Jump to content

Talk:Murder of Keith Blakelock/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Fabricated evidence

What was the motive or suggested motive of the detectives fabricating the evidence, was it due to their own personal grievance for their colleague, was it due to racist or was it to further their own career? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeoman (talk • contribs) 11:45, 13 June 2006‎ (UTC)

Change title

Whilst this murder is certainly notable - the individual is only notable for being murdered. Thus we should have an article on the notable murder and not a pseudo-biography on someone notable only for hi death. I'm going to move this back to murder of Keith Blakelock. Please explain any reasons why that's a bad idea?--Docg 23:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a bad idea for the sake of usability. What is the linked term likely to be? I think in almost all cases it's going to be Keith Blakelock (as a quick look will indeed confirm). While redirects aren't a problem I don't see the point in needlessly creating one for the sake of some dogma that has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community as a whole in any case. -- Necrothesp 14:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
redirects are cheap. And the 'dogma' is now a suggestion for consideration under WP:BLP and WP:NOT.--Docg 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure of the relevance or meaning of "redirects are cheap". And I may be missing something, but I can't see any discussion of the renaming of articles on murders on either of those pages. -- Necrothesp 16:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't this content be better off merged with Broadwater Farm riot? All the material seems to relate to that article, and the murder was the most significant and lasting event of the riot. --Tony Sidaway 16:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I could go with that.--Docg 16:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
If those who are murdered are only notable for the manner of their death and therefore do not have a page entitled with their own name does it not follow that murderers should not get a page with their own name because they are only notable for ending another person's life.Tina Cordon (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Question

TBM10, you keep removing a lot of material and sources. [1] Can you explain? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I was somewhat protective over the article (having edited and watched it and wanting to oversee articles about murdered cops to make sure they get the recognition and notability that they deserve) and was a bit funny about such significant changes but am comfortable that you've added some good content and modifications. Sorry about that. --TBM10 (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
No worries, and thanks. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Name change

