Talk:Darius J. Pearce

Archives (Index)

2013 2017 2021

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Very biased article which will be revised with reference to the various Jersey Law judgements which are available

This is an exceptionally biased article which is bordering on being misleading, particularly in the 'criminal charges' section where it is outright misleading. Perhaps someone would like to go through the Jersey Law website and actually detail his adventures in the Jersey Courts which are fascinating?

I will do it if no one else wishes to, but won't have the time for a while. RichardColgate (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Sections moved to here:

When actually Pearce was found not guilty and reached an out of court settlement with regard to misfeasance with the police. There is no discussion with regard to the significant number of human rights court cases he has won. Very misleading with regard to him having sold £7,000 of gold to someone who knew someone who knew someone who was a drug dealer. The article should really draw directly from the actual cases many of which can be found on the Jersey Law website and he has been the subject of a Jersey Law Review 'Letter to the Editor'.

Whomever has written this may wish to revise it accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardColgate (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Removing the neutrally written, factual text relating to his money laundering conviction (rather than the above) seems like whitewashing? See MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Following the policy you highlight the strictly factual text is that:

"He was found guilty of three offences under the Article 30 (3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999. Article 30 (3) is entering into or being concerned in an arrangement which the person knows or suspects facilitates the possession, use, acquisition, control of criminal property."

If you read the most recent judgement, the Court of Appeal of Jersey worked on the basis that he sold £7,000 of gold to people who turned out to be associates of people who later imported drugs. At that hearing the Court refused to hear any of the various arguments which undermine the safety of the three convictions, he is still maintaining his innocence and has appeals resting with the Privy Council and the Lieutenant Governor where those arguments will be heard.

Perhaps balance would dictate that you state both sides rather than just the one the JEP put out to sell newspapers?

My previous discussions over deleting this page have been rejected (twice in fact), because DP is still considered to be newsworthy locally. Even though he is in prison, he still somehow makes the news more regularly than either of us.

As I said I am happy to write the article using the judgements as source material, but it is not a particularly pressing matter for me. I ma happy for you to do it. In the mean time I am concerned that the article should comply with Wikipedia rules regarding defamation and relying solely on JEP articles (i.e. tabloid journalism) to defame someone is clearly contrary to their policies. RichardColgate (talk) 01:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've not restored your edits, but in my view some or all of them should be; you've not replaced the Jersey Evening Post citations with 'better' ones - the ones you've added do not verify the statements made and the content you've added is misleading and seem to gloss over the fact that Pearce has been convicted for money laundering. Pearce may be exploring multiple grounds of appeal, and that may be mentioned if properly cited. I have sought an independent third opinion. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am only part way through the revision, I have a full list of all the cases from the Jersey Law website to add in and need to reference the text to the court judgement it came from. Once the text is fully updated then we should be able to discuss any further concerns you have. There are a very large number of court cases to go through however. There are a number of issues identified in the hidden categories, which I have started to correct, but which I still have to finalise. The multiple ongoing appeals are dealt with in a judgement of the court of appeal of Jersey from July 2024 for example. This is still an evolving situation as the original prosecution is not yet fully concluded according to the same judgement and that is after five years.

This is the basic bones of the expansion however, which deals with his activities since I orginally wrote the article many years ago now as I had not bothered to update it once he ceased to be an officeholder.

I am afraid I have to take down some of the content you have restored to this page as it is potentially libellous to a living person. It will be in the history should we need to recover it. RichardColgate (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately when you were checking the links you appear to have accidentally added in some additional text which meant that the links did not function properly, I have therefore amended the links so they point where they should. RichardColgate (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

You have indicated that you have a conflict of interest please can you declare what your conflict of interest is? I presume you work for the States of Jersey or some quango? RichardColgate (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It is the responsibility of the person who adds content to a WP:BLP article to properly cite it at the time. It isn't ok to add statements on the basis of 'I'll get round to adding citations later'. See WP:BLPSOURCES. When I added the COI tag, I meant you, not me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a problem, I have added the full list of judgements thus far to the article all with standard legal neutral citation RichardColgate (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I will still need to do further editing to expand upon the case as time allows RichardColgate (talk) 10:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If you have any further useful tips for me then they will be most gratefully received. RichardColgate (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

This latest version is at least non-defamatory so I guess it can stay as it is until I have time to properly update this article. RichardColgate (talk) 06:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Stubifying

I have removed all of the unverifiable content. Most of the content in the article could not be found in the cited materials. In general, the primary sources were not accurately represented in the text and inflated the content found within them to the point it was clearly not mere puffery but actually factually not true. Normal things like asking questions of a government panel through the normal public engagement process were being inflated as to participating in formal debates and having some sort of significant impact on local law. Emailing a government panel/taskforce when they are in a period of public comment is not unusual or encyclopedic. I do that all the time, and indeed I have done more than that and actually sat on committees at the city and county level but that doesn't make me encyclopedic. That's just being engaged as a civilian in public civic forums at the local level and is nothing unusual. Undoubtedly that kind of civic engagement shapes the public process, but not in any way that isn't WP:ROUTINE. All of the primary materials were of this nature and were over inflating the position of a very minor local person with a failed career in local politics (ie he lost the only major local election her ran in). It was complete original analysis not supported by the sources, and I removed it per both WP:NOTPROMO and WP:No original research. Additionally the supposed offices he held such as roadmaster, were not covered in any cited sources and were completely unverifiable, as was his supposed role as an editor. When I looked I couldn't find his name anywhere attached to those roles.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the use of WP:PRIMARY materials and a letter to the editor (which is a subjective opinion piece) to support coverage of criminal activities is a big no no under WP:BLPCRIMINAL, WP:Attack page, and WP:CRIMINAL. That was totally inappropriate and I removed those for that reason. The only thing that was usable was a failed run for a local office. This clearly fails WP:NPOL. This was appropriately taken to WP:AFD.4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)