Talk:David Amess

Comedy

Jasonm23 : I wonder if anyone has further information (verified) as to how David Amess appearance on Brass Eye and the Mark Thomas Comedy Project, affected his political career.

Shouldn't there be some mention of Amess' relationship with that notoriously dangerous made-up drug on this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.156.184 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There should be indeed. It is a rather notable incident The Next Biggish Thing (talk) 16:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The piece about this was removed, but I've undone the edit to remove it. There's absolutely no justification for it not being in his Wikipedia article. -JA

Shouldn't have been removed. It's the main reason most people have heard of him. Haha. Equinox ◑ 15:42, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:David.amess-mark.thomas.jpg

Image:David.amess-mark.thomas.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

His son's violence

I'm sure this was once on this entry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/4267591.stm

92.22.32.164 (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is from 2005. Thank you for this!

"Amess was sentenced to four years in jail. "

"The court heard Amess had been trying to impress a woman when the fight broke out. "

What an idiot!!!

" He swung the bottle after some pushing and shoving between the two men, leaving Mr Trussler with a 4cm cut.

When interviewed by officers, he admitted hitting Mr Trussler with the bottle but claimed it was in self-defence. " New hordak from 2018 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

A serious assault. But this source says that the assailant ".. won a cut in his prison sentence from four years to three but judges rejected claims that the conviction was "unsafe"." It also says "Southend West MP David Amess has vowed to continue fighting to clear his son's name after an appeal against his conviction for assault was lost." So it might be argued that it is relevant to Amess' private life? But I'm not sure it's really sufficiently notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Hope you're well. If the MP is abusing his influence, to reduce his son's sentence from 4 to 3 years, then this should be notable enough on his Wikipedia page. What is your opinion? New hordak from 2018 (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence, nor even any suggestion, that Amess was "abusing his influence", to reduce his son's sentence from 4 to 3 years. If he was jailed in 2005, his release is now old news anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PAGT 1988.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Time for an ‘Attacks on British politicians’ article?

I wonder if it’s time for a “attacks on British politicians” article, what do editors think? Inadvertent Consequences (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Or a section in Surgery (politics), as this is where the attacks seem to take place.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

If you will point us to a couple of the online sources on which, in the first instance, you would base the wiki-entry, it will become easier to see what you have in mind. Charles01 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Would it have a much wider scope than List of assassinated serving British MPs? Jim Michael (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need a further page than List of assassinated serving British MPs to include non-fatal attacks. A killing is easy to define, but where an "attack" begins or ends is up to debate. Physical violence against MPs is rare, but nobody in 12 months' time will care about the recent non-serious attack on Iain Duncan Smith, from what he said about it, probably not even himself. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Unknown Temptation, there is already a category in wikipedia that covers what you are proposing. The word "attack" is tricky and is subject to WP:NPOV issues. Unless there is a compelling reason to create a new category, I would not support the suggested change. Jurisdicta (talk) 15:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021

The cause of death is currently murder not homicide - homicide is a US term, murder is the correct UK term. Noting cause of death is likely to require be further updated to assassination on conviction Stuey26 (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I updated it to murder for now. I'm not too sure about assassination, as the murder of Jo Cox should definitely be considered an assassination, but is still considered a murder. DarkHorse234 (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Query re being PPS to Michael Portillo (section Political career)

It states that Amess was PPS to Michael Portillo, appointed after the 1987 general election and serving him 'ten years' and 'throughout Portillo's ministerial career'. However, a check of Portillo's wikipedia article shows the latter apparently only held ministerial rank (beginning as Chief Secretary at the Treasury in 1992) for five years before losing his Enfield Southgate seat in the 1997 general election. Surely backbench MPs don't have PPSs?Cloptonson (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I notice that while the statement is still unaltered, it has been joined by a statement in the lead summary which inflates his period as Portillo PPS to 'twelve years'.Cloptonson (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Appeared in video of Bananarama songs

Something for the section 'Media' if someone can find sourced background on this. I recall Amess was one of a number of MPs in various locations in the Westminster environment who appeared in a mock pop video apparently moving to various Bananarama songs. Amess and Lord St John of Fawsley were shown hand jiving or clapping in time to the tune of 'Robert de Niro' seated together in a taxi back seat. (Other MPs shown included Harry Greenaway and Geoffrey Dickens.) I saw this shown as part of a Clive James New Year special in the later 80s but I forget the exact year, which may be clue as to when the video was made. I have not found out what the video was made for, I wonder if it was a 'Comic Relief' stunt?Cloptonson (talk) 07:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021 (2)

