This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement 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.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brighton, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource about Brighton and Hove. If you would like to participate, please visit the project pageBrightonWikipedia:WikiProject BrightonTemplate:WikiProject BrightonBrighton articles
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
As this is a criminal and not a civil case, I believe the name of this article should probably be of the form "R v (list of defendants)". However, as I am not a lawyer, I have posted a request for help and advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law.
above comment is correct. EDO MBM Technology v. Smash EDO campaign was the name of an earlier civil case brought by the company against the smash edo protesters in 05-06. see EDO Injunction Case EDO MBM were not a party in the 2010 criminal case which was titled R v Saibene and others, other wise knbown as the EDO Decommissioners case, so this article should use one of those as a title.
The EDO Decomissioners case was brought by the Crown Prosecution Service CPS against the defendants.
The MD of EDO MBM, Paul Hills was a witness for the prosecutions and was cross examined by the defence team about his company's links to Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.227.236 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, those comments were very helpful. --NSH001 (talk) 08:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I do not think this article is currently written from NPOV. cagliost (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
Could you please explain what you think is wrong, and what should be changed? We can't do anything without further detail, otherwise the POV tag should be removed. --NSH001 (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
