Jump to content

Talk:Guildford Four and Maguire Seven

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

NPOV tag

[edit]

There is no discussion. Why is there a tag then? Either remove the tag, or explain your reasons for tagging it in the first place.--Sjkebab 02:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the NPOV tag until someone tells us what he/she doesn't like in the article. Mr.K. 05:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually know that they didn't do it? I know of some who were at the bombings who could swear it was them indeed who did the bombing. How do we not know that it was not a political move?

Also this article is NPOV as it doesn't state that their is no definitive proof that, the men were tortured. Before anyone says it was in the book and film, that is not proof.

P.S. I didn't put the NPOV tag on and I will not now, but it does need to be looked at in places. - Anon

There is an sttement by a homeless man that states he was with gerr Conolin at the time of the bombing. thats how we know they didnt do it. Yeh but where was Gerry Conlon ??

Yes, we do know that they were not responsible for this crime. The convictions were overturned by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that they were unsafe. Therefore, under English law, they are not guilty because there is reasonable doubt. The hearsay of people from Guildford is utterly irrelevant.
It is very sad that people continue to bismirch the character of innocent men and women who are victims of miscarriages of justice. Valiant Son (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Conlon

[edit]

Gerry Conlon redirects here, but there's no biographical information whatsoever, apart from the "he is believed to have accepted a settlement" at the end? 

He's a drug using shoplifter,  he's never done anything of significance,

his only relevance is being a victim of police misconduct and judicial error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.73 (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Gosh someone sounds grumpy.......What I love about the British is how they down play their crimes against humanity.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.231.3 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC) Whereas the Irish are noble benefactors of the human race? Suuurrrre. 20:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken date of guildford pub bombing

[edit]

It happened on 1974, not 1975.

re "Their unsafe conviction in October 1975 for the Guildford pub bombing was overturned in 1990 when forensic evidence proved the police had tampered with their confessions[1]."

Their unsafe conviction was not overturned - Their conviction was declared "UNSAFE" see Talk page Birmingham SIX.

( I don't think you would want the Unsafe Conviction overturned and neither would the Guildford Four. !!)

Domnal5 16:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not state that the bombing happened in 1975...cannot comment on the rest of your point Aatomic1 16:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why just 1 article?

[edit]

Shouldn't the Guildford Four and Maguire Seven be separate articles? Or is there more information to justify them being together? At the moment, all I can see in this article is that both groups were convicted of an IRA-related crime in the 1970s and then exonerated about 15 years later. Open4D 02:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were merged by Str1977 (talk · contribs) on 24 September because they were essentially copies of each other. [1] Rockpocket 02:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The connection is that Anne Maguire is Gerry Conlon's aunt and he visited her while in London, his father was at her house at time of arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.73 (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My suspicion now regarding the connection is that the M7's act of "possessing nitro-glycerine" was supposed to have been in support of the G4's alleged bombings of the pubs. Perhaps the 2 groups knew each other through the Patrick Conlon / Gerry Conlon father/son connection? But this is not clear ... Open4D 18:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be separated again, there is now sufficient data to write to articles. The merge makes imposible to link to (and be linked by) the corresponding articles in other wikis, like wikidata:Q1148834.

Agreed.... article should be separated in two if someone can volunteer to do the work TGcoa (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guardian account of sentencing

[edit]

The Guardian article linked to at the bottom says that Mr Armstrong's defence (unusually for a crime report, they refer to him as such) claimed that he had been pushed into it by the others and Miss Richardson's referred to her age. This seems to go against the current Wikipedia article, which suggests they denied everything (and would presumably not wish to have claims like that made, since they didn't do it, under pressure from the others or otherwise). Billwilson5060 (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Gerry Conlon

[edit]

Shouldn't Gerry Conlon have his own article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political and social pressure on Police to obtain convictions

[edit]

Just wondering if the article should explore the extensive pressures put on the investigating police teams at the time. Politically the government wanted to round up the terrorists quickly to defer growing social unrest directed at the Irish communities in mainland UK after the Guildford bombings. The beatings (hidden as muggings at the time) of Irish people, at least four Irish clubs were attacked in London and Birmingham, various censorship notices were issued about riots against Irish communities in North London. Once the four bombers were arrested the social unrest against the Irish died away especially when the newspapers started reporting that the Irish community in London had given them up. At the time there was an internal police briefing paper doing the rounds.... "very real risk of certain parts London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester becoming much like Londonderry"...."there is a need to crack these terrorist cells before things escalate in mainland UK". The National Front was whipping up anti Irish sentiments and recruiting individuals who had a violent background mainly from Skinhead gangs and Football Hooligans. In hindsight the convictions were wrong - at the time they probably stopped a pogrom of far worse proportions against the Irish living in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bribieisland (talk • contribs) 07:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient introduction

[edit]

The reason the Guildford four are notable is because if the miscarriage of justice. Sentences of prisoners are often quashed and that is not enough to write an articl ein an encyclopedia. The introduction to this article, in order to be NPOV, has to mention this aspect of it. In addition, if the Prime Minister of a country officially apologizes to someone for their wrongful imprisonment, the term "miscarriage of justice" applied to this person is no longer an opinion, but a fact, since the Prime Minister is responsible for the application of judicial principles in the country. So, let's find a wording which is acceptable to most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.86.209 (talk) 07:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the Prime Minster in 2005 apologised is already in the article, and does not need to be in the lede. "the Prime Minister is responsible for the application of judicial principles in the country" - that's just unsourced POV with little basis in historical or legal fact. ISTB351 (talk) 07:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the introduction needs to give the key element. The key element of the Guildford Four case, and the only reason that it gets encyclopedia articles and films made out of it, is that it is a very famous miscarriage of justice. What do other people here think?83.200.86.209 (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need sources. Please see WP:RS and WP:OR. ISTB351 (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry/Giuseppe Conlon sharing a cell

[edit]

I have removed the statement that the Conlons were never in the same prison together as questionable unsourced BLP after this exchange. I found several sites suggesting the questioner is correct in his assertion, but none I could cite as a reliable source, and I don't have access to the Gerry Conlon book. There appears to be widespread agreement online that father and son never actually shared a cell as depicted in the movie, so I've let that stand. If anyone can provide a citation to confirm this it would be helpful. Karenjc 16:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re Mid-article para starting "Never any evidence .."

[edit]

I found 99% of a para starting "There was never any evidence that any of "The Four" had been involved with the Provisional IRA" deleted on 18 Mar 2013 without obvious cause or reason. The para itself was informative (although needing a citation for part), objective (IMHO) and fairly well written. The deletion was also inexpertly done, leaving the second half of a citation-reference behind on the page. I have therefore restored the para, and set a note here to explain my reasoning. Possibly the previous edit was just vandalism, but it seems more likely a case of someone 'disagreeing' with the statements in the para. I don't believe one should just excise whole portions without prior enquiry or discussion here. Hope I've done the right thing. Pete Hobbs (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"After their arrest, all four defendants confessed to the bombing under intense amount of coercion by the police."

[edit]

"After their arrest, all four defendants confessed to the bombing under intense amount of coercion by the police."

This statement is unacceptable. I do not know whether it is true or not, but it cannot be stated in Wikipedia without corroboration.

86.28.165.76 (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Conlon

[edit]

Should he have his own article? There are likely to be a few obituaries etc. soon. PatGallacher (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irish error

[edit]

The equivalent article in Irish is http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceathrar_Guildford but I get an error when trying to add ... clueless as to why! Pangur White (talk) 16:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guildford Four and Maguire Seven. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guildford Four and Maguire Seven. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 18:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven&oldid=1256560025"