Cause of death is Islamist terrorism by a British national of Somali origin. ZebraaaLounge (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Terrorism is a possible motive, not a cause. The cause of death is stabbing. WWGB (talk)

Also, that's not confirmed as they've not been convicted. Us posting that wouls be a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

References

User:Joseph2302 In those countries as Iraq, Somalia, it would be impossible to convict terrorists. so terrorism as motive won't be proved ever. --ZebraaaLounge (talk) 11:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• If well documented by RSs, appropriate to reflect the investigation and police statements Re possible Islamist terrorism as motive. But no conclusory statement of guilt is ok without an official statement of guilt. 2600:1017:B811:9C4D:CD3A:DA6F:B26A:D606 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Islamist terror attack

Given that the murder is now being investigated by the Metropolitan Police Service's Counter Terrorism Command, and that most main stream media organisations are now reporting it as an Islamist terror incident by a 25-year-old British man of Somali heritage, why is not mentioned on an article that has been visited over 740,000 times in the last 24 hours? 2A02:C7F:7739:8700:D01F:B599:294D:F628 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

See Killing of David Amess. There is no need for duplication/ repetition. Dormskirk (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No thanks. Why force people off this article and onto another one, just to find the answer to an obvious question? See [1]. I note you've not been as quick to remove the killer from that article as has been done on this article. 2A02:C7F:7739:8700:D01F:B599:294D:F628 (talk) 10:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. The killing article is a unnecessary content fork with only 10% of the readership of this main article. It's this article which matters and so it should be reasonably comprehensive. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I have not deleted anything from the section on the death of David Amess in this article nor, as suggested above, did I introduce the content fork. Dormskirk (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No one has said you have; but you've also not deleted the parts on Jo Cox, given that you think mentioning the murderer here is "duplication/ repetition". 2A02:C7F:7739:8700:8455:AE95:4E81:713A (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I am actually fine to see some expansion here. Dormskirk (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That's great. I think consistency is best. 2A02:C7F:7739:8700:8455:AE95:4E81:713A (talk) 12:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• No, GrindtXX, this is not what the police have declared it to be, at all. The article you cite states: "The Metropolitan Police said there was a potential link to Islamist extremism. A 25-year-old British man was arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder." Why is the fact the suspect is an Islamist extremist being suppressed from this article, when over at Jo Cox's article, almost an entire section is given to describing the killer and his background? I see no difference between this murder and Jo Cox's tragic death. 2A02:C7F:7739:8700:8455:AE95:4E81:713A (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Why did the link to the assassination get removed from the top part of the page?

Surely it should direct to the article the public interest is coming here to view? Declanhx (talk) 14:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be some selective editing going on here, Declanhx, based on editor's political leanings. What I will say is that it is too early to call it an assassination, so we have to tread carefully in that regard. 2A04:4A43:477E:71B6:BC28:693F:1673:6EE1 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

