Talk:UK media apparently conflict with Scots law in Mikaeel Kular case

OR notes

• This article has been prepped on the confidential Journalist's Workspace wiki, to allow work without being scooped, and also to allow sharing of legally problematic material in a lawful way. As such it's been reviewed privately prior to being posted so as to preserve the embargo prior to publication.
• I'm based in Scotland. As is known to most regular contributors, I'm related to a Scots lawyer and have access to hot and cold running legal advice. I've been advised that no person should be identified prior to appearing in court. I have failed to find online references to back that up; nonetheless, I won't be doing so on account of the legal advice I have received.
• This article centres around looking at articles in question and determining what they say.
• At the time I write this the BBC article is the most-read thing on their site.
• "Images of arrested persons in high-profile cases are often published in cases south of the border." - based on my own observations. e.g. Dale Cregan, Chris Jeffries, Stuart Hazell (sp?). Photos after charge are very commonplace indeed.
• I saw Sky News broadcast the name and image of the detained person shortly after midday.
• As part of a news bullletin at 18:00 I heard BBC Radio 4 name the person concerned.
• Further details to assist with verification have been made available to trusted volunteers. Those notes will be released publicly in due course once legal proceedings are concluded. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Brian McNeil has emailed law professors at Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee Universities requesting clarification on the issue of naming the suspect and a confirmation the photo is published illegally. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

legally questionable OR notes

This section will be public, one day. For now, only this message is public owing to ongoing legal concerns.

---

The person detained is the 33-year-old mother of the presumed deceased. It is unclear what offence(s) are suspected. Off my own head, as well as the obvious murder possibility, are offences such as child neglect, perverting the course of justice, and preventing a lawful and decent burial. I'm unclear as to the exact provisions of Scots law for acts of the first and third types.

List of questionable source URLs;

• BBC
• Sky
• Channel 4
• Guardian
• Telegraph
• Independent
• Daily Mail (additional verification was required)
• Mirror 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
• Metro
• Scotsman
• Evening Standard
• The Star
• Herald
• The Sun
• MEN

Extract of discussion from #Wikinewsie private freenode channel:

[18:45] <@brianmc> Let's put it this way; I got on the 35 to come down here. That trundled down Easter Road about a half-hour after the match finished. Numerous conversations on the bus along the lines of, "Aye, they've arrested the mother. Comes from a posh/rich background, and killed him."
[18:45] <+pizero> brianmc: Hm?
[18:46] <@brianmc> Easter Road is 'almost' home to Hibernian FC
[18:46] * BRS has seen fb comments to similar effect
[18:46] <@brianmc> Which, essentially, means everyone in a busy football stadium was gossiping about the mother having killed her son. [18:47] <@BRS> I'll piss myself laughing if they don't charge her.
[18:47] <@brianmc> They happily believe it because she originally came from a quite nice, private, housing estate in Fife.

• I was inactive when the case concluded. The private notes, above, were made public at the date of this timestamp. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 2322313 [Passed]

Revision 2322313 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 2322313 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Title issue?

The word "apparently" isn't particularly professional sounding, and gives off a vibe of "someone said this, we're repeating it"; perhaps a reword to "could", or if we're confident enough, ommitting it entirely? — μchip08 05:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• A speculative legal opinion, which we've subsequently been told is largely accurate. I can see your point, but any rewrite of the title I come up with is more-wordy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Apparently is less than ideal, but could imo is far worse. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)