for him to clear his name and I think to contimnually drill into this matter makes no sense to me? Had he been charged with anything at all that would be a different matter and I would be the first to add such detail to what I originally put up about Power. Can we therefore leave it at that? I take exception with people who seem to have an obsession about conducting what appears to be a never ending witch hunt on the spurious belief that Power has to answer to J7 for an incident a lifetime ago that resulted in no action taken against him at all? Maybe Power himself would like to comment?-- Patrick56 ( talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have now added the narrative, having restricted it to the contents of the known press reports on the matter. Nick Cooper ( talk) 13:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Can the numerous contributers on this page pause for a moment. My name is Peter Power and I am the subject of this article. As such I have a reasonable claim to express my view on what has been written. I am grateful to people who refer to themselves as Patrick 56 and Martinfud for trying to get a balanced article, in the face of other people who are determined to write a rather spiteful and nasty feature that despite a varied career lasting nearly 40 years is totally dominated by a singe event that lasted a few months.
I am 57 years old and have previously served in or been attached to the Airborne Forces and several operational police units in London, plus a very short spell in Dorset. During this time I have been at the front major events ranging from terrorist sieges to bomb scenes and fires. I retired fro the UK police in 1993.
Thirteen years ago I set up my own company. Since 1995 our work has taken my team and I across the world running numerous workshops and exercises and I consider myself very fortunate in doing this. However, little or any of this has surfaced in any of the article(s) I have seen.
I’m not at all sure how or why Wikipedia works but I guess it allows anyone to say just about anything on anyone and in so doing provides a global platform for a bunch of rather lonely people to express their thinly disguised campaigns, no matter how bizarre or invalid?
What keeps appearing in Wikipedia is dominated by a personal and rather nasty vendetta against me by J7 and others, who cannot understand why my organisation ran a scenario based exercise in 2005 that featured, in one very small part, a series of imaginary incendiary bombs on the London Underground, very similar to the IRA attack in 1992. To suit their purpose they dwell only on a few months in Dorset a lifetime ago because they feel this is how to attack me. Anyone reading the article can see this – which is why it was brought to my attention yesterday.
So let me have my turn suggesting words for an article that someone might like to write that I actually think is much better than what Patrick56 first wrote (sorry, but I wish you hadn’t…) and is not saturated with gratuitous hostility towards me. Can I suggest that Patrick56 might now update his earlier article with something like the following:
“Peter Power was born in the UK in 1951. He served in the 10 Battalion Parachute Regiment 1969 - 1971 before joining the Metropolitan Police in 1971. His service in that force included the Special Patrol Group and attachments to the Anti Terrorist Branch and other front line units. He received several commendations for leadership etc. and in 1985 became the primary author of the Gold Silver Bronze Command Structure. He also designed several mnemonics for dealing with terrorist bombs during the IRA campaign. In 1990 he transferred on promotion to Dorset. An investigation against him in Dorset for an alleged internal irregularity did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him. He retired from Dorset in 1993. In 1995 Power set up his own company in central London. He is quoted in the UK Government Guide on Integrated Emergency Management and he is the author of many other advice guidebooks including the original UK Govt. (DTI) booklet ‘Preventing Chaos in a Crisis'. Power is a Special Advisor to a number of key organisations including the Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness and the Business Continuity (BC) Institute London Forum. He is in addition, a Special Advisor to the editorial board of Continuity Professional Magazine in the USA and is listed in the UK Register of Expert Witnesses. He is a Fellow of numerous industry associations and member of the Guild of Freemen of the City of London. -- Peterpowervisor ( talk) 08:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not long ago I asked if Power himself read his article and it seems he has. I have just looked through what he (I guess it is he?) has said and feel his point is valid. What appeared overnight was a bizarre article that expanded beyond all reasonable proportion the 40 or so years of his career. What I have put up now is more concise and relevant and just because it uses a lot of what Power has himself has outlined makes it no less valid. Indeed, it introduces new information that I did now know-- Patrick56 ( talk) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC).
I would much rather nothing was written about me and what I now see is so selective, vindictive and pointless I wonder if anyone who keeps writing this has a real life? Patrick56 - if you want to liaise with me please do so via our company website (Visor Consultants)-- Peterpowervisor ( talk) 11:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick Cooper - I really do think there is much to much here about Power. What lasted for a long time as a short/factual article before you decided to change everything was perfectly fine. Can you please leave it as it is now (11.20am). I will attempt to email Power (see above)-- Patrick56 ( talk) 11:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Due to repeated reverting [1], I have locked the page for 2 weeks. Please try to come some sort of an agreement in that time so that this constant back-and-forth between versions can cease. If involved editors do reach an agreement before the 2 weeks are over, drop a note on my talk page and we can lift the protection early. CIreland ( talk) 11:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I request that the following sentence be deleted:
An investigation against him in Dorset for an alleged internal irregularity did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him.
