Talk:James Purnell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greater Manchester , a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Greater Manchester-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography . If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. (Add assessment comments) | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Greater Manchester WikiProject. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
Contents |
[edit] date of birth?
Purnell's website http://www.jamespurnell.org.uk/ gives his dob as 2 March 1970 (as in the section Pre-Parliament). So it's wrong in the first paragraph and the side panel, which both give 2 October. Okay. I've altered it.
[edit] Daily Mail story
I have restored the Daily Mail story. There is no legal action pending. And the Daily Mail has neither printed an apology or issued a retraction. This is a matter of public record and since Purnell has been all over the newspapers today and lazy journalists use wikipedia, this surely should be here.
- Hi there. I'm Mike Godwin, and I'm the general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. I've edited this article to remove the Daily Mail story because it has been pulled by the Daily Mail. The fact that the Daily Mail has removed the article is evidence that the Daily Mail does not currently believe it can withstand legal scrutiny. It's the nature of defamation law in the United Kingdom that other newspapers are careful about publishing stories of a retraction of this sort for fear of seeming to repeat the defamation and create liability for themselves. If the Daily Mail story is restored, then a link to the story -- not a link to the website generally, which cannot in itself suffice as an adequate citation under BLP policy -- might be appropriate. In the meantime, the article is not available as a citation source. Now, I could simply restore this article and have it frozen with my edits, but I'd prefer to try moral suasion first. So I'm going to restore the original edit I put in this morning. Please understand that I am doing so after having researched the legal and factual issues involved. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. MikeGodwin 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Daily Mail Story confirmed by one of James Purnell's Political Assistants
One of Jimmy P's political biatches, sorry assistants aka Sean Parker-Perry (also Longdendale Councillor) decides not to remove this tid bit of information, in fact he says "added DWP confirmation that no case to answer frm tabloid story".
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Purnell&diff=prev&oldid=106567847
So whilst it did happen, the DWP didn't give a shit that James used his the parliamentary car that night to get into someones knickers.
But coincidentally, when James starts to head up the culture club, Sean removes the statement completely!
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Purnell&diff=prev&oldid=142212449
There is definitely a political whitewash going on and I don't think it is fair to users of Wikipedia to be blocked of adding valuable information even though the story has been since removed from the Daily Mail website. Wikipedia is becoming a playing field for politicians to make them look squeaky clean.
I can prove to any Wikipedia admin that there is a political motive to this and prove that IP address is of Sean Parker-Perry. Many Wikipedia editors will be able to confirm that IP address is Sean Parker-Perry, who is a Longdendale Councillor, Labour party member, ex train conductor and now a political assistant for James Purnell. He has complained many times through your OTS.
--Gayboy-ds 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mike,
Apologies, I've only just read this having reverted your efforts. The thing is that the original story was referenced in detail by a the Daily Mail gossip columnist, Richard Kay, headlined New Labour Romeo back with fiancée" on 01/02/2007. In the article, the affair with the Newsnight researcher and the ensuing controversy was re-printed in full. Obviously, if there were any legal issues pending, this would never have happened. The article must have been passed by the newspapers lawyers before going to print. When I reverted the edits, I inserted this as a new link at the bottom at the list of references (I wasn't able to delete the original link so left that in although as has been pointed out, it is no longer working). In the last two days, the link to the Richard Kay article has also now broken. The only conclusion I can come to about this, is that a) it's a technological gaffe and a coincidence or b) political pressure has been brought to bear to remove this article from the electronic archive.
I am concerned that this page is being white-washed for political motivations. However, I take on board what you've said above and I will go and delete the paragraph I have re-inserted. What I propose is that a substitute paragraph is inserted which takes in the above facts. I hope you will agree that this is neatest solution.
Just to add that one of James Purnell's employee's regularly visits this page and deletes any negative comments about the Labour Party MP. --Gayboy-ds 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] source for this claim?
Could you provide proof that the Daily Mail is being sued for the article? It seems fair to leave the reference to the Daily Mail article in and add a comment to the litigation with, of course, your source.
One gets the impression that this has entry has been cleaned and revamped to present a whiter-than-white image for someone being touted as a potential cabinet minister. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.70.48.19 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
I added a link to a Daily Mail article from earlier this year which referenced the affair again. Once again, the controversial paragraph has been deleted by someone who claims the link is not working (the old one wasn't) and who then deleted my new working link. What is going on here? Can the droids in Purnell's office please just leave the entry alone now? This is a matter of public record, whether you like it or not.
[edit] last para commented out
I've deleted the last para - the Daily Mail is already being sued about the article in question and it may not be such a reliable source - David Gerard 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit Lock
Just to add that one of James Purnell's employee's regularly visits this page and deletes any negative comments about the Labour Party MP. --Gayboy-ds 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.104.50.161
I personally think something more sinister is at hand, this Longdendale councillor is protecting his employer from further public embarrassment which has been well documented in the national press.
[edit] Political whitewash
I totally agree. I think it's absolutely farcical that this has been removed from the site. The idea that there is some sort of legal action pending is categorically untrue - the Daily Mail repeated and reprinted the claims several months after it first aired them. It's totally obvious that the site is being monitored by people in his office and that they have won this particular battle. Congratulations. May you feel very proud.
[edit] Picture
I think that this picture should be changed because it shows the back of his head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.81.20 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Pre-Parliament
There should be a wikilink to Royal Grammar School, Guildford. Coyets 14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Newsnight Controversy
I would like to start a new debate as to if the information about the newsnight interview should be included? It has been commented by many people on the Guido Fawkes blog if you do a search on there:
Just because the Daily Mail source can no longer be found/not since been restored, does this mean it should be removed even though it did happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayboy-ds (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
