We're going round in circles here, which is why I did take the first step in dispute resolution. Relative numbers don't come into it. WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK apply. I also note that you still haven't explained why the very minor news story about Vance is included (any more than you've explained why shooting someone in the back of the head is less serious than drink driving) ? You still haven't provided evidence that there was any lasting significance to the Vance story to make it an exception to WP:NOTNEWS. Regarding Tweed, no, it isn't simply a case of adding anything to the article and then "leaving it to others to judge", particularly when the stated agenda is to show "what the TUV is like", reliable sources need to be produced showing that this affects the TUV and is a controversy for them, not for Tweed. Are you going to produce those?