Jump to content

Talk:Moors murders/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Attorney General

The long-standing version of this article used upper case for this title, until it was changed earlier today in this edit by User:Primergrey. I reverted with the edit summary "as per Attorney General for England and Wales, title of an office, a proper noun?" This was in turn reverted back again by User:J3Mrs with the edit summary "not a proper noun". Regardless of any argument over what constitutes a "proper noun" and what the rules for upper case might be for proper nouns, I'd suggest that the matter should be raised at Attorney General for England and Wales and consensus gained there before this article falls in line. That article currently opens thus: "Her Majesty's Attorney General for England and Wales, usually known simply as the Attorney General, is..". Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit of a grey area. [1] and [2] are BBC News stories which don't use capital letters.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it's quite a confusing area - extremely dependent on context. Most guides, including BBC and AP, recommend using caps when the person is named directly after the title, as it is in this article. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't you think these guys ought to know? We also have Jeremy Wright, of course. I'd be fine with "an attorney general", but I think it should be "the Attorney General". To my eye, using lower case here would look as odd as "master of the rolls", or "justice of the peace", or even "black rod". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The news media seem to like Prime Minister and President, despite some inconsistency.[3][4] They are less keen on Attorney General, even though the use of capitals may be strictly correct for the job title.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Austin Traveller?

In the paragraph "As murderers" it says Myra Hindley bought a second-hand Austin Traveller. As far as I found out there was no such car. A model with that name was built by Morris, the Morris Minor Traveller. --Thenardier (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is cited to this book, which can't be previewed online. The List of Austin motor vehicles doesn't have Traveller, so I suspect that it is wrong; it isn't in other online sourcing either. Here is a Morris Traveller.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If the book says this, it may be wrong as it doesn't fit in with other sourcing. There is also a Mini Traveller but the sourcing says that it is a Morris car. Anyway, the article is about the murders and the exact make of car isn't of huge importance--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks, User:Sagaciousphil, for confirming the page number. Perhaps other sources disagree, in which case it could be changed. But it's immaterial to the murders. The "type" of car may be informative, for the narrative of Hindley's life, but not the exact model. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Thatcher "overruled minister to keep Moors murderers locked up for life"

Is in The Guardian today.[5] This comes from newly released material in the National Archives. In February 1985, Margaret Thatcher told Leon Brittan that his proposed minimum sentences of 30 years for Hindley and 40 years for Brady were too short, saying in a letter "I do not think that either of these prisoners should ever be released from custody. Their crime was the most hideous and cruel in modern times." This could not happen nowadays, because in 2003 the rules were changed so that politicians could not impose a minimum term and the matter would be decided by the courts. This is rather more important than the make of car that Hindley bought.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support addition of this detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Brady "still in morgue"

Brady is back on the front page of the Daily Star today. According to various news stories [6][7][8] he still hasn't been buried or cremated and is in the same morgue as Salman Abedi, who hasn't been buried either. Hindley was cremated, and it would be relevant to know what became of Brady's body if there was more than tabloid sourcing for it, as numerous funeral directors have said that they will not handle Brady.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Brady's letters while on remand

More coverage today [9] based on letters written while Brady was on remand before the trial, which were released after a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. They show that Brady had no remorse for his actions, so nothing much new here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Further coverage of new letters by Brady here. The BBC Horizon documentary What Makes A Psychopath? is broadcast on BBC Two at 9 PM on 29 August.[10] It's the usual self-justifying stuff with no remorse from Brady. He puts forward the same argument as Anacharsis, who said: "These decrees of yours are no different from spiders' webs. They'll restrain anyone weak and insignificant who gets caught in them, but they'll be torn to shreds by people with power and wealth."[11]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
".. a forthright, outspoken "barbarian". Reputedly a forerunner of the Cynics, none of his works has survived." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
There are umpteen variants of this quote, including ones by Jonathan Swift [12] and Honoré de Balzac.[13] It's attributed to Anacharsis, and may have been an old saying even in the 6th century BC.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
It's quite a surprise seeing names like these mentioned at this Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Brady always liked to see himself as an intellectual, and the letters that he wrote to Horizon are the latest - and last - attempt to justify what he did. They don't contain much new, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Watched the Horizon and wasn't hugely impressed by it. Around three or four minutes near the end dealt with the letters that Brady wrote to Horizon, and they weren't very enlightening as they were largely variants of things that Brady had said before. The Guardian wasn't very impressed either.[14] Brady declined to be interviewed on camera by Horizon, a missed opportunity surely as this would have lead to huge media attention. As this article in Radio Times points out, the letters to Horizon largely rehashed themes from Brady's 2001 book The Gates of Janus, in which he argues that all morality is relative and that powerful people got away with bigger crimes than he did.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Risley

Hindley wasn't remanded at Risley, but at Risley Remand Centre which is now HM Prison Risley, so I think this should be linked accordingly, consistent with Durham Prain and Holloway Prison which both also appear, linked, in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It says "Risley" , it's linked so I don't see your problem. J3Mrs (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Would you prefer to see "Brady was taken to Durham and Hindley was sent to Holloway"? Not actually wrong, but just less precise. I'm looking for some consistency. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC) p.s. and while we're at it, I'm pretty sure that Hindley was also taken and not just "sent"?

