Talk:Hazel Blears

message: This edit was mentioned in The Times. Ud terrorist 13:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

message: I love Wikipedia 23:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: If the article was more humorous, or wasn't about a politician, I would probably leave this in - but the inclusion of the link to a false blog only detracts from the article. This is political manoeuvring, and this is not the place for it. --Firien § 13:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoof blog 

message: The College of Law does did not until 2006 hand out law 'degrees' (LLB)- it exits to provide postgraduate professional qualifications (this would have been 'Solicitors Finals' in her case).
It also seems strange that she is quoted as having completed the CPE 'law conversion course' which ought not to have been necessary if she had a BA in law.....does anyone have the citation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.118.28.67 (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Law Degree'?

message: Someone forgot the protection template. 68.39.174.238 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Luna Santin 00:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:Editprotected|Editprotected]]}} 

message: As she's a woman, shouldn't she be called Chairwoman rather than Chairman? Or just "Chair" I think is appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.142.191.240 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be "Chair" - that's the word the Labour Party rule-book uses (in 2002 to 2006 at least). Rwendland 17:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairman? 

message: In March 2005, while Home Office minister, Blears implied that section 44 of the terrorism act would disproportionally affect the Muslim community.
“Dealing with the counter-terrorist threat and the fact that at the moment the threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or falsely hiding behind Islam, if you like, in terms of justifying their activities, inevitably means that some of our counter-terrorist powers will be disproportionately experienced by people in the Muslim community.”[2]
This is just a quote of her personal views. Can we get a citation for the actual criticism of it? 87.127.73.65 02:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added specific criticisms from community leaders as quoted by The Times. Lachrie (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: I have removed the Trivia section. There were two interesting items: Blears performing in the film A Taste of Honey as a child, and Blears's hobbby of tap-dancing, which I have placed in the main body of the article. The other two facts, Blears's height, and Blears's brother being employed as a bus driver I did not think noteworthy or worthy of mention in an Encyclopedia entry, and have dropped them. Mick gold (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here specifically to find out her height. Might be worth adding it back in. Nibbler999 (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a reference to her height, if anyone does think it merits inclusion: 'At only 4ft 11in Blears is the joint smallest member of parliament (the other is Sarah Teather, Liberal Democrat MP for Brent East).' SOURCE: 'Blair babe on the fast track', Sunday Times (8 January 2006), p. 2. Lachrie (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Whilst I hold no brief for MPs' "flipping", it should be noted that neither Parliament nor HMRC require consistency between the property nominated as "Main Residence" for Parliamentary expense claim purposes and that nominated as "Principal Residence" for CGT purposes. Karlsoy (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flipping and CGT 

message: Repaired' by (Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of Libel by Daud Abdullah 

