Jump to content

Talk:Essex lorry deaths/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Lead photo

The current photo is misleading. Not only is it a different place, more than a mile from the location in question, its semi-derelict appearance is quite unlike the actual location in Eastern Avenue on a modern commercial estate - the lorry was parked in front of the circular fuel tank here. Davidships (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In short, it's the only commons image of Grays that's not residential. The image caption doesn't say it's Eastern Avenue, but we can make that clearer if you like. Kingsif (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Any objection to using a similar truck photo? The truck strikes me as the thing people find weird here, not the scenery. Well, the 39 corpses, but a representative truck seems much easier. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Updated to a more generic image of Grays, but no objection to a generic Scania truck. Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Agree with IH that a photo illustrating the lorry is much more important. Despite a big gallery of Scania trucks, it is most important to have the right type of trailer (ie not curtain-sided or soft top), nor a maritime container - the nearest are probably this (though only a two axle cab) and this(which shows the separation of cab and trailer better). Davidships (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Put the second image in the article. You can move them around if you want. Kingsif (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the image of the lorry, because it clearly displays a brand name which, unless I'm missing something, is not associated with this incident. This can cause problems for the company in the real world. We have experience of similar problems with aeroplane crash articles. No image is better than a damaging image. -- zzuuzz (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Good call. If it has to be an ad, at least not for a food product. Maybe truck rental, like David's first pick. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know, they're visibly different trucks (by size of cab as well as decals). We could just, digitally remove the logo. Kingsif (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
That seems even worse. Some eagle-eyed viewer might figure we were paid to hide the truth, even if there was nothing to hide. Streisand effect, kinda. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Really? There seems to be this conspiracy side of everything I haven't been introduced to. Up with the plainer truck, whoever wants to rearrange the images. Kingsif (talk) 09:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I have suggested this better one below which has no decals. I cannot see any problem with that one, appropriately labelled. Davidships (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I've added that one with what I hope is an appropriate description. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The PM, or just PM?

Basically, when referring to British politicians in a cabinet role, all I've ever seen (you know, presently living in London) is the form "Title Name did this". Never have I seen "The job title, name as an aside, and then what they did". And, one quick look at the BBC News UK home, find the first article about PM, and we have this which... Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said he does not want a Brexit delay. Oh look, that's exactly how the BBC did it yesterday. Pinging @SchroCat:, after they started an edit war, to get their head out of their ass. Grammar accounts for regional common term usage, obviously. In American English, since they don't have these people, it'd probably be the other way. But since the British press and public do it one way, even if in defiance of traditional grammar, that's the way it gets written. I try not to make things harder than they have to be, man, so just think a little. (And never have I once heard "Channel 4 television", where on Earth do you live!?) Kingsif (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Also see the BBC article used to cite Patel, which reads in the same format: Home Secretary Priti Patel said... - or were you just avoiding close paraphrasing? Kingsif (talk) 08:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
"get their head out of their ass"? Do you honestly think that's going to make things go smoothly here? Mind you, coming from "I firmly trust my own knowledge above just about everyone else on this matter", I think we need to know all we do about your approach to collegiate editing.
I do not care how the news sources phrase these things: this is an encyclopaedia, not a news feed. This is the gramatically correct way to write this out in high-quality British English. I am sorry if you cannot tell the difference between "correct" usage and lazy-arsed journalism usage, but this isn't a hill on which you need to start getting abusive to others. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
It's called snark, I thought it would appeal to you after the edit comment you made about someone's writing being shite? This isn't a place to throw around credentials, so excluding myself (because we all believe we know grammar better than the next guy, right), I know I trust the intensively-educated journalists of the BBC (do you know how hard it is to be employed for the written word there?) as an authority on British grammar that's not 100 years old. And, to keep it short, I can't appreciate an argument against that trust which is composed of basically 'but no'. Do you have any actual reason to disqualify the BBC's standardised phrasing? Or are you an absolute prescriptivist, Dr Johnson? Kingsif (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
If you really, really want to look at newspapers, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These - and the BBC - are all still just journalists, however, not writers of encyclopaedic content. We are not writing news content, we're writing at a higher standard. I know several of the BBC journalists, and their "intensive education" is not geared towards encyclopaedic content, but to short, snappy news prose - a very different kettle of fish. I have no idea what your "100 years old" comment has to do with anything: as you can see from some of the quality end of the press, it's still rather current, not dumbed down for the under 20's yoof market, like. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Note on the 100 years old: that's more or less a joke I cannot be bothered to explain. Here's where I get into the 'but those examples are a different use... contextual emphasis somewhere else... I didn't look at the Telegraph 'cos I barely trust that one, to be honest...' Before I put some brain power into actually typing stuff up, any chance you're going to budge on this? Because, frankly we're both kind of right: stuck-up grammar rules your way and the way it's commonly used in the context we're discussing? is closer to the side I've taken up. It's something I'd change if I came across it in an article, but if I saw resistance back to how it was, I'd leave it; I imagined the same thought process over with most editors. tl;dr I'd rather have breakfast than push hard on this one, but I see no reason to change it from how it was written as "Prime Minister Boris Johnson said...", etc. Kingsif (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The reason I changed it is because it's lazy and wrong. It may be used in journalese, who tend to take a lead from American imported language, but it's not correct in British English when being written for encyclopaedic content. It's not "stuck up", it's correct, (versus lazy). I'd prefer not to throw all the rules of grammar out of the window simply because a small number journos write that way. Despite your dislike of the Telegraph, you'll note I also included the Guardian, Independent and Andrew Marr to show just how out-dated my usage is... - SchroCat (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
This is where I shrug and go Surtsicna changed it to something else anyway. Kingsif (talk) 09:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
But also the Channel 4 thing. Does "British television station Channel 4" displease you, because it's more informative than 'Channel 4 television', and the only of the two that's actually correct as far as I've ever seen and heard it. (Ah, yes, having someone vigorously edit against you for seemingly obtuse reasons does make you want to push back at the time) Kingsif (talk) 09:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
As you say you've never heard it called "Channel 4 Television": [6], [7] and [8] are a small number of examples. As it stands, the point is slightly moot, as it now reads "After the news spread, Channel 4 announced the postponement of a television series called Smuggled", which is even better. - SchroCat (talk) 09:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
It is better. (For the sources, those are all evidently referring to the parent company.) Kingsif (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
No, they do not refer to the parent company. The parent is "Channel Four Television Corporation": those sources refer to "Channel 4 Television". This isn't about just dropping the "Corporation" element: it's about the way the 4/Four, and as one of the documents is part of the Channel 4 style guide, I think they should know what they are on about. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Just PM is better, we shouldn't prefix the with prime minister they are not unique they are just a person like engineers and lawyers and doing their job for what he/she has appointed. Jorvee 18:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Jorvee (talk • contribs)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2019

