Talk:Kevin Spacey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

+Category

Please, add Category:Sexual harassment in the United States. --Jet Jerry (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The article is not about sexual harassment in the US. It does contain statements about allegations of sexual harassment against Spacey, and some of these did not occur in the US. --Fæ (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Section 5 should be changed to "rape allegations".

The allegations against Spacey are not of sexual misconduct. They are allegations of sexual assault, statutory rape, and forced rape.

Titling the section "Sexual misconduct allegations" is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.121.138 (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Read the article properly. Based on reliable sources, the allegations are of sexual misconduct, not rape. Wikipedia talk pages are not a free for all to make anonymous allegations against living people. If there are no reliable sources, it should not be discussed here. --Fæ (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

'Sexual Misconduct' is not a name of an offence in the UK, where the majority of the charges against Spacey stem from. Sexual Assault is the name of the offence he is primarily being investigated for. [1] --Nozzer71 (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Section 5 should be changed to "sexual assault allegations".

From the wiki on "sexual misconduct": Sexual misconduct is an umbrella term for any misconduct of a sexual nature that is of lesser offense than felony sexual assault (such as rape and molestation)

From the wiki on Kevin Spacey: Fifteen others then came forward alleging similar abuse[79] including: journalist Heather Unruh, who alleged that Spacey sexually assaulted her son;[80][81][82] Norwegian author and former royal family member Ari Behn;[83] filmmaker Tony Montana; actor Roberto Cavazos;[84] Richard Dreyfuss's son Harry;[85] and eight people who worked on House of Cards.[5]

If you look at the sources provided in this passage, 4 of them describe sexual assault (groping, crotch-grabbing, etc), and 1 of them describes sexual misconduct. And that's not even including the anonymous claim of forcible rape.

Therefore, the title of section 5 should be changed to "Sexual assault allegations". To not do so would be a blatant misrepresentation of the credible allegations made against Spacey thus far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndellatto (talk • contribs) 07:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

This article needs to go in the opposite way. It is biased and in violation of BLP policies. Most of this article is WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. We're going to have to wait a couple of months, maybe a year until it is cleaned up and returned to neutrality. Editors like you are making Wikipedia into a mob rule rap sheet. This happens all the time. Someone does something bad and editors absolutely destroy the article in an attempt to match what is in the news. Standards for what is included and what is not get dropped while maintenance of BLP standards goes out the window. I'm going to tag the article until this information is put into perspective and maintained with neutrality. I mean, why stop at changing section 5 into "sexual assault allegations", just move the article title to Kevin 'the sexual predator' Spacey. I mean for goodness sake this used to be a Good Article in 2006. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is not neutral while controversial claims are presented as encyclopaedic facts when they rely on sensationalist tabloid reporting of non-legally meaningful interviews, rather than statements made to the police, or evidence presented in court. The "anonymous man alleged [...] rape" is especially troubling. --Fæ (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree with the above assertions; nowhere in the article does it say that is a fact that Spacey committed the offenses he's accused of, merely that the accusations have been made. That several people have accused him of sexual misconduct (including attempted rape and child molestation) is an indisputable fact, and one that is backed up with ample documentation. It is also a very notable, relevant part of his biography. --Treybien talk) 21:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Repeating anonymous allegations as printed in fluffy on-line entertainment magazines is not an indication of being "very notable" or in any way a credible justification for using Wikipedia to repeat the allegations as if they were encyclopaedic facts. I have been bold and trimmed this specific child rape allegation as the single source is not credibly reliable, the testimony has neither resulted in any complaint to the police or legal action, and the entire piece though highly damaging to Spacey's reputation, could be fake news or exaggeration, as far as we can tell. See diff. --Fæ (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality

I don't understand why this article is tagged as having NPOV problems. I have encountered many Wikipedia articles that have NPOV problems. I don't think this is one of them. The section on the allegations against Spacey appears to me to be accurate and reliably sourced. Why is this tag here? SunCrow (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Accusations of more AoC violations

