Jump to content

User talk:Acquaduct

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Acquaduct, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

May 2016

[edit]

John Leslie (TV presenter) is also an example of things that can go wrong even if no charges stand up in court. This article is worth a look. Leslie's career was not completely ruined but never really recovered from the various allegations that were made against him. It can be a no win situation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See on the original talk page my thoughts!Acquaduct (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied here to avoid running into WP:NOTAFORUM issues. It is clear by now that King has not given up on the thought of having his Birmingham Six moment, which would be walking out of court with a huge smile on his face after all of the 2001 allegations had been shown to be false. Will Bob Woffinden's book be the catalyst that causes this to happen? Having seen it, I'm going to have to say that it is doubtful. It would take more than revisiting the evidence that was looked at by the CCRC without making any difference. On a good day, it might get King acquitted on some of the charges, but not necessarily all of them. However, the courts don't seem to be interested in revisiting the case and it appears to have been legally dormant for around ten years now. Unlike Hillsborough, which never seems to be out of the news despite being over 25 years old, King's case hasn't been much in the news. The Mail on Sunday article (which was written by Bob Woffinden) appears to be the only coverage of the book. I was waiting to see if any other news media outlet mentioned the book, but haven't found anything yet. The MOS article is effectively a self-penned piece promoting the book by the author, which is why I was wary of adding it as a link. Journalists such as Lynn Barber expressed concerns about the structure of the 2001 trial (which I share) but did not say that they believed King to be innocent. It would be difficult to overturn all five of the charges without major new evidence of errors, lies etc. King's position is "I'm innocent of the charges against me. There is no issue of the acts being consensual, there were no acts. However much people try, you can't bend the truth. There's no truth in the offences whatsoever. One of the five men I am accused of abusing I have never even met and there is no evidence I ever did meet him."[1] This is creating a legal mountain to climb at any appeal, because it would mean showing that all five of the jury verdicts were wrong. Difficult to say the least. I'm also reminded of Joe Meek, who insisted that the claim that he had eyed up an elderly man in the public toilets in 1963 was nonsense, but he never succeeded in overturning the conviction. It's also interesting that Meek's reputation remains largely intact; I've yet to hear of a radio station refusing to play Telstar (song) because he shot and killed Violet Shenton, a charge on which he would undoubtedly have been found guilty. I can't think of much more to say about King and his convictions than has already been said. I definitely couldn't recommend throwing more money at legal action aimed at overturning the 2001 convictions, as the odds appear to be stacked against a 5-0 victory, although some might be capable of a successful appeal. I hope this doesn't make me "an unbelievable shit", which Robert Chalmers apparently was in 2012.[2]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now read the book. It is very good. Clearly well researched and in tiny detail. The other cases are far more serious, involving murder and dead bodies. Makes one very worried about police, CPS and CCRC. I don't think King would expect a successful appeal. But why and how he was prosecuted is intriguing. And the Wiki article does seem to avoid many aspects both of his career and the case.Acquaduct (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that King spent £500,000 in costs during the appeal process. Not sure how much was spent on PJS v News Group Newspapers but costs seem to be no object for this person, and the media has estimated £1 million or more. But still everyone knows who it is.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he spent that he was/is a fool, agreed. At least he is still alive unlike Meek, Savile and others. I'm not convinced by the accuracy of the media but I do think Wikipedia should reflect all aspects of coverage instead of just the one side. Acquaduct (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before,the article Jonathan King does have to comply with WP:DUE. There is some media coverage saying that aspects of King's 2001 trial were unsatisfactory, but on the whole the media has simply reported the fact that King was found guilty and left it at that.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Malkinson's case is not even mentioned in Wikipedia. Neither are any of the other cases. Very strange as they are absolutely frightening. I think the problem is behaviour of police in these investigations. There do seem to be several journalists concerned by miscarriages of justice and I dont agree with your point above that juries, shown again and again that there has been police manipulation of facts, would not overturn all convictions, as proved at the Hillsborough inquest. This is one of the reviews I have read. http://thejusticegap.com/2016/05/still-fighting-complacency-heart-justice-system/ Acquaduct (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There may be various reasons why some of these cases aren't mentioned on Wikipedia, with WP:GNG being the main one. There aren't articles for every court case on Wikipedia because it is not a newspaper or legal journal. If Jonathan King had not been a famous person in the pop music industry, there probably wouldn't be an article mentioning the 2001 court case and convictions. I don't think that Wikipedia actively covers anything up, but sometimes it is limited by what reliable secondary sources such as BBC News have had to say about the matter. I did a Google search on Andrew Malkinson and couldn't find any BBC News coverage, but did find this article in the Manchester Evening News. If the UK media had spent half as much time on the Andy Malkinson case as it had on criticising judges for not allowing the publication of a news story allegedly involving a paddling pool full of olive oil, then Andy Malkinson might have his own article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should start a Wikipedia article on Miscarriages of Justice or Police Behaviour. http://thejusticegap.com/2016/05/forensically-aware-andy-malkinson-case/ Acquaduct (talk) 08:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen there is a huge list of miscarriages of jusice though most seem subsequently proven in a Court of Law. This seems to be a can of worms. I may look further if I have time. Acquaduct (talk) 08:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TBH I'd never heard of the Malkinson case until it was in Bob Woffinden's book. It was back in 2004 and may have received mostly local coverage in the Manchester news, rather than the national news. When it comes to miscarriages of justices, Wikipedia is limited to reporting what reliable secondary sources have said. Unlike cases such as the Birmingham Six or Hillsborough which have received acres of coverage in the national media, I couldn't find a great deal about the Malkinson case other than this and this which are both written by Bob Woffinden. This leads to problems with WP:RGW and WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to your links above I have now discovered the extraordinary case of Victor Fearon. I dont like this Wikipedia rule of only covering cases if there has been a large amount of media coverage. It does not seem correct to me. As for King I shall add some of the missing information culled from The Nicholas Cases and several other links to the page there. Not regarding his trial but seemingly odd missing parts from his career. Acquaduct (talk) 15:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has a tool called "find sources", which as its name suggests can be used to find sources. It works by using "Find sources AFD|whatever" on a page.

Here are a couple of results:

Andrew Malkinson runs into serious problems as pretty much all of the references seem to be to other people called Andrew Malkinson. Jonathan King brings up plenty of results. This search shows that there are plenty of people in the world called Jonathan King. Like it or not, notability on Wikipedia is determined by how easy it is to find sources.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there is a lot on Victor Fearon but no Wiki entry. So should those facts about King be included in the article? I assume a writer like Woffinden researched and confirmed facts before printing. Clearly on Malkinson his research was far better than that of the police or even Malkinson's own defence team. As you say other sources like national papers and even Google Images have numerous sources about King's earlier career yet very little is included in the article. Links about Who Let The Dogs Out? Chumbawamba? Gloria? That is mentioned in the list of hits but not in the main body. And yet the case and trial details are carried at length. Wikipedia notability seems a very subjective area dependent on the editors. I might try to start articles on the cases covered in the book. Acquaduct (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised I've been calling Nealon Fearon which might explain confusion! Apologies. Acquaduct (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Glyn Razzell - another case in the book - gets no mentions anywhere either. Am I alone in finding this all peculiar? It's almost as though there is a conspiracy of silence or misinformation. Someone saying "leave well alone". But on Wikipedia? Acquaduct (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! — Gorthian (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Acquaduct&oldid=736458191"