Talk:Peter Openshaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Created page

I created this article after Openshaw's widely reported statement about the internet. I was later told this article violated WP:BLP (presumably "one event"); however, I believe that a High Court judge is notable in his own right. - Peter Ellis - Talk 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. The statement by Openshaw was about his own lack of understanding about the Internet, not about the Internet itself. The self-serving non-apology by Peter Ellis is yet another example of why Wikipedia's BLP policy is broken.--86.131.90.51 12:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Your first word damns you "out of your own mouth" as not bringing a neutral point of view to the subject. Yes, I do not apologise for reporting Reuters' and other reporting of this matter. I will not take credit, however, the the diligent work of other Wikipedians who have fleshed out the initial article. And, I put my own name to my entries.- Peter Ellis - Talk 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and content

"During the 1998/99 financial year [...] For the Senior Circuit Judge at Preston, there were 8 applicants, 4 of whom were interviewed. The candidate appointed was Peter Openshaw QC." http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VU8iWnMujIQJ:www.dca.gov.uk/judicial/ja_arep1999/chap3.pdf+%22Peter+Openshaw+QC%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us

"4 November 2005 The Queen has been pleased to approve that the honour of Knighthood be conferred upon David Jones QC, David Kitchin QC, Brian Langstaff QC and Peter Openshaw QC DL on their appointment as Justices of the High Court. [...] Charles Peter Lawford Openshaw: Born 1947 and educated at St Catharine's College, Cambridge. Called to the Bar, Inner Temple, 1970; Recorder, 1988-99; Bencher, 2003; Deputy Lieutenant for Lancashire, 2000." http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page8468.asp

"07/06/2006 PRESTON is continuing years of tradition and appointing a new Honorary Recorder of the city at a special council meeting on Tuesday 13 June. The ceremony, to be held in the Town Hall council chamber, will see a presentation and a vote of thanks to the outgoing Honorary Recorder, Justice Peter Openshaw QC, for his services to the city over the last seven years." http://www.preston.gov.uk/search/search.aspx?TextID=681625

WAS 4.250 17:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Noticeboard

I've added this article to the noticeboard for further discussion. This New York Times article may be illuminating. JavaTenor 20:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "I don't really understand what a Web site is."

"I don't really understand what a Web site is.", said by Judge Openshaw in open court at Woolwich Crown Court, east London on 16 May 2007 was widely reported and commented on in the media.

The 59-year-old judge is reported to have said, "The trouble is I don't understand the language. I don't really understand what a Web site is."[1][1] [2] (After several days, court officials said that he was clarifying a matter for the general public[3].)

Openshaw was hearing a case against alleged Islamist radicals, Younes Tsouli, 23, Waseem Mughal, 24, and Tariq al-Daour, 21, who had denied charges under Britain's Terrorism Act. The charges include inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism "wholly or partly" outside Britain. Islamist statements and video posted on the Internet, including beheadings of hostages, is critical to the case. Accusations also include that the three had car bomb-making manuals and videos of how to wire up a suicide vest.[1]

The Prosecutor, Mark Ellison, briefly explained the terms "Web site" and "forum" then the judge acknowledged: "I haven't quite grasped the concepts." At the end of the day's hearing the judge told Ellison to instruct a witness for the following day: "Will you ask him to keep it simple? We've got to start from basics." The Judiciary of England and Wales issued a statement asserting that Openshaw's comments had been taken out of context, and concluding that "Mr. Justice Openshaw is entirely computer literate and indeed has taken notes on his own computer in court for many years."[2]

The International Herald Tribune reported, "Not since Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, referred to the Internet as 'a bunch of tubes,' or President George W. Bush spoke of the "Internets," had the Web grinned so wide. [...] Edward Felten , a professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University, says it is hardly a coincidence that Internet commentators seize on slips by public officials. 'There is a widespread belief online that many politicians and policy makers don't understand the Internet well enough to regulate it,' he said."[2] WAS 4.250 17:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page title

I've moved the page to a descriptive title (perhaps not the best - anyone have a better idea?) rather than a section of the quote. It is Mr. Openshaw's (and the court's) position that his statements were taken out of context, and it would hardly do for us to feed that defense by... using one section of the quote, out of context. FCYTravis 18:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Openshaw Internet statements? It's not exactly controversial just silly. Cornea 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork

POV fork in the middle of an AFD? Please... Redirected. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 'Reuters' problem

I think that all concerned should read Reuters' defence of its reporting. Reuters has continued to defend its reporting, against the statements of court officials, and amidst the glare of media and internet cross-reporting.

Some might say, "Of course Reuters would take that line." However, this does not get over the simple and apparently factual reporting which has not been denied. (The court has not denied he said it; actually, they confirmed it.)

While I do not wish to put a 'defence' in Reuters' mouth, I would suggest that Openshaw's initial statement was made and then sustained by further comments; He could easily have said at the time that he was clarifying matters for the benefit of the court record (rather than himself) or wishing the witness to bring a plain explanation as well as the detail, but this was not what he did. And, the Reuters report apparently clearly shows his chain of thinking.

Reuters did not create the flurry of commentary in other media, nor the 'guilt' that this article appeared to bolster various people's chagrin at the comments by the Judge.

As other matters have been included by Wikipedians it is apparent to me that the article for this Judge should stay, along with the article for his equally notable wife, Dame Caroline Swift. - Peter Ellis - Talk 00:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)