Talk:Mel Broughton

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

Trial details[edit]

Hi RP, I deliberately left out details of the case, because there's a danger of appearing to second guess the jury here. If we're going to mention DNA evidence, we have to include Broughton's defence, because it was to some extent accepted by the jury, which found him not guilty of one of the offences, and couldn't agree on the others. I didn't have time to write up both sides, so I left it out entirely. I think if we're going to include any of it, we must have both sides added at the same time. SlimVirgin talk|edits 07:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't agree with this in the lead: "He is currently remanded in police custody awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy to commit arson."
It misses out that he's been in jail for it since December 2007; that a jury recently found him not guilty of of keeping an explosive substance with intent, and couldn't decide on the others; and in spite of that, he remains in custody, and will until an unspecified time in 2009, which could mean up to two years in jail without a conviction.
Your summary (a) draws attention to it, but (b) misses out the entire context, and (c) it's not clear that he is awaiting trial on conspiracy to commit arson, as I think that was the charge the jury cleared him of (though I may be wrong on this last point). SlimVirgin talk|edits 08:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SV. The reason I added the prosecution's allegation is because we did mention his defense (that the police had it in for him). Having that there without what the evidence against him seemed rather unbalanced. If you wish to remove all the details - both the allegations and defense - until the case is resolved that is fine by me. As for the lead, the charges remaining are conspiracy to commit arson and possession of articles with intent to damage or destroy property. [1] It was the ridiculous sparkler charge that was dismissed.
A good proportion of the article, and a good deal of his wider notability, is about his criminal activities (and current charges). Its was notable in its absence in the lead (yet remarkably, we do mention that he is a landscape gardener, which has to be the least notable thing about him!). I'm not sure what context is required, it seems pretty self explanatory to me, but feel free to amend as you see fit. I just think we should note that his "activism" isn't always quite the legal, peaceful, friendly type as one might image from the lead as it was. Rockpocket 08:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
His defence wasn't entirely that the police said they were going to "get" him, though he did use that recording in his defence. The defence against the DNA issue was different; I didn't have time to read it carefully, so I can't summarize. There's an article here that outlines some of it, e.g.:
"Broughton said he would regularly have visits from fellow campaigners to his house in Semilong Road, Northampton, where smokers would often leave behind or pick up boxes of matches.
'If the jury was satisfied that it was your DNA (on the match), could you assist in how it could have come about," asked Mr Bentley.
'The only way I could think is if someone came and took those matches," Broughton replied."
I think if we're going to summarize the current criminal case in the lead, we have to give the context and that the jury found him not guilty or couldn't decide. It's going to be quite hard to summarize it fairly and accurately without it becoming too long for the lead.
The sparkler issue wasn't so ridiculous, by the way. There was a Guardian story about how some of the devices were to be detonated that way. Again, I didn't have time to read it carefully, so I should probably go back and do that. SlimVirgin talk|edits 10:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I'll try and establish more context in the later tonight. I meant that trying to convince a jury to convict someone on charges of possessing an explosive substance with intent is tough enough, but when the explosive substance is a sparkler it becomes somewhat ridiculous. The other, lesser charge, possession of articles with intent to damage, is much more realistic, because you simply need to convince them that the sparklers were meant to be used in a device, not that they count as an "explosive substance". Rockpocket 19:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mel Broughton. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mel_Broughton&oldid=1206450628"