The claim that the investigation "did not result in any changes or disciplinary action against him" is not verifiable. Cmain ( talk) 12:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I could not agree more. I guess as the subject under whatever Wikipedia rules apply, I have no final say in this obviously vexatious (and to me personal) matter that has more to do some J7 pressure groups and others trying just to dig any dirt they can on me, rather than create a balanced article. I still have a right to express my view. Just leave it. It says enough, although I would much rather the entire thing was wiped.-- Peterpowervisor ( talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Peter - I hope Wikipedia listens to you as well as me and Martinfud. I'm reluctant to say wipe your article, but as it reads right now it makes sense.-- Patrick56 ( talk) 21:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Nick Cooper - for everyone's sake why not just leave this as it is? So far three people have suggested just that. I sense you have an unnatural obsession about Power and the need to leave no stone unturned in your quest to find something to besmirch him. Why?-- Patrick56 ( talk) 14:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Patrick56 has persistently claimed that Power retired after the CPS decided not to prosecute. The CPS has today confirmed that Power retired before it made its decision. I have published the full text on my talk page. Cmain ( talk) 23:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The subject of this page is a former high-ranking British police officer, who in that capacity was involved in a number of notable events, as well as at least one major innovation in British policing practice. Since retiring from the police he has worked in crisis management, and is a frequent media commentator on such matters in the UK broadcast media.
This page was originally created by Rye1967 on 18 June 2007 [2] with text inappropriately added to Peter Power (politician) by Patrick56, who was the last person to edit the page on 24 October 2007 [3] until 7 February 2008 [4], when Cmain added a link to new material on the subject on the website of the The July 7th Truth Campaign ("J7"). This material concerns the subject's service with Dorset Police, and his subsequent departure from the force in 1993. Previously this page gave the impression that the subject's Metropolitan Police service was contiguous with his moving to the private sector in 1995. These details of his police career were reported contemporaneously, but have recently been "rediscovered" by people investigating the 7 July London bombings, some of whom see a connection between those events and the subject. The latter is a view I do not personally hold, but the "new" material undeniably remains significant in terms of the subject's biography.
After several days of rapid changes and a certain degree of vandalism, Patrick56 deleted the new material and the J7 link on 10 February [5], claiming it "appears irrelevant and most likely inserted with malicious intent." There then followed a period of reversion and counter-reversion, with both Patrick56 and Martinfud (who has edited no other pages and may be a sock puppet) seeking to suppress the new material. Initial objections seemed to focus more on the source rather than the veracity of the information, with both of the aforementioned editors applying such unhelpful terms as "anti government", "anarchist", or "personal hate campaign against (the subject)" to J7.
Throughout this dispute Patrick56 has failed to engage in appropriate debate, frequently contending that the new material is "not important", or that it should go on 7 July London bombings rather than the subject's biography, simply by virtue of it being brought to light by people interested in that particular subject. He has occasionally referred to his original authorship of this page, suggesting a belief that this confers some form of ownership - and therefore control - over it. He has frequently falsely attributed statements, motivations and actions to both myself and other editors, and has ignored direct requests to retract them. In fairness, however, this may simply be attributable to an unfamiliarity by Patrick56 with Wikipedia discussion etiquette, and a consequent failure to understand that he has been dealing with more than one person.
In an effort to resolve the matter, I presented the new material in a narrative form based on the verbatim reproductions of the associated contemporary press reports on the J7 site, but referenced the reports themselves, rather than that site. Patrick56 did not accept this compromise and reverted the page to an earlier version. Around the same time, an editor claiming to be the subject himself ( Peterpowervisor) suggested his own text, which Patrick56 promptly used. I reverted this to my own version with the narrative account and sought administrator intervention, but between that time and the page being locked, Patrick56 again reverted to the "subject-written" text. This is the current form of the page, which is poorly-formatted, with clearly avoidable red links, and is far less comprehensive than previous versions.
I have drafted a new version of the page text, which can be found at User:Nick Cooper/Draft 1. This is based on my last version of 27 February, but with a few amendments to reintroduce other (largely non-controversial) detail lost in the course of this dispute, as well as more conventional referencing. The proposal is that when the block on this page is lifted, this draft text should be used, subject to agreed constructive amendments.
The subject is clearly a notable individual - and considering his media profile and the current political climate will continue to be - and there is a wealth of verifiable source material to draw upon in compiling an accurate and comprehensive biography of him for Wikipedia. Indeed, Patrick56 himself originally added much of the detail on him under a justification of, "This Peter Power has a great many hits on Google and I think deserves his own feature" [6] Nick Cooper ( talk) 18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Cmain ( talk · contribs) asked me on my talk page to comment here. I am somewhat wary of doing so because I have taken administrative action in protecting the page; contrary to the impression some seem to have, my opinion carries no special weight because I happen to be an admin.
CIreland ( talk) 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
CIreland & Nick Cooper: As the original author of of this somewhat contentious article - and accepting this confers not rights at all - I'm happy with the draft 2 mentioned above. I would only ask that the following should be considered for insertion in it (as has already been identified):
• Prior to joining the Police he spent three years in the
Parachute Regiment
Territorial Army.
• Whilst attached to the
Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch he designed a series of counter terrorist
Improvised Explosive Device mnemonics.