When last year, I've asked before to include more allegations of child sexual abuse on behalf of Spacey's than just the Rapp case (particularly where Spacey, in his mid-20s, had a "1-year affair" with a then 13 or 14-year-old), I was told that "more sources" would be required besides just one. Last week, Der Spiegel have repeated their allegations or accusations of child sexual abuse perpetrated by Spacey including the Rapp case and the other "1-year affair" (it's in the print issue no. 33, 2018, pp. 55-60, and here's the online version, even if the web version is behind a paywall, where they also cite an interview on vulture.com as the source on the "1-year-affair" with the then 13 or 14-year-old who has given Vulture the interview), now even adding more CSA allegations against Spacey, directly citing BuzzFeed journalist Adam Vary that the only reason why BuzzFeed broke the news about the Rapp case was because according to Vary, Spacey was alleged by independent sources to be affiliated not only with Bryan Singer but especially with the child prostitution ring of Marc Collins-Rector. Had these prior child prostitution allegations involving Spacey not existed, BuzzFeed would've never published their report on the Rapp case that in turn has made many other individuals accuse Spacey and the world still wouldn't know about him. --93.223.194.254 (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please correct "Predominately"

Please correct "Predominately". It is "predominantly". 88.25.168.131 (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done They have the same meaning.[2][3] Џ 19:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add cite for birth date

The offline Who's Who link does not give it. Fortunately, it's available in multiple sites including: https://www.biography.com/people/kevin-spacey-9489645 Kevin Spacey: Film Actor, Actor, Theater Actor (c. 1959–). --2604:2000:1382:C5DD:E9F1:46E5:5EE7:A5ED (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Grammar and POV

In this passage:

A video uploaded on December 24, entitled "Let Me Be Frank", showed Spacey playing an in-character Frank Underwood, during which he appeared to deny the allegations.[107]

...first, either put the video title in quote marks or italics but not both.

Second, the phrase "during which he appeared to deny the allegations" is POV. All we can objectively state is what he says and not what someone believes he "appears" to say. For example: "Spacey, in the persona of his House of Cards character Frank Underwood, discusses the nature of misdeeds and of not taking blame for those he did not commit."

I would also say "A three-minute-six-second video uploaded on December 24, 2018, the same day authorities confirmed he was being charged in Boston for sexual assault..." This provides the fact of how long the video is -- is it short? is it a half-hour? -- and it puts the date of release in context. --2604:2000:1382:C5DD:E9F1:46E5:5EE7:A5ED (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

As of 1-1-19 the passage about "Let Me Be Frank" reads as follows: "On December 24, 2018, Spacey uploaded a video, entitled Let Me Be Frank, onto his YouTube channel in which he appeared to deny the allegations while in character as Frank Underwood. Several of his fellow actors criticized and ridiculed his video on Twitter, including Patricia Arquette, Ellen Barkin, Jon Favreau and Rob Lowe."

As has already been noted, the phrase "during which he appeared to deny the allegations" is POV but more importantly, it is unclear whether the author thinks Spacey is speaking through "Frank" to deny the bus boy allegations, or whether the author is saying that Frank Underwood is denying the allegations against himself. There is nothing in the video to support the theory that Spacey intended Frank's dialog to address anything other than the HOC plot.

Spacey was the star and producer of House of Cards until he was excluded from the final season. It makes sense that he would want to have the final word on the series and making his own unofficial supplement to the finale accomplishes that. Taken at face value, the video is a brilliant "twist" in the House of Cards saga. The only bizarre thing about the video is that the press immediately insisted it was about more than HOC.

As far as this statement: "Several of his fellow actors criticized and ridiculed his video on Twitter, including Patricia Arquette, Ellen Barkin, Jon Favreau and Rob Lowe." There are no links to these alleged posts. In any case, if the author wants to report on how the video has been received, he needs to include information about the large number of people who have shown appreciation for the video in the YouTube comments section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanharbison (talk • contribs) 02:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Year of end of career

I changed this in the ibox from 2018 to 2017, because he didn't do any professional acting last year, but it was reverted. His last film was released last year, but what basis is there to say that his career ended last year rather than the year before? Jim Michael (talk) 10:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

How can "not doing any professional acting" ever be used as a reliable indication that any actor has "retired"? There will always be many actors who are "resting between roles". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

