Talk:Civil Nuclear Constabulary

Map accuracy

Is that image accurate? I wold have thought the force would have covered Torness too? /wangi 12:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not accurate - only BNFL/BNG sites. Omits British Energy AGR sites that don't also have a Magnox station, and some UKAEA and Urenco sites. An accurate map is on page 26 of [1], but it's not copyright free. Rwendland 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll remove the image for now then. Hopefully I can find the time to update (rather create a new one) the image with missing sites. Thanks/wangi 16:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cnc logo.jpg

Image:Cnc logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

New source

This could be used to expand the article Smartse (talk) 11:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Mutual Aid Law

Trying to make sense of the provisons that allow CNC to provide mutual aid within the article. If anyone has any definitive answer please add to this section as its not very straightforward...it would appear. Dibble999 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A good idea, but the section is unsourced and contains what is, technically, your opinion. I'm afraid it's probably best if you remove it.

Now, on the matter itself: yes, I believe you to be right, and it's something I had considered as well! Then again, one could reasonably ask: "what additional powers did they require?". They are crown servants regardless of whether, at that time, they were enjoying the powers and privileges of a constable, so they were able to carry their firearms with them. They had exactly the same powers under S3 CLA as they would were they, at that time, a constable, and had a power of arrest (if it had come to it) under S24A PACE. I'm not sure they needed a mutual aid agreement for what they were doing, but I can certainly see a very strong argument for their inclusion in the provisions of ATCSA 2001 as a result of this incident. ninety:one 19:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ninety, agreed haven't sourced it yet but do point to the relevant Acts. In answer to you question "what additional powers do they require?". Basically all police powers! The nub of the issue is that normally they do not have the powers etc of a constable outside of the 5km from nuclear sites except when transporting nuclear materials etc. So the issue is if they were outside the 5kms of a site assisting Cumbria i.e. not relating to nuclear materials but assisting another force, from where do they get the extended jurisdiction. As mentioned they are not covered by the ATCSA 2001 and are not covered by the Police Act 1996 or MOD Police Act mutual aid clauses which allow all territorial forces, BTP and MOD plod to take on the status and powers of the host force in mutual aid situations.

No issue with them carrying firearms around, as you say crown servants, plus s3 CLA applies to everyone but I simply can't believe the CNC would be expected to act as private citizens with guns in a live incident such as last week. Surely they utilised sec 59 Energy Act, a sort of mutual aid clause?. It does seem a bit of a strange legal area. On the practical side, no doubt, all did there best under very tragic circumstances Dibble999 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fully aware of the legal positions, I did write the sections for the other forces :P We shouldn't speculate but I should imagine it was a case of Cumbria's control telling their's what was going on, and letting them into a talkgroup. I don't think they would have worried much whilst it was going on! If you can find any sources then that'd be great, but it looks a bit like original research at the moment. ninety:one 21:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I know you know! I just don't think though it can be as straight forward as you suggest due to the bizarre legal situation. i.e. there must be some pre-defined agreement (or perhaps a very quick chat between the chief officers in this case) that kicks in invoking sec 59 of the Act. I would be startled if the CNC chaps were acting outside any defined mutual aid jurisdiction. However I concede your point re original research. I'll have a bash at editing what is definately known later. Of course I am personally aware that, as always, the people at the sharp end will try and 'make it work' & 'keep the wheel on' whatever is thrown at them. Dibble999 (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks better already! I've FOIed the CNC and Cumbria for:

• agreements made between Cumbria Constabulary and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary under section 59 of the Energy Act 2004
• the Memorandum of Understanding between the two forces, and
• any documents that relate to provisions for mutual aid in urgent situations.

That should cover it! ninety:one 20:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"On 2 June 2010 CNC officers assisted Cumbria Constabulary in the manhunt for the gunman Derrick Bird during his route across West Cumbria, killing 12 people and injuring 25." Someone needs to sort the punctuation out, because this just sounds wrong !! GarethBlues (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'Great Britain', 'Great Britain and Anglesey' or the 'United Kingdom'

The CNC operates on Anglesey as well as Great Britain therefore the 'United Kingdom' is probably the most suitable term even though in includes regions where they don't operate. 'Great Britain and Anglesey' could be used, but seems silly to me. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416232857/http://www.opsi.gov.uk:80/ACTS/acts1996/ukpga_19960016_en_6 to http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960016_en_6#pt5-pb3-l1g98

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/ukpga_19960016_en_6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105201537/http://www.cnpa.police.uk/ to http://www.cnpa.police.uk/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Location links are inconsistent

Some of the "Location" links link to the nuclear site's article (which then links to the township in the first sentence), others link to the township's article (which may link to the nuclear site's article somewhere in the "Economy" section). This should be made consistent. I don't know which type of consistency is prefered, so I won't touch the article. However, I think that the nuclear site's articles should be prefered, because they link to the township in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1060:5260:A42E:D3A3:A6BF:2200 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614053446/http://www.pntl.co.uk/pntl-fleet/ to http://www.pntl.co.uk/pntl-fleet/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)