Talk:The Angry Brigade

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

Political Trial[edit]

To call the Angry Brigade trial a 'political trial' isn't an NPOV, so I'll change it to 'criminal trial', which has a strict meaning within the English legal system. Countersubject 15:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my ignorance of English law, but I would argue that whether English law classes this as criminal is irrelevant. The Angry Brigade's acts were solely political, with some of the accused being put on trial because of their politics and not because of any evidence against them. This, I would argue, would make it a political trial whether English law deems it so or not. Ants 00:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is verifiability. As a matter of fact, the defendants were were charged with offences against criminal (as opposed to civil) law. Whether or not the prosecution was politically motivated is a matter of opinion. Countersubject 11:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly correct. What I'm trying to say is, with Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, would the trial when analysed be perceived to be a political trial? Re-reading the article I agree that you were right to change it to criminal as the sentence was specifically referring to the length of time the trial lasted for. However I would still maintain that this was a political trial in a wider context. Not just because the prosecution may have been politically motivated (again, I agree that this would be opinion), but because the Angry Brigade's actions were most certainly politically motivated. Ants 22:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: the nature of Wikipedia, and the meaning of 'political' and 'criminal' trial in the context of this article. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, it has a policy of no original research. That is, assertions should be should be externally verifiable. The analysis you're suggesting is original research. A political trial is one where a prosecution is directed for political ends. A criminal trial is directed at criminal activity, that is, an apparent breach of criminal law. The defendants were accused of bombings. There were bombings, for which the Angry Brigade were apparently responsible. In the UK, as elsewhere, bombing is a criminal activity, irrespective of the motivation. It may be claimed that there was political motivation in prosecuting some of the defendants, whose crime was to be political associates of the bombers, but without verification, such an assertion would be at the best original research.

A less distressing analogy may be helpful. Imagine, for argument's sake, that the government of the day proposes to ban dominoes, and that I'm so disgusted with this infringement of my liberty that I throw paint over the Prime Minister's car. That would be a politically motivated criminal act, and I would not expect my motivation to excuse me from criminal prosecution. It may be that fellow domino players are prosecuted for encouraging or helping me in some way. They may claim that this is just an excuse to criminalise political dissidents, but without evidence for that, the Mandy Rice-Davies response springs to mind: they would say that, wouldn't they? Nor would failure to convict be evidence of such a conspiracy. It would have to be shown either that there was political motivation in the decision to prosecute, or that there was so little ground for prosecution that political motivation could reasonably be assumed. Countersubject 09:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Others[edit]

What about Jake Prescott and Ian Purdie? A major omission surely? 92.3.130.0 (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Or the fact that the Amhurst Rd arrest of the Stoke Newiington 8 led to spurious material being introduced into Jake Prescott's trial for the bombing of Robert Carr's house less than a week before its start. There is no discussion of the ab/mis-use of the charge of conspiracy and the entire debate that that engendered.Jatrius (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middle class?[edit]

Although the group purported to represent "the autonomous working class",[3] when the police arrested nine suspected members of the group, only one, (Jake Prescott, who was arrested in Notting Hill) came from the working class; the other eight, four men and four women (arrested together in Stoke Newington) were middle class student drop-outs from the universities of Cambridge and Essex.
Horspool 2009, p. 385.

In the mid-70s I was a neighbour of Jim Greenfield's father, who was not middle class. He once informed me there was a ready market for any scrap metal I might be able to liberate from my place of employment -- not a usual topic of conversation among the chattering classes, or so I'm led to believe.

Not every Oxbridge undergraduate is middle class (just most of them). 93.167.82.216 (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Communist not anarchist?[edit]

Weren't the AB communist, not anarchist? According their their communiqaes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.112.100 (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Angry Brigade. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Their Beliefs[edit]

We need a section 'Beliefs'.

I was there, it was clear that they were ANGRY, but apart from that what they actually wanted was never clear; what did they hope to achieve? Wolstan Dixie (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Angry_Brigade&oldid=1211125271"