What we haqve @declanhx is the usual "people" trying to trying to claim the killing was a Islamic terrorist attack and assassination by a Muslim. What we actually have at this early stage is the arrest of A UK NATIONAL for the killing. Thats it. Thats all we really know so far. The subject was murdered by a UK national, so until we have more facts that can be quoted, thats what the article says. But we have the usual type of editor trying to force their selective biased editing on the article. Thats why it is protected, editors like that are why we cant have nice things arent they IPAddress?2A00:23C4:220:CF01:1824:77E5:BD07:1623 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Curious use of speech marks with "people" - who were you quoting? Clearly, you're not reading the news. Give it a go, inform yourself. The suspect for the Amess murder was indeed a UK national, that is not in dispute; the dispute is that for some unexplained reason, selective editing is taking place with regards to the nature of the investigation. It has been confirmed that the killing is being treated as an Islamist terror attack. This article is silent on the matter. However, over on Jo Cox, it's like This Is Your Life is taking place for the perpetrator. Why would that be? Either you explain the background of both suspects/murderers on both articles, or none at all. I appreciate this is rolling news and we shouldn't be assuming anything, certainly not least because up until the suspect is convicted, he is innocent, but it's now freely reported that this is an Islamist fundamentalist it would be dishonest for us not to mention it here. 2A02:C7F:869:5600:B9A5:F464:635D:6613 (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The suspect's name has now been released. Another uncomfortable truth] for biased Wikipedia, which'll no doubt be ignored. 2A02:C7F:7739:8700:154E:6D1F:E41E:5D29 (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The obvious difference is that Jo Cox's death happened over 5 years ago, and we can safely call it a murder since there was a conviction nearly 5 years ago. The section in this article should and will be expanded as more details become available. But there is no rush as wikipedia has WP:no deadline. We have to take appropriate care, especially in matters concerning living persons. Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I get that, but the fact it's been declared an Islamist attack won't change and should be reflected in the article. You can bet your last dollar that had this have been anything but an Islamist attack, people would be falling over themselves to add it in. 2A04:4A43:47FF:7DD3:199F:1ED8:F480:7480 (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Police definitely have made mistakes before, both in the UK and elsewhere. Mistakes are sometimes significant enough to add anyway, but it depends on the circumstances and in this case the fact there is a separate article which covers the nitty-gritty means mistake which are not significantly related to David Amess may not always merit coverage here. And again, while we cannot be responsible for mistakes and choices sources make, we do have to consider whether it's appropriate for us to simply repeat something which some source has said in a rush for coverage early on. We are not a news site and anyone using us as one should be looking elsewhere. We are supposed to be slow, and anyone who tries to rush things be it involving something related to Islamist terrorism, or neo-Nazi terrorism is doing the wrong thing. This is a fairly dumb dispute anyway the information has been there since about 5 hours after my reply or about 5 hours before your last reply [2] Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2021 (3)

Change section title from Death to Killing. Comports with article it connects to. More descriptive. Still short - only one word. 2600:1017:B811:9C4D:CD3A:DA6F:B26A:D606 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

No, being discussed at the article about this- doesn't need repeating the argument here. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, firstly that’s not the discussion there — it is whether to change Killing to Assassination. Both of those have the element of a killing. Obviously, “Death” lacks that specificity. Secondly, it’s rather odd to not have the phrases comport between the articles. If there is a later change to assassination, we can make that change here. For now they should comport. Thirdly, there’s no discernible benefit to readers for us to hide from them in the subject title that this was not simply a death, but a killing - rather, it’s a rank disservice. What possible benefit could you have in mind? 2603:7000:2143:8500:D895:89B9:9C8E:3A (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Callin an article Killing of X is fine, but having a section title killing is just weird. Section titles are only intended to convey to readers what they are about. They aren't intended to be a summary. Death is the norm in the absence of something better, which killing isn't. See e.g. [3] Nil Einne (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• No. It’s normal. Death is a set, that contains non-killings as well - in fact most deaths are not killings. Killing is a subset of it. And therefore more explanatory. This is rather simple. (Murder, if it were reported as such, would be an even smaller and more precise subset of killing). And conveys more to the reader (surely, nobody wishes to convey less to the reader).

What’s really weird is some editor took the BBC article - which is the ref - which repeatedly refers to the “killing” of the man. And twisted it even in the text to “death.” Bizarre. Obviously the “death” is not a possible terrorist incident. It’s the killing. That’s why BBC wrote it the way they did — that also need to be changed in the text of the section. It’s simply wrong as is. 2603:7000:2143:8500:A807:AEB1:9E73:BD45 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It's most definitely not normal. I don't think I've ever seen one article like that. What the BBC do is besides the point, we have our on style guidelines, norms and policies as an encyclopaedia instead of a news source. But I doubt they have a section titled only "killing" anyway. Our section has made it clear probably since we first mentioned the death that the person was killed. I do think it would be better to say killing in the text bit about it being a terrorist incident [4] but I don't really care about something which will be changed in a week or less so I'm not going to fight over it if someone objects. This is a completely different issue from the section title anyway which was the sole focus of your earlier comments and my earlier replies. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

David_Amess#Involvement_in_legislation

This section is egregiously promotional and sourced almost entirely to statutes and Hansard. It looks more impressive because Driving Instructors (Registration) Act 2016 and Specialist Printing Equipment and Materials (Offences) Act 2015 are bluelinks, but those are also sourced only to legislation and Hansard. I would promote cutting this section substantially, if not removing it entirely. Unless, of course, there are other good sources on his legislative career? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Promotional? The subject is dead and so this complaint seems to be absurd. Statutes and Hansard are obviously the most reliable sources for these facts and therefore quite appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No, this complaint is not absurd. One can promote the activities of a dead person—see almost any obituary. Statutes and Hansard are of course reliable, but they are also primary and therefore cannot demonstrate either the notability of a given statute or its proper analysis. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

A lot of content there is mentioned in obituaries (see the Guardian: But he was also a serious politician who achieved the rare feat of piloting two private members’ bills into law: one on animal welfare – the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act (1988) – and the other requiring the government to implement policies reducing fuel poverty – the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act (2000) – a cause taken up following the death of one of his constituents from hypothermia.) although I am aware we have to think about whether citogenesis applies here. —AFreshStart (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of irrelevant detail in personal life section

I want to explain my removal of content from the article. In this edit I removed a sentence about the 2005 conviction and prison sentence given to Amess' son David Junior. My rational is two-fold. Firstly the article is about Amess, not his son. Secondly, in the UK the rehabilitation of offenders for a sentence up to and including four years in jail is 7 years after the sentence ends. So even if it was relevant to this article it would be unfair to list it. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal on the first point alone, it's not relevant. As the second part goes, I think that Wikipedia can list 'spent' convictions (It's a US site) if they are otherwise appropriate for an article. JeffUK (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Assassination category

In the UK if an MP or Lord is killed in office it is classified as an assassination. Surely we should be including Category:Assassinated British MPs and Category:Assassinated English politicians as we have done with every other murdered MP: Jo Cox, Ian Gow, Airey Neave etc. 92.7.77.12 (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Assassination is a type of murder. No one here has been convicted of murder. WWGB (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It's noticeable that the British press is referring to 'the death of David Amess' and not 'murder' or 'assassination'. Which is, as WWGB observes, because at present this is a suspected murder/assassination, until someone is convicted of it. The Land (talk) 13:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I've come across the press referring to this as a murder. See for example this Sky News article, which includes among others the following bits of text: "Ali Harbi Ali, a British man with Somali heritage, is being questioned by counter terrorism police over the murder of Conservative MP Sir David Amess" and "The police investigation into Sir David's murder". Darren.enlight (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a murder investigation, as described by the Met Police themselves. There has been significant politically-charged editing going here and it is unfair to ignore the police's own arrest charges based on the as-yet unknown motivations of the murderer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.125.226.42 (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Suspect's name

I saw the arrested suspect's name was missing in the article and I added it in. This change was immediately removed, claiming the consensus on the talk page for this article was to leave it out, but I see no such consensus on this talk page? Also, the last mention of the suspect's name being released to the press is from Oct 16. It's five days later and there are more and more articles being published looking into the suspect's history, such as the one you can find here, from Sky News. Given the media attention and its wide circulation of the name, it seems like odd censorship not to include this bit of common and relevant knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.enlight (talk • contribs) 06:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC) Especially since even if the suspect will be released without charge (which seems highly unlikely at this point, given the circumstance of his arrest), his name will still be relevant to the case of the murder investigation. Darren.enlight (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I did not say there was consensus to leave it out, I said there was NO consensus to include the name. Very different meanings. WWGB (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's even worse then, in the sense that you're going around censoring information without there being any consensus to do so (no consensus to include the name also means no consensus to leave it out. As the information is widely available, there has to be a really good reason to censor it when the name is relevant, and when there is no expectation of privacy at this point, once police has released it). Darren.enlight (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, you pointed me to this being discussed in the talk page, and I found no evidence of that...? Darren.enlight (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the discussion is at Talk:Killing of David Amess. My apologies. WWGB (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

If there is doubt over use of the name at Killing of David Amess, I would expect there to be even more diubt to apply here at the main article about him. Strictly speaking there should be another, separate discussion here. But I suspect it really would be a copy of the same arguments. So for reference the thread over there is this one: Talk:Killing of David Amess#Censorship of any mention of Ali Harbi Ali is not helpful, and increasingly disruptive. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Initial Summary

Can anyone explain why an edit highlighting his LGBT views was removed, while his votes on other issues remain? Some Guy that Wants Truth (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Red links

It is inappropriate to remove all red links from an article. Where there would usefully be an article on that topic, a red link is legitimate. See Wikipedia:Red link. Mauls (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)