Talk:HM Prison Shepton Mallet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Date of founding: 1610 or 1625?[edit]

There is some debate whether the prison was founded in 1610 or 1625. Various modern sources (eg the HM Chief Inspector report from 2008 referred to in the main article) quote 1610. In his comprehensive history, Francis Disney says that it was in 1610 that the prison was "envisaged", but he then goes on to quote the following Deed of Sale between Rev Edward Barnard and various Justices of the Peace and local notables (emphasis added):

This indenture made May 5th., in the 1st. year of Charles 1., 1625, between Edward Barnard of Stowey, clerk, and Annie his wife and Thomas Stowell of Batcombe, gentleman: and Sir Hugh Smith of Longe Ayshton, knight, Thomas Smith his son and heyre apparent, Sir Edward Rodney of Rodney Stoke, knight, William Rodney his son and heir apparent, Sir John Homer of Mells, knight, Thomas Horner, his son and heyre apparent, Charles Barkley of Brewton, knight, Robert Hopton of Witham Frayry, esquire, Ralphe Hopton his son and heir apparent, Thomas Southworth of Wells, esquire, Francis Baber of Chewe Magna, esquire, Edward Baber his son and heir apparent, William Capell of Claverton, esquire, John Maye of Charterhouse Heydon, esquire, Christopher Maye his son and heir apparent, Anthony Stocker of Chilcompton, esquire, John Stocker his son and heir apparent, James Bysse of Batcombe, esquire, James Bysse his son and heir apparent, Richard Cole of Nailesey, esquire, Samuell Cole his son and heir apparent, Edward Teynte of Chelvey, esquire, and Teynte his son and heir apparent, Rice Davies of Tickenham, esquire, and Nathaniel Still of Hulton, esquire, witnesseth that Edward and Anne Barnard and Thomas Stowell for £160 have sold to Sir Hugh Smith, etc., the dwelling-house called Cornehill House in Shepton Mallet and the tenements belonging ... To hold to Sir Hugh Smith, etc., upon special trust that the premises shall be employed for a House of Correction and Bridwell for the benefit of the eastern part of the county ...