message: The content .
When interviewed by Andrew Neil on the BBC's Daily Politics Show it was put to Blears that she had described the actions of the Labour government as "wicked and malicious" at a fringe meeting. Blears denied that she had made such a statement, claiming that if she had used the phrase she had used the word to describe Conservative spending cuts or Eric Pickles. A partial audio recording of the meeting later emerged which Neil used to repeat his claim. The clip used did not include either the question asked of Hazel Blears or her entire answer as it was cut off mid answer. Neil returned to the story for the third day in succession with a further interview with Hazel Blears where he repeated his allegation and she confirmed that she had commented upon some actions within the Labour Party whilst in government and not Labour government policy or actions.
* - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11436800
* - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1316297/Yvette-Cooper-Ed-Balls-Shadow-Chancellor-job.html
===discussion===
I have removed this content a couple of times and it has been replaced. The content is totally undue coverage of what is basically a non issue and simple partisan twaddle type fluff, worthless and such a minor issue and denied by the subject, I don't see any value to it at all, I am open to be convinced that this claim and some section of a youtube video are noteworthy sat all in this persons life story, the content appears in her life story with moere weight than her appointment to notable positions. The content is also not reported accurately, and even the presenter was at ends to present the comments correctly.Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a discussion on this yesterday and am merging the material with this section. Below is my previous comment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this has now been deleted twice. I'd suggest the comments are notable not only due to their content (surely the most severe condemnation any major Labour figure has made of the party), but also due to the fact Blears was caught out by denying the comment then her version being disproved by the recording. It's notable twice over and the video has even gone viral now. Perhaps it isn't worthy of it's own section and might be better off integrated into the article, (and I do also agree it wasn't concise enough until I edited it). That said, it would have been better if people had done this rather than just deleting notable material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's coverage showing that the video has gone viral: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/sep/30/austrailas-next-top-model I'll create a slightly more concise version as I don't believe there is any disagreement that that would be an improvement over the present version an improvement over the current version--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've made it more concise though perhaps there is a little more scope for that. I've relegated it to a lower level heading and integrated it into the section on her parliamentary career. I've also found the source for the previously unreferenced material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still of no value at all, its simply rubbish, what actual educational or encyclopedic value do you assert it has, your edits actually didn't help the content at all, as I see it it is clear misrepresentation of partisan nonsense, your addition says she called the actions of the labour government malicious when that is clearly not the case at all. Its awful rubbish, please comment as to what you see as worthwhile in the addition? IMO this is the type of completely valueless content that demeans the whole wikipedia project. I have little energy for such valueless crap at the moment, when the wikipedia is an even bigger laughing stock and as less people come to even bother reading the articles it is imo such partisan additions as this that will have degraded the project to such a level as to make it valueless. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to reread the text, it doesn't' say what you've suggested. I suppose if people are misreading it then that might suggests it need to be slightly clearer though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have removed this despite the inaccuracies in your concerns. Perhaps I should explain your mistake - the text says its was "put" to Blears that she had described the government as wicked and malicious, then going on to give her various versions of events. There are no inaccuracies that I can see. Perhaps you've deleted the section due to me not responding got your requests for why it is encyclopaedic but I've already covered this above (in fact I covered it in this talk page before you began this section). Anyway if there are some legitimate inaccuracies the solution is to identify them in this talk and to correct them rather than just removing notable content.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no discussion. Would you be happy if there were more sources? Here's some international coverage, that certainly increases notability further: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/world/europe/03britain.html?_r=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 October 2010
The New York Times repeating and indeed exagerating the allegation does not make it so. This was a spat, a bit of mischief making by Andrew Neil, it was certainly not the notable claim you suggest of a Labour minister making a blanket condemnation of the Labour government. You can tell this quite easily by listening to what she did say about some things that went on "in" the Labour party and by her repeated denials of the allegation.RichasAA (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: And your repeating of the allegation that I'm suggesting she was talking about the government does not make that true either. The New York Times coverage simply increases notability, and that's all I've stated. I notice the Independent covered the issue too, I'd say we have a good selection of sources now from all across the political spectrum. To blame Andrew Neil for Blears' comments is ridiculous - I suppose he somehow forced her to make the comments and then also forced her to lie about what she had said?--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to continue this if you can't even read my comments properly. I've already pointed out that you're wrong to suggest I stated her comments were in relation to government policy yet you continue making these false statements about me. There is nothing partisan about my interpretation, I've already said people can interpret it however they want, and I've put far more effort than anyone here into trying to take all viewpoints on board, making the content accurate and coming up with a revision that keeps most contributors happy.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  2010 Labour Conference controversy 

