Talk:Jock Palfreeman

Image

I'm unsure about copyright with regard to images. If someone knows the system better, if applicable this image would be suitable for the article. Stuntaneous (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability tag

There is no doubt Jock Palfreeman is notable. He has been written up by a wide variety of sources both in Australia and Bulgaria. E.g. Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, The Australian, The ABC's online news outlet, The ABC's Foreign Correspondent episode "One Night in Sofia", The Mosman Daily, The Sofia Echo, Novinite, etc. There are issues in discussion apart from his court case such as ethnic tension between Bulgarians and their Roma population, the integrity of the Bulgarian judicial system and whether or not nepotism is at play due to the deceased's father being a very influential part of the Bulgarian government, the lack of a bilateral prisoner exchange agreement between Australia and Bulgaria and also the impact of the compensation amount placed on Mr Palreeman following the initial verdict and how this relates to any possible extradition in the future. You get the idea, I'm removing the tag.

You only have to google his name under News results to see his notability. Stuntaneous (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition there are ample external links which establish notability including one to an Australian Academic institution concerning legal process and issues around imprisonment of Australian citizens abroad.This specificaly inculdes a consideration of the Palfreeman case. I am therefore rempving the notability tag (RedLawrie (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC))

Tags

As with the notability tag, I'm removing the 'single source' and unencyclopedic tags. I've attempted to fill out the page more with additional information, including further sources. I'll continue to expand on the page with time. Stuntaneous (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bias

Can we PLEASE remove the references to football. There was no game being played that day, and there is no evidence that the majority of the people involved were football hooligans or even supporters. There is no evidence that football had anything to do with the crime, and this is nothing more than profiling. We may as well describe Jock and his friends as "a group of anarchists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.12 (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing can't be removed if it is supported by reliable sources. --Stalik (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased, indeed! Full of speculations regarding the events and the participants. Full of misrepresented facts and putting under question the Bulgarian legal system. Want examples? Here are two, although I could point 22 or more. First, indeed football hooligans, fans of the Levski team, have history of violent behavior and racist actions. BUT these are hooligans with police files, well known extreme group. Monov and the rest were just general supporters of the team, like tens of thousands of Bulgarians, as this is one of the two major teams in the country. Extreme hooligans were not involved and not present at the crime scene! Second, it is implied, that Monov was drunk, that his 0.29 alcohol in the blood is 6 times the driving limit! No, it is not! This is a lie and manipulation. According to the Bulgarian law, the tresshold for drunk driving is 0.5 promile. In other words, someone with 0.29 alcohol is perfectly sober, even able to drive! It is obvious that the Wiki entry is made with bias, by relatives and/or friends of the murderer, but Wikipedia must be kept straight on the facts, articles like this must be removed or heavily modified in the direction of truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.92.177.145 (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

None of your claims is per se relevant for the article because this here is Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court. Wikipedia works with reliable sources, and not with claims or original research. --Stalik (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

0.05 is the legal maximum for driving in Bulgaria. 0.29 is nearly 6 times that.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This article was extremely biased, discounting any criticism of the original trial and declaring that Palfreeman had a violent history despite this never being proved. I have edited the article to try to improve the neutrality of its language. I have also added information about the appeal. 117.120.18.131 (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Patrick Bateman

I wouldn't call my versions biased if anything they were merely lacking further information. I only wrote about what I knew for sure. I'm not sure what you mean by adding neutrality to the language, e.g. "Palfreeman attacked other people in the past" is a bit strong considering he was cleared by the Police. Added a neutrality check tag. This page has a long history of being sheer misinformation in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuntaneous (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add the "Palfreeman attacked other people in the past" bit - I added the bit about him being cleared by the police. Before that change the article effectively stated that as a matter of fact he had attacked other people previously. Likewise there were definitive statements that his defence was illogical and that his trial was fair and being run to EU standards, both of which are clearly controversial issues and both of which were unsupported by citations. I removed or modified both. 117.120.16.132 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC) Patrick Bateman

I made the changes prior to the last update. Because the article was biased indeed, to the extreme. In Palfreeman's defense. As if not a neutral Wiki article, but yet another defense site. Very comfortably the stabbing of the second boy was ignored. The fact that in just a moment he stabbed two boys in the back sends the defense claims in the thin air. But the fact was hidden and reading the claims of the father, you would think that poor Jock is innocent and a victim of some police plot. The whole article was defending plainly one side, Jock's side, representing the whole case in a very untrue way! That is why I had also added the EU laws part. Because it is good to know, that Bulgaria is an EU member country, that the laws are in accordance with the EU laws and legislative system and that the murderer is getting a fair and true trial, not a court-like theater, as many try to suggest to the public! It is a fact that needs no citation - Bulgaria is part of the EU and it is a trial in accordance with the EU laws!