"Not about the murders"

I don't see that this is an adeaute justification for this reversion which removes valid and reliably-sourced information about Hindley's health issues. If this article contained only details about the murders, it would be very much shorter. As has been discussed many times before this article is a compromise between a single article about the murders and separate articles about each of the two murderers and, as such, includes necessary biographical detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If you want to include this sort of detail write an article about Hindley, don't bloat this one. J3Mrs (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see it's "bloating", it's just useful, sourced detail. It's not quite as simple as just going to "write an article about Hindley", is it? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I think it's slightly overdetailed, as it is more important that she was a heavy smoker and it is likely that this contributed to her death at the age of 60.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Inquest result

The coroner, Christopher Sumner, has ruled that Brady died of natural causes, with no evidence of neglect or self-neglect contributing to the death, as reported by The Guardian and the BBC. The "locked suitcase" detail looks like a bit of a red herring. Brady died of cor pulmonale, a form of heart failure, caused by bronchopneumonia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or lung disease. The post mortem revealed that his body was in “fairly good condition”, weighing 61 kg and showing no signs of emaciation. His lungs were very severely diseased from heavy smoking. Should the article be updated? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

There are various things in the news coverage that are interesting, although they don't add much to what is already known. Brady's hunger strike and feeding tube were also found to be a red herring, as lack of food was not a contributing factor in his death. This was caused by cor pulmonale, which isn't unusual for a 79-year-old. As for the locked briefcases, it would be great to think that they contain numerous secrets about the murders, but they probably don't (newspaper front pages today). Basically Brady died of old age, and I think that the part about the feeding tube is the only one notable enough to add to the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It's been suggested the cases contained legal documents. But his solicitor did not appear yesterday at the inquest. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
If police suspected that they contained anything of interest, it's unlikely that the rubbishy lock and key on a briefcase would have stopped them from having a look a long time ago. According to the Guardian report, Brady weighed 61kg (9 stone, 134lb, Body mass index 21.3) at the time of his death, which is thin but well outside the range where he would have suffered health problems. This shows that the hunger strike was a fake. Staff at Ashworth believed that Brady ate fairly normally, and that the "hunger strike" was a protest based on his need for control.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:39, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure it won't be long before The Sun claims the cases were secretly stuffed with ham sandwiches. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Some more detail on the hunger strike here. It doesn't sound anything like the hunger strike that led to the death of Bobby Sands, who died after 66 days. This news article says "In 1989 Brady started what he termed a "hunger strike" in protest against a ward move to which he objected, said Dr Thomas. He was subsequently fed by nasogastric tube (NG) but his feed was often coupled with an acceptance of diet and fluids from select staff. Mr Thomas said: "Over the last two years, brief periods were sustained, lasting maximally eight weeks, whereby Mr Brady tolerated the absence of his NG tube, accepting diet and fluids regularly. "However each episode ended with Mr Brady recommencing absolute food and fluid refusal for a period in excess of 48 hours, such that an NG had to be passed again. "He would then invariably accept fluids once the NG tube was resited." The clinician said Brady continually refused to be weighed but his body mass index was not considered a concern." All in all, a rather weird and half-hearted hunger strike, which explains why his BMI was not abnormal at the time of his death.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that the existing section of the article, which has two sources from 1999 and 2000, makes this sufficiently clear. So I think some addition or clarification might be called for. Also we might want to clarify cor pulmonale as the official cause of death. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I was puzzled by the court artist drawings of Brady with a nasogastric tube, eg here, when his inquest showed that there was nothing much wrong with his weight. The news article mentioned above clears up why he was wearing it, and why his "hunger strike" wasn't all that it first seemed to be. Some of this should be in the article, as his refusal of food and fluids for more than 48 hours at a time might have damaged his health but came nowhere near to killing him.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the nasogastric tube seems to have been used largely as a theatrical prop. I think the mention that his BMI was not of any concern makes the situation much clearer. Otherwise the reader might assume the tube was needed 24 hours a day for critical medical reasons. Let's hope no one decides to trim down what you've added without at least a small discussion here? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
A few days ago, I was reading about this man in the USA who was trapped in a cave for three days without food and water. He didn't come to much harm, and Brady probably didn't either. Brady was kept at Ashworth and refused permission to go back to prison. If he had attempted a serious hunger strike while in prison, he would have been transferred back to a high security hospital. But the evidence at his inquest showed that the hunger strike at Ashworth was half hearted and more an act of protest.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
As it is of no consequence and long-winded I see no problem removing it, after all this is supposed to be about the Moors murders not the murderers. J3Mrs (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Yawn, we've heard this before. The logic is flawed. Separate articles for the murderers have been ruled out.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:32, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it's of "no consequence" insofar as Brady's dead and it can no longer affect where he has to be imprisoned. But I think it lends quite a lot of support to the notion that he was not on the verge of starvation but was just a self-centred charlatan. I don't see those extra 15 words as "long-winded". And are you really suggesting that everything that's not directly about the murders is removed from this article? If so, it would be considerably shorter and, in my view, much less encyclopedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, it says a good deal about Brady. Staff at Ashworth believed that the pseudo-not-really-a-hunger-strike was a demonstration of his need for control.[15] Like Martin said, if anything not "directly about the murders" had to go, we wouldn't have any biographical details about Brady or Hindley, and would have to give them each separate articles, something which has been rejected in the past.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I await the next vital info from the next time Brady is mentioned in the press. I don't think this article was ever intended to be biographical, hence the title, and it doesn't have to be. J3Mrs (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I would imagine mentions of Brady in the press will probably tail off just a little now. So you may be waiting some time. Although we still have some kind of funeral, or at least disposal, to look forward to, I guess. But if you feel the urge to start chopping out all the non-murder-related "biographical info", you might find some resistance. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moors_murders/Archive_18&oldid=918639146"