Talk:Peter Tobin

Different pages?

Why two different pages?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinah_McNicol and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tobin

Both have different articles up about Peter Tobin, should these be combined?

News results for another possible murder he committed

[1]--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair trial

Have removed stuff that will prejudice a fair trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.250.228 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

MSM and court orders

The mainstream media are obviously being very cautious about mentioning that the same Peter Tobin is in custody for the Hamilton murder is serving life for the Kluk one, even though they did a lot to speculate about it when he was sentenced. Does anyone know a)what exactly is ordered and by whom - some papers are saying "a 61-year old man who cannot be named", others are just avoiding mentioning the other cases and b)what the Wikipedia rules say about cases like this?Billwilson5060 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

bring back facism and kill these bastards, how would u feel if ur wife or girlfriend was raped and murdered?

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

Please add {{subst:longcomment}} to this page. Thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Elonka 20:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Replaced. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of full article?

Deleting the full page seems to be a little too much - more than is needed - I came here to read based on a news story (not linked in order to comply with the request above). It seems that even if the matter is sub judice, information unrelated to the current event would be relevant and I don't see how they would violate the order.

Furthermore - a comment that information about the current case is not being added as sub judice seems appropriate, and a link to current policy on why this article is protected would prevent questions like mine :)

Finally, can someone help me understand the issues with fully deleting it - if the above can not be done, given that a British court has no jurisdiction over me and any text I may post here - personally, I can see doing it just as a prudent way of dealing with the issue, and taking an m:Eventualist attitude, but a better solution would be to limit the article, to explain why no current information and be eventualist about that later info - Thanks --Trödel 18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I accept that there are complications and options in such a matter, over what and whether to accede to requests from a court. In this case, I was approached by an Police Officer, acting on behalf of the court, that there were very strong reasons why this article (and its caches, which were being dealt with separately) should not be available for the duration of the case. After making confirmatory checks that the officer was 'real' and acting correctly (both true) I considered his request and, specifically, that it was strongly felt that should this article remain in place then the court action could be thrown out. Now, as other media coverage has noted, there is a very serious charge against this individual and given that there is a lot of history about him in this article I concurred that in the best interests of justice it would be very much preferable if the content was removed temporarily.

I did consider solely removing some content but it was quickly obvious that that was not possible, there being no unrelated information: the presence or absence of past events regarding a person before a court are not admissible in evidence and disclosure is not permitted in any manner, which was the prime issue here.

As such I deleted the article and created the temporary holding page. Please note that *none* of the previous content is permanently deleted and it will all be recovered - with history and no doubt updated - once the case is concluded. In terms of jurisdiction, this is a matter before the Scottish court (so a different legal system to the rest of Great Britain) and, whilst I accept fully that many WP users are not within the remit of that court I am certain that no WP user would like a court case to collapse and the party charged with a serious crime to not to have to answer for the charge because we had an article which contained information that could be held to be prejudicial to the Crown's case (or, indeed, the defendant's). My view was that WP should not block such legal action by the presence of an article where it could be safely and securely deleted for the term of the case. --AlisonW (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable - maybe we should have a better explanation though, something like, "Peter Tobin is currently on trial in Scotland for xxx.[ref] As a result of the court's request further information about Tobin is not currently available but will be restored once the current allegation is resolved." I don't see how the court can object to listing the current crime since that is being widely reported (by BBC news at least) and would explain things a little better --Trödel 22:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a very restricted statement like that could be made, however (a) I was very concerned about what might and might not be considered 'safe', and (b) to have any article, even a bare-bones one, would implicitly invite other editors to expand the content (possible daily following news reports) and lead to the exact issues I was trying to safeguard against. As such I felt that my approach was safest for the time being. --AlisonW (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

While this probably sets a precedent Alison has made an excellent call. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an absolute farce which shows Wikipedia has institutionalised delusions of grandeur. A website outwith the court's jurisdiction cannot prejudice the case. All manner of information about this man is easily available online, why is Wikipedia more relevant than any other offshore resource? While no crossreferences are currently being made between the current case and past events, even British news sites haven't removed their archives. 92.10.77.93 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

AN thread for feedback on this

This needs wider review, so I've asked here. rootology (C)(T) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note; in case there is any doubt I support this call for a wider review. From the POV of normal practice on WP I wasn't entirely happy with the temporary deletion, however I very much feel it was the right decision to take *in this instance*. A review and consideration of possible new policy is, therefore, a sensible thing to consider as we are now some four weeks after the initial event. --AlisonW (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... you did the best you could at the time given the bizarre circumstances. rootology (C)(T) 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As best as I can read WT:BLP, there seems to be consensus we should not blank articles like this, moving forward. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some UK official policy changes is needed on cases like this one, once the dust has settled. Two things have happened recently. Firstly, and quite irrationally, given the effort to avoid prejudicing the jury, the prosecutor announced previous convictions before the end of the trial, see last section. Secondly another trial has started without a jury because of alleged intimidation in previous trials[2]. I suspect future very well publicised cases like Tobin's will be without a jury at the defences's request but we can't guess and I think Wikipedia should ask for official guidance from the UK Ministry of Justice.

JRPG (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat removed

I removed the legal injunction from the top of the page - it has no force, acts as a brake on discussion and the matter has already considered by the WMF and kicked back to the community because it is not a matter for them. The matter is only SJ in the UK and a general disclaimer to all editors cannot be made on that basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat. In addition, WMF has had to pay attention to the laws in other countries before, despite not being hosted there. I doubt you would know this, being a relatively new editor, so it's understandable that you might be misunderstanding. Please do not tamper with the notice, though. --Deskana (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the legal situation is relevant. There may well be a legal threat to some editors and they should know about it!!! Any UK editor editing this article (and particularly any Scottish resident) should consider his/her position verse contempt of court proceedings. Commenting on sub judice matters, and particularly publishing, could be serious. (Disclaimer - this is not legal advice and may be wrong - but I don't thinks so).--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

yes UK editors but the injunction at the top is not to UK editors it's to all editors. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "legal threat" in terms of WP:NLT. It is a disclaimer of dubious accuracy, though. Do we have "don't read this article if you are currently sequestered as a juror" for court cases in the US? Protonk (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What about for france? or germany? I'm happy to start knocking up the templates - I'll be shorting adding the disclaimer to Shannon Mathews as that case is SJ and as Scott points out, UK editors there are at risk and should be informed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Statements that encourage those outside UK authority to discuss the case are distinctly unhelpful, please don't, seems very pointy. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But it's not going to say that it's going to say what it says here - what's the difference? people need to be informed here but not there? why? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Last time I checked, unless the Crown retook Boston, I'm not under sub judice. It's one thing for a note saying, "If you're subject to UK law, don't do this," but it's another and inappropriate to warp WP content entirely based on various local laws, unless we plan to adhere to ALL such foreign laws. UK law is not a special thing that deserves more merit than the laws of the People's Republic of China, Russia, or Australia. We either bend to them all, or don't at all. rootology (C)(T) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think we do need to note SJ issues. I've knocked up Template:Sub judice and added it to the top of this talk page - what do people think? The present wording should be applicable to all countries which have sub judice laws (basically the principal British Commonwealth nations). -- ChrisO (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Though I don't feel it would be a problem, expect some strong feedback describing your actions as pointy. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This template needs to be nation specific, so as to not pointlessly frighten or confuse people that have no interest or value in obeying a foreign nation's (to them) local laws. rootology (C)(T) 19:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Since there seem to be only a limited number of countries that operate SJ laws, that's not too onerous. I'll get right on it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Really we need one for every legal code - so a UK one, A USA one (might have to make them local rather than federal for the us) etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the US has a sub judice rule - wouldn't that violate the First Amendment? As far as I know, the only other countries with similar rules are Canada, India, Australia and New Zealand (all of which have a legal system descended from the British model). I've altered the template as suggested by Rootology to focus on the UK. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There are a few others - Zimbabwe for example. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Able to start writing

Now the page is unprotected - is there an issue with editing it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No objection, and Tim Vickers has already recreated it. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends how. You trawled up an old BBC article with sub judice blp vios and that is not okay. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When did a violation of sub justice become a BLP vio? Protonk (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sub Judice does not apply in the US which is the legal jurisdiction under which the WMF operates. What's the BLP vio - is the BBC not a reliable source? Are you saying that UK law on the reporting of court cases is now part of the BLP policy? have you noted it as such? --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The man deserves a fair trial. It seems to me that that is a BLP issue. Just like the way we do things on copyright, our attitude to BLP issues is not "Can we get away with it?" Rather, it is "What is the right thing to do?"

People on trial should have their fate decided on the basis of the evidence that has been presented in Court, that both the prosecution and defence have had a chance to present and to respond to. We have been told that there is a real risk that what is presented here might influence the jury, and bring in issues which have not been cross-examined in Court.

As a US-based website, we cannot legally be prevented from publishing. But as a community, we have to ask ourselves: what is the right thing to do?

If Allison had made it clear to the Court four weeks ago that the article wasn't coming down, and they just had to find a way to deal with it, that would have been one thing. But given that the article has been down for four weeks, and that the jury is about to retire to consider its verdict either on Tuesday or Wednesday, it seems to me entirely appropriate, while the jury is deliberating, to keep the article locked down for a few more days.

