Talk:Murder of Carole Packman

Copyright
Various information relating to the case was removed from the page due to a copyright infringement

How this can be copyrighted is beyond me, it’s a matter of public record. The story is indeed the story, the ground for appeal, were the grounds for appeal.

This isn’t an individuals own creative writing, R v Causley is a matter of public record, and as such is published for those to understand and educate themselves of case law.

It’s nonsensical to prevent the disclosure citing copyright. No where does it state that the material is subject to copyright. Neil K Gillingham (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I found the matching content at https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2003/1840.html. The source document is a transcript of a UK court case. It's marked as being "Crown Copyright ©" and there's no evidence that it was released under a compatible license. — Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter - it’s transcripts take from a public court. Much Crown copyright material is made available to use free of charge under the Open Government Licence (OGL) Neil K Gillingham (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Helens Law
It’s not political debate, it’s fact. Whilst I appreciate you may not believe it to be of relevance to censor fact does this very website a disservice and undermines the ability for people to correctly understand our case and cases like ours. It is referenced by third parties, far more credible than the Wikipedia user who decided to remove and edit unnecessarily the truth concerns Helens Law or Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 as it’s officially known. Neil K Gillingham (talk) 10:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)