| Revision as of 15:08, 19 December 2022 editUsernamekiran (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers34,887 edits + old RM notice← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:07, 10 November 2024 edit undoTom.Reding (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Template editors3,879,760 editsm blpo=yes + blp=no/null → blp=other; cleanupTag: AWB |
| (149 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blpo=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=C|listas=Banfield, Don, Murder of | needs-photo=yes }} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=c|listas=Banfield, Don, Murder of|blp=other|1= |
|
{{WikiProject British crime|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Crime|class=C|importance=Low |
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
| b1 = <yes/no> <!--Referencing & citations--> |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law|importance=low}} |
|
| b2 = <yes/no> <!--Coverage & accuracy--> |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|importance=low}} |
|
| b3 = <yes/no> <!--Structure--> |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject London|importance=low}} |
|
| b4 = <yes/no> <!--Grammar & style--> |
|
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject England|importance=low}} |
|
| b5 = <yes/no> <!--Supporting materials-->}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject England|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject London|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Old moves |
|
{{Old moves |
| Line 18: |
Line 14: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|
|
| age =2160 |
|
|
| archiveprefix =Talk:Disappearance of Don Banfield/Archive |
|
|
| numberstart =1 |
|
|
| maxarchsize =75000 |
|
|
| header ={{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minkeepthreads =5 |
|
|
| format = %%i |
|
|
}}{{Archives|bot=ClueBot III|age=90}} |
|
|
<!-- Template:Setup cluebot archiving --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== request edit == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry about that!genuinely don't know what happened there! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone else please look at this again. All my edits have been completely removed. They're all verifiable sources and information. Mr Clegg gives his legal perspective, and careful about the suggestions that this is anything but accurate and honest. |
|
|
There are the judges findings and reasoning (that have now been removed), as well as verifiable information regarding the successful defence arguments.Some people are interested in the legality of the case and would benefit from all information available. Regarding information left here, it doesn't accurately reflect the sources cited, and where it is completely contradicted by equally verifiable sources, only one version is given. Please see my contributions and previous edits that have been completely removed by this person, without concessions given.They included information from the court papers, plus court reporters.thank you.If my writing is in anyway inadequate, please feel free to amend it. Sorry if that's the case, I didn't realise it was awful. Thank you ] (]) 10:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:], you are just going round in circles here. There is already a discussion about this content above which you and other editors can comment on. There's no need to just open up more and more discussion sections on the same topic. ] (]) 10:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::you seem oddly and overly obsessed. overly interested in limiting all information available. The request is to neutral fair people. |
|
|
::I believe that fair people will look at this and say no this isn't right. full freedom of information. please can you not limit and dominate the discussion process.The information doesn't relate to the sources cited, and the judges findings and reasoning and the decision-making process of the defence is excluded, as reported in court papers and by the court reporters in the harrow times, and local London press.Please see my previous edits. All information should be shown if it is from verifiable sources. Thanks for looking at this again, please could someone who doesn't have an interest include information regarding the judges findings and the successful defence arguments. Thanks so much. I believe in freedom of information and expression which is verifiable, not suppression of all information. Please can someone neutral include this. Thanks!] (]) 10:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Overly obsessive? Are you kidding? YOU are the person who has constantly been begging these users to add back your edits, even though they've declined. Also, the statement that all information should be shown if it's from a verifiable source is untrue. Read ]. <span style="font-family: comic sans;">] ]</span> 15:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I was wrong to say that to erratic. I just wanted someone to look again. I have acted badly, because it's frustrating.That's no excuse. I lost perspective, I realise that. ] (]) 17:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:there is no edit request here. Edit requests should show the content to be changed and the sourcing to support the change ] (]) 16:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/don-banfields-wife-daughter-murder-5964345 |
|
|
::https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10585245.wife-and-daughter-accused-of-killing-wealdstone-man-don-banfield-have-murder-convictions-quashed/ |
|
|
::The judges reasoning is in the court papers, but also found here. ] (]) 17:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17371761 |
|
|