Change the title "2019 Grays incident" to "2019 Grays lorry incident" as it provides more context for people who know little about this incident. Simply saying "2019 Grays incident" may confuse people and make it difficult for people to find this story if they're looking for it. ZackMichaels22 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: has been discussed above in the "Title" thread, but no clear consensus has emerged. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Type - 'Homicide'

Is it me or I don't think that the type should be displayed at this current time as the cause of death hasn't been found. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThamesideBuses (talk • contribs) 17:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree and have removed. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
To be consistent with 2000 Dover incident it would probbaly have to be e.g. "Carbon monoxide poisoning, asphyxia". But wholly agree that cause of death has not been formally established. It might eventually be deemed accidental death rather than homicide. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Quite possibly, but it's just speculation for now. For all we know, this could be an international criminal ring of grave robbers or something! (to pick the most unlikely thing that would still fit the few known facts). There is no rush to fill in the blanks. Nfitz (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd bet on bodysnatchers over mass suicide, but yeah, both are highly considerable underdogs (meaning forget about them). The important thing to remember is suicide, homicide, natural causes and accident are manners of death, while asphyxiation, hypothermia, poisoning and cirrhosis are causes of death. Everyone has both, determined or not, underlying and immediate (causes only). Even otherwise undocumented migrants; it's just universally right. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Not clear

To me, it's still not clear why the ambulance service is 'credited' as the finder/discoverer of the bodies.

Why would the ambulance service be called if no one, supposedly, knew that there were bodies inside the lorry ("semi trailer" here in the U.S.).

The whole discovery 'thing'/event is very unclear and sounds very conspiratorial. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree. It is rather odd. Not even sure why the driver would have opened the doors of the refrigerated trailer (not really "a lorry" in common British English). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Presumably we'll eventually find out who called the ambulance service, and why (the whole unit, including the trailer, is called an "articulated lorry" in British English). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I thought they were called "trucky-trailer" in the US [9] Nil Einne (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I guess it might, more accurately, be called "a refrigerated articulated lorry". This case highlights the fact that the refrigerated trailer and the tractor unit (the "front end", of cab and engine) can come from totally different origins. As this is an article about an incident in the UK, we need to stick to British English. The image of the lorry ought to make things pretty clear. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
At least one report says it was the driver who called the ambulance, but that was on a live updates feed and based off the word of one witness, so hold off from adding that just yet. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
"At least"? Do you have even one source you can share here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
There are claims from friends that the driver is the one who called the ambulance service [10] or simply that it's believed ("thought") [11]. Although I suspect it's correct, IMO we need to wait. The ambulance have declined to say how they were alerted [12]. Given this is the UK and not the US, there's a fair chance it will be a while before we get sufficient confirmation of this but I'm sure it will come out eventually. Nil Einne (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that source from The Guardian just says: "Essex police were alerted to the discovery of the bodies of 38 adults and one teenager in a unit at an industrial park in Grays by the ambulance service at 1.40am on Wednesday." US emergency service provision is that much more transparent on the internet? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what's odd. They were probably first to fully investigate. Whoever called them had unlikely counted ... or carefully checked everyone for a pulse. I wouldn't read much into it - I'm sure more details will become available. Nfitz (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The "investigator" is just that, the investigator not the "discoverer." That 'label' would go to whomever actually first saw the bodies; which I doubt was the ambulance service staff. There had to be a reason for the ambulance service to be called before, or instead of, the police (at least that's the inference I'm getting). In my experience, if something is wonky, you call the police, not an ambulance service (which, as mentioned in The Guardian, would've called the police anyway).
Also what's not clear is why the container was opened in the first place. Regular inspection? Someone verifying the shipment? Something unusual? What?
Or am I missing something in all of this?
And to clarify a small point, the type of lorry the bodies were found in would be, more accurately, called a "reefer" or "reefer unit" (which is the abbreviation/lingo for a "refrigerated semi trailer") here in the U.S. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

