Talk:Phil Woolas

message: this page could do with a photo Matthewfelgate 21:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: What is Wikipedia guidance on people's family lives? I am disatisfied that it says that Woolas' children go to school in London, because he has a young son living in Oldham too. Do we err on the side of privacy and allow this misinformation to go out? Do we remove any mention of children because it is better to say nothing than be inaccurate? Or do we publish and be damned? I think I will leave the article unchanged until someone senior from wikipedia makes a decision.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.173.248 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not "senior" (since nobody is, really), but we should err on the side of not giving out personal information about children on privacy grounds. I don't see where they go to school is gername to an understanding of Woolas, and would happily see that information removed. Rodhullandemu 17:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's germane because Woolas in particular has claimed to be local and has repeatedly said that he lives in the constituency, that his main home is in Oldham, and that his London address is his second home. It matters to him, and presumably his constituents, because it has been on every leaflet, press release and website he has used. It is also patently incorrect, as his wife and their children live and London and Woolas rents a flat in Oldham. But I do have a dislike of getting children involved. If only adults weren't so hypocritical!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.173.248 (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the conservative nature of policy on biographies trumps using Wikipedia to make a point. Most parent would make the best choices for their children, and since Woolas works in London most of the week, I wouldn't be surprised if his children went to school there. Rodhullandemu 18:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If a significant controversy has arisen over where his children go to school then it may be okay to mention it. However it will not be okay just because we feel it's relevant because we feel it reveals some degree of contradiction with his published statements Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - if there is no significant coverage concerning his children elsewhere, then there is no reason for discussion of them in the article. (There seems not to be discussion of them in the article at present.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to consider the origin of his surname or research his parents' background, but such original research is not the purpose of Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Other children

message: I don't understand why the investigation by the Channel 4 News and the Bureau of Investigative journalism  is allowed on Zac Goldsmith's page and not here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronos2010 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: BIJ

message: I don't think so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.202.48 (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lives in Lees? 

message: Now that he has been barred from office, can Woolas still correctly be addressed as 'Right honourable'? Longwayround (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends why he's a "Rt. Hon". I'm not sure he's ever been a Cabinet Minister, which would put him in the Privy Council and still entitled to use the Rt Hon thereafter, even after ceasing to be a PC. Needs looking into, because I can't find out right now whether any of his posts have been of Cabinet level. Rodhullandemu 23:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any evidence he's been expelled from the privy council. The electoral court can't remove his membership of the privy council, as it is a crown appointment. Whether he's been in the cabinet is irrelevant.--Scott Mac 23:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He acquired membership of the PC by virtue of being Minister of State for the Treasury &/or Home Office, a Cabinet Post, and not otherwise. That's the only way he could have got on to the PC, and so his membership, and "Rt. Hon" continue until and unless he is removed by the Crown or resigns. Anne Widdecombe kept the "Rt. Hon" after ceasing to be a Home Office minister. Rodhullandemu 23:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically he'd didn't acquire it by virtue of being a minister. Appointment to the privy council is technically a separate thing entirely. One is appointed by the monarch, and the appointment is for life, unless the monarch explicitly removes you. Cabinet ministers are traditionally always appointed to the privy council, as are some other senior ministers. In this case Woolas was appointed when he was a minister of state - but the appointment if for life. His ceasing to be a minister, an MP, or even being disbarred from being an MP makes no difference. So, unless we have evidence that he's been removed by the Queen, we list him as a PC (some discraced councillors have been removed in the recent past).--Scott Mac 00:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

text: It's certainly true that former Ministers retain membership of the Privy Council for life, and certainly after leaving Parliament. However I'm not sure if Phil Woolas has been awarded membership of the Privy Council. His name does not appear on the current list of Privy counsellors. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: It seems clear that Phil Woolas is not and was never a member of the Privy Council. His last vote in a division in the House of Commons is here: note that privy counsellors have their names preceded by 'rh' but Phil Woolas is 'Mr'. And on the most recent list of the former government issued by Number 10 in October 2008, he is not among those members appointed to the privy council. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may well be right about this. I note a Google search for site:parliament.uk "rt hon phil woolas" does return a few mentions, as does a search for site:gov.uk "rt hon phil woolas" but in the absence of anything more significant those could simply be mistakes. Adambro (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My checking seems to agree. Well spotted Sam.--Scott Mac 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Right honourable?

