Talk:Serious Organised Crime Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Serious Organised Crime Agency is within the scope of the Law Enforcement WikiProject. Please Join, Create, and Assess. Remember, the project aims for no vandalism and no conflict, if an article needs attention regarding vandalism or breaches of wikiquette, please add it to the article watch list.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Title 2 E-mail 3 Joke 4 Agents or Officers? 5 I think theres a bit of a self-contradiction in this article 6 Edit Summary 7 Edit Summary 8 Confict of interest tag

[edit] Title

The BBC's website titled the organization, "The Serious and Organised Crime Agency (Soca)."

Here is the article.

Notice the location of the 'and' in the title.

Motoma 15:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The BBC have it wrong. Both s1(1) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and the agency's own website call it the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Sapient 15:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

1-april's fool? 86.39.64.202

The BBC were still adding the "and" in the news sections of the Today programme on Monday 3 April; however, they have now corrected their news website. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

Can you put the email addresses of Chairman and DG? Jt_spratt 17:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joke

I prusume that this is not a joke? As an edit at 19:52, 3 April 2006 said, and the user was vandalising this page. Jt_spratt 20:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Lmao, did someone think this was a joke because of the 1st april connection? lol. Well for anyone still confused, SOCA is very much a real UK government agency, that started work on 1st april 2006. 84.64.197.145 00:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agents or Officers?

According to the BBC 6 o'clock news, BBC One, on Monday 3rd April 2006, SOCA law enforcement officals will be known as 'Agents' and not as 'Officers'. This concurs with the language used on BBC and other news websites, and is logical considering it is an 'agency'. However the SOCA website uses the word 'officers' in a number of places, so presumably the BBC has got it wrong again. I make a point of saying this purely because I was myself going to change the article to say 'agents' but hopefully now others won't make the same mistake. 84.69.75.146 19:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the realm of policing and law enforcement, incorrect reporting, as you mention above is nothing new. The media are trying to make this into a 'British FBI' which is far from the truth. Dibble999 13:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Also, in the UK government at least, one is certainly not an agent simply because one works for an agency. The terms are completely unrelated. 86.17.208.173 22:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I think theres a bit of a self-contradiction in this article

In one section, it says that civil libertarians are opposed to SOCA on the grounds that its officers are not required to take the traditional police oath, while a section or two down, it says that "Many of SOCA's officers are required to take the police oath". Could someone please clarify this?

[edit] Edit Summary

Made Changes to reflect the work of SOCA and it's roles. Added new CEPOL Academy, latest plans for new computer National E-Crime Coordination Centre to replace some of the work done by the NHTCU. Also added a paragraph detailing other national resources which work in conjunction with SOCA such as City of London Fraud, Scotland Yard and the Forensic Science Service in order to help illustrate the multi agency nature of law enforcement and that SOCA does not have the remit of the FBI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.89.54 (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary information usually goes in the edit summary box. This is discussed in the help page Help:Edit summary. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary

Added to the article, the controversy surrounding SOCA Officers using the term armed police as reported in Britain and as criticised by the Police Federation of England and Wales (see reference). Also noted that SOCA does not deal with major firearms/hostage situations in the UK, and referenced the correct authorities who deal with such incidents.

This page is now more far factual with references and I have nothing more to add to it.

User: Bamford —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.89.149 (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

tildes (Bamford (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

You're still not using the Edit summary box. This is below the main edit window, below the text '(Briefly describe the changes you have made)'. Please read Help:Edit summary. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confict of interest tag

We should removed the 'Conflict of interest' tag unless there is disputed material. What is the process for removing such a tag? If there are no objections I will remove the tag after a week or so. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been 767 edits made to this article since January 18th by someone with a conflic of interest, 172 by others. I'd say that that makes it applicable to the main contributor to this page.--Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we get rid of this tag? Can we revert the article back to the January 18th state? If not, what can be done? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Id say the last stable version was yours. "13:36, 18 November 2007 Crosbiesmith (Talk | contribs | block) m (10,547 bytes) (→Administration: link fix) " ((768 intermediate revisions not shown.)includes diff). You make the call on whats best here. I'll support that ;)--Hu12 (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How confusing! I guess the tag will stay until someone has time to compare each version. Thanks! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

At a first glance, these edits don't seem to be a big deal. There is no obvious whitewashing, it looks like a matter of technical corrections. Someone who is patient should look through the technical items. The normal practice at WP:COIN is to be very sensitive to removal of criticism, but my very quick overview did not see any such. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)