This is OR but it doesn't seem that hard to understand to me, even if we haven't yet had confirmation of all the details. Seems to me if you open a container and find 39 dead looking people you'd ask for ambulance when calling 999 (emergency telephone number), especially if you lack the experience or fortitude to tell if these very cold dead looking people are bodies with no hope for recovery or there is some chance they could be revived.

If there was some active danger, then maybe you'd ask for police (and per the article it's also what 999 will default to if you don't know). Whoever you're put through is likely to assess the situation anyway and if there is some danger but also someone has been injured or may be dead then I suspect it's likely both police and ambulance/s will both be sent, with the police ensuring things are safe before the ambulance service do their work. Only if you find someone extremely obviously dead e.g. a decomposing body then maybe will you not bother with the ambulance and just call police to report it as an unexplained death.

I suspect this is how things are handled in a lot of the world although the specifics may be different (e.g. in some cases the emergency operator is one service). But perhaps things are different in the US and it's normal to only send police when people may be dying and there's no active danger. (From the way some police shootings seem to have been handled, perhaps this isn't surprising.) While we don't confirmation whoever called knew about the bodies when they called, this is both the logical conclusion and also what the people mentioned in the Telegraph source seem to be suggesting.

As for why whoever did call may have opened the container, we know the police have arrested someone on suspicion of murder suggesting they believe this person knew of the operation. They haven't yet charged the person and could be completely wrong in which case, we do have an open question of 'why', but it's likely time will clarify things and at this time what has been suggested makes sense.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I guess you might open the doors if you saw that the seal was broken and you suspected the contents had been stolen or interfered with. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
There are reports (via the tabloid Daily Mirror here) that Mo Robinson "passed out" after discovering the bodies. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The Telegraph actually say they got it from the Evening Standard not the Daily Mail. Nil Einne (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
There are all sorts of possible scenarios, but talking about them doen't help write a better article in the absence of multiple RS. Davidships (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
IMO it can, when it hopefully helps avoid pointless confusion like the OP's. As I said, from the details which have been suggested, nothing seems that confusing even if we do not yet have sufficient confirmation of them to add them to the article. We could just delete the OP's questions but IMO especially since this talk page is not that active, it's reasonable to try help the OP understand so we don't get more discussion arising from unnecessary confusion. Over time, it will become clearer whether the early media reports are correct, but as it stands, this is one of the cases where what's been reported largely makes sense even if it hasn't been sufficiently confirmed to add. It isn't one of those cases where what's been reported makes absolutely no sense and we're clearly missing something major that remains unknown which is how the OP seems to be treating it. There are plenty of other scenarios like that suggested by Martinevans123 or the OP and I'm not suggesting we discuss them all, only that it's reasonable to explain why the information available from sources makes sense and doesn't seem that confusing. I should clarify that we don't know why the person opened the container, my point was that it isn't surprising that they may have done so, from the details available. Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review 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: Moved to "Essex lorry deaths" as the current common name. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


