Talk:Cash-for-Honours scandal

message: Presntly there's a "See Also" to David Abrahams at the end.  Should there be a reference to him and his donations in the introduction, to put Cash for Honours in the context of other stories on Labour funding?  On the pro side, there's a suggestion that Abrahams received planning permission after donating (so there's a similar whiff of corruption) and it shows Labour's continuing difficulties with funding.  On the anti side I'd imagine that putting the two issues in the same context could be considered WP:POV as it suggests that the reader is invited to see a pattern of dodgy dealing (of course the press has already done that, but WP's standards are so much higher, aren't they? TrulyBlue (talk) 09:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refer to David Abrahams?

message: What happened with the Green Party was that the invitation to nominate one working peer was sent to Hugo Charlton, who sent it back with the name "Hugo Charlton" on it as a potential peerage recipient, without having consulted any colleagues. When the other senior members found out, they threw Charlton out and said that they would not be nominating anyone because of their dislike for the current set-up of the House of Lords. David | Talk 10:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's as I thought it went from the sources, and I added something like that to Green Party of England and Wales#Organisation. I'm happy with your wording as this is incidental to this article, but wasn't I correct to say "its first nomination was rejected"? The source says "it was rejected by Downing Street when it emerged that he had signed the nomination form himself". A less clear source on this point is . Rwendland 10:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Party nomination

message: User:Dbiv asked "can I go into HIGNFY mode and add an 'allegedly'? da Lord Levy" after changing "at the solicitation of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy." to "apparently at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy",part of his recent edit .  
As it's been published in UK newspaper The Independent that it was Lord Levy  (which is itself referenced in the article), I don't think we need the wolly wording as he's suggested. Thoughts? --Oscarthecat 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the source is that you've got Gulam Noon saying that Lord Levy suggested turning a donation into a loan, but we haven't yet had anything from Lord Levy saying "I suggested turning donations into loans". He might turn round and say "I did no such thing!". David | Talk 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Sunday Times story  has more detail on this, eg "Prescott decided not to “call in” for further scrutiny plans for the 50-storey Minerva tower, due to become the tallest building in the City of London — despite intervening in two similar developments by other companies." plus the comment "the wife of Lord Levy ... runs a charity from Minerva’s headquarters". Probably worth adding something about this to the article. Rwendland 22:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make sure you include Prescott's adamant denial if you do. NPOV and all that. David | Talk 22:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added re John Prescott. I've included his response pretty much in full. He always gives me the impression of someone digging a whole and not realising it's time to stop!!leaky_caldron 08:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  allegedly Lord Levy 

message: I've added a paragraph on Dromey's tour of TV studios announcing his inquiry using a non-online source (Tribune 2006/3/24 p5). To make verification easier, here's the whole paragraph I'm using as source, from an article by Tribune's Deputy Editor, Barckley Sumner:
:Mr Dromey decided to hold an inquiry into Labour's loans after failing to receive satisfactory answers from party officials and Downing Street advisers. Originally, Mr Dromey had intended to reveal his intentions exclusively to Tribune, but Downing Street advisors told broadcasters last Wednesday (March 15) that the Prime Minister would himself announce an investigation at a press conference the following day. On learning of Mr Blair's intentions, Mr Dromey press-released his statement and toured the television studios in a bid to avoid being left carrying the can for the party's financial problems.
This is the first really plausible explanation of Dromey's sudden actions I've seen, and Tribune being trade union owned and with a small part in the story, is in a good position to have accurate information. Without Dromey's announcement that evening I think this political scandal would have played out differently. Hence why I think it is notable. Rwendland 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribune article source 

message: Shouldn't there be something about this?
:yes. Arniep 12:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Michael Howard questioned by Police 

message: The WP Baronetcy article states that James I (King of England and Scotland from 1603 to 1625) used the award of Baronetcies specifically to attract revenue to his Treasury. This Cash for Peerages article implies the practice started in the 19th C:
Historically, hereditary peerages were awarded to members of the landowning aristocracy and royal favourites. In the late 19th century, peerages began to be awarded to industrialists with increasing frequency
(I know Baronetcies are not regarded as Peerages)
=== Vernon White (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baronetcies 

