Talk:Caroline Feraday

Frankly I don't think that repeating Twitter exchanges on Wikispooks adds to the sum of relevant knowledge about Lockerbie or the admitted gross (and officially suppressed/obfuscated) incompetence of Alan Feraday. IMHO it tends to trivialise the issues themselves. I've come close to similar observations elsewhere too. I would far prefer we stick to facts and informed speculation than indulge in petty ego-parades. Caroline MAY be a suitable subject for Wikispooks - though unless and until she wades in on something of substance and relevance to Wikispooks I doubt it. So I suggest this page be deleted. Comments please? --Peter P (talk) 08:14, 19 February 2014 (GMT)

Bearing in mind that Caroline Feraday and Mark Lewis initiated this Twitter exchange by attacking me and The Ecologist for the article "Flight 103: it was the Uranium" published on 6 January 2014, Caroline has waded in with something of substance and relevance to WikiSpooks, Peter P.

The Twitter exchange began on 4 February 2014 and quickly developed into a discussion of whether in 1993 Lord Chief Justice Taylor had actually banned Alan Feraday from appearing as an expert witness in future trials such as the Lockerbie bombing trial (as the BBC had reported in 1995).

On 5 February 2014, Caroline Feraday tweeted:

@BerntCarlsson @colinwforster @MarkLewisLawyer @the_ecologist @BBCScotlandNews "The BBC were sued for that and had to apologise on air."

Caroline refuses to elaborate further but the fact is that the BBC report still maintains LCJ Taylor banned Alan Feraday in 1993, as does The Guardian ("Evidence that casts doubt on who brought down Flight 103") and Gareth Peirce ("The Framing of al-Megrahi").

So (as per AfD debates on Wikipedia) I say Keep.--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 12:29, 19 February 2014 (GMT)

Were the BBC sued or not? Presumably this is fairly easily verified, in which case it needn't be a matter of conjecture. I don't see that Caroline Feraday's tweets/opinions are of much interest either way. Is there any suggestion or evidence that she has inside knowledge? Unless this is the case, or unless I've missed something else, I go for Delete. Robin (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2014 (GMT)

My email to the MSM at 15:16 hrs today headed "Lockerbie: Scottish Judges ignored ruling of English Law Lord" (which was copied to Caroline Feraday and Mark Lewis) is designed to flush out whether the issue of the BBC being sued is in the public domain (or if only a select few are privy to it).--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2014 (GMT)

I appreciate what Patrick is trying to do here - use the site as a tool to flush information. Whilst not its primary purpose, I guess we can and probably should accomodate that sort of thing. However, the issue for me is how to do so without compromising the main purposes of the site. Robin's repeated references to the style guides are aposite here.

It is not apropriate that the first and most in-your-face obvious thing about a page, reasonably expected to be about its subject name (Say Alan Feraday) should be a picture of something/someone (an actress impersonating Margaret Thatcher in the Ferady case) else entirely. I can see the arguments for doing this and in this case they would certainly trump any objections on a site dedicated to Lockerbie; but Wiskispooks is NOT dedicated to Lockerbie. My other objection is that, whilst the trivia of a Twitter exchange may serve the purpose above, it certainly does not belong in the lede of the page.

How about a compromise: By all means mention her relationship to Feraday in the lede; but move the Twitter exchange well down the page to its own section with an explanation about its relevance. --Peter P (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2014 (GMT)