2019 Grays incident → 2019 Essex lorry deaths – "Essex lorry deaths" appears to be the current COMMONNAME for this event. Added year per WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions but we can go with WP:NOYEAR. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - we might eventually settle on something else but it's an improvement on the current name. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support - It may well end up with this title, but I'd be inclined to let it run for another 24 hours before moving it only to have to move it again. - SchroCat (talk) 09:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Per the media searches, and what seems to be a slight edge of consensus here (and in the wider world), I'd support Essex Lorry deaths. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Ythlev (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. In any case it is a much more general and accessible title. talk to !dave 09:31, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If the title is a mere "incident",then what is the incident? Most probably "lorry deaths" better summarizes the article.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support Essex is a big place, maybe instead change to 2019 Grays lorry deaths, especially since the truck arrived at Purfleet. Seemplez | Chat 10:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose with the unnecessary year in it - per WP:NOYEAR, or are we aware of any other Essex lorry deaths cases? Also oppose per User:Davidships's reasoning below about place of death. I would support "Essex lorry bodies". -- DeFacto (talk). 11:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    @DeFacto: Take a look at the examples in WP:NOYEAR. They are the most notable events of their kinds, if not the only event. This event is unlikely to be one of them. Ythlev (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Ythlev: it currently is one of them - they are all events which do not need a year to disambiguate them from similar events which would otherwise have exactly the same title. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    @DeFacto: No buddy. Read the guidelines before quoting one. The year shouldn't be left out just because it isn't strictly necessary. Examples of some events that are so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title. Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. Are you likely going to remember this event in 10 years? Ythlev (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Ythlev: the quotes make my point. Can you show us another article that might be confused with "Essex lorry deaths"? If not, it shows this one is so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title and it is so immediately identifiable that the date is not needed in the article title. And do you think that in 10 years time it would be helpful to have to remember that it happened in 2019 as well as that it involved lorry deaths in Essex? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
This will be remembered by many people a decade from now, in the same way that the 2000 Dover incident is still remembered by many, over 19 y later- although few would call it an incident.
I see no advantage to using Essex in the title instead of the more precise Grays. Jim Michael (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: do you think having the year in the title is necessary, and if so - why? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
No, because this many people being killed in one incident (of any type) has been rare in W Europe since the end of WW2. There's no need for the year as an identifier, disambiguator etc. If the 2000 Dover incident had a more descriptive title, 2000 wouldn't be needed in it - & in any case the year will be in the redirected original title. If you've heard of either tragedy, you're not likely to describe them by their years; if you haven't heard of them, why would you even think of the year? Jim Michael (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jim Michael: thanks for the clarification, now I know we agree on this. I didn't know if your reply to my argument against including the year was in support of it, or not. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support much better than current meaningless title. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it is most unlikely that the people died in Essex (the trailer had been there about an hour), and neither was the lorry from Essex. The "incident" at Barking Grays was the discovery. Something closer to Burgenland corpses discovery would be better. Davidships (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Davidships: I agree, and was about to write that too. I have amended my above comment to reflect this. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Davidships: You meant "Essex", not "Barking"? However, I agree with you. This BBC news article published about half an hour ago stated that there is a high possibility that a missing Vietnamese woman whose last instant message reading "I am dying, I can't breathe. I love you very much Mum and Dad. I am sorry, Mother." sent on 22:30 22 October (BST) was in the same lorry. It's highly unlikely that they would continue to survive in this emergency since the bodies were found on 01:30, 23 October (BST), about 3 hours after that last message was sent. Wei4Green · 唯绿远大 15:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1) There's no indication the deaths occurred in the UK, let alone Essex. 2) Essex County Council indicates that Grays (Thurrock) hasn't been in Essex since 1998. 3) Why the year - are there other articles this would be confused with? There is WP:NORUSH and the title would surely change as the investigation progresses. The current name is fine - for now. Nfitz (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Grays is still in Essex, even if it isn't governed by the non-metropolitan council. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed, Grays may not be governed by Essex County Council, but is still in the geographical/ceremonial county of Essex. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    By that argument, shouldn't 2017 Westminster attack at least mention Middlesex or Greater London, which it also was removed from in the latter half of the last century? Should we be standing on ceremony or fact? Either way - why not use the town or borough name? The objection based on what country (let alone county) the deaths were in still stands. Nfitz (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Middlesex was permanently abolished in 1965, so it certainly shouldn't be mentioned on an article about an event that happened over 5 decades later. Greater London is the same thing as London. That's a different situation to Grays, which is still in Essex; it's merely that its borough, Thurrock, is no longer administered by Essex County Council. Jim Michael (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I concur with that, Middlesex is an historic county - it doesn't exist anymore, but Essex still exists as a county. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
See the list of sources below: it's referred to fairly heavily in the UK media as "Essex lorry deaths": it's still in the county of Essex. - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify: there are two sets of counties with an official definition. These are administrative counties (county council areas) and ceremonial counties (Lord Lieutenant areas). Thurrock is in the ceremonial county of Essex but not the administrative county of Essex. For example, that's why it is served by Essex Police, but not by Essex County Council. By comparison, Middlesex no longer exists as either a ceremonial or an administrative county.