It isn't Bias at all I think it shows both sides. If Bulgaria runs in accordance with the EU laws then why does the EU withhold money from Bulgaria until it cleans up the corruption?? Just like with individuals breaking state law, a state can break EU law, can it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.237.199 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read "Jock is innocent and a victim of some police plot" and stopped reading. Obviously here we have a fight between friends of the perpetrator and friends of the victim. Please read WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Stalik (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If anything the article is biased towards Jock. It sates that " Palfreeman is alleged to have attacked two male Bulgarian students and stabbed them" - I don't think Jock has ever disputed stabbing them. His claim was that this action was in self defense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.7 (talk) 09:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the assertion of bias and questioning of neutrality flagged and dated June 2013 at the head of the main article. It states without substantiation, supporting argument, or challenge to references "The article reads like an appeal site written by convict's parents." Given the nature of this assertion, for that is all it is an assertion, and the fact that the matter has not been raised recently in this talk forum it cannot be taken seriously and should be dismissed. If the complainant is unable to give body to their criticism it is nt worthy of consideration and has no validity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.193.45 (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Given the previous comment, and the fact that there has been no contribution to 'talk' recorded here between 16th October 2012 and now i am removing the bias tag (RedLawrie (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC))

The heading "allege crime" is wrong. He was convicted. Therefore it's just a crime.

Can I ask that we see a little balance and less bias in the article?

1. There is no “alleged crime”. Jock was formally convicted of a crime by a court in the country in which it happened. Can this be changed to remove the implied doubt.

2. The reference to Levski supporters is of no relevance. There was no Levski game being played that day, or even that month. This is simply an attempt to make the crime appear justified as an anti football hooligan event.

3. The comment “most of whom were Levski supporters” is not referenced.

4. Similarly the comment about alcohol levels has no relevance to the case. Monov didn’t die of alcohol poisoning. He was stabbed.

5. The inclusion of the list of mourners at Monovs funeral has no relevance and isn’t referenced.

6. The reference to the stab wound is incorrect. Although jocks father (who is biased) called this the side, the knife wound came from behind the victim.

7. No mention is made in the article of the attempts by both the police and Jocks defence team to find the mysterious Roma.

8. No mention is made of the behaviour of Jocks friends after the crime, particularly the young lady Lindsay Welsh who despite police orders for her to remain for questioning returned to the UK the next day.

9. No mention is made of the jacket that jock was wearing at the time of the crime, including the insignia and message, or why Jock refused to wear this jacket in his first court appearance.

10. No mention is made of Jock being a member of the British Armed forces, and having just undertaken bayonet fighting training in the weeks prior to the incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.12 (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To your questions:

1. Yes.
2. No. If it has reliable source it can be included in the article. Wikipedia is not a court and the article is not an indictment.
3. If not referenced a template asking for reference could be added.
4. See 2.
5. For relevance see 2, for referencing see 3.
6. If you have reliable source for this you can add it.
7. See 6.
8. See 6.
9. See 6.
10. See 6.

Please also read WP:RS and WP:NOR. --Stalik (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is getting WAY off topic. someone just added several lines about the Levski football team, and its supporters. Completely irrelevant - Jock stuck a knife in someone, end of! For the record Levski were not playing that day and did not pay that month. If Wiki wants to be taken seriously it needs to control this sort of thing.

PLEASE Mods, fix up this stub, which is about a crime not a football team or racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.12 (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Over reliance on a single source, referencing incorrect

For me there is an over reliance on a single source in this article, namely everyparentsnightmare.com.... while this is not ideal, what is worse is that the references do not lead you to the information required, instead they lead just to the homepage of the website... the relevant information may well be found some where on this website, but why not link to it directly? Vardasnejonas (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

1. someone claimed I had stated that Jock was in the British airforce, and that there was no such reference. I did not. I said British army. The book mentioned above describes him joining the army in great detail in chapter one, and the video from the ADC documentary Australian Story also covers it in depth including his family talking about it. If necessary I can provide his service number.

2. Someone else claimed my statement about jock being involved in fights, hiding a knife and jail and having illegal possession of mobile phones in jail was unreferenced. It is covered in depth in chapters 21, 22, 23, 24 of the book.

PLEASE be sure of your facts BEFORE you go editing.

other pertinent information not as yet mentioned in the article

1. Palfreeman had previously applied to the join the royal Australian Navy. They declined to accept him despite a shortage of applicants.

2. He had a history of getting involved in other peoples fights. In 2001 he was involved in an incident at a May Day rally in Sydney, where protesters were fighting with the police. In 2006 had had been involved in a fight in Madjare in Bulgaria. He claimed he had been attacked with a knife six times in Bulgaria.

3. He had a history or anarchism and anti Nazi protests and activities.

4. He joined the Rifles and was at Catterick doing his training over Christmas 2007.

5. He was in Bulgaria on 29th December. Leaving his friends house he took his Army ID (NOT his passport) a butterfly knife and a screwdriver - the latter two for "defence". The knife had a 12.3 cm blade and when unfolded was 28.5 cm. The police investigator said this was "the largest butterfly knife they had ever seen".

6. That night he claimed a man pulled a pistol out and held it to his head in the toilets, but he went back to the bar as if nothing happened “to avoid alarming his friends”. He carried on drinking.

7. Later that night he ran across St Nedelya square, chasing a group of around 20 Bulgarian students, waving the knife and shouting “**** Fascism”. In the ensuing fight one person was wounded and one killed.

8. Palfreeman has consistently claimed no memory of the events leading up to the murder. He says he went to the aid of two Roma gypsies who were being attacked. He says he “did his duty as a Samaritan and a soldier” (he had been in the British Army for less than 5 weeks). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.4.8 (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are a lot of unsourced statements. If you're here to improve the article, perhaps you should add sources, that clearly back up your claims.--Senor Freebie (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

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

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

• Джок Полфрийман.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)