Squeek, sub judice has no authority over non-UK citizens. rootology (C)(T) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does - anyone within the reach of UK jurisdiction is subject to it. I doubt it's extraditable from the US, say, but it could potentially be the subject of a European Arrest Warrant in a serious case, and would certainly be an indictable offence within the UK. Online publishers outside the UK have already faced this issue. See here for a story about how the NY Times tackled it. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It particularly has effect from anyone editing in the UK, regardless of whether they are citizens, residents or just visiting. We do act by consensus and that is why people like me will fight hard to ensure that this article does not stray beyond sub judice. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so I'm clear about this - you are going to enforce UK law on wikipedia servers that exist in the states and on editors from other jurisdictions - how are you planing to do this? Are we going to have to present our passports before we can edit? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I personally don't enforce anything, but I do want to see a fair trial and I particularly do not wish to see wikipedia affect that. We are an educational encyclopedia dedicated to spreading knowledge (that is why I work here voluntarily). if you feel the need to edit an article there are 2 million others to be getting on with. People here are allowed to edit anonymously and without owning a passport or even a legal identity. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The flaws in scotish law are not wikipedia's problem. Your bizarre interpritation of BLP is also not wikipedia's problem.Geni 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The cardinal principle in WP:BLP is "do no harm". Squeak's interpretation is entirely consistent with that. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. You and Squeak are right. And just because we can do something is not a good reason to do it. dougweller (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

"do no harm" does not apply in this case as it is not possible for harm to be done by a properly sourced article. It's pure paranoid fantasy. The police officer who made the request was simply misguided. I've yet to see any reasonable suggestion to the contrary. 81.133.232.215 (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

actualy it isn't. There is a reason the phrase appears nowhere in the policy.Geni 12:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't expect facts to get in the way of enforcing scottish law - can I see your passport please? I am concerned that you might be a scottish member of a jury. What a complete joke this is --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise you not to slag off Scottish law on wikipedia unless you want to be seen as trolling. Nobody needs to either show or even have a passport to edit wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

oh spare me - it's not me who proudly proclaiming they will fight to enforce foreign legal systems on wikipedia - you will have to live with the fact that many of us find that a situation that is a mixture of laughable and downright sad and a complete abandonment of the principles this project was founded on. As for trolling, it's not needed in a case like this - the "lolz" are built into reality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Am not at all sure where Cameron Scott's difficulty lies with this. The case would have collapsed promptly had the page remained up -- such a manoeuvre (ending the trial over prejudice) is a favourite tactic of Tobin's defence lawyer. The suppositions over Scots law and guesstimates about "pure paranoid fantasy" don't bear any scrutiny. Real harm would have been done by Wikipedia had the page remained up. Would Cameron Scott's xenophobia and unexamined online libertarianism have been sufficient justification for that? 207.138.98.253 (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

lol - xenophobia - Scott is not only my surname. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

lol ignorance of yr own country's laws then, ignorance of the risk you yourself would have been at (considerable if still in UK), all in defence of the freedom of Americans to type about a killer they care not a jot about at considerable risk to his trial. 207.138.98.253 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand it perfectly in regards of it's relevance to the legal system that this project operates under and my own risks as an editor. However none of this has anything to do with improvement the actual article -so if you want to continue discussing *my* specific actions, I suggest you do it at my talkpage (but don't expect a response). or you could log in to do the same. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to some events in 1783 it is generaly accepted that integrity of the scotish legal system is not something americans have to worry about.Geni 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Now he's a convicted murderer - is anyone going to restore the article?

He's convicted -so leaving aside the moral panic, is somebody now going to restore the article for convicted murderer Peter Tobin? --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been restored, I'll wait to see if consensus develops to keep the article the way it is or go back to the prior version. I think it should be merged and redirected to the murder case though. Secret ^account 16:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He's guilty of crimes in multiples high profiles cases, it makes no sense to merge his article to a single case. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine and not an issue any more. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Lead still says he's awaiting trial. True? In any case, please fix sentence structure: "In November 2007, skeletal remains of two young women who went missing in 1991 were found at his former home in Margate, Kent, for which he is currently awaiting trial."