  • Oppose – Mainly because lorry is exclusively British English. Suggest instead "Essex container deaths" (but please see my benighted comment on Essex above). – Sca (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Wrong: it's the preferred term in the UK, Ireland, Malaysia, Singapore, India and others. Aussies and Kiwis also use the term "Lorry", although "truck is more prevalent". A "container" is a vessel in which to hold or store things. While it does also mean a shipping container, the use is wider, which means it's going to confuse people. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Kiwis do NOT generally use "lorry". It's almost unheard of, but occasionally used. "Truck" is the usual word. Use "lorry" here and half the population will not understand you. The other half will laugh you off as a Pommy immigrant. Akld guy (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    Which is essentially what I said: some use it, 'although "truck is more prevalent"'. The Kiwis I met when I was last there used the term on more than one occasion, but truck more often than not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    No, you are misrepresenting the usage. In New Zealand, "truck" has near-universal usage and "lorry" is almost unheard of. It's a peculiarly British term. The only people who use it in NZ are English immigrants. Akld guy (talk) 07:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    Aside from the fact I've heard several native Kiwis use the term, as has been shown above, this is not a "peculiarly British term": there is extensive use outside Britain. TITLEVAR takes precedence here, and the large number of English speakers who may use "truck" as the primary term will also u derstand "lorry"; for those who don't and will type the word "truck", the redirects will direct them to the right page. - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    Addendum: [13], [14], [15], [16] (image caption), [17], [18], [19], etc. As I said above: although "truck" is the primary term in NZ, "lorry" is used by some (including the media), and is understood. I think we're done on this micro point, particularly as we're still on NATIONALTIES as the guideline. – SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    This [20] has an interesting perspective and mostly agrees with Akld guy even if it's only one person's perspective. Although I'm not sure about the claim that half won't understand the term. I'm also not sure if sources from this incident or any incident from the UK, are a great example other than perhaps to challenge the suggestion it won't be understood. Modern NZ media, as with a lot of media, has a tendency to copy foreign media and agency sources with little change sometimes without even making it clear they did so. Sources like [21] are better although it's also possible without further research that such sources were written by an immigrant from the UK somewhat proving Akld guy's point. Even sources like [22] aren't very good IMO. I do think Akld guy's "It's a peculiarly British term" is confusing. If it's meant how the term is viewed in NZ it may be fair. But it's not correct in general, e.g. I can confirm that lorry is very common in Malaysian English. Funnily enough, a quick Google search for 'lorry' in thestar.com.my, finds mostly reports on local events but 'truck' is mostly finding reports from this event coming I think from agency sources. I also believe, and this is somewhat reflected in the first source I provided, that lorry was used in NZ a lot more common in the distant past. See e.g. [23]. Nil Einne (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    This seems to be moving further and further away from the point here. As the media searches show, "Lorry" is still used on ocassion in NZ, and no-one is saying that "truck" is not the primary term there. "Lorry" will be understood in NZ, as it is in many, many other places. All this is rather moot, and the events have nothing to do with NZ: they are in the UK, and WP:NATIONALTIES is the bit that is important. I think we can all now move on from the question of the specific variant used in a country unconnected with the event. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see the need to change the article name - but the objection is because Lorry is English English ... in England? In an article tagged to used English English? I don't see that there's any need to use foreign variants of the English language! Nfitz (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Indeed: it's one of the reasons we have redirects, so that foreign terms can lead to an article without problems. - SchroCat (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, lorry is not a term readily understood by approximately three-quarters of the world's native speakers of English as a first language, who happen to reside in the U.S. This is not British Wikipedia, it's the English-language Wikipedia. Your comments are POV. – Sca (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Nonsense. Most of the people who speak English will understand "lorry", even if it is not the primary word they will use. Not everything on WP has to be geared up for US readers - that's your POV. You're right that it's not British Wikipedia, but by the very same coin, it is not American WP either. Wikipedia:NATIONALTIES determines we don't use 'foreign' terms. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The article is in British English, and the word is understandable to 100% of British English speakers. I can't possibly understand User:Sca how you claim that 75% of English speakers wouldn't understand the word - looking at List of territorial entities where English is an official language, the largest number of English speakers is in Asia - where I have also heard lorry used. There's perhaps one country on that list which might have an issue with comprehension - and the world isn't centred around them! Nfitz (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Why do you focus exclusively on people who speak English as a first language? According to Ethnologue, those who speak it as a second language outnumber those who speak it as their first language approximately two-to-one.[1] TompaDompa (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sca. If you want to change long-established WP Policy in WP:TITLEVAR, it cannot be done here. Davidships (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sca: "container" wouldn't work because that is ambiguous as it could be confused with intermodal containers which are called "containers" in the UK, and they were not involved in this incident. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The current title is vague, amibigious and not helpful. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current title for being too vague. Oppose the proposed title because it states that the victims died in Essex, which is unlikely to be true. The title should include Thurrock rather than Essex, to be accurate. It should be Thurrock corpses discovery. Jim Michael (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Jim Michael: @Nfitz: @Davidships: it states that the victims died in Essex. Does it? Is that how English works? This reminds me of the question of which country prosecutes crimes on international flights. I see nothing wrong with referring to a death where it was discovered. It is done a lot in modern language. In this case it is likely that we will never know where they actually died. Ythlev