::This is the only secondary source I could find regarding the early drawing down of a lump sum. ] (]) 18:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/10585245.wife-and-daughter-accused-of-killing-wealdstone-man-don-banfield-have-murder-convictions-quashed/ ] (]) 18:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::https://www.mylondon.news/news/local-news/don-banfields-wife-daughter-murder-5964345 ] (]) 18:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Request edit == |
|
|
The judges findings and reasoning were summarised by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/1144954012, |
|
|
I'm worried that this will not be seen. Thanks for taking the time to look again. If there is an issue with the book, (although it was on the best seller's, and acknowledged by legal experts), then cut it from the main article completely. That's absolutely fine. There are only a few lines quoted from it directly, but anything related to it, I think that there are 3 inserts?...but why exclude the court papers evidence, and most crucially the judges findings and reasoning (at all the very end ) which court reporters recorded at the time, as reported in the harrow times and a local London paper.It's important to show how it was reported at the time, and the 3 judges thoughts about how they came to this conclusion. This information is from verifiable sources. Cut Mr Clegg, as per Erratic, and Erratic has suggested that he could be briefly summarised at the end, seeing as he is actually being misrepresented in this article. That's a possibility, if Erratic thinks so. He wrote a book 6 years after the trial and explains what actually occurred, obviously from his perspectives. He was a central figure. But I think it's fair enough to cut him on the grounds that have been raised.My main concern is that I think that the judges findings and reasoning (included in the very last part before erratic reverting,) has value. Thanks.I think that the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC) ] (]) 07:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Discussion started at ] about the use of the Court Document == |
|
h] (]) 09:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:], if you vandalise the article again you will get blocked. Legal threats such as this: will also get you blocked. Stop now unless you want your access to Misplaced Pages revoked from your address (which, by the way, all editors can see). ] (]) 10:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] is where it can be found. The document is overused in this as article, seeking community input on what is usable ] (]) 16:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Verifying references == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Reminder to editors == |
|
{{reply to|Classic Middlesex}} Can you lay your hands on a copy (or a web access) of the Times article referenced at Cite 16 in the article? I can't access it: Fiona Hamilton, "Justice catches up with murderous wife and daughter", 4 April 2012, page 15. I'd like to verify the statement used in the article cited to The Times. Cheers! ] | <sup> ]</sup> 18:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{reply to|Classic Middlesex}} Never mind. We have access to the Dale Times Archive via Misplaced Pages Libary and so I was able to retrieve and review the article. ] | <sup> ]</sup> 14:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::Oh yes sorry, I am terrible at remembering notifications once I've already clicked off them. ] (]) 16:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
== "Shirley Banfield (criminal)" listed at ] == |
|
|
] |
|
|
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 02:17, 17 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This talk page is for discussing how to improve the related article, not for discussing the persons mentioned in the article in general. — ] <sup>]</sup> 14:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Move discussion in progress == |
|
|
|
:{{tl|Talk header}} added above. ] (]) 18:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== The material in here is wrongful, completely made up in places. It isn't sourced to the cites attributed to it. == |
|
There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Shirley Banfield (cricketer)#Requested move 22 November 2022 crosspost --> —] 20:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The content of this article is incorrect information.it doesn't even relate to the sources cited. No-one has bothered checking. It also creates a bias narrative, but I don't care anymore, or the fact it is deliberately malicious and dishonest and omits information about the case, but it states made up information and then cites a source, but you'll notice it doesn't have the information stated in the source given. Misplaced Pages foundation cleverly accepts no legal liability for this article. You are responsible for this defamation ] (]) 07:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
== Requested move 24 November 2022 == |
|
|
|
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''no consensus.''' —usernamekiran ] 15:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|Disappearance of Don Banfield}} – While there was a murder conviction, the conviction was quashed, and I'm not really sure that this is wise to keep framed as a murder from a ] perspective. There were certainly suspicious circumstances surrounding his death, including the two people initially convicted of murder admitting to fraud that's related to the disappearance and the lawyer admitting that it was likely that either Shirley or Lynette killed Don, but I don't like the phrase "murder" absent a valid conviction. ] might go against this (and is reasonable, given that this is how it was widely covered), but I think that the ] (namely precision) would support this move. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 14:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)<small>— '''''Relisting.''''' —usernamekiran ] 16:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)</small> <small>— '''''Relisting.''''' — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Oppose'''. Disclaimer, I am very much on the "let common name win" side of the crime naming policy by default, and I presume the incident is still referred to as a "murder" even post-conviction quashing. More generally, "is there an active conviction y/n" is not the only question to me - we should look at ''why'' the conviction was quashed. It was not quashed because evidence surfaced that Banfield was actually alive, but rather question over whether the highly controversial "joint enterprise" style conviction was valid. Nobody thinks there's any chance Banfield is actually alive (I'm sure he's been declared legally dead) so my very very very distant second choice would be ] if there's truly a desire to avoid the term "Murder", but I think "murder" is fine on common name basis regardless. ] (]) 21:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*:{{yo|SnowFire}}, given that there is a difference between ] and ], would you be OK moving this to "Killing of Don Banfield"? — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">] <sub>]</sub></span> 21:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*::I don't have a strong opinion about "Death of" vs. "Killing of", they seem about the same in this particular case. ] (]) 21:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' - we don't generally call something a murder if there's no extant conviction, and I think this is probably a BLP issue too, given that the individual initially convicted of murder was later quashed. Probably best to call it a disappearance rather than a killing too, since in theory he might not even be dead. — ] (]) 23:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
**Per above, I think it's important to consider the reason that the conviction was quashed. The prosecution essentially said "one of these two people did it, or maybe both of them, but we're not sure about the details, so let's throw them both in prison." The jury agreed that this was accurate and convicted. The appeals court (correctly) said this wasn't good enough, that the prosecution's case needed to make sure that an innocent person wasn't being imprisoned as well merely because they might have done it (and definitely collaborated on the fraud afterward). But that doesn't overturn the basic facts of the case, which are that Don Banfield was murdered, and a jury agreed with that, and doubt on that aspect wasn't the reason the conviction was quashed, but rather the whole "joint enterprise" theory of not having to work out the details. Also, if we're being very strict about hewing to the legal definition of "murder", that implies we might want to be strict about the legal definition of "death" too which can include being declared dead (and thus not "disappeared"). I don't think we should do either of those, but just throwing that out there as a thought. ] (]) 21:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' The appeal court's accepted that he's dead and was murdered. I've looked for an inquest – sometimes re-opened after an acquittal – but found no sign that one was re-opened after the quashing. The appeal judgment seems to be quoted in full ; that does match the extracts in news reports. That doesn't reconsider whether or not he's dead and was murdered. Towards the end, it lists "five postulations as to what might have explained the death, lucidly set out by" the appellants' QC that one or both killed him; by that point "the death" is not in question and the appellants' QC has "accepted that the likelihood is that one or other appellant murdered DB". ] (]) 16:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:<small>Note: ] has been notified of this discussion. — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:39, 11 December 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:<small>'''Relisting comment''': to generate a more thorough consensus — ] <sup>(]</sup> <sup>])</sup> 14:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] --> |
|
|
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div> |
|
Could someone else please look at this again. All my edits have been completely removed. They're all verifiable sources and information. Mr Clegg gives his legal perspective, and careful about the suggestions that this is anything but accurate and honest.
There are the judges findings and reasoning (that have now been removed), as well as verifiable information regarding the successful defence arguments.Some people are interested in the legality of the case and would benefit from all information available. Regarding information left here, it doesn't accurately reflect the sources cited, and where it is completely contradicted by equally verifiable sources, only one version is given. Please see my contributions and previous edits that have been completely removed by this person, without concessions given.They included information from the court papers, plus court reporters.thank you.If my writing is in anyway inadequate, please feel free to amend it. Sorry if that's the case, I didn't realise it was awful. Thank you Beautiful Rosie (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing how to improve the related article, not for discussing the persons mentioned in the article in general. — xaosflux 14:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The content of this article is incorrect information.it doesn't even relate to the sources cited. No-one has bothered checking. It also creates a bias narrative, but I don't care anymore, or the fact it is deliberately malicious and dishonest and omits information about the case, but it states made up information and then cites a source, but you'll notice it doesn't have the information stated in the source given. Misplaced Pages foundation cleverly accepts no legal liability for this article. You are responsible for this defamation Beautiful Rosie (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
