Talk:Fairford Five

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fairford Five article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted on 19 November 2012 by reviewer CAWylie (talk · contribs).

Correction/clarification

Although the five defendants' cases were initially linked by the Crown Prosecution Service, that was the only sense in which they could be considered a single group.

The sequence of events leading up to the first trial began with three entirely independent actions. Olditch and Pritchard acted together; Millings and Jones acted together; Richards acted alone. The two pairs and one individual had no contact before or during their respective actions.

During the legal process of various trials, retrials, appeals, hung juries, convictions and acquittals they were represented by three separate legal teams, and put forward different and separate defences. I believe, though I'm not 100% sure, that only one court action involved the five at the same time. Subsequent trials, etc. were conducted separately, and verdicts were reached separately. Only Millings and Jones were eventually found guilty and had fines imposed on them.

There were very significant differences between the means and intentions of the actions they respectively took. Olditch and Pritchard, and separately Millings and Jones, had very carefully planned and acted so as to cause no harm to any individuals. Their intentions were to damage aircraft on the ground, to make it very clear that they had done so (they had prepared warming notices to affix to aircraft) and to remain with the aircraft to further explain that they were unsafe. Unfortunately the same could not be said of Josh Richards' intended action. Harm to people was not his apparent intention, but setting fire to an aircraft can't be regarded as a well planned means of ensuring that.

Support campaigns for the defendants and efforts to raise awareness of the issues, were also conducted almost entirely separately. Coverage of all of the events varied, of course, across UK media, but it was clear even in media coverage at the time that objection to the war and taking action to attempt to prevent it were the only common factors (see references cited in the article, and other coverage not cited).

I think that clarification and more detailed description of the process, as well as the accurate distinction of the five defendants and their actions, is important. It's important for the historical record of these historically important court cases. It's also very important that each defendant should be accurately represented in that record. Hihoforahistoricalrecord (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]