Let's hope that is it. Please....I have added another comment or two on the CIreland talk page, including part of a message J7 actually put on Power's talk page that makes it very obvious indeed they are out to get him -- Patrick56 ( talk) 16:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out that despite me leaving a polite note on Patrick56's talk page disclaiming responsibility for the latest edit (and even providing assistance in identifying the true editor), Patrick56's latest reversion comment attempts to implicate J7. Cmain ( talk) 21:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
What company did Peter Power form? It is mentioned but unspecified. This is needed for the article. Beligaronia ( talk) 08:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that no mention is made of the interview the article's subject gave to ITV about his firm ("Visor Consultants") coincidentally conducting an exercise involving a simulated bombing scenario on the very day of the July 7 attacks? E.g. see YouTube link 1 or YouTube link 2. Irrespective of its status as a bit of "conspiracy lore," it seems notable enough and of sufficient interest to WP users, independent of the motives of the individuals who post it around the Web. IslandGyrl ( talk) 22:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
This simple sentence shoudl be allowed to stand. It is a fact. Facts are sometimes strange. Wikipedia reports on drunkeness of hollywood stars, too.
Peter Power (crisis management specialist) appeared on ITV and BBC Radio saying that he was involved in a rehearsal of exactly the bombing scenario that morning.
[1]
A highly relevant entry that shows much about the doubtful personality of Peter Power. He goes on TV and Radio on the same day of the london terror attacks (his motive is clear, he wants publicity, he most likely fears something). He claims (with HIS emphasis, not mine) some incedible tale (HIS neck hairs, not mine) Then later pathetic attempts to "put things into perspective" only raise more questions. CLEARLY this is an addition to the article. The beat-to-death-argument "conspiracy theory" does not even apply here. Peter Power went on BBC Radio and National TV in order to achieve something. He could have said nothing, no reporter obligated him to come on air, he did it himself. This wikipedia article is about him and WHAT HE DOES. He goes on TV. He is in the SECURITY BUSINESS, it was his big day. It is prominent in his resumé, Snowded must not censor it.
I just mention it here, then the wikipedia-overlords label it a heresy and delete it. I am appalled. What century does User:Snowded live in? I would like to lodge a complaint about him.
On second sighting I see this theme has been here before. Snowded, if you must, you need to find a wording that leaves your world-view intact. If you absolutely need to discredt people a priori and denigrate their arguments, then do it. But this surely can't be in the name of wikipedia. Where does one lodge a complaint about you?
85.197.19.228 ( talk) 19:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
BBC Radio 5 Live (afternoon of 7.July 2005) [4]
Peter Power: ... at half-past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for -- ah over -- a company of over a 1000 people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright!
BBC Interviewer: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?
Peter Power: Precisely, and it was, er, about half-past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision, 'this is the real one' and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from 'slow time' to 'quick time' thinking and so on.
ITV News (8:20 p.m. 7.July 2005) [5]
Peter Power: Today we were running an exercise for a company - bearing in mind I'm now in the private sector - and we sat everybody down, in the city - 1,000 people involved in the whole organisation - but the crisis team. And the most peculiar thing was, we based our scenario on the simultaneous attacks on an underground and mainline station. So we had to suddenly switch an exercise from 'fictional' to 'real'. And one of the first things is, get that bureau number, when you have a list of people missing, tell them. And it took a long time -
ITV News: Just to get this right, you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?
Peter Power: Er, almost precisely. I was up to 2 oclock this morning, because it's our job, my own company. Visor Consultants, we specialise in helping people to get their crisis management response. How do you jump from 'slow time' thinking to 'quick time' doing? And we chose a scenario - with their assistance - which is based on a terrorist attack because they're very close to, er, a property occupied by Jewish businessmen, they're in the city, and there are more American banks in the city than there are in the whole of New York - a logical thing to do. And it, I've still got the hair....
It would be too long to include in full, but I can't see how else a NPOV can be maintained. 85.197.19.228 ( talk) 18:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
References
I edited this article yesterday adding details of an interview Peter Power gave on BBC Breakfast News at 6.20am on August 2011 saying that his company Visor Consulting was preparing a report that dealt with recommendations for new Police powers that dealt with the exact same situations as were being experienced as part of the 2011 England Riots.
This has been removed.
I also added a link to the television interview with Peter Power & the BBC on 7/7 as a citation
but it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.101.217 ( talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
So much of the comment below is entirely subjective about the alleged 'hostility' of some critics. This page does not mention the many other incidents Mr Power has been involved in, such as taking control of a tube train, involvement in the Kings Cross fire and numerous other events in London. Extrapolation of whether these were a matter of him just being in those places by coincidence or not is irrelevant and speculation should be avoided, but the reported facts of these events do not. The extensive and excessive comments below suggest a lack of impartiality on both sides. This talk page is considerably longer than the article itself and more time should be spent on putting FACTS in the article and less on bickering on here in my view. I know two people who died in the bombings and am quite certain they weren't actors. Mr Power does seem to be most unfortunate in being so frequently present at the time and location of numerous attacks/disasters. I repeat, we should not speculate, but we should not have an incomplete article, and should not accept the suppression of information about the concerns of many about Mr Powers, whether or not we agree with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.102.83 ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 30 April 2013