Talk:Home Office Circular 46/2004

Concerns

I believe this article, as presently written, does not serve the Wikipedia community well. I don't know whether it requires a cleanup, a complete rewrite, or deletion entirely. I'll outline my concerns below:

• Clearly, the title is problematic. The subject document is a relatively obscure publication of the UK Home Office, and would have not received a second notice save for the controversy it created among the community of retired police officers within the UK. Perhaps a title that encapsulates the nature of the controversy might be a better fit.

• It is not clear from the article that this controversy meets the criteria for inclusion. The article cites only one independent article, covering a single case. WP:ONEVENT might apply here.

• The entire article seems to be a coat rack upon which the author can hang his own grievances about the law. External links are heavily skewed to websites supporting UK police pensioners.

I will ask for input from the WikiProject Law members to see if they can help out with the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Response

I thank the Editor for his vigilance and for his constructive comments. They are received in the spirit in which they are offered. I ask that the editor reconsider his opinion of the article in the light of the following:

• The nature of the subject matter is perhaps why the article may, at first glance, appear to be partisan. It addresses an issue that is of itself somewhat controversial: a Government Department has issued official advice that was not only seen to be unwise, but was tacitly admitted to be unwise. The Home Office has been asked, by the Government Minister then responsible, to provide revised guidance, which is about as close to an admission that the original guidance is flawed as we are likely to get.

By 'unwise' I mean unlawful, in that the Home Office offered guidance that when followed, resulted in actions that were proved to be illegal by the Administrative Court and by the Pensions Ombudsman. The article deliberately avoids stating that the guidance is unlawful, and similarly avoids opining that actions by pension administrators following that guidance were unlawful. Instead, it points to several Administrative Court cases which came to that conclusion. There exist no cases that have come to different conclusions.

• The article is not about a 'controversy'. It is a record of an unusual mistake made by a Government department.

• I see no justification whatever for the Editor's remark that he thinks an option is for the article to be deleted. It is entirely factual. To delete it would be an act of censorship and contrary to the right of freedom of expression.

• The article may appear to be partisan for it lacks any facts or references that present an opposing or differing point of view. This is simply because there are none to present. The article would contain any alternate views if they were available. The absence of an opposing view does not, of itself, make the article partisan.

• The article deliberately does not reference existing independent research and analysis of the circular that revealed it contained distortions of verifiable facts. Should anyone wish to read that analysis then it is available on line at www.scribd.com/wdtk under the title, 'Research Into Home Office Circular 46/2004 - Police Injury Pensions.' That paper has been distributed widely, to Chief Constables, Police Authorities, Members of Parliament and other organisations and individuals, some of whom would have good reason to attempt to cast doubts on the validity of its findings. Not a single voice has been raised to counter the results of the research.

• The fact is that a Government Department fell short of its normal standards and that shortfall has been revealed and proven. That raises the circular from what should have been relative obscurity to the status of a rarity, which means that it is likely to be of interest to a wider audience, such as students of law and Government, politics, age issues, pensions, etc. So, from being something that affected a number of former police officers it becomes an area of study with much wider appeal.

• The article could perhaps benefit from altering the introductory sentence, 'This circular is subject to controversy concerning its content and its legality' to, 'This circular is subject to concern over its content and its legality.'

• As to the title, it is difficult to imagine what would be more appropriate. The article is not attempting to address wider issues of law or the behaviour of Government Departments, nor is it intended to examine the effects of the circular on the pensions of disabled former police officers. Its rational focus is a singular Home Office circular, which deserves to be identified in the title not least to confine any expectations that ancillary issues are being addressed, or that a tub is being thumped. Altering the title to something that highlighted controversy would have the effect of adding bias to the article which is currently absent.

• The Editor states that, 'The article cites only one independent article, covering a single case.' It actually identifies five court cases, a Parliamentary early day motion, a quote from the President of the National Association of Chief Police Officers and from the Home Office. Other articles are available, but they tend to promote a singular point of view or express opinions that address wider issues. Should the Editor identify any article that could usefully be included or referenced then the author is happy to make that amendment.

• The article was not written with a view to presenting 'grievances with the law' for none exist within the author. Any supposition about grievances is groundless and could not arise from a reading of the article. The law is, in fact, not criticised in any way, explicit or implied. There is, in fact, no grievance with the law from any party - police injury pensioners and their representative organisations have only raised issues concerning unlawful actions by pension administrators. It should be remembered that Home Office guidance is not law. I can add to the article a reference to a respected academic source that explains this more fully and/or quote from a determination by the Pensions Ombudsman that makes the same point.

• The author welcomes any suggestions as to how the article might be improved, and will include any references to other data that might be thought suitable to enhance its balance (should that now still be thought necessary).

Wyndham Hopkins (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since posting the above response, over a month ago, the Editor who raised certain issues has not seen fit to comment on my response.

• I should add another point to my response: The Editor has said that the article would benefit from attention from an expert in the subject. This is an unfounded assumption that the author is not an expert on the subject. Nobody has asked me what my qualifications are, nor whether I am an expert on the subject.

• What I am not an expert on is the arcane methodology of editing Wikipedia articles and am therefore somewhat puzzled to find that someone can blithely make judgements not only on the quality of an article but also infer that the author doesn't command an expertise in the subject without offering a single word of argument or presenting any evidence to support the criticism. Moreover, having raised wildly speculative doubts, the Editor maintains a silence and does not see fit to engage in a process of collaborative editing that, presumably, is intended by Wikipedia to raise the standard of entries.

• In light of the lack of communication, the silence, the unsupported criticisms, I therefore suggest that anyone reading the article can do so in full confidence that the Editor who posted his view that the article needs attention from an expert, and who doubts the neutrality of the article has not made his case and can be ignored.

Wyndham Hopkins (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I refer to Wikipedia page 'What is a NPOV Dispute? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F There it is stated that, 'In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time.' There has been no discussion in over a month, so I propose to remove the NPOV tag in four weeks time if no discussion is forthcoming.

Wyndham Hopkins (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not an expert in law topics. Since I requested assistance from WikiProject Law and that project chose to ignore the request, I have nothing further to add here. Remove the tag if you wish. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)