Talk:George Davis (robber)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Misleading information[edit]

To reply to the brief "MISLEADING INFORMATION" point of discussion raised in the brief paragraph immediately below this one. The reason why Davis IS described as an armed robber is NOT because he was guilty of the Ilford LEB April 1974 robbery although as the article makes clear after his December 1975 failed appeal hearing he was still not declared innocent when in May 1976 even though he was suddenly released extraordinarily by Royal Prerogative with many years still to serve. He is described primarily as an armed robber because (1) that was the original controverial allegation against him and (2) and more legitimately so because after his May 1976 release he WAS arrested actually on a second armed robbery in London (23 September 1977) at The Bank of Cyprus, Seven Sisters Road, London - as indicated in the article. The article also now clarifies that Davis is currently seeking still to overturn the original 1974 LEB robbery conviction. So I don't vote for a move. An additional observation is that the State authorities by making the decisions they did at various junctures complicated and compounded the issues in the way the article indicates. At first sight matters appear contradictory but that is the way in which matters still stand in this extraordinary case at this juncture. The Guntz --TheGuntz (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

surely the page should not be titled george davis (armed robber) when it then goes on to say he didnt do it? also the opening paragraph calls him an armed robber. i vote for a move -ross616- (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding context to the mis-identification of Davis because baldly stating that the identification evidence was unreliable doesn't adquately explain other factors that greatly motivated those involved in tne Davis campaign. TheGuntz 15:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have further contextualised the Davis Campaign to better convey some sense of what else was going on parallel to the campaign and where some of the political energies and expeinece came from which significantly influenced ongoing events. It would be very worthwhile for Wikipedia to have an item on the UP AGAINST THE LAW COLLECTIVE.

New article[edit]

Seems worth the work: I have started on this article --Gordo 22:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket pitch[edit]

I am just wondering why there is no mention of the Cricket Test Match that was ruined by putting oil on the pitch in this cause. Can someone enlighten?

The point raised immediately above is puzzling because under the "CAMPAIGN" section of the article there are various references to the August 1975 Headingly Test Cricket Match sabotage . These references appear adequate as this article is not basically about cricket. In fact the sabotage was commited overnight and the pitch was therefore not useable the following day although on that day the weather was bad too and it is likely that cricket could not have been played in any event - not that the latter ironical eventuality was much discussed publically at the time. TheGuntz.

It is puzzling that the ‘Campaign’ section does not mention the principal method used to raise awareness, that is the widespread graffiti ‘George Davis is innocent OK’ on walls and bridges. This was novel, distinctive and subversive, and made a lasting contribution to popular culture. Freddie Orrell (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC). I’ve added it now. Freddie Orrell (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign[edit]

"RELEASE COLLECTIVE"

From the article I am not clear how by whom and why this description is being queried - I worked for RELEASE for 5 plus years and we described ourselves as a "COLLECTIVE" hence the use of this description. Not everybody on the planet would refer to RELEASE as a COLLECTIVE but in the historical period with which the article primarily deals it was so described. I hope this will suffice - if not discus further. I was a co-author of award winning "TROUBLE WITH THE LAW: The RELEASE Bust Book" published 1978 the included introductory paragraphs of which state: "we have developed a collective of fourteen paid full-time workers ...". Furthermore this is a description provided in "RELEASE NEWS" Vol.5 No.3. published Autumn 1978 "we are a national alternative legal and welfare organisation working on a collective basis ...". this edition of NEWS RELEASE carried a full retrospective of the GEORGE DAVIS CAMPAIGN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGuntz (talk • contribs) 00:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC) --TheGuntz (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Geroge Davis is innocent" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Geroge Davis is innocent. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reyk _YO! 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]