Talk:R v Saibene

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anti-war Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement 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.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brighton Mid‑importance

	East Sussex portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Name of article

As this is a criminal and not a civil case, I believe the name of this article should probably be of the form "R v (list of defendants)". However, as I am not a lawyer, I have posted a request for help and advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law.

--NSH001 (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

above comment is correct. EDO MBM Technology v. Smash EDO campaign was the name of an earlier civil case brought by the company against the smash edo protesters in 05-06. see EDO Injunction Case EDO MBM were not a party in the 2010 criminal case which was titled R v Saibene and others, other wise knbown as the EDO Decommissioners case, so this article should use one of those as a title.

The EDO Decomissioners case was brought by the Crown Prosecution Service CPS against the defendants.

The MD of EDO MBM, Paul Hills was a witness for the prosecutions and was cross examined by the defence team about his company's links to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.227.236 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, those comments were very helpful. --NSH001 (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I do not think this article is currently written from NPOV. cagliost (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain what you think is wrong, and what should be changed? We can't do anything without further detail, otherwise the POV tag should be removed. --NSH001 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]