For this to be 'encyclopaedic', we need a reliable source where Kevin Spacey, or his agent, states that he has retired from acting. The change you made relied on a source where Spacey appeared to have been wearing an ironic hat, that is not the same thing as officially ending your career. --Fæ (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fæ. Claiming that Mr. Spacey is "retired" is totally unsupported -- and unsupportable -- forward looking speculation. This would be similar, for instance, to in the 1950s claiming that the many "Black Listed" actors, writers, directors, producers and others targeted by HUAC, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and the like as "Communists" were "retired" simply because they were for political reasons unable to get work in their chosen fields for a period of years when in fact they were not voluntarily "retired", only temporarily involuntarily unemployed, and most if not all eventually returned to being active in their careers. Centpacrr (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's quite a useful analogy/ similar situation. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Many WP bios of actors who haven't announced that they retired or quit acting have end years to their careers in their iboxes. Jim Michael (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Then I would suggest that many WP bios of actors may be wrong or, at best, misleading. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Humanitarian and charity

Should any mention be made of Kevin Spacey's humanitarian and charity work in either the "Political views and activism" or "Personal life" ledes? Presuming reliable sources can be found for them, Spacey's work could be mentioned in his article. Many people have spoke of the numerous humanitarian work the man has done when not performing, allegations notwithstanding. He has always cited his mentor, Jack Lemmon, with "sending the elevator back down" or helping others with their careers once you've done well for yourself. His foundation did just that, by giving grants to promising new talent in the entertainment industry.

While I am not casting aside the allegations, I think Kevin should be mentioned in this article for his numerous humanitarian efforts, and donation to charity, his problematic personal issues notwithstanding. I’m not sure how aware the general public is of his humanitarian efforts (honestly, how aware is the general public about ANYTHING…) but certainly his supporters and the people involved in those efforts applaud them. of course, sources need to be found for these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.213.142 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Article Needs To Be NPOV

This article is not neutral. Claims of sexual abuse are not proof of sexual abuse. Some have even accused the MeToo Movement as being a reincarnation of the Hollywood McCarthy witchhunts.2601:447:4101:41F9:B490:7E88:8810:61E2 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Dearest 2601:447:4101:41F9:B490:7E88:8810:61E2, the article does not say otherwise. It clearly calls them allegations. Though I adore you 2601:447:4101:41F9:B490:7E88:8810:61E2 and it pains me to say, I must respectfully disagree with you here. Gripdamage (talk) 18:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Fowler

KSF was born Fowler, but he is known as Kevin Spacey. When did he start going by just KS? Kdammers (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Age mistake

"In October 2017, actor Anthony Rapp accused Spacey of making a sexual advance toward him in 1986, when Rapp was 14"

Per Rapp's Wikipedia page, he turned 15 in 1985, making this timeline impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megajakeroo (talk • contribs) 15:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected removal January 31, 2020

Removed the semi-protected template, one of the admins, please. Hank9172 (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The article puts words in Spacey's mouth

The article says: "Spacey stated that he would be seeking 'evaluation and treatment' for his behavior." However, the cited sources say that this statement is by one of his representatives, not himself. This is a significant difference, since the false claim in the article falsely suggests a kind of admission of guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.178.136 (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It looks like another user messed up. I have removed that portion.PrinceKael (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Rearranging

The One I Left, with edits like this, you aren't just adding information; you are also removing and rearranging. Please use more accurate edit summaries. Also, you need to keep MOS:Head in mind; use sentence case for headings...except for the instances where capitalization is required. Your current setup also has Anthony Rapp mentioned in the "Coming out controversy" section before the "Sexual misconduct allegations" section makes clear who Rapp is. And your "Legal issues" headings is vague. Why rename that section?

If you reply, please don't WP:Ping me. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

That was a total accident on my part, I should have been more specific in the edit summaries. I renamed it to "Legal issues", because it covers the essential part of all his legal battles he had, is having, and will continue to have. Also it seems standard from what I've seen elsewhere. Also totally agree with you re: Anthony Rapp, and the order of the "Sexual misconduct allegations" and "Coming out controversy". I just fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The One I Left (talk • contribs)

We also (or maybe more so) commonly include the "Legal issues" heading when there are various legal issues that can't be summarized in the initial heading. But in Spacey's case, the matter is specifically about sexual assault.

On a side note: Remember to sign your username (by typing four tildes) when replying. I just added an unsigned template for you above; no need to sign that post since signing it now would be misleading because the signature would be coming much later than when the comment was made. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2020

Please implement this change. 82.132.237.120 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2020

Please consider the following addition:

After having returned to the stage with the video ‘Let me be Frank’, which attracted millions of views, on August 2 Spacey read four of Gabriele Tinti’s poems inspired by the Boxer at Rest at the National Roman Museum in Palazzo Massimo, where the statue is located.. HansBD (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Add where? And in any case, this seems rather trivial, not to mention the odd tone with the phrasing "after having returned to the stage ...". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Kevin Spacey Foundation

Hello, I'm not sure how to fix this as the article seems to be locked, but his charity can't be headquartered in two places at once. Rather than saying it was headquartered in England and Wales they seem to be referring to England and Wales the legal jurisdiction, as the charity commission for England and Wales would be the body regulating their work rather than say OSCR in Scotland or the Charity commission for Northern Ireland. It's kind of like saying that JFK airport is in New York and New Jersey because of the involvement of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and should be edited to look less silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.51.225 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The Shipping News

Kevin Spacey starrred in The Shipping News (2002) for which he was nominated best actor by BAFTA and Golden Globe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.152.3.66 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Years active

{{Infobox person}} "active" means person to be active as a person: Date range in years during which the subject was active in their principal occupation(s) and/or other activity for which they are notable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCuuKhjLB0Q - 2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZveA-NAIDI - 2018
He is active in this youtube videos as an actor, so he is not retired fully yet. I revert this edit now. ·Carn·!? 09:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@TraktorzystazUrsusa - read and answer on the above, plz ·Carn·!? 07:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Come on, posting a video on youtube once a year is not a professional activity. TraktorzystazUrsusa 08:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

So you think that video with 27k likes and 5k dislikes is not notable (in 2018 - 283k/75k, in 2019 - 66k/24k), or it is not activity at all (see and/or other activity above)? I agree that compared to the activity in the past years, this is a drop in the ocean. But has he declared that he considers his acting career over? ·Carn·!? 12:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2021

Suggest removing Sir from his name as he only an honorary Knight therefore not entitled to use the title Sir under the British honours system. 85.255.237.207 (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Please can you provide a reference for honorary Knights not being entitled to use the title Sir? Thanks, DesertPipeline (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done: It seems – according to List of honorary British knights and dames – that you're right, so I've implemented this edit request for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesertPipeline (talk • contribs) 12:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Bias Editors

The article is not here to affirm editor's viewpoints and to show Kevin as a guilty party in the synopsis (a segment which summarises the article..) if a synopsis closes off as being defamatory due to how it is worded, no judge nor jury has convicted him of being guilty of the allegations mentioned within the article, it is our duty as editors to show every viewpoint regardless of how they feel for the person personally or who they are associated with, Wiki already has an image problem with not showing accuracies and those bias editors are the ones who tarnish the reputation of this whole site, it doesn't even matter if you're an experienced editor who's been here for 10 years with hundreds of awards and accolades under their belts, if they tarnish just one article with their own viewpoint, that in itself destroys the democracy we live in, to learn history as it was documented and to give everyone a fair defence, otherwise, we are doomed to have one person with a chip on his/her shoulder dictating what THEY want the article to look like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs)

The lead makes absolutely no judgement about his guilt or innocence, as it should. It simply says that allegations have been made and what has happened to him since. The only editor editing with a bias here is you, who is constantly trying to add a line to suggest that he's innocent. We don't take a stance either way. We just list the objective facts in the lead, which is that Spacey was accused of sexual misconduct by several people and that he's been removed from most projects as a result. Those are indisputable facts. A random producer defending him can be added to the body of the article, but would be completely unbalanced to add it to the lead. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

first of all, I never said he's innocent, second, I edited it from my very first edit where I said "He was not found to be guilty" to "In 2018, film producer Paul Schrader offered Spacey a role in his new film and wrote, "If he's guilty of a crime, incarcerate him. If not, let him act." So where in this edit does it say that he was not guilty?, does this mean you reverted my edit without reading the edit first? because that doesn't seem very fair does it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs)

