h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Bentley and Craig - A8599413
Author: Bob Hopeless - U2769622

This is an uncomfortable entry written about a very uncomfortable subject: judicial murder. I hope you like my first attempt at an EG entry

A first entry? It's blummin' marvellous!

I'll leave it to our wonderful PR community to give you some pointers about individual grammatical points and such, but this is a WONDERFUL first draft.

Personally, I think it would be nice to include (even as a footnote) a few brief details of the movie 'Let Him Have It', such as date of release, main cast, director, etc.

Very well done!

Paully

I found out from a clip I saw the other day that Let Him Have It features a young and blond Christopher Eccleston shouting the eponymous line.

Indeed it does - 'Let Him Have It' was one of Eccleston's first leading roles, and it's a stunning performance from him.

P

I got the film on DVD with my weekend paper. I watched it years ago, but have not seen it for a while. I shall add some details about the film.

A very well written piece well done Bob, definatly add a piece or a footnote about Chris Ecclestone playing Derek Bentley in his first Movie role

I've done some tidying up and added in some information about other sources, including the film.

Interesting, well-written, poignant, thorough... but not exactly unbiased in places.

'Ken Saro-Wiwa' doesn't need to be in italics. Foreign words, yes, but not foreign names. I think.

"mutually-self-absorbed"
'mutually self-absorbed'

"London in the 1950's was not a nice place to live"
It certainly wasn't an easy place to live for some people, and for those who don't like living in a big city but who had no means to get out, then yes, it wasn't a nice place to live, but that's a very sweeping and generalistic statement, and one which could be made about any other big UK city of the time. I'd tone it down a bit to something like 'London in the 1950s [no apostrophe] was, for its poorer inhabitants, a difficult and stressful place to live'.

"At eleven, the family were staying in a flat, and a V1 missile hit it, covering Derek in roofing tiles"
'At eleven, he was covered in roofing tiles when a V1 missile hit the flat which the family were staying in'.

"Their son Derek had suffered worse than many. At the age of seven he had been buried when a bomb hit the air raid shelter they were using, killing his younger sister. At eleven, the family were staying in a flat, and a V1 missile hit it, covering Derek in roofing tiles. Added his falling from a lorry at the age of four onto his head, these events compounded a developmental problem that eventually resulted in him growing up with a mental age of eleven"
-->
'Their son Derek had suffered worse than many. When only four years old he had fallen onto his head from a lorry. At the age of seven he had been buried when a bomb hit the air raid shelter they were using, killing his younger sister, and four years later he was covered in roofing tiles when a V1 missile hit the flat which the family were staying in. These events compounded a developmental problem that eventually resulted in him growing up with a mental age of eleven'

Knuckledusters aren't the sort of weapons I would have thought were readily available because a war had just ended. They're not exactly British Army standard issue. Guns, yes; knives, probably (from bayonets); but not knuckledusters.

"Eventually, he got sent to Kingswood Approved School"
'was sent to'

"It was this school that Bentley met Chris Craig"
'at this school'

November 2nd, 1952 - 2 November, 1952

"A patrol car containing a detective constable and a uniformed constable were patrolling nearby"
'A patrol car containing a detective constable and a uniformed constable was nearby'
or
'A detective constable and a uniformed constable were nearby in a patrol car'

"PC Sidney Miles"
'PC' is how I would normally type it, but I believe the correct way is 'Pc'. Leastways, that's how I've seen it written in BBC news reports.

"Both boyswere put on trial"
'boys were'

"at the Old Bailey"
'at the Old BaileyThe Central Criminal Court in London.'

"Thursday 9th December, 1952"
'Thursday December 9, 1952'

No need to italicise the name of Lord Justice Goddard.

I really not comfortable with that first footnote. What evidence is there for what it suggests?

"Moreover, the climate in which Goddard was judging this two was one in which he would have felt comfortable acting in an extremely biased fashion"
Why was that? And it should be 'this trial'.

"Moreover, the bullet that had killed Miles was never found but was probably fired from a .32 calibre gun, not Craig's .45"
If the bullet was never found, why is it thought that it came from a .32? And who would have been weilding one of those? How pertinent would that have been to the case for the defence?

"to throw the gun over"
'to throw the gun to a police officer'

"It did, however, seem like a rather mannered and melodramatic incitement"
Did you mean 'mild-mannered and unmelodramatic'?

"would have been the sort of phrase that Bentley would have been more likely to have uttered"
'is the sort of phrase that Bentley would have been more likely to have uttered'

"at Her Majesties Pleasure"
'at Her Majesty's Pleasure'
Perhaps a footnote explaining what this means.

"though hopefully for other reasons than those of Goddard"
That harks back to footnote 1 I imagine.

"would have nevertheless seemed like an eternity"
'would have nevertheless seemed like an eternity to Bentley'

"to makes sure that he didn't cheat"
'make sure'

"Bentley nevertheless bore his ordeal"
There was a 'nevertheless' just a few sentences previously. Words or phrases like that always look a bit odd when they come close together like that.

"the 13th of January 1953" - January 13, 1953

"Britain's only Official Executioner"
I don't think 'official executioner' needs to be capitaised in that context.

"they can't hang me, can they"?
"they can't hang me, can they?"

"On January 27th" - January 27

"That evening, he spent listening to the radio"
'That evening, Bentley listened to the radio'
or
'Bentley spent the evening listening to the radio'

"But the telephone never rang"
Either put that at the end of the previous paragraph or take out the word 'But'. Or perhaps reword that along the lines of 'The telephone call ordering a stay of execution never came'.

