PeterBHC

You are right. Americans do not use the term veteran correctly. Someone who has served 60 days or more (and has not been dishonourably discharged) is entitled to "Veterans Benefits"; hence there are now around 20 million people claiming such benefits.

Whilst what I am about to describe is not really an "historic inaccuracy", and not to do with the Police in the U.K.,

it IS police related, and it is an INACCURATE description, in my opinion, and it IS an inaccuracy which the makers

of U.S. TV and Films on the subject of the POLICE make over and over and over.............

This last week, after the Boston Bombing and the aftermath, a particular policeman was injured or wounded, in one

way or another (the details are not important), and the U.S. television and other reports described him as being......

"....... a three year VETERAN of the Boston police force........"

I beg your pardon? Since when does being a policeman for 3 years make one a "veteran"? I have also heard of

five and eight year "veterans" and so on................. what a load of crap. It is as bad as Americans saluting each

other without any headwear on...............

The dictionary describes a "VETERAN" as:

"grown OLD in service, esp. in armed forces"; experienced by LONG practice";

And, please believe me, there is NO way that someone who has done anything for only 3 years,

can be properly described as a "veteran". What do Americans then call a man who has been in the

police force, or army, or whatever, for 25 or 30 years, I wonder............?

I have been working for 43 years............ I wonder,............. am I a veteran yet?????

Or was I a "veteran" when I was 23 years of age, and had been working for three years??

Does this mean that my motor vehicle which was made in 2010, and now gets sold in 2013, and is

therefore THREE years old, can be sold and advertised as a "veteran" car.............? Hmmmmm ....????

Do Americans even KNOW the proper meaning of the word: " Veteran " ??????

========================================================================

Mervyn,

Thanks again for your reply. Had a look at your shop website and your profile. All very interesting.

From what I read about SA (mainly the "Economist" as, in my opinion, USA news outlets generally seem to ignore substantive issues and concentrate on trivia and drivel) it seems a bit of an iffy place these days. There again, you appear happy there. Maybe I'm reading the wrong things - or coming to the wrong conclusions.

Sent an email to your Cathy shop enquiring about QVC crowned 'Johannesburg Police' or/and 'Pretoria Police' brunswick star helmet plates. Hard to find, but patience is the best policy with collecting.

Was not able to work how to get to "the Lounge". Can you give me a few pointers?

Peter.

PS. Am going out of town (with no Internet access) later this week for at least 5 days.

Mervyn,

There have been very complimentary reviews of my book (Police Reference: England and Wales (plus the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man)) in the UK magazines of the Police History Society (by Martin Stallion) and the Police Memorabilia Collectors Club (PMCC) - see PMCC issue 203 of 7 September 2012. Interested members can see an overview of the book at the informational website I previously mentioned.

Since then I have also recently released a much cheaper Amazon Kindle edition ('Police and Constabulary of England and Wales (eighteenth century to 2013)') - see the above website or Amazon for details. The Kindle version (due to the limitations of the present Kindle format) is not illustrated - whereas the full version has around 7,130 pictures.

As a matter of personal interest, can you share some information about your personal background and interests? You being in South Africa and my own African background does tend to get my attention.

Peter.

I agree about the Birkenhead police being first formed in 1833. However, I do not agree with 1857 being the date the Cheshire Constabulary was formed.

The 1957 book "To the Best of Our Skill & Knowledge" (by R. W. James, former chief constable of Congleton Borough Police and (at the time) a superintendent in the Cheshire Constabulary) I believe is in error about this. Surely the formation of a Cheshire force of paid constables in 1829 - whatever titles they were given - is, by definition, a constabulary. Many routinely dismiss the Cheshire force formed in 1829 as some sort of lesser sub-species of a constabulary. This appears to be primarily based on the clearly self-serving 1839 Constabulary Commission (see The First Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire as to the best means of establishing an efficient Constabulary Force in the Counties of England and Wales, 1839) which criticised the Cheshire Constabulary Act and its implementation as an "experimental failure". James, the author of the 1857 book, uses much the same language. James also states “It was purely permissive and subject to too many debilitating factors and it had the fatal weakness of not providing for a coordinating head or chief executive officer. At best it provided for

nine unrelated uncoordinated Police forces” (see page 22).

This all feeds into the often repeated fiction that the Wiltshire Constabulary was the first county constabulary formed.

