This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Merseyside Start‑class Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Transport: Maritime Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance). Law Enforcement This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Merging!

When it comes to merging - please remember that the Port of Dover Police and the Port of Liverpool Police are unique in that they are their own serpatate police forces - unlike the other which are just connected to territotial police forces. Source: [[1]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.230.254 (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason why I suggested merging them into a list of police forces. It is also okay to merge each into its individual port-related article, much the same way that some city police departments redirect to their city. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just carried out something of an overhaul of this article. I've structured it into sections and added citations to reliable third party sources in order to make information verifiable. I've also removed certain information that can't be verified (I did look, trust me!), but I would be glad to see such material re- inserted IF it can be referenced. Any question or comments on my editing would be gladly received on my talk page. HJ Mitchell (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As these police are supposed to be enforcing the law in these locations, why does it seem from their cards that they are employed by Peel Ports? Surely this is a massive conflict of interest were suspected criminal activity by Peel Ports to be being reported? DiverScout (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Port of Liverpool Police. 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 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100513185544/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page=3 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page=3
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090511202105/http%3A//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page%3D11 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page=11
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090511202105/http%3A//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page%3D11 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page=11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090216134605/http://www.adv.co.uk/ospre.htm to http://www.adv.co.uk/ospre.htm
• Added archive http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20090511202105/http%3A//www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page%3D11 to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/shippingports/ports/accountabilityreview?page=11

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.

• 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) 08:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion in the juridiction of this police force from some annon editors. The core jurisdiction of this force remains the port area and 1 mile from same as set out in the 1847 Act. The Marine Navigation Act 2003 does not expand this jurisdiction to England & Wales (please read the legislation to see). It expands it to the police area of the Chief Constable who has consented to allow port police officers to use police power in relation to port area policing matters only. Generally what has happened is a port police force has applied to the Chief Constable of the police area that the port sits in meaning the ports police officers have police powers in relation to port policing matters anywhere in their residing police area. For example, Port of Dover Police have applied to Kent Chief Constable and receieved consent to use police powers in relation to Dover Port matters anywhere in Kent. As a result practically this means Port of Dover police officers can transport prisoners to any Kent custody suite without worrying about jurisdiction or could do an arrest enquiry for a person alleged to have committed theft at the port at an address anywhere in Kent without having to involve Kent Police officers (as they previously had to).

Also, the anon editor has deleted that Merseyside Police have concurrent jurisdiction in the port area - they do. Every part of England and Wales forms part of a police area and ultimately it is the Chief Constable of each territorial force (in this case Merseyside Police) who have statutory responsibility for law and order anywhere in their force area even if a specialist or port police service also operates at a location. I would ask the anon editor to discuss any changes here as there does appear to be misunderstanding... Bowchaser (talk) 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]