message: I have removed this content a couple of times and it has been replaced. The content is totally undue coverage of what is basically a non issue and simple partisan twaddle type fluff, worthless and such a minor issue and denied by the subject, I don't see any value to it at all, I am open to be convinced that this claim and some section of a youtube video are noteworthy sat all in this persons life story, the content appears in her life story with moere weight than her appointment to notable positions. The content is also not reported accurately, and even the presenter was at ends to present the comments correctly.Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a discussion on this yesterday and am merging the material with this section. Below is my previous comment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this has now been deleted twice. I'd suggest the comments are notable not only due to their content (surely the most severe condemnation any major Labour figure has made of the party), but also due to the fact Blears was caught out by denying the comment then her version being disproved by the recording. It's notable twice over and the video has even gone viral now. Perhaps it isn't worthy of it's own section and might be better off integrated into the article, (and I do also agree it wasn't concise enough until I edited it). That said, it would have been better if people had done this rather than just deleting notable material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's coverage showing that the video has gone viral: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2010/sep/30/austrailas-next-top-model I'll create a slightly more concise version as I don't believe there is any disagreement that that would be an improvement over the present version an improvement over the current version--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I've made it more concise though perhaps there is a little more scope for that. I've relegated it to a lower level heading and integrated it into the section on her parliamentary career. I've also found the source for the previously unreferenced material.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still of no value at all, its simply rubbish, what actual educational or encyclopedic value do you assert it has, your edits actually didn't help the content at all, as I see it it is clear misrepresentation of partisan nonsense, your addition says she called the actions of the labour government malicious when that is clearly not the case at all. Its awful rubbish, please comment as to what you see as worthwhile in the addition? IMO this is the type of completely valueless content that demeans the whole wikipedia project. I have little energy for such valueless crap at the moment, when the wikipedia is an even bigger laughing stock and as less people come to even bother reading the articles it is imo such partisan additions as this that will have degraded the project to such a level as to make it valueless. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to reread the text, it doesn't' say what you've suggested. I suppose if people are misreading it then that might suggests it need to be slightly clearer though.--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you have removed this despite the inaccuracies in your concerns. Perhaps I should explain your mistake - the text says its was "put" to Blears that she had described the government as wicked and malicious, then going on to give her various versions of events. There are no inaccuracies that I can see. Perhaps you've deleted the section due to me not responding got your requests for why it is encyclopaedic but I've already covered this above (in fact I covered it in this talk page before you began this section). Anyway if there are some legitimate inaccuracies the solution is to identify them in this talk and to correct them rather than just removing notable content.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Still no discussion. Would you be happy if there were more sources? Here's some international coverage, that certainly increases notability further: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/world/europe/03britain.html?_r=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakehandsman (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 October 2010
The New York Times repeating and indeed exagerating the allegation does not make it so. This was a spat, a bit of mischief making by Andrew Neil, it was certainly not the notable claim you suggest of a Labour minister making a blanket condemnation of the Labour government. You can tell this quite easily by listening to what she did say about some things that went on "in" the Labour party and by her repeated denials of the allegation.RichasAA (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: And your repeating of the allegation that I'm suggesting she was talking about the government does not make that true either. The New York Times coverage simply increases notability, and that's all I've stated. I notice the Independent covered the issue too, I'd say we have a good selection of sources now from all across the political spectrum. To blame Andrew Neil for Blears' comments is ridiculous - I suppose he somehow forced her to make the comments and then also forced her to lie about what she had said?--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to continue this if you can't even read my comments properly. I've already pointed out that you're wrong to suggest I stated her comments were in relation to government policy yet you continue making these false statements about me. There is nothing partisan about my interpretation, I've already said people can interpret it however they want, and I've put far more effort than anyone here into trying to take all viewpoints on board, making the content accurate and coming up with a revision that keeps most contributors happy.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: discussion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hazel Blears. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130530104925/http://www.stnlive.info/case-studies/the-rt-hon-hazel-blears-mp-visit-to-carillion-skills-centre.aspx to http://www.stnlive.info/case-studies/the-rt-hon-hazel-blears-mp-visit-to-carillion-skills-centre.aspx#.Uzithiwo5lY
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121021125716/http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/factcheck+hazels+claim+in+shreds/2243847?intcmp=news_fc_blearsshreds to http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/business_money/factcheck+hazels+claim+in+shreds/2243847?intcmp=news_fc_blearsshreds
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hazel Blears. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630111629/http://www.wpradio.co.uk/mp3s/HazelBlearsInterview.mp3 to http://www.wpradio.co.uk/mp3s/HazelBlearsInterview.mp3
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hazel Blears. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090106124155/http://www.24dash.com/centralgovernment/14727.htm to http://www.24dash.com/centralgovernment/14727.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified