Talk:Constance Briscoe

Untitled

This article is very, very poor in quality. It appears to be a summary of the early part of Constance Briscoe's life. The main focus seems to be the abuse suffered at the hands of her parents/guardians. There is very little information beyond her going to university at the age of 19. The reason she is well known is not because of what happened to her as a child (it happens to a lot of children of whom we will never hear anything) but because of what she did afterwards. I don't know enough to add anything and I'm not very interested in adding anything, but it did need to be pointed out that this is hardly worth having here. Further, I would say that it isn't very encyclopedia-like. For example, saying "fortunately" she vomited and didn't from the bleach she swallowed. Of course any decent person would agree that this was fortunate, but an encyclopedia article doesn't need to tell the reader that it was fortunate. The article just needs to state facts, and they should be balanced across her life story.--Oxonian2006 15:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is indeed poor quality; it is little more than publisher's puff. However, it should stay for the time being as Mrs Carmen Briscoe, Constance Briscoe's mother, is reported to have issued legal proceedings for defamation against her daughter through the lawyers Samuel Ross Solicitors as of 16 September 2006.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=405472&in_page_id=1770

It will become a valid entry in its own right because it is unheard of for a member of the judiciary (all be it a part-time one) to be sued for defamation at all, let alone in a family context. The may become relevant to other contested autobiographies such as James Frey (A Million Little Pieces).

Well indeed, I'm sure she's somebody very definitely worth having an article about, but, as the above seems to agree, there is the problem that so far all that is known about her is derived from her book and from the ensuing media interest. The case should provide some further information. It would be of some interest to know, for example, where it was that she went to university (was it in the end Newcastle? - did she grow up in the North East? - is there a large Jamaican population in the N.E.?), why she chose to become a lawyer, what areas of law she has practised, what impact she has had on younger black women aspiring to the legal profession, and so on. I must say that it is also a bit disturbing that the article so far seems to dwell somewhat on the details (and especially the most shocking details) of the physical abuse. Nothing strictly wrong about that, but (and it's perhaps the topic of another article) it is interesting as a social, psychological, and commercial phenomenon just how many books there have been in recent years that are first-hand accounts of childhood abuse, from the UK, US, and Ireland. I certainly don't believe in keeping child abuse secret, but I wonder (with an open mind to the question) what good, and possibly what harm, it does anybody to have this profusion of more or less explicit accounts of child abuse. I suppose these things need to be known about, like the Shoah (Holocaust), and the less publicised Armenian Genocide, and of course war, but there is a rather tabloid-ish tastelessness about the child abuse memoirs - not, of course, on the part of the victims (or survivors, if the term is preferred), but in the marketing of the books and the market for them. Is it in what we might call the public interest?--Oxonian2006 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I did my best to add some balance earlier today by amending the main section to show that it was autobiographical hearsay, and to add in the strict facts about the current legal dispute. But I agree that it mainly still reads like a publishers' puff. 81.174.249.24 09:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The article still needs a re-write. I accept the reason for the use of the words "claims" and "alleges" throughout, but there is a danger that its overuse raises NPOV issues in disputing points that only Ms Briscoe can actually know. Quite aside from that, the sentence "Ms Briscoe also claims that after passing A-levels, she won a place to read law at Newcastle University" reads oddly given that she did attend that university. Is an option for there to be an entry along the lines of "In her book, Ms Briscoe says ..."? Her assertions can then be set out without necessarily either supporting or disputing them. To ensure, balance, it can be added that many of her assertions are disputed and have been the subject of legal action.Informed Owl (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Sub judice rules in the UK

It may well read like a publisher's puff, but that hardly matters now. After a writ has been served for a hearing in the UK courts there should be no further comment. To do so and appear to be promoting the case for either party may well result in the contributor and Wikipedia (as the publisher) being accused of CONTEMPT OF COURT. In the UK that can mean jail-time. Contributors are strongly urged to refrain from further comment on this page or the main page until after the courts reach their conclusions.

I thought that Wikipedia was subject to Florida law, so UK sub judice rules do not apply. PatGallacher 17:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as an entity is subject to Florida law, however, those who contribute to it are subject to British law, as the case is under the jurisdiction of the British Courts. It is unlikely that the British would seek an extradition for contempt of court, however, thoseliving in Britain might want to be careful. Especially the idiot who added the massive section which is copied verbatim from a website criticising Constance Briscoe regarding a tenancy arrangement.

Restore

In= have restored the article. Recording the facts do not cause us problems here. I think most of the fact tags are unneeded, since we are reporting what the book says, so that is the reference. Rich Farmbrough, 00:54 10 December 2007 (GMT).

The poor quality is greatly accentuated by plastering every assertion with a fact tag. I'm restructuring it with one fact tag: as long as we make it clear that the entire mass of allegations is a recounting of the book's content, we need one fact tag, for our assertion that she has asserted all the various facts. When there is a prospect of establishing any individual fact there may be some value in a different approach, but what we have now is a travesty.

I changed two heading titles:

Controversial autobiography ==> Autobiographical claims (not that much more neutral, but less ostentatiously doubting

Legal dispute with family ==> Legal action (No evidence that the siblings are parties to the case, so the legal dispute is with the mother; they contest her account, but that makes them witnesses (or eventually may), not contenders, in mom's suit.)

--Jerzy•t 19:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The Accused/ Litigation after the Publication of 'Ugly'

Hello. Mrs Constance Briscoe wrote a crime novel, 'The Accused.' It is my understanding that she is in the process of writing a sequel. Should this information be expanded upon in the article or does it warrant a new page? Furthermore, there was a considerable amount of litigation surrounding the publication of her first book. Should there be more information as to what precisely the Prosecution were alleging as well as the arguments which were put forth during the hearings? Thank you. (Galaxycat (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC))

Info box differs from text

Alma mater University of Newcastle upon Tyne

               University of Warwick

Text says she went to Wolberhampton. Could somebody check? 86.44.69.244 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Honorary Degree of Doctor of Laws — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.255.86 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Biographical Note

Adam Wilson, the father of Constance Briscoe's two children, is not and never has been a QC.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constance Briscoe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208162804/http://thebookshow.skyarts.co.uk:80/authors/10500/constance_briscoe.html to http://thebookshow.skyarts.co.uk/authors/10500/constance_briscoe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)