(talk) 17:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Grays/Essex lorry deaths is saying that the deaths occurred there. The victims were discovered dead there, but it's unlikely that they died there, so we shouldn't give a title that gives that impression - even if many media sources do. Jim Michael (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I never thought I'd say this, but yes, you're reading that correctly. And saying so confidently! It could also mean a truck from Essex killed people, but dying and finding bodies are completely different events and any writer suggesting otherwise is either careless or daffy about English. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The year doesn't need to be in the title.
Why do you want to make readers think from the title that the victims died in Grays? We don't know where they died, but it's unlikely to have been in Grays. What we do know, & the relevance of Grays, is that they were discovered dead there. Jim Michael (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
It's hardly OR since pretty well all the sources refer to "corpses/bodies" and "discover". Whether it would make a good title can be for discussion, but at least it is accurate and unambiguous.

Just as a matter of interest, I searched the four main daily broadsheets and the main broadcast news channels. There seems to be a bias towards "Essex lorry deaths", but there are variants. A very quick look at non-UK news didn't show any common terms used

Whether people want to take these into consideration or not is up to them - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Weakly oppose: Mainly because it implies the deaths happened in Essex, when they likely happened earlier in the container's journey. Grays is a more specific location and 'lorry' is specific to British English. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: 2019 Grays incident representing better. Jorvee 18:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashid Jorvee (talk • contribs)
  • Support, SchroCat's sources above show that this is the WP:COMMONNAME, at least for British sources. The term 'lorry' is fine per WP:TITLEVAR. The Vietnamese woman's text seems to indicate that the deaths occurred during the crossing, as the crossing is 8-10 hours ([31], [32]), so no other place on land would be reasonable (using 'English Channel crossing lorry deaths' would be weird, imo). Danski454 (talk) 21:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose: Refer to 2000 Dover incident, a similar incident, which the naming of this article seems to be based upon JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should include people smuggling/trafficking in the title, because that's not the reason for this event being notable & rare. International people smuggling & trafficking happen all the time, but what makes this notable & rare is that a large number of corpses were discovered in one place. In addition, because suspects have been arrested, no-one's been convicted & a trial is likely, we shouldn't include murder or manslaughter in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Nay Unknown death location, needless and totally uncommon year. I like the part about the truck. But 33% approval is what it is. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a move to something along the lines of "Grays body discoveries" or something like that, in which case I'd think we'd need the year as well: "2019 Grays body discoveries". This at least eliminates any ambiguity surrounding the use of "lorry" or "incident" -- though I will mention that we have numerous articles which specifically use British terminology and spelling for various reasons, most notably if the article is describing a subject who is/was British or hailed from one of their commonwealths, or an event that is/was centered in/around the United Kingdom and/or its commonwealths. In any case, this article centers around the discovery incident rather than the actual death incident(s), right? So, it would make more sense to include "discoveries" in the title. Black Yoshi (Yoshi! | Yoshi's Eggs) 04:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support this is what the news is generally calling it, although these people didn't die in Essex we can change the title when more info arises. Currently though I see a need for change as "2019 Grays incident" is so non-specific. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Propose moving - this doesn't have to be the final destination, it's just an improvement on what we currently have. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose current title isn't great - being vague, but proposed title isn't better - being inaccurate, at least in implication. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC).
  • Support move Current title is totally vague. Gray's incident is not very well known to people outside the United Kingdom. People know it was in Essex, and more importantly lorry has to be in the title. That's what the whole case is about. Could keep it as Essex Lorry incident as well to prevent ambiguity, but nevertheless. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per common name (with or without a year). Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 16:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mostly support. Would prefer "Essex lorry deaths" as that is the common name, but with the year would be okay. Definitely not with the word "incident" which is meaningless.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
In what way is it helpful to be vague by changing Grays to Essex? I've noticed that the actual location of the discovery is West Thurrock, so the title should be Thurrock corpses discovery. Jim Michael (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support any move that gets consensus, am indifferent to which specific title. "Incident" is far too vague. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we have consensus for "Essex lorry deaths"? I'm a little frustrated with the inertia. It doesn't need to be the final resting place, we can open another discussion if we want, but whatever you think of this title it's an improvement on what we currently have. I propose closing this discussion and making the move. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
As you opened the thread and the consensus is not 100% clear I'd advise you request an uninvolved admin closes this and moves it. (I think the consensus is there, but it's always best to have an uninvolved individual make the call). Beside, there is nothing inherently wrong or misleading with the current title that means we have to make the move now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't open the thread for the record. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
So you didn't - my bad: I just saw you as the first comment. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The area is on the edge of Essex rather than solidly within the county, it's basically London. I would support a move to Thurrock Lorry Deaths or 2019 Thurrock incident though. Eopsid (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thurrock is an unitary borough in Essex which is next to the border with London. In some countries, an area that close to a large city would be considered to be part of it. However, in the UK, Thurrock is (almost) always regarded as part of Essex. Thurrock is more accurate than Essex, which covers a much larger area. Contrary to the current title, the location of the discovery was West Thurrock rather than Grays. For those reasons I think this article's title should be Thurrock corpses discovery, Thurrock bodies discovery, Thurrock lorry corpses or something similar. Jim Michael (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The Waterglade Industrial Park website describes itself as being "Located in Grays, the largest town in the borough of Thurrock in Essex." - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  1. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly used "Essex" as opposed to "Grays".
  2. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly described the event as "deaths" and not a generic "incident".
  3. Reliable sources have overwhelmingly emphasised the fact that the discovery of the deceased took place in a "lorry".
Sources: (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8).
SITH (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - a more descriptive phrasing, and already used by plenty of sources (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The discovery was made in Essex in the UK in 2019, and the local terminology is "lorry". The current title is too vague. How about "2019 Essex human trafficking tragedy"? Nolween (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Tragedy is vague. Also, we don't usually use it in article titles, unless it's the common name - which in this case it isn't. Jim Michael (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, what about we call it "2019 UK/Essex migrant deaths", "2019 UK/Essex migrant incident", "2019 UK/Essex smuggling incident" or anything else remotely related. I use UK/Essex to indicate we use either or, can't be arsed typing out one for each. Eolais | Talk | Contribs 01:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. If I saw "2019 Grays incident" I wouldn't have the foggiest what it was about. This is not anything like what the media are calling it. They invariably mention Essex, lorry and deaths! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "English". Ethnologue. Retrieved 2019-10-25. Total users in all countries: 1,132,366,680 (as L1: 379,007,140; as L2: 753,359,540).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title