message: If the election result was void (not voidable), as the ruling says, that means that it never occurred, and Phil Woolas has not been the MP since 6 May 2010 - since then there has been no MP. I presume this needs to be changed? 138.40.149.194 (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, because a void election is not retrospective. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have a source for that? The reason I'm asking is that "void" legally (in England and Wales, anyway) tends to mean "never happened", whilst "voidable" means "was not valid but exists up until a successful challenge". Everywhere I have read about this suggests that this election was void (e.g. Harman on Sunday: "null and void", BBC: "void", judgment also says void). So, as I say, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, it's just I wondered if you had read the answer anywhere (reputable). Thanks 138.40.149.194 (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best way to lead off in demonstrating the situation is to consider what would be the difference between a situation where the election result was retrospectively changed back to 6 May, and a situation where the election result is recognised as happening but simply ceased to have effect once the court ruled. As the court can't actually change what happened in the past, the only thing to do is look to see if anything consequential on the MP's Parliamentary activities during the period between the general election and the court finding the original election void is itself cancelled. And the answer to that is that it isn't. Their speeches are not removed from Hansard, their votes are not struck from divisions, any motion they moved which the House agreed to remains a resolution of the House. For instance here are Frank Gray's contributions to the 1924 Parliament up to the point his election was declared void. Salary is paid to an MP up to the point of the election being declared void. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I believe I read somewhere they were looking into whether they can / should ask for money paid to him since the election to be repaid. But otherwise, I agree with you. KTC (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Result 6 May 2010

message: So, I removed the image. That rationale is it's placement (by a possible sock puppet) is potentially in breach of copyright. Specifically this file would appear to not be available under the open gov license. The source page on the archives (here) has copyright conditions which are presumably subject to the archive copyright statement found here. Point 5 of this is very clear that images are not necessarily subject to free use unless permission is specifically applied for. The freedom of information request linked to from the image page ends up with a PDF file here. Nowhere in this does it suggest that permission is granted to use treasury images, simply that these images are held by the department.
Current treasury copyright for images is identical (see here) which suggests that there is some doubt that this image, and any similar ones, has been released under the open gov license.
Ta Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly non free image removal 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Phil Woolas. 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 https://web.archive.org/20060524055126/http://news.bbc.co.uk:80/1/shared/mpdb/html/445.stm to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/mpdb/html/445.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100528004715/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7069255.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7069255.ece
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120405180426/http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/92686/STOP-PRESS-Morgan-Allen-Moore-promotes-two-board/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH to http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/news/92686/STOP-PRESS-Morgan-Allen-Moore-promotes-two-board/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , can we bring this discussion here? I am against using the word "disgraced" in the first sentence because it is heavily weighted and is certainly not neutral language. WP:PUBLICFIGURE suggests that in BLP articles only the facts should be included when an incident is notable (which this is) and shouldn't be accompanied by weighted adjectives; the example given is " messy divorce" vs "divorced". If you want another article to compare to, look no further than Lance Armstrong. He is a world class cyclist who was caught doping. Is he described as a "disgraced former professional cyclist"? No, he is "an American former professional road racing cyclist". It is later in the first paragraph (and only after qualifying his notability through his Tour de France wins) that the ending of his career through a doping scandal is mentioned. I hope this helps you understand where I am coming from. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk  14:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   "disgraced" former politician 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Phil Woolas. 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/20120118061432/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part1.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118053539/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part2.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118032021/http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part3.pdf to http://www.oldham.gov.uk/election-petition-may2010-part3.pdf
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) 07:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified