285:"The officers conducting the raid were briefed that McCrudden was dangerous and known to be in the flats, about the potential firearm, and that Ashley was wanted for shooting a man in Eastbourne and had a previous conviction for attempted murder." - I find this sentence a bit unwieldy, perhaps it could be broken up
101:
officer who pulled the trigger was charged with murder, several more senior officers also faced charges, and the controversy cost the jobs of the chief constable, his deputy, and one of his assistant chiefs. Not content with that, the family sued the police and the case reached the UK's court of last resort.
841:
Thank you very much for your support and for your considered comments. The typo I've fixed. The rest, please leave with me for a few days while I consider how best to address them. Statistics are almost impossible because they require FOI'ing all 40-something police forces who don't like to give the
824:
One last point. In your nomination statement, you say "Armed policing is an emotive subjective in
Britain and police shootings attract a lot of media and academic attention." Do we have any examples of media and academic attention for this case (which perhaps links to my question about comments from
870:
I've added a comment from Punch and separated out Davies' remarks a little. There might be a tiny bit more to add from
Fenwick (I finally bit the bullet and purchased a copy because only one of the three relevant pages is on Google Books) when that arrives but barring a sentence or two I think I've
792:
This is difficult. Police shootings are rare in
Britain, but information is difficult to obtain. There are 44 territorial police forces in Great Britain (ie excluding Northern Ireland) and Squires and Kennison submitted freedom of information requests to all of them but most were declined. The Home
992:
On a couple of occasions it seems that names of officers could be mentioned at points but instead the article avoids doing so. We don't get
Sherwood's name till the section after the shooting, for example, and we get "the incident commander" and "the intelligence commander" instead of names. Is
913:
I was going to suggest that footnote b be moved to the first mention of attempted murder, in the "Prelude" section, but given that it is also mentioned in the "Shooting" section I think it should either be in both places or it should be in the main text -- it seems sufficiently important that a
337:
There's not really any more to say as far as I'm aware. A group of officers raid a building, each officer takes a room, if they find something they call for backup. Very dangerous if you're expecting to find an armed assailant behind one of the doors, and setting up a position where it's almost
100:
James Ashley was shot dead by armed police in his flat on the
English south coast in 1998. Armed policing is an emotive subjective in Britain and police shootings attract a lot of media and academic attention, especially when it turns out that the person shot was unarmed. In the aftermath, the
373:"the police also lacked plans for the building, hampering the raid as they encountered a locked internal door which had not been anticipated, and which blocked the door to Ashley's flat when open, delaying the officers in entering the flat" - I think this would be easier to read if broken up
1037:: I don't think this quite works. If they concocted the evidence, they weren't mis-representing it -- they were accurately representing the concocted evidence. Perhaps "the officers involved in its planning had "concocted" the evidence in order to justify the operation" would be enough.
1004:
and following sections) strongly discourage including the names of non-notable individuals, and their names wouldn't add anything to the reader's understanding. I only named
Sherwood because he interjected himself into the legal case when he could have stayed well clear.
249:
would suggest "Three or four paragraphs". I think the first two paragraphs are solid then paragraph three is ok, but paragraph four is just one sentence, so I feel it could be expanded, but I see where you are coming from also and am happy to see what other people think.
758:: This is an excellent article about a frankly terrifying subject. Particularly at the moment, it is a very uncomfortable story. I have no major concerns, just one minor point and a few questions. None of these points affect my support.
793:
Office collects statistics on the granting of authority for use of armed officers, but these are largely meaningless because most forces nowadays issue "standing authority" for armed response officers to carry sidearms. There's the
143:, thanks for taking a look. The police paid all damages at the High Court but the family appealed a point of law and won at the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords (after the police appealed). Is this not clear from the article?
730:
Thanks for the replies and clarifications. I still think the lead could be expanded slightly, but I'm happy to leave it to other commenters to mention if needs be. Changing to support, hope to see this on the frontpage.
794:
806:
Other than the court judgements and various statements by people involved, we don't have any "comment" on the story. Are there any examples/discussions of uninvolved people condemning/supporting the police
789:
We mention statistics from 2001 in the
Guardian about police shooting unarmed people. Do we have anything to set it into a wider context? For example, are there more up-to-date statistics available?
270:
In the lead it's "the House of Lords (then the United
Kingdom's highest court)", below it's "House of Lords, the United Kingdom's court of last resort" so maybe the second one needs "then" as well
227:
This is pretty comprehensive, I feel a bit more could be mentioned from the tail-end of the article. Could mention all four things the
Ashleys sued on and the police officers suing their force.
381:"Ashley was hit in the armpit" - i don't see armpit in the sources, although i am keywordsearching on googlebooks so i might not turn it up. just wanted to check because davies says chest
917:
I toyed with including it in the body but couldn't find a point where it seemed to fit naturally. Open to suggestions on that one, and I've put the footnote in both places for now.
384:
It's in Punch and
Squires & Kennison; the bullet entered his armpit and apparently ricocheted off his collarbone and down to his heart, but that felt like excessive detail.
810:
Do we need some wider numbers? Perhaps something like how many police shootings there were (not just of unarmed people)? Or the frequency of use of armed officers?
773:"that, as a general rule, no-one should be for a crime he or she did not intend to commit": Is there a word missing from this quotation, or has my brain gone soft?
996:
These people are not public figures and are not notable. Unlike the top brass, they've probably never attracted any public attention not related to this incident.
691:
My comments are mainly on readability and comprehensiveness, I enjoyed reading this well-written and neutral article about a case of terrible police misconduct.
125:
Just as an opening thought, certainly there must be some resolution to the civil case by now? Do you have any idea if it was settled, went to trial, etc.?
351:
Yes I looked into it some more and I see what you mean. It's such a ludicrous technique I thought there must be a bit more to it, but there isn't really!
40:
972:
I assume the point here is that not enough drugs to indicate trafficking were found, but if small amounts were found I think that could be mentioned.
920:
Good enough. I think you could make it "They were also told, incorrectly, that Ashley was...", and leave the details to the footnote, but up to you.
175:
File:James_Ashley.jpg: IMO the "not replaceable" component is skirting around the main point - the person was not a public figure and is now deceased
1069:
Just checking: is "Mrs Justice Linda Dobbs" really the appropriate title? I assume so, or you wouldn't put it that way, but it's surprising to see.
397:
thanks for checking, i was using Squires & Kennison on gbooks and didn't have full access (this also applies to the bermuda discussion above)
107:
for his help, which has included a GA review, and I believe it meets the standards for FA, but all feedback will be gratefully received. Thanks,
781:
I was going to ask about other similar instances, but this was covered in the impact section; could we add a little more on this to the lead?
1261:
30:
17:
1272:
1139:
1091:
1056:
1021:
933:
583:
Not that I've found. His mother did, but beyond calling for a public inquiry (which never happened) there's nothing remarkable in there.
475:
It's a subtle point, and not one that's directly relevant to Ashley, but it appears the officers deployed without any authority at all. "
1244:
1227:
1213:
1192:
1162:
1143:
1135:
1117:
1095:
1087:
1060:
1052:
1025:
1017:
958:
937:
929:
897:
883:
858:
834:
819:
767:
740:
717:
700:
635:
609:
499:
442:
406:
360:
323:
259:
205:
188:
155:
134:
119:
94:
433:
I still think it's better in the text because the alert reader will be wondering what happened to McCrudden, but it's not a big deal
580:
Did Ashley's son or father make a comment to the media at some point in the proceedings about how they felt they had been treated?
1078:
These are generally minor points. The prose is just about flawless; very impressive work. A fine, concise, depressing article.
679:
There don't appear to be to be any free images of anyone involved. Even Blunkett is a bit tenuous but I felt it needed something.
518:, i was going to ask for a wikilink on malfeasance. i can see though that you don't want to repeat the same word over and over.
798:
422:
I agree it begs the question, but it's not directly relevant to Ashley's death, which is why I put it in the footnotes/
653:"the 1999 Death of Harry Stanley, and the 2005 Death of Jean Charles de Menezes" - the two "Deaths" could be "deaths"
511:
1105:, thank you for your review. I believe I've addressed all your comments but I'm happy to discuss anything further.
334:
Can you expand a bit more on what the Bermuda technique was? i can see the Squires and Kennison gives more details
676:
Would be good to have some more images of the people mentioned, but I checked wikicommons and didn't find anyone.
533:" outstretched arm was holding a firearm and was about to fire" - "about to shoot"? (to avoid repetition of fire)
419:
I think noteA could be moved into the article body, since it is an automatic question what happened to McCrudden
234:
but the lead is already quite long because of all the twists and turns so I've tried to stick to the key events.
979:
what was found, though there was a comment on the talk page that suggested it was a small quantity of cannabis.
575:
I'm really not sure this is necessary. In context, I would say it's perfectly clear what we're talking about.
1131:
1083:
1048:
1013:
925:
130:
1239:
1208:
1112:
953:
878:
853:
712:
604:
594:
515:
200:
150:
140:
126:
114:
89:
72:
1223:
1188:
184:
664:
I don't think this is necessary considering the sentence explains that he's the new chief constable.
564:"(including negligence in the shooting itself)" - I got stuck on that, maybe "negligence regarding"
893:
830:
815:
763:
1158:
1127:
1102:
1079:
1044:
1035:
the officers involved in its planning had "concocted" the evidence and planned to misrepresent it
1009:
921:
572:"The majority" maybe "The majority of the appeal judges" or something just to explain it a bit
736:
696:
631:
495:
438:
402:
356:
319:
255:
103:
I've built the article largely on books I already had from previous articles. I'm indebted to
1265:
1233:
1202:
1106:
993:
this for BLP reasons? If so I'd be curious to hear the reasoning (I don't edit BLPs much).
947:
872:
847:
706:
598:
194:
144:
108:
83:
61:
1219:
1198:
1184:
559:
They're all lower case, which I believe is correct, though A-level law was many years ago!
464:"improperly granted authority for the use of firearms officers" or "for use of firearms"?
180:
193:
This was the boilerplate rationale from the template but I've expanded it a bit. Thanks.
1264:
has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
889:
865:
826:
811:
759:
246:
1201:. Your attention to detail is much appreciated. I think I've addressed everything. :)
970:
At the conclusion of the raid, no firearms or significant quantity of drugs was found.
1154:
1001:
997:
104:
53:
1072:
I believe this is the correct form of reference for a female high court judge, yes.
846:
pieces and Squires & Kennison describe their efforts in researching the book).
732:
692:
627:
588:
491:
434:
398:
352:
315:
251:
946:
And that's the benefit of a fresh pair of eyes! I've added "incorrectly". Thanks.
661:"Among Jones's" - could add Ken since we haven't seen him for a while in the text
1279:
57:
479:
deployed" would imply that they had some sort of authority for their actions.
797:
which has major issues with scope, and I'm thinking of creating a separate
914:
reader should not be unaware of it if they fail to check the footnotes.
593:} I've added a little bit from a 2009 statement, which may also address
338:
inevitable that an officer will shoot or be shot if they find someone.
1180:
FN16: linked source has a different title - is this the correct link?
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
1218:
FN8 has the authors the wrong way round, but otherwise looks good.
795:
List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United Kingdom
552:
Chief Constable of Sussex Police", article body says "Ashley
521:
Indeed. There's a tort and a crime but they share an article.
984:
I'd suggest moving footnote c to after the word "suspended"
472:"armed officers deployed" - "armed officers were deployed"?
458:
Police Complaints Authority could have (PCA) after it again
245:
To clarify what I meant here, the article is 35k long so
179:
no free image likely exists and none could be created.
65:
1174:
Be consistent in when you include publication location
705:
Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful comments.
626:
yes that really helps for balance to have that quote
842:information up (Davies mentions this in one of his
1288:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
1008:OK -- I figured it would be something like that.
303:No disrespect, but I think "lone" works better.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1294:No further edits should be made to this page.
1278:template in place on the talk page until the
801:or similar that includes non-fatal incidents.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
490:thanks for the explanation that makes sense
1177:FN8: linked source includes another author
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
799:list of police shootings in Great Britain
300:"lone officers" maybe "single officers"?
1232:I've swapped them round. Thanks again!
1034:
969:
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
1126:. Fixes look good; excellent work.
1240:
1209:
1113:
954:
879:
854:
713:
605:
201:
151:
115:
90:
556:Chief Constable of Sussex Police"
24:
888:That's fine, still looking good.
1153:Source review? Or am I blind? --
1:
1183:FN20: page? Same with FN37.
288:Fair point. I've tweaked it.
1273:featured article candidates
908:Comments from Mike Christie
512:misconduct in public office
31:featured article nomination
1311:
975:The sources don't specify
1245:20:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1228:20:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1214:20:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
1193:19:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1163:14:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
1144:01:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1118:15:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
1096:12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
1061:01:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
1026:01:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
959:10:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
938:01:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
898:16:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
884:15:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
871:addressed everything. :)
859:21:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
835:10:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
820:10:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
768:10:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
1291:Please do not modify it.
1241:Penny for your thoughts?
1210:Penny for your thoughts?
1114:Penny for your thoughts?
955:Penny for your thoughts?
880:Penny for your thoughts?
855:Penny for your thoughts?
741:09:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
718:23:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
714:Penny for your thoughts?
701:18:12, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
636:09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
610:13:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
606:Penny for your thoughts?
500:09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
443:09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
407:09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
361:09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
324:09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
260:09:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
206:23:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
202:Penny for your thoughts?
189:22:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
167:Suggest adding alt text
156:09:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
152:Penny for your thoughts?
135:00:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
120:11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
116:Penny for your thoughts?
95:11:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
91:Penny for your thoughts?
36:Please do not modify it.
1170:- spotchecks not done
548:Infobox says "Ashley
516:Malfeasance in office
73:Death of James Ashley
1040:Changed to an "or".
751:Comments by Sarastro
217:Support by mujinga
97:
1302:
1293:
1277:
1271:
1268:, and leave the
1242:
1211:
1115:
956:
881:
869:
856:
715:
607:
597:'s query above.
592:
203:
153:
117:
92:
79:
48:The article was
38:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1289:
1275:
1269:
1151:
910:
863:
753:
586:
219:
76:
64:) 22 June 2020
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1308:
1306:
1297:
1296:
1284:
1283:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1150:
1147:
1121:
1120:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1000:(specifically
990:
989:
988:
982:
981:
980:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
941:
940:
909:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
838:
837:
822:
808:
804:
803:
802:
787:
786:
785:
779:
778:
777:
752:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
723:
722:
721:
720:
683:
682:
681:
680:
668:
667:
666:
665:
659:
658:
657:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
578:
577:
576:
570:
569:
568:
562:
561:
560:
540:
539:
538:
537:
525:
524:
523:
522:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
483:
482:
481:
480:
470:
469:
468:
462:
459:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
426:
425:
424:
423:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
388:
387:
386:
385:
379:
378:
377:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
342:
341:
340:
339:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
307:
306:
305:
304:
292:
291:
290:
289:
277:
276:
275:
274:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
247:MOS:LEADLENGTH
238:
237:
236:
235:
218:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
173:
172:
171:
161:
160:
159:
158:
99:
98:
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1307:
1295:
1292:
1286:
1285:
1282:goes through.
1281:
1274:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1256:
1255:
1246:
1243:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1206:
1205:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1168:Source review
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1148:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:Mike Christie
1125:
1119:
1116:
1110:
1109:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1080:Mike Christie
1071:
1070:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:Mike Christie
1042:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:Mike Christie
1007:
1006:
1003:
999:
995:
994:
991:
986:
985:
983:
978:
974:
973:
971:
968:
960:
957:
951:
950:
945:
944:
943:
942:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:Mike Christie
919:
918:
916:
915:
912:
911:
907:
899:
895:
891:
887:
886:
885:
882:
876:
875:
867:
862:
861:
860:
857:
851:
850:
845:
840:
839:
836:
832:
828:
823:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
800:
796:
791:
790:
788:
783:
782:
780:
775:
774:
772:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
757:
750:
742:
738:
734:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
719:
716:
710:
709:
704:
703:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
687:
678:
677:
675:
674:
673:
672:
663:
662:
660:
655:
654:
652:
651:
650:
649:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
611:
608:
602:
601:
596:
595:Therapyisgood
590:
585:
584:
582:
581:
579:
574:
573:
571:
566:
565:
563:
558:
557:
555:
551:
547:
546:
545:
544:
535:
534:
532:
531:
530:
529:
520:
519:
517:
513:
509:
508:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
478:
474:
473:
471:
466:
465:
463:
460:
457:
456:
455:
454:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
421:
420:
418:
417:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
383:
382:
380:
375:
374:
372:
371:
362:
358:
354:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
336:
335:
333:
332:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
302:
301:
299:
298:
297:
296:
287:
286:
284:
283:
282:
281:
272:
271:
269:
268:
261:
257:
253:
248:
244:
243:
242:
241:
240:
239:
233:
229:
228:
226:
225:
224:
223:
216:
213:
207:
204:
198:
197:
192:
191:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
169:
168:
166:
165:
164:
157:
154:
148:
147:
142:
141:Therapyisgood
138:
137:
136:
132:
128:
127:Therapyisgood
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
112:
111:
106:
96:
93:
87:
86:
82:
81:Nominator(s):
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1290:
1287:
1258:Closing note
1257:
1234:
1203:
1167:
1166:
1152:
1123:
1122:
1107:
1077:
1043:That works.
976:
948:
873:
848:
843:
755:
754:
707:
685:
684:
670:
669:
647:
646:
599:
553:
549:
542:
541:
528:Prosecutions
527:
526:
476:
452:
451:
294:
293:
279:
278:
231:
221:
220:
214:
195:
176:
163:Image review
162:
145:
109:
102:
84:
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1235:HJ Mitchell
1204:HJ Mitchell
1108:HJ Mitchell
949:HJ Mitchell
874:HJ Mitchell
849:HJ Mitchell
708:HJ Mitchell
600:HJ Mitchell
196:HJ Mitchell
146:HJ Mitchell
110:HJ Mitchell
85:HJ Mitchell
1220:Nikkimaria
1185:Nikkimaria
1149:Coord note
543:Civil case
181:Nikkimaria
1266:WP:FAC/ar
1262:candidate
866:Sarastro1
825:others)?
514:pipes to
453:Inquiries
177:therefore
1260:: This
1155:Ealdgyth
1136:contribs
1088:contribs
1053:contribs
1018:contribs
930:contribs
890:Sarastro
844:Guardian
827:Sarastro
812:Sarastro
807:actions?
760:Sarastro
295:Shooting
215:Comments
105:SchroCat
54:Ealdgyth
50:promoted
1197:Thanks
1140:library
1124:Support
1092:library
1057:library
1022:library
977:exactly
934:library
756:Support
733:Mujinga
693:Mujinga
686:Overall
628:Mujinga
589:Mujinga
492:Mujinga
435:Mujinga
399:Mujinga
353:Mujinga
316:Mujinga
280:Prelude
252:Mujinga
1002:WP:NPF
998:WP:BLP
776:Fixed.
671:Images
648:Impact
510:since
58:FACBot
1199:Nikki
987:Done.
784:Done.
656:Done.
567:Done.
536:Done.
467:Done.
461:Done.
376:Done.
314:sure
273:Done.
232:could
170:Done.
16:<
1224:talk
1189:talk
1159:talk
1132:talk
1103:Mike
1084:talk
1049:talk
1014:talk
926:talk
894:talk
831:talk
816:talk
764:talk
737:talk
697:talk
632:talk
496:talk
477:Were
439:talk
403:talk
357:talk
320:talk
256:talk
222:Lead
185:talk
139:Hi,
131:talk
62:talk
56:via
1280:bot
1138:-
1101:Hi
1090:-
1055:-
1020:-
932:-
52:by
1276:}}
1270:{{
1238:|
1226:)
1207:|
1191:)
1161:)
1142:)
1134:-
1111:|
1094:)
1086:-
1059:)
1051:-
1024:)
1016:-
952:|
936:)
928:-
896:)
877:|
852:|
833:)
818:)
766:)
739:)
711:|
699:)
634:)
603:|
498:)
441:)
405:)
359:)
322:)
258:)
230:I
199:|
187:)
149:|
133:)
113:|
88:|
67:.
33:.
1222:(
1187:(
1157:(
1130:(
1082:(
1047:(
1012:(
924:(
892:(
868::
864:@
829:(
814:(
762:(
735:(
695:(
630:(
591::
587:@
554:v
550:V
494:(
437:(
401:(
355:(
318:(
254:(
183:(
129:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.