Incident is too vague & not the common name in regard to this & the 2000 Dover incident. What would be better titles for these two events? Jim Michael (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The media seems to be using "lorry deaths" for this one, which is arguably too informal. '2019 Grays lorry deaths'? Until its really known the nature of the crime, a fully accurate title is hard to write. Kingsif (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
"2019 Grays lorry deaths" seems safe to me. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
"2019 Grays lorry trailer deaths" seems appropriate for now. comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2019 (UTC) comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

What about '2019 Grays human smuggling incident'? Though there is no official word (and likely won't be for some time) on the smuggling vs. trafficking question. Kingsif (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

2019 Grays murders or 2019 Grays deaths, maybe? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 00:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

With the case being investigated & the driver in custody, we shouldn't have murder in the title. Jim Michael (talk) 03:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We won't need the year (which no sources use), so maybe "Grays lorry deaths". But without knowing whether anyone died in the lorry or in Grays, maybe "Grays lorry bodies". Does anyone call them that? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

No sources use that phrase... probably with good reason: if you didn't know what the article was about and just read "Grays lorry bodies", what would you think? Because my mind has gone to aliens. (Whereas they only don't use the year because they can instead say 'today'.) Kingsif (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The current title more strongly suggests aliens to me, by not identifying the vehicle and its interstate objects. But if it's uncommon, it'll never fly. Is this even about an event yet, or a certain grisly truck? Anything out there calling it an investigation, inquiry or case? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources in article mention investigation, do not call the whole ...incident... such. Kingsif (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I was just about to add that the '2019' use definitely establishes Grays as a place to ease understanding, but then thought that the title could easily be expanded to Essex, even though it's just on the border? Kingsif (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Too many commas. The year establishes the year, and that's it. Could still be who in whatever then, or whatever in where, just not in 1978 (or whenever). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking more 'Essex lorry deaths'? Kingsif (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh. No comma trouble, then. Still suggests the deaths happened in or resulted from an Essex lorry, but better. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I just really want someone to misread as "Sex lorry deaths" I also agree with the below statement that the current title has no outstanding problems that need to be resolved until the media picks up a nickname; most likely when the police act quick and uncover whatever nefarious evil is behind the sad situation, a good accurate name will arise. Kingsif (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The Brits have a codename for every grand affair, row or operation, it seems. Time will tell. Vague can work, though so could Grays incident. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Grays incident could work, though I don't have an overwhelming desire to hit move until something better is thought up. Or something that doesn't sound like a plot summary for Grey's Anatomy (have they done lorry deaths yet? They've done about every other form of transportation-related death, right?). Kingsif (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, wait and see. Tomorrow could reveal a wider picture that makes the discovery point seem like a mere detail. Never watched that show, no rush to give it a chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Can treat the current title as a placeholder for now. Quite likely the incident will acquire its own commonly understood name over the next few weeks. Current title is neutral and of no great concern. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the title is not ideal, but until something better is thought of, this can be a placeholder. FWIW, the BBC tag their news stories as Essex lorry deaths. Grays incident sounds like a legal challenge. And "Grays" is somewhat ambigious. I must admit, I've never heard of the place until yesterday. It think the words Essex and lorry deaths should be in the title. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The corpses were discovered in Grays, but the victims were more likely than not dead before they reached the UK. Jim Michael (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Do you have any source(s) for that claim? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
As the trailer had only been in Britain for about an hour, that would not be very surprising, but we await sources. Davidships (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC) [edited as misread previously] Davidships (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Note the article now says this: "Belgian officials said they were trapped in the container for at least 10 hours." (sourced to The Guardian. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd be for moving 2000 Dover incident to something more precise like Dover human-smuggling incident (cf Ranong human-smuggling incident), but would prefer to leave this title as it is for now while the investigation is ongoing – it's neutral and it's not ambiguous unless there has been another "2019 Grays incident" somewhere else in the world. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

"Incident" is a terrible title. Makes it sound like somebody stubbed their toe. Can we not do better for a title? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Try looking at this ten years from now. Nothing from the title gives any clues to what it refers to. Compare, say 2016 Nice truck attack. This would not be at "2016 Nice incident". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Ten years from now, we'll know exactly what this is.No point changing the title speculatively. This works for now. Nfitz (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
"Incident" is the term of choice used by the UK authorities for an event, such as this, where people have died or been seriously injured, and for which the cause has not yet been established. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Stick with "Incident" for now. Anywikiuser (talk) 21:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

British media seem to be going for "Essex lorry deaths". I propose "2019 Essex lorry deaths". I know "lorry" is a particularly British word for "truck" but that's mostly what they're calling it. Can always use redirects for searches like "Essex truck deaths". MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC) By the way anyone should feel free to create redirects for their own preferred titles. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Surely that will shift, if it comes to light, that they didn't die in Essex - and there are suggestion they hadn't been in England that long. And hang on, I thought Grays was in Thurrock, which was removed from Essex in 1997 - hmm, not sure why Thurrock isn't mentioned in the article, someone should fix that. I'd still leave alone, until there's more definitive issue - there is WP:NORUSH. Nfitz (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Including Grays/Thurrock/Essex deaths in the title is stating that the victims died there, which is unlikely to be true. It's more likely they died prior to their arrival.
Thurrock is a unitary authority, but is still part of Essex. Jim Michael (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead with creating redirects though, plenty of people will be searching wikipedia and not finding the article due to the current non-obvious title. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"Essex Lorry Deaths" sounds good too KhakePakeVatan (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As a redirect, yes; as a title, no - because we don't know they died there. Jim Michael (talk) 04:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Shocking though this may seem to Britons and their cultural inheritors elsewhere, Essex is not a readily recognizable locus to speakers of U.S. English. – Sca (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
PS: Note that today's AP story advises (international) readers that Grays is "a town 25 miles (40 kilometers) east of London" in "southeastern England." – Sca (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
So what? They can click onto the article and learn about geography and news at the same time. Not many people would have heard of Bhopal or Chernobyl before the tragedies there: that does not mean we have to dumb things down for people who have not heard of the place. Shall we stop using "California" to describe smething and say west cost US instead? - SchroCat (talk) 13:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Parochial and obtuse. We're here to serve our readers, all of them – not just Brits and their linguistic ilk. – Sca (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
You're right: ignoring where something happened is parochial and obtuse. We serve our readers by educating them: readers will learn where this happened as well what happened. We have redirects for those who insist on typing something else. - SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems it might make more sense to use a more general title with regards to location since the scope of the incident encompasses Ireland, Belgium and England. If the title references Essex, maybe it should also refer to the discovery, ie. "2019 Essex Corpse Discovery." I know it sounds a bit strange, but this would also serve to distinguish it from similar incidents that have likely happened without any discovery by the authorities. Machetazic (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree "incident" is far too vague. My suggestion would be (and similar for Dover) "2019 Grays human smuggling deaths" Almufasa (talk) 06:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't really see the point of branding this article "2019 Grays incident". Still this year, or even this week, a similar tragedy might occur - then what to call it? "Another 2019 Grays incident"? Mioche28 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Once this is moved to a descriptive title rather than the current vague one, the year won't need to be included. When there's more than one incident of the same type in the same place, we disambiguate by month. If there's more than one in the same month, we disambiguate by day. Jim Michael (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

"Lorry" is essentially a British term, and not internationally known... Perhaps a more universal term ("truck" for instance) would be better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.105.20 (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

See the discussion below. Lorry is also international and fairly well known. We have redirects for people who want to write "truck" instead. - SchroCat (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Essex_lorry_deaths/Archive_1&oldid=1073162966"