Talk:HM Prison Edinburgh

I am disputing the dates because the article

There's a pretty comprehensive history in the link in the References section is pretty unequivocal on the date of the build - that suggests to me that Robert Blair was prison chaplain at Calton Gaol (which served Edinburgh in the late 1800's/early 1900's). Given this article has a citation and the Robert Blair one doesn't, the disputed tag probably belongs on the Robert Blair article rather than this one. --Gareth8118 19:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much though I tend to believe that the accusers in the Alex Salmond trial were perjurers, that is a belief rather than a fact underpinned by a citation. So I have changed them to disbelieved accusers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.185.122 (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for editors to decry perceived injustice. As per the other inmates listed the description of Murray should not go beyond the legal facts of his conviction for perjury. If

Mark Hamid (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Murray was never convicted of "perjury". Do you even bother to read the sources? Moreover, Murray published nothing that, on its own, could have identified any of the witnesses in the Salmond case (otherwise he would have been prosecuted for that). I've done my best to try and keep the wording as short as possible, but you cannot overlook the key element of "jigsaw identification". This is in very obvious contrast to several "mainstream" journalists, who really did publish material enabling some of the alphabet women to be identified, and without needing any jigsaw pieces to be assembled.. This case is going to be appealed to the ECHR, where the result is very likely to be overturned. Murray's court reports, by the way, are a masterclass in how to do proper journalism. I recommend reading them, together with the supporting material. --NSH001 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Touché, it was contempt of court (as noted in the unbiased version of the edit); barring that detail you don't have a leg to stand on, so I've referred this as promised.

Mark Hamid (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Discussion moved here, to keep it in one place. --NSH001 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented NPOV brief summary version in line with discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#HM Prison Edinburgh: Craig Murray. 172.195.96.244 (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two sentences in the last paragraph of the Introduction read: "The prison holds adult male (though no longer Young Offenders, those prisoners aged under-21) convicted prisoners serving under four years." Re-phrased, this asserts that only adult (over the age of 21) male prisoners serving less than four years are housed at the prison.

The source which this appears to be cited to states: "The prison holds adult male and under 21 prisoners who are on remand or convicted awaiting sentence, and convicted prisoners serving sentences from non-payment of fines to life." So, according to the source, two groups of male prisoners are held:

• Those on remand or convicted awaiting sentence, which can include prisoners under the age of 21.
• Those who are serving sentences, whose sentences can vary from that for non-payment of fines, up to life.

Therefore, the source contradicts what the article says:

• Prisoners under the age of 21 can be held, if they are on remand or awaiting sentence.
• Prisoners with sentences much longer than 4 years may serve their sentences there.

Although newspaper articles online support the statement that women, at least for a time, were held in Saughton's Ratho Hall as a measure to ease overcrowding at Cornton Vale, the source cited in the article doesn't mention them.

    ←   ZScarpia   01:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

who runs HMP Edinburgh? 62.253.82.253 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]