Talk:Simon Hall (murderer)

Wrongly helped
@Classic Middlesex: The words "wrongly helped" that appear in the lead and elsewhere suggest a degree of editorial bias and I am unclear if this opinion comes from the sources or from the way the sources have been interpreted when writing this article. Under English law, a person charged with an offence is entitled to a fair trial, and so is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In Hall's case, the "Rough Justice" campaigners and others appear to have been convinced, or duped, into at least believing that Hall trial had not been a fair one, so he had not been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. While their campaign appears to have persuaded the judiciary to review Hall's case, on appeal, that is also a right of people convicted of an offence. So, that doesn't make their campaign wrong, even though it might be mistaken or misguided. It would only be wrong if the campaigners knew of Hall's guilt, beforehand, and tried to persuade the justice system otherwise. As it was, Hall only confessed after his final appeals failed, so the advocacy on his behalf didn't ultimately "help" his case as he remained imprisoned until his death. In whose opinion was the advocacy wrong? And in whose opinion did it help Hall's case and how? To me, the advocacy only prolonged the agony for the victim's family. I would suggest different wording to convey a more neutral point of view and make it clear where the opinion originates from. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there, yes I see what you mean thank you. Would it be better to use the word "mistakenly" or would that be the same problem? An alternative option might be to say that activists were deceived into campaigning for him, since, as you say, they were duped into doing so when he was guilty. Classic Middlesex (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)