Talk:Jody Latham

Jody latham
Knew all the family grew up with them his uncle was murdered in colne Stephen by his wife. Nice family down to earth and caring Ann and Shirley, Maud and Barry and Barry's mum lived next door but one to me. I love seeing Jody he's a good actor and comes from a nice family. 51.9.148.221 (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Editing of a biographical detail
I have just edited out a biographical detail; the edit can be see at 'view history' on the the main article page. My reason for editing is arguable and I do so in order to try over time to establish a Wikipedia principle one way or the other (i.e. I have had a similar discussion at a couple of other articles). The article is about a UK subject. The detail I have removed is about a criminal offence 'spent' under the UK's Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. EU states have similar legislation, and the situation varies outside the EU. The US enables judges to prevent disclosure on application to the court. The long and short of it is that most states permit some degree of 'clean slate' for less serious offenders. Where such legislation or court rulings pertain, it is usually a civil tort to report the details unless it can be shown that such disclosure is meaningfully pertinent in the public interest (e.g. where the person re-offends). Wikipedia generally proceeds according to US legislation, but this for example does not prevent it being a tort in the UK or EU where the poster is in the UK or EU. Indeed, if a court has made a ruling on a specific case in the US then it is a tort (and arguably an offence of contempt) there to disclose without good reason. In principle (I am note sure of the legal situation in the US and elsehwere outside UK) a person may apply for a 'Norwich Pharmacal order' https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/disclosure-guide-seeking-norwich-pharmacal-orders to Wikipedia in this case to disclose the IP address of the poster. This can be followed through with civil action against the poster if the disclosure is not justified in the public interest. There is therefore a practial reason for Wikipedia editors and administrators to err on the side of caution in respect of disclosure of 'spent' offences, or indeed any old offences where a court may unbeknown to the poster or editor have made a non-disclosure ruling. In addition, however, beyond the legalistic, it seems decent to generally follow the principle of 'spent' offences not being reported here at Wikipedia (n.b. I am not referring to serious offences - in the UK, this is taken as offences for which a prison sentence of over 4 years has been awarded). Obviously, that's an opinion although it may conceivably serve as the basis for practice. All the best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmentalist (talk • contribs) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the principle of reporting on Wikipedia is the following. If there are published sources, then it's OK to include offences, spent or otherwise. If the courts have made an order not to publish, then published sources will not exist.
 * In considering whether to include an offense committed by someone who's the subject of a biography, the editor needs to consider if it's pertinent to the overall image of the subject.
 * Hope that helps.
 * Francis Hannaway (talk) 12:16, 19 September 2023 (UTC)