Talk:Police report drug haul seizure worth up to £30 million in Brownhills, England

Original reporting

At 1332 UTC today, I sent an email to West Midlands Police which read:

"I am writing a news article for Wikinews about the Brownhills drug seizure on Wednesday 27 November. There were some additional pieces of information I was looking to find and I was wondering if you were aware of any of the following: If any court appearance dates had been set for any of the suspects; What sort of punishment these suspects could receive if found guilty of supplying of a controlled drug; If there had been any drug seizures with larger values had been made by West Midlands Police since its formation, in light of Detective Sergeant Carl Russell's comment that this seizure was "one of the largest in the force's 39 year history".

Any timely response would be very much appreciated." They have yet to respond at the time of this being written. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 13:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

At 1335 UTC I received a reply stating:

"Thank you for your email, this has been forwarded to the relevant department to assist with your query." No other information available at this time. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 13:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I couldn't find any source with information that didn't basically echo the police press release. Still no further response received to my email at this time --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 14:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

At 1511 UTC, Lee Page from West Midlands Police's Corporate Communications Department replied to my email saying:

"There have been no charges to date. The suspects remain on police bail.

Sentencing guidelines can be found here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/

We are unable to provide any more statistics re: drug seizures as this would require a detailed analysis of force systems." I am now looking into punishments for supplying a controlled drug through this link. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 15:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2203513 [Passed]

Revision 2203513 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I decided to keep the ITV source in, as it represents someone else looking into the matter a bit; it does note there were thirty officers involved, which I didn't notice in the police press release, so (if I didn't simply miss it in the press release) that implies some checking done — as we did also (cool). 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 2203513 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I decided to keep the ITV source in, as it represents someone else looking into the matter a bit; it does note there were thirty officers involved, which I didn't notice in the police press release, so (if I didn't simply miss it in the press release) that implies some checking done — as we did also (cool). 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.

Actually, the press release did indeed mention 30 officers' involvement. ITV still yet to say anything the press release hasn't. Nonetheless, thank you for your review. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so I did miss it; I'd wondered. Though ITV still represents a separate mention, with the implications thereof. Yeah, independent sourcing for this is thin on the ground; I realized we were pushing the limits on independent sourcing. I appreciate your diligent efforts to turn stuff up. --Pi zero (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)