Talk:Stewart Jackson

message: Jackson's website at  contains a note at the bottom of the left-hand margin saying that "Except for the constituency maps, the text and photographs on this site are released under a Creative Commons Licence." Unfortunately, he does not say which CC licence, and there is no link from the CC logo to a specific licence. It would be nice to know, since it's possible that the licence might be Wiki-compatible - though of course if it's non-commercial use only, it would not be. Loganberry (Talk) 16:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did reproduction on Wikipedia constitute a commercial use? It's a not-for-profit organisation after all. If it's BY-NC-SA is should be fine. You could try dropping an email and asking though.--Topperfalkon (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: BY-NC-SA wouldn't be fine. Images used on Wikipedia must either be available under a free licence which allows commercial usage or, in some limited circumstances, used under "fair use". See Wikipedia:Image policy which states "Images which are listed as for non-commercial use only, by permission, or which restrict derivatives are unsuitable for Wikipedia and will be deleted on sight, unless they are used under fair use." If we were looking for an image of Jackson to illustrate this article then Wikipedia's policies wouldn't allow us to use fair use since he is a living person and it would be quite feasible for someone to obtain or create a freely licensed image. Adambro (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Whoops, fair enough. Still, I'd email them and ask them what flavour of CC license they're using--Topperfalkon (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Creative Commons licence for Jackson's website? 

message: Homophobic Accusation
The incident was brought to light on Facebook on the 30th march & was picked up by Buzzfeeed[15]. The Pink Paper published an article in which Mr. Jackson was accused of homophobia[16] which he defended himself firstly by saying he didn't use any homophobic-specific words in his reply & then 2 days later, by stating that since the dissolution of parliament, he was no longer an MP and therefore only replying as a candidate and if elected, he would work for all of the people in Peterborough. He added that his personal views on same-sex marriage would not interfere with this. He has, in the past, voted against same-sex marriage and gay rights.
It ISN'T on the page, I have referenced it - it's a fact. I only said their had been an Accusation. Putting it in and letting people decide is the important thing. It onlu happened 2 weeks ago so arguing that 'it hasn't changed in 10 months' doesn't hold water.
Since he is no longer an MP, doesn't Wiki's balance depend on them having details on all the candidates, not just the previous incumbent? If not, maybe just remove until after election?
:Thanks for taking to discussion. The story IS on the page: the bottom of the main section mentions that he told a constituent to "not bother him" when she said she wouldn't be voting for him because he opposed the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act. His comments on gay marriage are also mentioned earlier in the article. Neither Pink News nor Buzzfeed describe Jackson or his actions as "homophobic". That might be your opinion, it might be the opinion of many other people and it may be entirely justified, but it's not Wikipedia's role to express that. 
:And in answer to your second question, Wikipedia does not require details on all the candidates (apart from including their names on the separate constituency page). In fact the official policy is the opposite: there's an explicit ban on creating pages for election candidates unless they are either famous for other reasons or have served in national government. Whilst this might not see balanced, Wikipedia is not an election campaign platform and its a bit more understandable when you consider how many thousands of people stand for election worldwide each year and how little reliable information there is on most of them.
::This is not at all how it was originally reported in the local newspaper. The writer did disagree with Jackson's view on same-sex marriage but she appeared more bothered that his mailing list did not use her married name. Not an uncommon event with mailing lists. She ended her message “Please never write to me again.”. He replied “Please feel free to never bother me again." which I found reasonable in the circumstances. http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/peterborough-candidate-stewart-jackson-defends-don-t-bother-me-again-message-to-resident-1-6666300. 
::I should add he is my MP and I cannot stand the man
Cannonmc (talk) 08:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Since this needs Discussing, apparently 

message: The Telegraph writes that politicians have had pages whitewashed by users connected to the legislature. Also on Indy and IBTimes.Callinus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Telegraph COI

message: After loosing his seat in 2017, Stewart Jackson contacted a former constituent who had been critical of him on Facebook to call him a "thick chav". Jackson blackmailed Christian Stanley, a businessman in his constituency, by saying: "If you print any shit about me on Facebook in the future you will regret it."Tory MP who lost seat messages former constituent on Facebook to call him a 'thick chav'--86.175.29.152 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackmailing a constituent