I am not sure I support the name of this article being modified from Murder of Keith Blakelock to Death of Keith Blakelock. It is a notorious crime in Britain that is instantly recognisable as a murder, and I am certain that if there are ever any charges brought they will be for murder. Are we calling it the "Death of" just for political correctness? This was clearly a cold-blooded murder (its not like the Death of Michael Jackson where the guy just fell down and died) and calling it anything less is frankly wrong. --TBM10 (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "Death of ...". It's clear that it was a murder, but calling it that in the title felt as though it was trying to over-emphasize it. I would prefer to see all such articles called "Death of," not just this one, because I prefer understatement in articles, especially in titles. But I can see the other side of the argument too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I prefer "Death of ..." if nothing else then for the consistency with other articles. Obviously the word 'murder' is more emotive but I think that "Death of ..." is more encyclopaedic. violet/riga [talk] 22:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
'Killing of Keith Blakelock' wouldn't be too bad. But even the Guardian refers to the 'murder of Keith Blakelock'. Nevard (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
We are not a news source, but an encyclopedia. "Death of", and its generalized use, is a neutral usage. I have no problem with the use of the word "murder" in the article if there are convictions for murder - even if the conviction is controversial, just not in the title. --Cerejota (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there has been no one conclusively charged and found guilty of murder in this case. We are not a court of law, but we are an NPOV encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
"Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by." Are you arguing that we should change the long-standing title, "Murder of Keith Blakelock" on the basis of some reliable sources you are going to present? Because the ones that are in the article right now refer to the "Murder of Keith Blakelock".. like the long-standing article title. Nevard (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand this is a long-standing violation of NPOV, that only recently came into my attention via the 2011 England riots, so yes I am suggesting, indeed doing it, changing the title. Surely, many sources use the "murder" formulation, but some use both, and others make a distinction between the "death" - the encyclopedic event we are covering (WP:NOTNEWS) - and the "murder charges", a consequence of that event. WP:COMMON is not a prescription to always use the most common name, it is strong invitation to balance the need of neutrality with the need for all material to be derived from RS - certainly neutrality is breached in a significant enough way by deciding that "murder of" rather than "death of" is the common name. If there were no sources, and I was pulling this out of thin air, I might agree - but this even has happened so long ago (26 years) that the initial yellow sensationalism has died down a little (although the riots certainly have sparked another round) for the RS to be more nuanced and approach a more neutral language, even when making POV points [2][3][4] etc etc etc (none of these use "murder" at all, because they are not talking about the criminal investigations and charges, but the actual event - the nuance that WP:NEVENTS and WP:NOTNEWS expect us to make). We are still making a choice, but the choice is to go with neutrality rather than the non-neutral perceived common name. As I said, I am not against the appropiate use of the word "murder" etc in the text, just that we be careful in terms of WP:UNDUE, and have a neutral title.--Cerejota (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hah. So you're arguing that on the basis of a couple of tabloids and some rag from communist China that we shouldn't refer to the 'Murder of Keith Blakelock', like the Guardian, the BBC, etc etc etc? Do you think that perhaps we should rename the article to 'Lawful killing of Keith Blakelock', or 'Death of a Pig' and that 'Death of Keith Blakelock' is some kind of compromise? Nevard (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should change Soham murders to Soham deaths, and Shepherd's Bush Murders to Shepherd's Bush deaths, and Murder of Suzanne Capper to Death of Suzanne Capper, as well then! Ultimately, calling it the Murder of Keith Blakelock is entirely accurate and neutral — this argument about neutrality doesn't wash with me, I'm afraid. Go and find someone who is offended by calling it the Murder of and thinks that term is non-neutral. Even the Metropolitan Police call it the Murder of Keith Blakelock [5] and I don't like the fact that one user is acting almost like a dictator here and insisting that the long-standing and well-supported title be changed. --TBM10 (talk) 10:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Focus on the content, not the editor please. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not being a generally reasonable argument, those cases have no underlying similarity to this case that could offer precedent, and perhaps the Murder of Suzanne Capper should be changed (I haven't looked at it), and the Soham murders uses a geographical identifier that makes the formulation rather awkward, but I haven't looked at them either. Now, I think I have made my point clear, and if you are not going to address it, then I'll go back to editing.--Cerejota (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Having briefly reviewed both, it is clear that in both cases, a sustained finding of murder having been committed was done and people found guilty for the crimes. Keith Blakelock's death, while certainly terrible an unfortunate, has not been determined, ina legally sustainable way, to be a murder, and no one has been jailed after being legally found guilty of murder. We are not a moot court or a WP:SENSATION, we are an NPOV encyclopedia. In this case, calling it a "murder" breaks neutrality by adjudicating guilt before a court of law has ruled. We cannot do that, in my view, and still be neutral. I do understand that this case is both emotional and that the name has been longstanding, but these are not reasons to keep the old name if it violates our own rules on neutrality, or if we must sacrifice neutrality in the altar of commonality. I agree we sometimes have to make that difficult choice, I do not believe we should in this case. --Cerejota (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate titles are always determined on an article by article basis... guided by the broad principles laid out in WP:Article titles policy. In this case, we can be guided by, and apply the same principle that we do for titles that include the term "allegation" ... While no one is currently charged with the crime, there has been a finding of murder in a court of law, it is therefore appropriate (and not POV) to use the term "Murder" in the title. Blueboar (talk) 12:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Am afraid you are incorrect. This finding was overturned by a higher court, which in legal terms amounts to it-never-happened. While it might be reasonable to believe they murdered Blakelock, that is questioned by many, equally reasonable people - that is precisely why murder is not a neutral term in this case. Absent this controversy, I wouldn't probably raise an objection. But the fact this controversy does exist, and that indeed this POV is held by large numbers of people, we should be neutral.
Policywise, rather than WP:AT as whole, I draw your attention to WP:POVTITLE, which while not making a blanket prohibition, and does allow under certain circumstances non-neutral common names, it also specifically says "Persuasive names and slogans crafted by partisans on still-active, contentious advocacy issues" shouldn't be allowed. In particular, under the recent riots in England, much attention has fallen on this subject, but one cannot say it has ever been inactive, with annual commemorations, heavy use by politicians (on both sides of the POV) etc. While one could argue only a minority that approaches zero of people do not view this as anything other than a murder, it is uncontrovertible no one has been legally found guilty of the crime of murder, yet many insist on calling it such, for reasons that vary, but that in the end are not neutral encyclopedic views of the event. We, however, should be neutral.--Cerejota (talk) 13:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
"Killing of" seems to be out, per the arguments that it is euphemistic and that the phrase is rarely used in article titles. That leaves us with "Murder of" vs. "Death of". The two most compelling arguments for "death of" (or at least against "murder of") are, first, that "murder" is a legal term and the offence of murder has not been proven, and second, that labelling it a "murder" is not in keeping with a neutral point of view. Therefore, the result is move to "Death of Keith Blakelock". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder of Keith Blakelock → Death of Keith Blakelock – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was previously called Murder of Keith Blakelock. Input requested as to whether it should be moved to Death of Keith Blakelock. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Move to Murder of - He was murdered and it was a crime. Death of... implies it was natural causes or accidental. He was murdered and as such the article should be Murder of.... Also he was not notable before he died so him simply dying would not have been notable, his murder and what its causes were, so the Murder is the notable thing here and not the Police officer. Without the murder there would be no notability if this police officer had simply died.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)×3 Prefer Death of Keith Blakelock or Killing of Keith Blakelock. The law of England and Wales requires there to have been a pre-meditated intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm for a killing to be murder. Unless it is absolutely clear that this was the case, and in a riot situation I'm not sure that it ever can be, then calling the killing murder is not NPOV. Indeed it is being argued currently at talk:Death of Joanna Yeates (where the suspect denies murder but admits manslaughter) that unless and until one or more people are convicted of murder, no murder has legally taken place, and thus calling an article "Murder of" is presuming guilt (which cannot be NPOV). This case highlights another factor - when an appeal against a murder conviction is authorised, continuing to call the killing "murder" is presupposing that the appeal will fail. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
