Jump to content

Talk:Criminal Cases Review Commission

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Criminal Cases Review Commission. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praise/Criticism and Malkinson case

[edit]

I see that there is a section in the article entitled ‘Praise’. In fact, the last para of this is not exactly praise. I suggest that the title of this section be changed to ‘Comments on the operation of the Commission’.

There is nothing about the severe criticism arising out of the Wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson, which has led to the resignation of the chair, Helen Pitcher, and calls for the resignation of the CEO, Karen Kneller. I think there should be a separate section concerning the Malkinson case.

Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) Sweet6970 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970: I have retitled the section "Analysis and response" to be more neutral. I agree that there should be more on the recent criticism regarding that case, feel free to add it to the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I will try and draft something in the next few days. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]