Talk:Shooting of James Ashley/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

I have removed a fair bit of speculation and some sections that were blatantly non-netural (calling officers incompetant despite them being found not guilty) Also removed a paragraph which claimed that police revealing that he was a criminal and murderer (which he was, see the paragraph above for his convitions). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, if you want to go making silly insulting statements and speculationg about peoples thought processes write a blog or colum somewhere else on the net. Dellarb 00:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV issues

• Obviously, the author does not concern himself with law enforcement's point of view. This article needs to mention background information and include the police officers' side of the story as well. --Bayyoc 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to make the article more neutral, hopefully? Sherurcij

Cats

Please do not go around sticking individual's cases into broad categories like Law enforcement in the United Kingdom which you'll notice is more geared towards articles like Queen's Police Medal, Authorised Firearms Officer or Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Also, please do not remove James Ashley from the Drug traffickers category, since that's exactly what he was. I'm not defending the police actions by any margin, but whitewashing and sensationalizing the story is really not merited. Sherurcij 15:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You have provided no evidence of anything. He liked a spliff and had what you yanks call a BB gun. It may be common place for unarmed inncocent and naked people to be shot in a botched drugs raid by incompetent and baddly trained police officer and then senior officer in the force to be accused by a member of the establisment and a felow chief officer in such strong terms but it is not in the UK. The case was and still is significant in the UK. It merits it's cats. It is you that is applying incorrect cats.--Son of Paddy's Ego 00:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Why does everybody automatically assume that anybody who disagrees with them is American? Sherurcij 00:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I looked at you used pages and the US seemed a dominate them. Though as a fellow subject I sympathize.--Son of Paddy's Ego 01:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Another NPOV issue

I have removed the following text:

"The affair re-ignited public concern about the wisdom of arming British policemen and allowing them to attend at incidents involving firearms. Their American counterparts have a number of strategies and a variety of equipment to deal with gun incidents, the last of which involves actually opening fire."

because it is uncited, POV and irrelevant:

- Uncited: Statements about re-igniting public concern need to be linked to citations where the public express such concern.

- POV: The paragraph (at least to my reading) implies a judgement about the relative quality of British vs American training of armed police officers without providing any evidence or providing any balanced view.

- Irrelevant: The fact that American officers "have a number of strategies" is, on its own, irrelevant. Britsh police officers who are authorised to carry arms receive special training in the use of these arms as well as tactics for managing situations. It is probable that that for them, opening fire it also the last resort. I am not, in any way, seeking to justify the actions taken in this particular case but one cannot make sweeping statements such as this without providing actual evidence and a balanced view. It is not unknown for US police to open fire in questionable circumstances. 90.196.173.55 19:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was back with the heading Controversy and with a citation. but no indication how exactly the citation applied. Which makes it neither balanced (controversies exist when there is no widely accepted view and should not be presented as if there is consensus). nor clear. (there are circumstances In which a Policeman might have need of a gun what Is not clear is that this was one of those circumstances.) A statement that concerns were raised that the strategies and training of firearms officers were poor and lessons could be learned from America. might be appropriate. but I don't see this as a controversy. I amended accordingly. rewording it and incorporating it and the citation into aftermath. 82.37.173.247 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)