That is a legalistic argument and is imprecise. The man didnt simply die he was killed so a more accurate title would be "Killing of...".--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)×3 The argument is not legalistic. It is that it is POV to call an act murder when no murder has been proven. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
It's not up to Wikipedia to decide really. If reliable sources us the term commonly, it's OK. —  AjaxSmack  01:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I would be perfectly happy with "murder" being used in the body of the article following a cited statement about how the killing is commonly called murder, by post-appeal sources even though it hasn't been proven to be one (although obviously worded much better). However, we should be scrupulously neutral about the article title in cases like this. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, redirects do not have to be so and thus we can keep that asa redirect to help those people who read etc about it as murder elsewhere can find our article. Thryduulf (talk) 05:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have requested full move protection of this article until the outcome of the discussion is known. It is very bad form to move a page while discussion is underway about it's title. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • IANAL so I won't comment on the murder/manslaughter definitions, but he was unlawfully killed - that's obvious for all to see. "Murder of ..." is probably therefore a legitimate title, but I prefer Death of or, as a second choice, Killing of because I think of the terms as being less emotive and more acceptable in this case and in a professional encyclopaedia. violet/riga [talk] 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I prefer Death of Keith Blakelock as per my extensive discussion in this talk page of the NPOV/WTA issues involved.--Cerejota (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Except the harm to the NPOV criteria the encyclopedia is supposed to uphold.--Cerejota (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Except that NPOV means we follow the multitude of reliable sources which refer to the unlawful killing of Blakelock as a 'murder'. Nevard (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
* Keep as Murder ofThat really is a poor argument, i.e. there are more pages called death of so we should call it that. Obviously there are more pages called 'death of' because more people die of other causes than murder. Consensus among English language sources are that this was a murder, and looking at the facts it was clearly a murder. Calling it 'Death of' is not NPOV, it is foolhardishly ignoring the facts of what happened. Poolofthought (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we are bound to adopt the yellowish tone of the press over our own need to write a neutral encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Yet the sources you used to support the 'death of' argument were most certainly yellow journalism sources (China Daily, The Sun), whereas mainstream sources tend to call it a murder. Interesting. Poolofthought (talk) 11:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
China Daily is not yellow journalism (unless you are making a racist "joke" of extreme bad taste), however WP:SENSATION specifically says that even the most reliable sources can use sensationalism. Also, if you look at the context, it should be obvious I included The Sun to show that even the yellow press is capable of reigning in the sensationalism - do not misrepresent my views. We do not have to say what a source says if it violates our need for NPOV - because our standard is higher than theirs: WP:NOTNEWS. --Cerejota (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an arm of the English justice system. Wikipedia's usage should follow WP:UCN (use common names) even if it is incongruous with the decisions of English courts. However, "Death of Keith Blakelock" is also clear and accurate. —  AjaxSmack  23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
It is considerably less informative than 'Murder of Keith Blakelock'. 'Unlawful killing of Keith Blakelock' would be just as clear and accurate as MoKB, but it's rather long and unlike 'Murder of Keith Blakelock', it's not the term used to describe Blakelock's murder in most reliable sources. Nevard (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I think I'd go for "Killing". The article is about more than just his "death"; it's about the question of and investigation into who killed him. "Murder" makes an assumption (a pretty reasonable one, but unnecessary) that the killing would have been legally classifiable as a murder. --Kotniski (talk) 09:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption, though difficult to verify, that the inquest returned a verdict of murder. Meanwhile, most reliable sources use the term 'murder', as they should. The fact that a few of those charged got away with it means nothing. Nevard (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually "a few of those charged" did not "get away with it" - their convictions were overturned, meaning that they were found not guilty of murder - i.e. they did not murder Keith Blakelock. While you may think that assuming a murder verdict is "fairly reasonable", Wikipedia is built on verifiable facts not assumptions, however reasonable. Thryduulf (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm fine with whatever title is chosen, though I'd prefer "Death of ...". But I'm concerned that "Killing of ..." makes it look as though we're desperately avoiding "murder," and given that it clearly was a murder, that might look odd. I think "Death of ..." avoids that issue because it's completely generic. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 09:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree, "Killing" is indeed bordering on the euphemistic. "Death" is a description, the facts of "murder" can be identified by the reader in the text.--Cerejota (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I also don't have any very strong opinions as to which of the three is chosen, but I don't see how "Death" is anything but more euphemistic than "Killing". They are both descriptions, and "killing" is a more precise description. It was certainly a murder as the term is used in everyday language, but I think as an encyclopedia we should try to confine use the term to its legal meaning, and we can't be absolutely sure (without a valid conviction) that the crime of murder was committed.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree we should be careful not to use legal terms without legal authority to support them... but I think we have that... if a coroner's inquest has determined a death was a Murder, then I see no reason why we can not call it a Murder. We don't need a conviction... an unsolved Murder is still a Murder. That said... We would need a conviction in order to say that a specific person committed Murder, or that they were a "Murderer"... but that is not what we are doing here. Blueboar (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Has a coroner's inquest determined that? It isn't mentioned in the article. Anyway, I thought coroners' verdicts were always "unlawful killing", without distinguishing between murder and manslaughter. --Kotniski (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be happy naming this to fit what a coroner's court had ruled. We ought not to announce the view of any country's judicial system in Wikipedia's voice. That would lead to us calling an article "Murder of" in dubious cases where it was entirely unclear that there had been murder, or even a killing, but where someone had been wrongly convicted. This is why I think we ought to stick to "Death of" no matter the circumstances. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to that solution. Though there are quite a number of affected articles other than this one; we ought to have a more general discussion concerning all of them.--Kotniski (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of posting an RfC at some point on Wikipedia talk:Article titles. I want to think about it some more first, in terms of whether to apply it to individual deaths only. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep as murder. The death certainly was murder. The fact that some one was convicted and then acquitted of it does not alter the fact that it was a murder. The fact that no one currently stands convicted of it does not alter that. No one is seriously suggesting that it was a lawful homicide (for example committed in self-defence. For doubtful cases, "death of" might be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Not all unlawful homicides are murder. That's why we have manslaughter. Pretty unlikely that it would apply in this case, but we can't be sure.--Kotniski (talk) 09:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Summing up so far

  • Murder of:
  • Lucy-marie
  • Poolofthought
  • John Nevard
  • Blueboar (?)
  • Death of:
  • SlimVirgin
  • Thryduulf (second choice, Killing of)
  • Violetriga (second choice, Killing of)
  • Cerejota
  • Killing of:
  • Kotniski
  • Ohconfucius (second choice, Death of)
  • Unclear:
  • AjaxSmack

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page moves

If this page is moved it must be done correctly.

  1. Do not move pages while it is in discussion
  2. Do not mess up the name of the page
  3. Keep the talk page with the article (ie. the same name)
  4. Fix double redirects if they are likely to cause problems

Seriously if you're gonna war then do it properly! Better yet, talk about it. We are now at a WP:BRD stage with the article being at its original name so lets stop moving it around - anyone renaming this page without the consensus gained through the above discussion should be blocked. violet/riga [talk] 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just move protected both the article and the talk page for a week, to stop this move war. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully that will stop it but you never know... violet/riga [talk] 20:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

David Rose

"David Rose" is a common name. The David Rose who wrote a book on this subject is hard to identify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.253.4 (talk) 15:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Title

No idea why the title is displaying in italics, but it shouldn't be. I can't find out why. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. Sorry, it was my fault. I added infoboxes yesterday for the court cases, and they default to italicizing the title unless you add no, so I've now done that. [6] SlimVirgin (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Affray

I would question the accuracy of the statement that "When people did confess to even a minor role in the rioting, such as throwing a few stones, they were charged with affray, a serious offence".

Affray is a less serious offense than rioting.

Rioting is an indictable offence carrying up to 10 years imprisonment. Affray is punishable by imprisonment for up to 3 years.Royalcourtier (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I've removed "a serious offence," as we didn't say what was meant by it anyway. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

External images

In this edit a number of links to external images were removed, with the edit summary: "(Remove externally linked image per WP:HOTLINK. using AWB (10822)". Is this because of a new policy? Were these images here when the GA status was awarded last year? If so how is that status affected? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Martin, I don't know why they were removed (I'm not aware of any new policy), and Bgwhite gave no reason, so I've restored them. These are the only alternative to free images. Sarah (SV) (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Keith Blakelock. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Keith Blakelock. 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:

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Local

We learn that Mark Duggan was local. I could not care about this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.127.25 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Over reliance of article on David Rose citations

Given this article in The Observer it's clear that David Rose is utterly one-sided and unreliable as a fair commentator. He made up his mind that Winston Silcott was innocent and nothing would change that view. Why else would he 'agonise' that the ESDA tests might reveal that the police account was accurate? To be agonised over scum like Silcott, a convicted murderer, thief and thug going to prison for hacking a decent policeman to bits, that alone marks him out as horribly biased.78.19.6.213 (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Keith_Blakelock/Archive_1&oldid=1137026815"