First of all, please sign your talk page posts. You've been around for long enough that I shouldn't have to remind you. Second of all, I have no idea how you're claiming I didn't read your edit when I responded to the direct content in each edit. If we include a random producer defending him in the lead, why not include all of the negative things people said, like Jon Bernthal? The lead is just no place to include someone's personal opinion on the matter. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Because you said that I said that I wrote in the article that he was not guilty, I amended that to the latter, so that's why I was confused as to why you claimed that I did include it when you joined in.. however, I will leave things be, I personally think the synopsis is a mess, too much information even if I did have my addition added, it still would have been too much, as to my signing, I have memory and dyslexia issues so find it hard to add it every time, but one last thing, I really am not warring with anyone, I just want everybody to be seen fairly and I hope you see that from a human level, I really don't want to be punished for wanting to help, I can see nothing can be done here to add to the synopsis (even if the billionaire's boys club isn't his last film because you reverted that too), but as of now, I apologise for making anyone feel uncomfortable for my involvement. Hogyncymru 17:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Billionaire's Boys Club is his last film to date. Yes there's been news reports of him being cast in an Italian film, however Spacey has yet to comment on it himself and production hasn't started yet, meaning there's no guarantee that it's going to happen. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2021

Kindly change section title 2017–present: Baby Driver and career controversy to 2017–present: Career controversy.

Baby Driver was released in 2017, but there's no mention of it in this section, so putting it in the title makes no sense.

The discrepancy dates back to the edit that created this section in the first place, 1028941812 - which is to say, there never was any content to match the title.

The alternative to changing the title would be to add such content now, obviously. However, as it stands, everything in this section relates to the controversy in one way or another, whereas Baby Driver was released half a year before, so that doesn't seem ideal to me. Adding it to the previous, pre-controversy section would be better... except that that doesn't fit with the current "to 2016"/"from 2017" split. *shrug*

- 2A02:560:428C:A300:68B1:3D08:DB8E:6034 (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done ––FormalDude talk 05:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

question about the new picture

hiya I'm a newbie but surely the previous picture was better for his page as it was more recent? it's been replaced by one from 2009 that has a Spanish description on en.wikipedia, why is that? ty ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSelIers (talk • contribs) 14:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

sexual misconducts allegations : why is it allegations and not convictions

As per rhe article : "On May 26, 2022, Spacey was charged with four counts of sexual assault against three men in the UK"

This is a bit more than an allegation, he's been convicted of sexual assault. Allegation is "a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof". Here there are clear proofs, so I suggest the "allegation" part should be left off. 2A02:2788:2B4:652:2565:52CC:C535:CC9A (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

A criminal charge is not the same as a conviction. He has not been convicted. ––FormalDude talk 07:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Fix spelling/grammar - add commas and change "concerned"->"concerns".

Under 2017-present:

Change from: The director of the film Gene Fallaize dismissed concerned about working with Spacey.

To: The director of the film, Gene Fallaize, dismissed concerns about working with Spacey. Tompkins789 (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Spacey's allegations in Synopsis

In the synopsis, it unfairly portrays Stacey as suspicious or even guilty, yet because all of the allegations were dropped, Kevin is allowed to be seen as innocent, yet to address this at the top is often disputed by other editors who have emotional attachments to the subject matter, claiming that 'not guilty' is not the same as charges dropped, and although I agree it's not the same, Kevin was never found guilty, therefore it is perfectly fine to add that he was 'never found guilty', because he wasn't, therefore he is still innocent in the eyes of the law, and whether you're a high profile person or an average joe, everyone has the right to remain innocent until proven guilty You may argue that in the article discusses in detail that he was not found guilty, this is not addressed within the synopsis, so why is it important to show that he was never found guilty within the synopsis? well, the synopsis acts as a "TLDR" (Too long didn't read) where it briefly addresses the article before addressing it all within categories. So I hope that others agree with my view that wiki should be written within factual and impartial context rather than emotional or hearsay. Hogyncymru (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The header mentions the allegations. It doesn't say he was found guilty or assign any positive or negative weight to the allegations, so saying he was not found guilty is kind of superfluous and comes across as defensive imo. Also, just tacking on the short sentence "Kevin was not found guilty of any misdemeanour." at the end of the header really kills the flow and doesn't mesh with the previous sentence. However, I'm new to wikipedia so maybe you folks feel differently. Ficaia (talk) 16:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

"Kevin", huh. Show your bias more, felicia. 72.229.22.134 (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Criminal trial has begun

Update needed. His criminal trial has begun, at least from Friday 30 June 2023.

RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Update needed the trial is over. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66291461 PhilKnight (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Now done. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)