Talk:North Wales child abuse scandal

Suggested edit

please change “one of those who had suffered abuse" to "one of those who claimed to have suffered abuse”Bruffik (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concerns, but we go by what sources say, and the source specifically refers to "One of the men who was sexually abused ...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just undone edits by Bruffik here where he changed to wording. I have restored the wording supported by the reference. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Cabinet minister

Might be worth stressing Tom Watson's allegation about a former cabinet minister is a further separate allegation following his PMQ.

Regarding Peter Morrison, the news item was merely that it is alleged he was seen several times at the home while Tom Watson's blog page on his PMQ makes it clear that Peter Morrison is not the senior Tory politican named in connection with the Welsh home scandal, as indeed all familiar with the case will know.

I would make the relevant edits myself but have to exercise a certain degree of discretion in using my account given that in practice Wikipedia offers no real guarantee of privacy to its account holders, whatever it might claim to the contrary.

It would be helpful if the Wikipedia adminstrators could remove the edit protection they have given this page. There seems to be no justification for it. I do wish Wikipedia administrators would stop taking themselves quite so seriously. I can add, as I have noted elsewhere, that administrators should not be naming any of the alleged abusers in this affair even on Talk pages. Of course qualified privilege doesn't extend to Wikipedia, which is essentially a social media site of the same nature as Facebook and Twitter. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What we are doing is reporting and summarising what reliable sources are saying, and giving them due weight and balance. We do not report or summarise blogs, or reports in the tabloid press, and obviously we do not publish unsubstantiated claims about living people. Without page protection, there is a strong possibility that those policies would not be fully maintained, and Wikipedia's legal position may come under threat. The fact is that Morrison has been publicly named (no doubt because he's dead), and others have not been. If you have a reliably sourced statement that you think should be included, bring it here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ghmyrtle. I've looked through your edits here and admire them. Regarding qualified privilige this is what I posted elsewhere. 'Reliable sources' has nothing to do with the issue as far as the question of libel is concerned.

Regarding Morrison, it's as I say. In fact Channel 4 news didn't name him as the person named in the Bryn Estyn affair as the edit claims, only that it is alleged he was seen at the home. The person named and referred to in Tom Watson's PMQ is someone else.

Last here from me. 93.104.213.2 (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that The Guardian has named the family concerned, I think a brief mention and link to that article would be appropriate here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: In the light of this BBC report I've now added a sentence re the false allegations. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

IP is correct to say above that the Channel 4 news item was incorrectly refernced and I have adited accordingly.

Regarding her strictures about defamation, I would say she is broadly correct but that in practice it would depend on how the Wikipedia Foundation respond to complainants. In the UK a proposed Bill seeks to reform the law Defamation Bill 2012-13

The aim of the Bill is to reform the law of defamation to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. The Bill makes a number of substantive changes to the law of defamation, but is not designed to codify the law into a single statute.

Key areas

• includes a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious harm before suing for defamation
• removes the current presumption in favour of a jury trial
• introduces a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public interest"
• provides increased protection to operators of websites that host user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the material concerned
• introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the common law defences of justification and fair comment.

and see this for a review.

I take it that item 4 above implies that administrators merely revdeleting defamatory content is not a sufficient procedure of itself i.e. to say a complainant might insist the account in question be banned and/or identified and might in addition complain that administrators defamed them as well in the circumstances raised by IP. Her suggestion that these are issues best left to the Wikipedia Foundation and not to administrators, who are merely a slightly more exalted class of editors, seems to me quite correct.

In general I would countenance that if anyone here is intent on using Wikipedia to defame someone you would be better off defaming someone cheap :), which is not necessarily the case here, and I certainly wouldn't rely on anonymity (no seriously). I also wouldn't rely on the Wikipedia servers being based in the US if I was editing from the UK or domiciled there or a citizen of the UK.

HTH. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

English defamation law is one thing; Wikipedia's WP:BLP policy is something else entirely. As I understand the latter, we should refrain from mentioning by name any living people in connection with these allegations, particularly those who have been falsely accused. I have removed such content from the article. Robofish (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Much of the article, and indeed the whole scandal, is about allegations which may or may not be true. In this case, the person concerned has released a statement himself - reported here - stating that the allegations are entirely untrue. The edit you removed reiterated that statement, that the allegations were wholly untrue and without foundation. But, the fact is that the allegations were made, are alluded to in the article text (without mentioning any names), and form an integral part of the story which this article is reporting. Why should we not report that - in fact, why do you appear to be suggesting that we should censor - remove entirely from any mention in Wikipedia - today's BBC report in which it is stated explicitly that the allegations are untrue? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

PS: I've raised this at WP:BLPN. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I've replied there, and suggest anyone else who wishes to comment on this issue also does so on that page. Robofish (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the story has moved on during the day, with Messham's apology for making the allegations and, in turn, the BBC's apology for broadcasting the Newsnight programme. I've now added a sentence simply noting those developments. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Messham's Credibility

In view of the fact that Messham has apologised once before in making unsubstantiated accusations, surely reliance should not now be placed on any further accusations he makes, until such time that credible evidence is provided to substantiate his assertions.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yummy Dunn (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

It is tricky, as it isn't really our job to assess a person's credibility, but we can report what reliable sources say.

I think the principle here is WP:DEADLINE, as this demonstrates this is at points a fast-moving news story and we shouldn't try to stay current with every development - it is clearly safer to sit back and see what happens. This might mean playing the long game, as what will be important for this article is the outcome of the upcoming investigation. So there is no rush and it is better to err on the side of caution. (Emperor (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC))

• I would strongly caution all editors against making any edits with regard to Mr Messham which might infringe our policy on living people. DuncanHill (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Yummy Dunn's opening remark this thread seems to me to run too close to the wind by implicitly calling into question Mr. Messham's good faith, which even Lord McAlpine did not question. In my view the whole of the final paragraph in the present "Allegations" section of the article should be deleted. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Editors should also think twice before blackening the reputation of dead people based on anonymous rumors, even if those rumors have been published in a newspaper. – Smyth\^talk 04:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Trident13 today

Copied from user talk pages:

I've reverted your edits because this source - http://www.bushywood.com/alison_taylor_whistleblower.htm - appears to be a self-published blog, which is essentially unreliable. In an article of such contentiousness and importance, we must use reliable sources, not blogs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit as the same allegations are in http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9657836/Waterhouse-Inquiry-recommendations-and-conclusions.html Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you need to remove the blog refs first. We can then check to see if the same information is contained in the other sources. Waterhouse is of course a primary source for much of this, and should equally not be used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Waterhouse Inquiry is itself being investigated as part of the issues being dealt with by this article (the "scandal"), it is quite wrong for that Inquiry report to be used as a primary source for part of this article (even if its conclusions are set out verbatim in a newspaper). And blogs - particularly blogs that name individuals who may be alive - should absolutely never be used on articles like this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I don't see the need to remove the blog if we have other supporting refs. For isntance, the Pride of Britain ref gives an equal picture. personally, this whole case and our article is frankly scary - the more you dig into it, the more that you realise that the evidence is quite public and well reported - see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/at-last-alison-taylor-tells-how-she-exposed-years-of-child-abuse-1234884.html which I have added to the Taylor section. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

If there are supporting refs, there is no point in including the blog - we should not direct readers to unreliable sources. We can report the Independent report, but obviously only in reporting what Taylor said, not in reporting it necessarily as objective truth. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Commenting here after the request on AN/I. Blogs can't be used for material that affects living persons, per WP:BLPSPS, so that should definitely be removed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Much of the material added by Trident13 is claimed to be sourced from this Telegraph summary of the Waterhouse report - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9657836/Waterhouse-Inquiry-recommendations-and-conclusions.html. But, most if not all the material included in those edits is not contained in that summary. It therefore needs to be properly sourced from elsewhere. If that is not is done, I suggest that it should be removed from the article, especially as it refers to several living people. Although I'm tempted to revert it wholesale, some of the material appears to be properly sourced. But, it's essential that the article as a whole is properly sourced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we included the list of convictions?

We say in the current version that no one was named in the Waterhouse report. This is factually incorrect. The public version of the report doesn't name anyone, as the names of the victims, the convicted, and the alleged perpetrators were redacted and legally protected - an early version of a double injunction, but stronger. Mostly this was done due to either then still ongoing legal procedure, or lack of evidence. We now now why, in light of recent events. However this recent Telegraph summary names a number of people who were/subsequently were convicted. Should we add these names as a summary section/table? They are convicted persons, and named in both the report and various media articles reporting thier convictions/sentencing. I used this reference to add the list of care homes to the head of the article in the background section. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I would err strongly on the side of caution and not include any names of people who may be living or may have living relatives who could potentially be affected. I'm sure The Telegraph has access to good legal advice on what should be published. I don't, but perhaps you do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hence why I raised it here - I think however that this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents was over cautious/over escalation util it was discussed here. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that we can (and should) include details where there has been a conviction, but we should be extremely cautious otherwise. I don't think we owe anything in particular to people with multiple convictions for sexual offences against children. Just BTW, I don't think creating a table or similar would be good in terms of style. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Messham

I want to add this as a discussion, as it will come up at some time. One of the victims of this scandal is Stephen Messham, who is widely acknowledged to have suffered a series of abuse incidents during this time resident in care homes in North Wales. However, Waterhouse recognised Meesham as an "unreliable witness" in his 2000 report. In light of recent events, I am concerned with any inputs into this article relating to Stephen Messham, unless they have secondary witness supporting evidence from a WP:RS. I feel very sorry for Stephen Messham, but I also have equal regard for our need to note and include entries which are encyclopedic and hence well referenced. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not up to us to seek to put right perceived wrongs. We can report what Messham says, if it's relevant, but we shouldn't treat him as a reliable source. I don't usually stick up for the Mail, but I think it's worth bearing in mind what that article (which I'd already seen) says. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Des Frost

I reverted here on the basis that it is wholly unreferenced, and, per WP:BLP, we should not be making such statements without proper references. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've now inserted referenced info on this point, from this source, at the correct point in the story. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Original research

"However, Webster's allegation that the abuse at Bryn Estyn was a fabrication motivated by the desire for financial compensation was undermined by a further police investigation in which further witnesses came forward in the knowledge no further compensation was available." This is original research, and I believe that Webster said that financial compensation was just one potential motive for false claims (someone definitely did, anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldomtom2 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)