I've amended the introduction and added details of the CPS summons for Dinah McNicol issued in September. Hope this is OK.B626mrk (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"For which" appears to refer to "remains were found". Grammatically (and legally) doubtful. - Hordaland (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect, from experience, that whereas there may be pending indictments against Tobin for those matters, the prospect of them being proceeded with is remote in the extreme. The prejudicial effect of such proceedings in the light of recent publicity would quickly result in a nolle prosequi being entered. However, we do not have a definitive statement from the police or CPS with respect to outstanding charges, and technically, WP:BLP requires that we should delete those allegations. I would expect a statement to be quickly issued early next week, and if not, I will ask in the proper quarters. --Rodhullandemu 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Speculation

I have removed the speculation section under WP:BLP. Tabloid guesses are not things we should include in an encyclopedia. Further, "there has been speculation" is WP:Weasel wording unless we say "by whom". What we need here is to be able to show that the speculation is by people qualified to speculate - not a couple of low end tabloid columnists. Are the Police speculating? Is there an investigation? Are the people speculating notable or qualified? More is needed if we are to record speculation about a living person (even a murderer).--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

January 2009

Looks like we're here again, and per WP:BLP and WP:RS, I've deleted material that is either irrelevant or prejudicial. The problem is that the defendant who appeared in court today has not been named. If it's not Tobin, it doesn't belong in the article, because it's irrelevant. If it is Tobin, it doesn't belong in the article (and certainly not from a UK-based editor) because of the prejudicial effect that caused us so much trouble in December. Where WP:BLP is concerned, we should strive to be cautious and certainly have regard to the sub judice rule. On that basis, I think we should wait until the trial of this person, if indeed it turns out to be Tobin. --Rodhullandemu 23:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I did consider this before making the edit. It seemed fair game to include it as the section is about the murder of Dinah McNicol. Earlier unchallenged edits named him as having been formally accused by the CPS of the murder. It is a fair assumption that the person is Tobin but even if it is not, the section is about this particular murder and is relevant to the section at least. The purpose of the edit was merely to keep the article up to date with recent developments. Thanks for your advice nonetheless. B626mrk (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be very different if we had a separate article about the unsolved murder of Dinah McNicol, but we don't, and since Tobin has clearly been a suspect, I doubt a High Court judge would appreciate any input from us prior to a trial, whether that trial turns out to be of Tobin or somebody else. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I added the one liner BBC item about the unnamed person fully aware of the rules on sub judice and libel and also convinced that what I added wasn't a breach of English Law. I don't think Scottish law is different in this instance. It was added in the section on Dinah McNicol and is clearly relevant to her, irrespective of the identity of the unnamed person. This issue is increasingly common in high profile cases such as this and there are thousands of Google pages. Normal court procedure will be for the judge to instruct the jury to only listen to evidence heard in the court. If courts could choose only those who haven't read something about her then the most capable jurors would all be eliminated. Historically the solution was a trial at the Old Bailey and away from the locals but that's not good enough today. I also have to say that the discussion page itself appears prejudicial. I won't add anything else of course but will follow the discussions on editing policy here with interest. JRPG (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Last point first; of course discussion of how the article is to develop must involve discussion of news reports, whether related to Tobin or not- however, a casual reader is going to Google and find the article, not necessarily its talk page, and though WP:BLP still applies. Previous point; of course jurors must decide cases on the evidence- problem is finding a jury that isn't already prejudiced, given the volume of publicity Tobin's previous trials have attracted. In general, and especially against the background of December's little brou-ha-ha, I feel it would be more responsible (especially since we are not a news service) to err (if at all) on the side of caution. We have here tons of editorial policies and guidelines, but very little on editorial discretion. Were I the editor of The Sun, my interest would be in selling newspapers, but I'm not, and it isn't. Since we are an encyclopedia, I see no detriment to the "sum total of human knowledge" in waiting a little while. This currently unknown person will be arraigned very shortly, and his name will be made public. Perhaps we could reconsider then. Meanwhile, reporting "an unknown person" in this article looks like an innuendo to me. --Rodhullandemu 23:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, there's more

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8114483.stm Again, we might have problems. Was any concensus ever reached?--ML5 (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect so. This trial is taking place in England, so a different legal system to the previous ones in Scotland, but more importantly Tobin has already been identified in court as a convicted murderer and sex offender. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

New trial

He's suffering from shingles. Back to square 1 as a new trial is scheduled for December -with the news that he's been convicted before to come as a new surprise. As a UK citizen, I'm not touching this with a barge pole until HMG moves into the 21st Century. JRPG (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Similar fact evidence

I wonder whether someone with more legal knowledge and case expertise than I have could look at expanding Similar fact evidence which seems to be an important change and the new basis on which those with previous convictions are tried.
I also note it doesn't apply in Scotland JRPG (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Angelika Kluk murder case

It has been long suggested that Angelika Kluk murder case be merged here. There is only a very small amount of additional content in that article, so the merge would only expand this article by a couple of sentences, and it is better to not have redundant material in separate articles. Fences&Windows 17:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I would absolutely support a merge, for exactly the reasons above. Sky83 (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge. --John (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)