message: Can we get something in about Blair burying related news by releasing it the same day as Princess Diana stuff? It's outside my competency, especially this evening after a lot of red wine. But here's a helpful search result Google search showing the issue. --bodnotbod 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Burying the bad news

message: Who thinks this  should be mentioned in this article. I saw the original interview on Channel 4 and i think its notable accusation. Hypnosadist 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Semitism is blamed for furore over [[Lord Levy]]

message: I've dropped in a new section now the file on the investigation has been sent to the CPS.  I've also updated the timeleine - please help expand.  Now the file has been submitted, I feel it deserves its own heading/section as  this is a significant development and can be added to as more information emerges. Regards. Escaper7 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: File sent to CPS

message: Surely the verb is to lend, not to loan?  I know the BBC tends to use loan as a verb in this context, but I always considered it a clumsy back-formation from the noun.  
The American Heritage Dictionary says 
:"The verb loan is well established in American usage and cannot be considered incorrect. The frequent objections to the form by American grammarians may have originated from a provincial deference to British critics, who long ago labeled the usage a typical Americanism... "
so maybe I'm just a British critic labelling this usage an Americanism.  I don't have access to a British dictionary currently.  Interested in anyone's thoughts. 194.74.200.66 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To Lend or to Loan?

message: The current final paragraph is detailed on the Goldsmith memo injunction, which I feel is a side-issue to the new perverting-the-course-of-justice direction of the enquiry.  It looks like it was put there shortly after the event and has been left.  May I suggest something along the lines of:
:The police have also investigated possible attempts to pervert the course of justice, and in particular an email that suggests that those under investigation may have presented their evidence in such a way as to hide illegal activities.
:The police passed their file to the CPS who have since asked them to investigate further before any charges are brought.
194.74.200.66 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraphs

message: The CPS calls this the so called "Cash for Honours" investigation, and "Cash for honours" seems a much more popular name in the media. Should we therefore rename? If so, "Cash for Honours" or "Cash for honours"? Rwendland 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename "Cash for Honours"? 

message: Why do we have this sidebar? Normally templates should only be used on articles that are included in the template. I think that it clutters the page. TerriersFan 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics of the United Kingdom 

message: In the interests of accuracy, Angus McNeil was not the sole complainant, even though reports frequently give the impression that he was. The Metropolitan Police announced that it had received three complaints, one from McNeill and one from Elfyn Llwyd of Plaid Cymry. The third complainant remains unidentified.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/nhons28.xml
And entries for March 21:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1011/1011754_cashforhonours_factfile.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2025030320070720?src=072007_0816_TOPSTORY_no_charges_in_cash_for_honours_probe
86.143.150.79 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaints to police 

message: Why do editors keep resisting the inclusion of the Guenonian-traditionalist critique of modern politics, as this subject is a prime confirmatory instance of the radical-traditionalist thesis on the reign of quantity over quality in modernity. Prince Charles, an adherent of Guenonian spiritual elitism himself, certainly understands these supra-economic problems which go beyond mere administrative corruption and point to corruption of the soul:
http://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/traditionalists-by-appointment-to-hrh.html
Nobility, in its highest spiritual and knightly sense, clearly has lost all meaning today when dignities are allowed to baseminded profiteers, usurers, dionysian popular idols and anti-Christian sodomites.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.77.165 (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not wishing to make prosaic considerations of wikipedia standards puncture your flight of philological fancy, but has anyone reputable drawn a comparison between these dead philosopher's thoughts and the alleged activities of Blair, Levy et al?  I would have thought one could cite Aristophenes, Machiavelli, Bill the Bard and just about any political idea-monger of the last couple of thousand years in this article, but would it add any value? Is an internet encylopedia the place for 'why-oh-why' rants dressed up in flowery language? Stick to the facts, man, the facts! TrulyBlue (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rene Guenon, Modern Degeneracy and Prince Charles

message: The above section fails to cite any sources. If someone with knowledge on this topic could please add references to support the statements made. If references can't be founf then the section should be removed. Thanks Biggleswiki (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 1997 Labour Party Commitments Section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Cash for Honours. 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/20090203095750/http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/uklatest/story/0,,-6360573,00.html to http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6360573,00.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110909121009/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2089809,00.html to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2089809,00.html
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 22:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified