Talk:Murders of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Arbitrary change of page name

I'm rather stunned that the page has been moved from the original

Murder of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone. There are no conceivable grounds for the deaths of two unarmed police officers by the use of a firearm and/or explosives to be regarded as anything other than unlawful, i.e. murder. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm afraid this page move was justified under our
WP:BLP policy. Actually unlawful killing and murder are not synonymous, there is still the possibility of manslaughter. We cannot prejudge the decision of a trial. PatGallacher (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Manslaughter? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that the killer "accidentally" opened fired and used a grenade? It seems to me that there is being a ridiculous degree of over sensitively being applied here, just because a suspect has been arrested. I don't recall anyone else wanting to refer to the case of Milly Dowler et al - once the body had been found - as anything other than murder. It's not like they were knocked over by a car driven by a fleeing suspect, and there might be doubt as to whether it was deliberate or not. When two people - civilian or police - die from gunfire and a grenade explosion in the UK in such cirucmstances, it can't be anything other than murder, and I would note that every major news source is calling it that. Nick Cooper (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Death of Sian O'Callaghan also uses this titling convention because of the active court proceedings.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Fully agree with the term: "Death". Murder is pronounced by a court of law. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But "death" is ambiguous, because it can include accidents, which there can be absolutely zero argument for here. "Killing" would be more appropriate, because it clearly reflects a deliberate act. Sian O'Callaghan isn't comparable because despite the circumstances of the discovery of her body, the cause of death of head injuries could still be claimed to be non-deliberate. There can be no such quibbling about gunshot and/or shrapnel wounds. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Clearly since Cregan had changed his plea to the murder charge to "guilty," we can stop the obfuscation, and re-name the page appropriately. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As is seen in Murder of Sharon Beshenivsky Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 19:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too early for this

With Dale Cregan having been nominated for deletion yesterday, I'm absolutely stunned to see an article on this topic appearing here again today. Not only does this fall into the

talk) 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

No it's not. How can it be too early? When there are school shootings, we have articles created. When there are hurricanes, there are articles. This is a highly significant event and is an article which is very well sourced. I can't understand your reasoning. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will become encyclopedic over time, but it isn't just now. We know little more about this incident that the fact that it happened. The full details of this are not likely to emerge until any legal proceedings against the perpetrator have been concluded, and as far as I understand it, nobody has been charged yet. The speed at which this and another article have been created simply beggars belief.
talk) 18:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
I still think it's way too early for this article to exist, but have closed the debate because it is a rare event, and will probably end up being notable. Police officer deaths inthe UK are thankfully rare, those of women police officers even more so, so although the timing of this article is not ideal, let's allow it to run for a while. It may have to be reconsidered for deletion though if the article is not properly maintained and ends up containing a load of speculative stuff. At this stage it would be better to have a short piece stating the facts. It can be expanded later once any legal proceedings are over.
talk) 23:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
This is the most serious incident since the Shepherd's Bush murders in 1966. There would be little point in deleting the article now, as it will become more notable if and when the trial goes ahead and further information emerges.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute its notability. My concern is that at such an early stage we're unlikely to know the full picture of events, and if we're not careful this could end up being a list of rumours and speculation in place of the actual facts.
talk) 20:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

After the initial "news-worthiness" of the article has diminished, there will be hardly any new information to add to the article until after any criminal proceedings have been completed. It was the same with the annecey shootings recently, a big news story gets everyones attention, rumours fly everywhere and then things calm down until the next big news story comes along.Whilst what happened to these officers was dispicable, until all the full facts have been placed into the public domain, people are making half guesses about what really happened. I think the article is worthy of inclusion but only after more concrete facts are known. Markdarrly (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Photo required

Please could someone take a photo of the crime scene, Abbey Gardens.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a photo of the floral tributes left at the scene. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "bucket collection"

I have removed this because it seemed like an advert. Many places chose to undertake collections following the deaths of these officers but all of them are not expected to be listed. Before anybody complains that I am short-changing the families and PBF of income, I deleted it AFTER the event had taken place. Markdarrly (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I was just a bit of miss wording on my part. Liamtaylor007 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Cregan's name from perp box

The name of Dale Cregan should not be placed as the perpatrator as at this time we do not know what his plea will be and as such, naming him as the perp at this stage is not advisable. Maybe "alledged perp" would have been better, but even that could be viewed a prejudicial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markdarrly (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Personally I'd like to see his name removed from the text until legal proceedings are at an end, though I'm not sure how practical that is.
talk) 17:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Have removed his name from one of the headers, changing it to "Arrest of suspect". What we don't want is to have his name screaming out at anyone who reads this.
talk) 17:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

What is fact or fiction?

Because so little information has been released from official sources, people contributing to this article should refrain from hear say or half truths. Wikipedia is a massive entity and it is quite possible that the very people who will sit on the jury when this case comes up for trial are reading this article and forming opinions. If opinions are to be formed, they should be formed on the basis of the known facts at that time and not as a result of a knee-jerk, over-reaction by angry individuals who need a name to blame. As awful and terrible as this crime was, the basis of British Justice is innocent until proven guilty and contributors should bear this in mind.Markdarrly (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK judge warning

This Guardian article will be of interest to any UK editors. JRPG (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media has had a field day, and it is now time for things to calm down. It could be many months before the case comes to court. The normal rules of
WP:BLPCRIME apply here, but it might be too restrictive to say that "a man" has been charged when there is a large amount of reliable coverage naming him. His lawyers will be on the lookout for any material that appears to presuppose guilt, so this article needs careful watching.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 04:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
English law used to simply forbid publication of any reference between charges and trial. This doesn't work with the internet. Deeply buried in the talk pages on Peter Tobin is a reference to a police visit to an administrator at the trial judge's request. Tobin was already serving a murder conviction. I won't edit this article. JRPG (talk) 12:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we shouldn't delete and protect this page until the trial is over, then restore it.
talk) 12:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Complete removal would be excessive unless specifically requested. Basic repetition of the uncontroversial facts is OK, but the nature of Wikipedia (the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit) means that the period before and during a trial is an issue. There is also a worry about setting a precedent where it would be impossible for Wikipedia to write about any matter while there were ongoing court proceedings, which could in some cases be several years.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sub judice rule certainly does not prohibit any coverage at all. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and not only is there a danger in an unprotected article which can be edited by anyone but the article should be confined to issues such as the political debate. It really would be best if it did not try to deal with the why, how and who by which are all things that can only be established at trial. Until then we have no reliable sources. --AJHingston (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At some point there is going to be an almighty row over a failed trial. The Murder of Joanna Yeates included disgraceful pretrial allegations aginst her innocent landlord. I updated Anna Soubry's page to cover the adjournment debate on the issue. Note the culture difference between the UK and US. In the UK, trials are often held at the Old Bailey specifically to avoid local jury knowledge. In the US they are held where the offence took place. In Peter Tobin's case after all the secrecy, the prosecution brought in Similar fact evidence. JRPG (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is rather thin and newsy at the moment, although the subject of the article meets
WP:GNG. I would be wary of going down the road of "OMG, we must never write about a UK court case until all of the proceedings have finished" because this could leave important gaps in Wikipedia. As long as normal guidelines are followed, writing about active court proceedings should not be a problem. It is now standard practice for judges to instruct juries to ignore anything that they have read in the media, and not to discuss or research cases on the Internet. Reporting what reliable sources (BBC etc) have said cannot prejudice a jury, and it is the tabloids, blogs and social networking sites that are the real problem.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Its that old chestnut again, its all very well for a judge to tell a jury to discard any thoughts they have and not to look at the internet, but usually as soon as you tell a person not to do something, they will do the opposite and log on. Its called life.Markdarrly (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about the
2012 Aurora shooting, even though a jury trial is pending and the suspect has been widely named in the media. It is usually the UK court cases that set off the argument about a jury being prejudiced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Hattersley or Mottram?

Did the PC double murder happen in Hattersley or Mottram? The news mention both locations, and so does Wikipedia (see entry on Hattersley). Can anyone please clarify this for the sake of precision? Thank you ViennaUK (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey Gardens SK14 6 post code area has various descriptions, and Mottram in Longdendale is an unparished village in Tameside..--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 14:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abbey Gardens postal address is Mottram in Longdendale, although it was built as part of the Hattersley housing estate in the mid 1960s. (A. Carty (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

T-shirt man jailed

A man who wore an anti-police T-shirt in public just hours after the killings was today jailed for four months, with an additional four months in connection with another offence. (BBC News) I'm not sure what section this would belong in, but it may be worth a brief mention as an associated event.

talk) 19:11, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

It is very similar to the man who was jailed for 12 weeks for Facebook posts about
April Jones.[1] Some NOTNEWS issues, but the Facebook incident is in the Jones article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, I had that in mind when I posted here. Not sure that incident needs its own section though.
talk) 20:01, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Mention of Dale Cregan's regret at killing female officers

A IP editor has twice removed reference to Paul Cregan's reported regret that the victims were women. I suggest that the matter be discussed here.

The source of the statement is the speech by prosecuting counsel at Cregan's trial as reported by the BBC. In that Cregan is said to have told the police he was 'sorry about those two that have been killed, I wish it was men'. There is no reason to doubt that those words were used. My view is that as the murders are notable partly because they were of female officers, and as the article reports that Cregan set out to kill police officers, it is right to mention that he claimed to regret killing women. That does not diminish the severity of the crime, and the evidence points to his knowing they were women when he killed them, but his motivation is so clearly a part of the events that I think that this is something that should be included. How we do so is of course for discussion. --AJHingston (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion does not seem to be a problem. It does not diminish the severity of the crime, and merely reports what he said.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anon IP has now reverted three times (slightly different IP on third time). Have warned about 3RR on both user talk pages. Dave.Dunford (talk) 16:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following appears to be a response from the IP...moved to relevant section. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick and tried of that he only regretted killing two female officers so it's ok if it was male cops that really gets on my nerves like you wont belive. What different does it make if it was male or female and the fact that he is a man even make it more shameful for him to say that about his gender it make me sick it was bad what happen but for him to say that he wished it was men that he killed it really pathetic becuase men feel no pain wrong those two women knew it was'nt safe to be a cop in manchester or anywhere esle for that matter it just really make me angry when people say that about men it not fair he should have regretted it anyway regardless man or women girl or boy it make no diffence it like when you heard about something that bad happen the news would say most of the people killed were women and children no mention about men becuase it not important it just important then anything else and that why i kept deleting that on the page and how he only regretted killing females i just could'nt leave it on all i'm doing is giving my opinion and i will keep giving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.44.243 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a
WP:NOTCENSORED issue here, namely "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal or inclusion of content."--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Merger proposal

Dale Cregan into Murders of Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone; dated: September 19, 2020. Proposer's Rationale: Cregan has no indication of notability besides being the killer of the two officers and most of his article's content already exists in the murders article, similar to how most shooters articles are redirected to the shootings they committed. 108.41.60.144. Discuss here. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murders_of_Nicola_Hughes_and_Fiona_Bone&oldid=1207662962"