"The angry crowd gathered outside"
'An angry crowd'

"back to her fiancée"
Nice use of the e acute

There's quite a jump in years between "and destroyed wreaths that they had left at the prison gates" and "Iris's relentless pressure seemed to be bearing fruit at last when in 1992". A short sentence would link the two nicely - something like 'Iris fought relentlessly through the years to clear Derek's name', perhaps with a brief description of what she did.

"Hardly surprisingly (for this was a Conservative government)"
I think this is one of those instances of bias that needs to be toned down somewhat.

"were dismissed by him during the trial;"
'were dismissed by him during the trial.'

"She sadly died of cancer"
'Sadly, she died'

"In 1993 Iris won a partial pardon when Clarke's successor, Michael Howard, granted a partial reprieve"
'In 1993 Iris won a small victory when Clarke's successor, Michael Howard, granted a partial reprieve'

"In remarkable contrast to Clarke, Lord Bingham found"
Is that really a fair comparison? Clarke was home secretary - a politician in high public office, whereas Lord Bingham is a senior law lord who was appointed a QC more than 30 years ago and who has risen through the ranks of the justice system. I've no idea what his politics are.

"broke his silence with his statement that"
'with a statement that'

"(all under Conservative governments)"
A statemtn of fact perhaps, but again showing bias in the entry and not directly relevant to the case of Bentley.

Pierrepoint's quote should be in a blockquote tag and italics.

"Derek Bentley was unavailable for comment."
Nice touch.

"Let Him Dangle" should be in normal font and single quotes (house style).

Very good entry indeed.

Sorry, I messed up on a few of those dates. House style is 'day date month, year' as in 'Monday 27 September, 1999' Subeditors-Style

No, not exactly un-biased... but I don't think that's necessarily a problem in this case.

Amazing first entry, Bob!

BH, thank you for your comments. You aren't my abbrevated doppelganger, are you?

There is a lot of comment here, most of which I will take on board, but some of which I won't I think I ought to explain why not, but not why, as this would be pointless.

First, I don't see how the comment about knuckledusters is really going to help. It may well be true that they wre not standard 'Army issue' but even if they weren't then it's not exactly misleading to include them in this statement. However, I will take the comment out.

'I really not comfortable with that first footnote. What evidence is there for what it suggests?'

Well, I have read it in several articles both on and off the Web, and it has been related by no less an authority than Ludovic Kennedy. Goddard was a pervert, and not of the friendly handcuffs-and-leather persuasion. He is also dead, which means he cannot be libelled. Moreover, the climate in which the trial was conducted was one in which a copper always spoke the truth and where event he defence lawyer stated his desire that someone should hang for the crime. Hardly conducive to a fair trial.

'Did you mean 'mild-mannered and unmelodramatic'?'
No, I meanst exactly what i said. NOBODY really says 'leat him have it!'. Only kids in the playground say things like that, like they say 'Take that!'.

Regarding the allegation of bias, I agree, the entry is biased. However, it reflects rather than implies bias. This became one of the most politicised issues of all. Since Thatcher's victory in 1979 there were numerous attempts to reintroduce hanging, all by private members bills, but there was *always* time found miraculously for the bill to be debated and voted upon. Compare this with the normal Private Member's bill that falls by the wayside or takes several attempts for time to be found for debate. I am not a Conservative but I would strongly suggest that if a politcal party doesn't want to represented as beign biased it doesn't act in that fashion. Either that, or stand up and be counted, and weather the resultant opprobrium.

'Is that really a fair comparison? Clarke was home secretary - a politician in high public office, whereas Lord Bingham is a senior law lord who was appointed a QC more than 30 years ago and who has risen through the ranks of the justice system. I've no idea what his politics are.'

Yes, it's fair. Clarke said he could find no cause for pardoning Bentley. He set *himself* up as the final authority on this matter but his judgement was shown to be wanting by someone who actually *knew* the law and took the *whole* case into account.


The rest of the changes I shall do when I have a spare hour or two.

I'm *nobody's* doppelganger - abbreviated or otherwise

My point regarding the knuckledusters was that you said that weapons were easy to come by because of the recent war, and then included knuckledusters in the list of weapons. If knuckledusters were easy to get hold of, it wouldn't have been as a result of the war in the same way that guns and knives were. Now that you've removed the reference though, it's a moot point.

If several sources - including Ludo - say so, then I'd believe it too. If I was writing the entry I don't think I'd include it, but I'm not.

Sorry, I misread the bit about 'Let him have it' and got the context arse-up'ard.

Clarke has been a lawyer himself so I guess he ought to know more than others about the machinations of the legal system, but I think it would be worthwhile drawing the distinction that he was a lawyer/politician rather than a judge since lawyers have a very different agenda to judges. Lawyers are fighting for their clients, no matter how bang to rights they are, whereas a judge has no client and has to find for justice. Whatever Bingham's politics were, he's a lord for life, whereas Clarke,being a politician, has voters to bear in mind.

I've made the changes now.

I'm not going to change my comment about Clarke. The more often I reconsider his stance, the more often the word 'ostrich' comes to mind. He was certainly more a lawyer than a judge, but even more than that he was a politician and one with his eye on the main chance. The priniciple audience for his judgement was the hang 'em and flog 'em tendency of his own party. If he or anyone else wishes to explain to me how his actions could be construed to be otherwise then they are perfectly at liverty to post to this thread.

That's precisely what I'm trying to get across - Clarke's motives for finding as he did were (allegedly and presumably) poles apart from those of Bingham. They had entirely different agendas.

However, I'll say no more about it.

Does anybody have anything else to add? There's so much to the case I must have left something out somewhere...

Well, there's always the similarity between the shooting of PC Miles and the shooting of PC Dixon

What, of Dock Green?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042265/

I've never heard of this before

Good entry - my main nitpick is that those who haven't heard of this before () will have problems understanding the meaning of the title