— Somerset Enrolled Deeds, page 238, numbered 351

So if Rev Barnard did not sell his land for use as the House of Correction until 1625, I don't think the prison can have been established in 1610. Dmvward (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree with you. All the other sources state 1610. From what I can gather reading each source the prison was established in 1610. It looks like 1625 is the date a specific building was acquired. Those are two separate things. --TimTay (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate others commenting here. As I see it, several primary sources quote 1610 whereas there is speculation that the date may be 1625. If no further evidence is presented to support 1625 then I'm going to change the date back to 1610. --TimTay (talk) 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked on the web, but not found anything helpful apart from those already referenced, & in various local history books I have to hand but can't find any definitive answer, but I would place most store by IoE Record which says "Originally built 1610" and repeated on the Somerset Historic Environment Record entry, but I did find the Sheptom Mallet Character Appraisal which says "HM Prison established in 1625". I wonder whether the original building is 1610 but then expanded & made "official HM Prison" in 1625. I'll have a look in the local library tomorrow but on balance the current sources we have point to 1610.— Rod talk 17:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Oct 08 edition of Shepton Mallet & Wells Warbler (p5) says "In 1610 Cornhill House along with some other buildings was bought from a Reverend Edward Barnard who lived at the nearby village of Stowey. By 1625 the prison was in full use containing men, women and children. Conditions were very harsh with the bare minimum of the poorest quality food.".— Rod talk 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rod. I'm in Colorado at the moment so can't pop into my library (which is normally just 100yds from home). HM Prison Service itself has its establishment date as 1610 e.g. here and here.--TimTay (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at various books on the local history shelves of Shepton Mallet Library and the position appears somewhat confused:
  • Farbrother, John E (1872 (reprinted 1976)). Shepton Mallet: Notes on its History, Ancient, Descriptive and Natural. Somerset County Council. ISBN 0-9503615-3-4. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help) - page 111 (chapter "The Gaol or County Bridewell"): "It was originally built soon after the passing of the Act in 1610 ..."
  • Barnes, Thomas Garden (1961). Somerset 1625-1640: A County's Government During the Personal Rule. Oxford University Press. (British Library system number 000205219) - page 182: "Despite the fact that the Shepton Mallet house had been constructed as late as 1625, by the 1630s it was in the endemically ruined state of the Taunton and Ilchester bridewells."
  • Bush, Robin (1994). Somerset: The Complete Guide. The Dovecote Press Ltd. ISBN 1-874336-26-1. - page 180: "East from the Parish Church behind high grey stone walls stands HM Shepton Mallet Prison, claimed to be the oldest working prison in England still on its original site, first built here as a house of correction in 1625-6."
  • Davis, Fred (2001). Images of England: Around Shepton Mallet. Tempus Publishing Ltd. ISBN 0-75242197-2. - page 7: "...oldest working prison in the country, built in 1620 as a House of Correction."
  • Gathercole, Clare (2003). English Heritage Extensive Urban Survey: An archaeological assessment of Shepton Mallet. Culture and Heritage Directorate, Somerset County Council. - page 16: "Shepton Jail was one of the first prisons built after the passing of the Bridewell Act in 1610."
  • Stone, Alan (2005). Shepton Mallet: a Visible History. Shepton Mallet Local History Group. ISBN 0-9548125-1-4. - page 14 (quoting the Deed of Sale and Francis Disney's book): "It was in 1625 that an acre of ground was purchased for a House of Correction and Bridewell..."
Insofar as its possible to derive any consensus from that mixture, I would suggest that whilst the prison was built in response to the Act of 1610, it was not built in 1610 itself, as for it to be built within the year shows unlikely alacrity. There were probably long discussions and negotiations amongst the local great and good for some years before anything was decided, and then land/buildings were finally purchased in the early years of the 1620s and the prison established.
But I'm open to other interpretations of the evidence! Dmvward (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further book I found:
  • Ford, Eric H (1958). Shepton Mallet, Somerset: An Historical and Postal Survey. Limited edition published by the author, Oakhill Press. (British Library number 001267703) - page 35: "Her Majesy's Prison was built in, or about, 1624 ..."
Dmvward (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"scrap of paper"[edit]

I'm removing, from the list of Public Records evacuated to the prison during WW2, the reference to "the "scrap of paper" signed by Hitler and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Conference of September 1938", which seems particularly implausible. (a) This would still have been an "active" document during the war, held by the Foreign Office or similar, and not by the Public Record Office. (b) The term "scrap of paper", although it has occasionally been used in modern times to refer to the Munich Treaty, much more commonly refers to the Treaty of London (1839), which guaranteed the independence of Belgium, and so provided the diplomatic basis for Britain going to war in 1914. That seems more likely to have been the document that went to Shepton Mallet. I've tried to check this out from the PRO end: the official history (Cantwell) confirms the total of 300 tons (I'm adding the reference), but – apart from Domesday Book – doesn't mention specific items. Until anyone can come up with something authoritative, I think it's best to take the reference out. GrindtXX (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest prison[edit]

An IP added a rambling paragraph challenging the claim that (prior to closure) Shepton Mallet was the oldest operational prison, on the grounds that Lancaster Castle was first recorded as being used as a prison in 1196. Britmax rightly reverted, but the IP may have had a point. The key point seems to be that although (like most medieval castles) Lancaster did, among its many functions, hold prisoners, and contained the county gaol from an early date, it did not formally open as a convict prison until 1955. I suspect we need an extra qualifying adjective here, like "the oldest purpose-built operational prison" or "the oldest self-contained operational prison". Any ideas? GrindtXX (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point in the lead is that when it closed it was the oldest operating prison. The IP addition said that "HMP Lancaster Castle which closed in 2011" therefore when Shepton closed it had been "the oldest" for a couple of years.— Rod talk 20:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HM Prison Shepton Mallet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HM Prison Shepton Mallet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

Finished. What a fine article. Feel free to query me about anything you don't understand or disagree with. Or just revert it.

I don't see a way around the 'lists' issue. For the executions you could simply remove the bullet points and leave each as a paragraph. But to me that would reduce accessibility. I have seen good articles go to FA with similar so hopefully this won't be an issue.

I do feel that at times some of the information gets a bit trivial. "German prisoners of war were, at one point, used to help with the loading of the lorries", "The occupants of the cell were found elsewhere in the prison." Not sure that some of this passes WP:N. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your copy edit (especially things like dashes & non breaking spaces which I never get right). I will take another look at finding the final references & consider the "trivial" bits you have identified.— Rod talk 14:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. At the risk of making a suggestion which has already occurred to you, have you thought of converting you lists to tables. Given the repetitive nature of the categories of information this might work well. Eg, as in this article: Megas logothetes. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:HM Prison Shepton Mallet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WPCW (talk · contribs) 22:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Initial Review

The review of the article was at the time and date displayed at the end of the review.

The review followed the Wikipedia Good Article Criteria,

Well written

Verifiable with no original research

Broad in coverage

Neutral

Stable

Illustration

Well Written

The article is well written, in a style that is accessible to readers, and keeps their interest in the topic. The article meets the Wikipedia style guide. Basic plagiarism software was used to check the contents, and it showed identical text on https://www.wikiplanet.click/enciclopedia/en/HM_Prison_Shepton_Mallet Although noted for completeness of the report this is not of concern as Wikiplanet is a mirror site of Wikipedia with the intention of plagiarising Wikipedia articles.

A minor issue is a few uses of qualifiers at the start of sentences, such as ‘However,….’.

  • I believe I have removed all occurrences of however.— Rod talk 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences need altering before completion of the review.

A potential future improvement to the writing style is trying to use an active voice rather than a passive voice when writing an article, as the majority of reader prefer text written in that style. It is unnecessary to consider these improvements at this time as they are minor issues falling outside the remit of this review.

Verifiable with no original research

The article's sources are credible, and verifiable, except the physical sources cited. In some instances, clarification is needed to identify the source supporting a fact or statement. The sentences that need clarifying are,

(1) ‘there was another house of correction at Ilchester; and one at Taunton.’

(2) ‘In 1842 inspectors appointed by the government reported that Shepton Mallet prison was:, in greatest want of new cells for the purpose of dividing the prisoners from each other ... In number 11 of Ward 8, no less than eight men have slept in the same room in company from January to September, 1841, although in this very room there are only six bedsteads. Boards are brought in and placed on the floor when the bedsteads are not sufficiently numerous.— Report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate, 1842’

  • This is referenced to the inspectors report - not sure what you are asking for here?— Rod talk 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(3)‘The alarm was raised by the ringing of the prison bell and the prisoners were evacuated to the prison chapel. Within ten minutes the town fire brigade, which was provided by the Anglo-Bavarian Brewery, was in attendance. They were joined at about midnight by the Wells brigade and at about 3:00 am by the Frome and Glastonbury brigades. The fire had spread quickly within C block and was fought by prisoners, warders and firemen working together; prisoners helped to man the hoses and worked the fire engine pumps in shifts’

(4) ‘Under the provisions of the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act 1942, eighteen American servicemen were executed at the prison: sixteen were hanged in the execution block and two were shot by a firing squad in the prison yard. Three of the hangings were double executions, i.e. two condemned prisoners stood together on the gallows and were executed simultaneously when the trap-door opened.’

(5)‘The precise location of the execution block within the prison is 51°11′25.87″N 2°32′34.59″W.’

  • I have removed this as, although the coords could be checked with a map, it was a simngle sentence paragraph and probably over precise.— Rod talk 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(6)‘Executions by hanging took place after midnight, at around 1:00 am. Albert Pierrepoint is known to have disapproved of the Americans' practice of reading out to the condemned man as he stood on the trap-door the details of his offence and sentence, then allowing him to make a final statement. He said: The part of the routine which I found it hardest to acclimatise myself to was the, to me, sickening interval between my introduction to the prisoner and his death. Under British custom I was working to the sort of timing where the drop fell between eight and twenty seconds after I had entered the condemned's cell. Under the American system, after I had pinioned the prisoner, he had to stand on the drop for perhaps six minutes while his charge sheet was read out, sentence spelt out, and he was asked if he had anything to say, and after that I was instructed to get on with the job. — Albert Pierrepoint, Home Office Executioner’

(7) ‘However, in 1949 all eighteen bodies were exhumed; in what appears to have been an administrative error, the remains of David Cobb were repatriated to his home of Dothan, Alabama.’