On the other hand, if you believe the appointment of an expensive and largely unaccountable oligarch (i.e. a county chief constable of those times) is the defining and crucial aspect of a constabulary then you are certainly correct within your own terms.

Mervyn,

Thanks for asking. I'm a bit of a "Heinz 57" really. British father and German-Russian mother; born in what was the Gold Coast Colony (now Ghana, West Africa). Have lived in many places. Was a police officer in Africa, England and USA (now retired).

Have a large police insignia collection from the UK. Also smaller collections from the old Colonies and Dominions. My USA police collection is mainly based only on personal experience. In addition, many books and original British Parliamentary Reports, Acts and so on. Many would describe my collecting and interest in British policing history as bordering on obsession (for one, just ask my wife)!

Hope it is okay to mention I have written a very large and extensively illustrated book entitled "Police Reference: England and Wales (plus the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man)" (ISBN 978-0-9858978-0-2). For those who may be interested, there is an informational website about it at https://sites.google.com/site/policereference/

Not an admirer of self promotion, but mention of my book seems in context here.

Best wishes, Peter.

Nick,

>> "It is possible that, on incorporation in 1878, the new municpal borough of Birkinhead incorporated a pre-existing escutcheon into into its new coat of arms."

No, actually not. The seal of the town of Birkenhead before 1878 was different. The 1878 coat of arms represented the seals of the four towns merged to form the municipal borough of Birkenhead.

Mervyn,

Thanks for the welcome.

Sorry to be contrary, but the 1839 (see 2 and 3 Vict. Cap. 93) - the so called permissive Act - most certainly did not establish the City of London Police. That Act allowed (but did not require) counties in England and Wales to establish county police forces. The 1839 Act relating to the City of London Police was a completely separate and distinct piece of legislation sponsored by the Corporation of London (see 2 and 3 Vict. Cap. 94). Peter

Seems to be a bit of confusion here. The 1839 permissive Act only applied to counties. The 1835 Municipal Corporations Act required municipal boroughs to set up a Watch Committee and "appoint a sufficient number of constables". There was no Act requiring such borough police forces to model themselves on the Metropolitan Police then or later. The fact that a few did so model themselves is another matter. In fact, many boroughs and towns had established their own police forces years before this via their own private local Acts (of Parliament).

Another myth I've seen repeated many times says the Wiltshire Constabulary was the first county force established in England. Maybe it was the first one established under the 1839 permissive Act (debatable). However, the Cheshire Constabulary was the first one by a long shot; being established under a private local Act of Parliament in 1829.

When the Metropolitan Police first marched out from New Scotland Yard in 1829 , they were the forerunners in many different aspects of Policing. Today, we take the organisation and the discipline for granted - however, things were far different to begin with.

Apart from the Bow Street Horse Patrol - who were a small unit - they were the first to wear a regular uniform. Also, until 1839, they were on their own. An Act of Parliament in that year allowed Boroughs and Towns to appoint a Watch Committee and set-up their own Forces - but, modelled on the Met.. This was known as the Permissive Act - it was not until 1856 that the Rural Police Act - known as the Obligitory Act - was passed that all areas had to establish a proper Force.

The very rare frock coat I show here was for - probably - the Chief Constable of the West Riding Constabulary. This was set-up in October 1856 and had an establishment of 464. The first Chief Constable was a Colonel Cobbe and it is entirely possible that he was still the CC in 1862. I probably bought this frock coat some 40 years ago and I don't recall all of the details. However, the date was on a piece of paper I had put in a pocket - so, it must be based on some evidence. I also illustrate this uniform in my book - with this date. My note also says he was based in Wakefield.

Frock coats were still being worn at that date - it was during the 1860's that there was a gradual change over to the German tunic. The amount of strapping is quite impressive and I have always liked the the little tassels at the back. The top hat is also from this period - County Forces had a somewhat smaller version then for the Metropolitan Police. He may have worn a helmet - being ex-military - however, for the purposes of this short article it fits.

010.JPG

(photos courtesy of Jon Weston. 'Helmets and Caps)

Birkenhead_Badges.jpg

The QVC badge shown as "1865-1878" cannot be correct. The centre of the badge appears to display the Birkenhead coat of arms which was granted on 28 August 1878 (so the badge cannot be from before that date).