  • I will go and look for a source for this.— Rod talk 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found another book which deals with the exhumations & added the ref.— Rod talk 15:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(8)‘and five were sentenced to three years' imprisonment; the remainder were acquitted.’

(9) ‘12 January 1878 – Samuel Glover Fudge, age 27, escaped. He was recaptured and, at the assize held in Taunton on 28 March 1878, was sentenced to an additional three weeks of hard labour.’

Before completion of the review, the sources supporting the facts and statements requires clarification by including appropriate citations in the text.

Broad in Coverage

The article has depth covering both the history of the prison and its more extensive role, such as its use by the military and the storage of Public Office Documents during the war. All the content in the article is relevant to the topic. Although not an expert on the subject, it includes everything a reader needs to know about the prison.

Neutral

The article is a balanced examination of the prison. The article history records that Grindtxx made a point of view objection at 21.05 4th May 2018., but now irrelevant due to the removal of the phrase.

The sentence, ‘The Kray Twins, notorious London Gangsters, held in Shepton Mallet in the early 1950s after deserting the British Army’ may be subject to a similar objection, so 'notorious' should be removed.

  • 'notorious' removed.— Rod talk 15:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

Between 173.63.174.158 on the 13th May 2016 and HLE on the 28th May 2016, a short exchange of viewpoint was made about the relevance of a person’s race when discussing the execution of American military personnel. The text stayed the same after being argued to be relevant and remains unchallenged since 2016. Due to the time since this discussion, it does not affect the articles stability.

Illustration

The photographs in the article are relevant with suitable captions. A check revealed no apparent problems with the photographs copyrights.

Summary

The article is well written, closely following Wikipedia article guidelines and an interesting and valuable addition to the encyclopaedia. The article, with minor amendments, is nearly at the point of meeting of fulfilling the Good Article Criteria.

Recommendation

As the article is so close to fulling the Good Article Criteria it should put on hold the until completion of the minor corrections, identified in italics. Initially, the hold is for 7 days, although the time-period is negotiable. After completion of the minor corrections, the article should be marked as a ‘Good Article’, with the proviso that in the meantime no other significant edits are made to it.

Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss any of the contents of this report. Regards, WPCW (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

Congratulation the article has been tagged GA. WPCW (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC) @Gog the Mild and Rodw:[reply]

Mentioning of Race in 2.3, American Military Executions[edit]

Hi, I'm wondering if it's appropriate to identify subjects by their race (e.g. white, black, Hispanic..) in this section, considering that race is not of primary relevance in their crimes/executions nor is it consistently included in descriptions of the men. It just comes off as kind of weird, as if race has inherent relevance in crimes involving rape/murder. I do understand the history of racially-motivated convictions for such crimes in the United States but am not sure if this information is appropriate or warranted here.

This in mentioned briefly above as something that was discussed previously, but I'd like to hear someone's argument for keeping it. Skogsdyr (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: this is (to put it in neutral terms) just too much detail for a topic that is relatively minor within the overall article, and should be deleted. The fact that the executed men were disproportionately black or Hispanic is mentioned (and sourced) in the second paragraph of the section, and that should certainly remain; but there's absolutely no need to identify the individuals by race (especially as we appear not to have the information for all of them). GrindtXX (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing COI content/banner[edit]

Hi @Rodw. I'm trying to empty a few categories at the GA cleanup listing, and was wondering if you could review the edits from the COI editor a few years back and bring this up to snuff. Thanks! Femke (alt) (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Femke. I presume this relates to edits in Sept 2000 by User:Josephinebeasley. Many of which were reverted at the time. I note you removed the ghost stuff. I have added some references for the media stuff etc & removed the COI banner. If you spot anything else let me know and I will take a look.— Rod talk 14:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with neutrality now, thanks! :). I did add one cn tag in the sale and tourist attraction (previously future) section. That sentence suffers from a news-style "it was announced" structure too. Femke (alt) (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HM_Prison_Shepton_Mallet&oldid=1207565737"