Jump to content

Talk:Caroline Spelman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Caroline my local GP advised me to contact you regarding a matter which I would like to discuss with you. Regards Serena —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.121.44 (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a means of contacting its subjects. Try www.theyworkforyou.com --Jameboy (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonny Spelman - son's Drug Doping Cheat Scandal surely?

[edit]

Breaking news is that Caroline Spelman's teenage son has said he is "deeply sorry" for taking banned drugs after a judge ended a privacy injunction preventing the story being published. This is not directly related to Caroline Spelman and is mainly notable because of the privacy injunction. I'm 50-50 about whether this is relevant enough for the article as it is currently a news story.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do think the nature of her children's offences should be expanded on in the main article, particularly since she is on record as a firm supporter of Nadine Dorries' 'moral crusades' and ran for election on Cameron's 'family values' ticket. Also because of her undying support for the Olympics showing 'Britain at its Best!' - and being a flagship for the country.

According to the Daily Mail article : "Jonny, who has played for his country in under-16 matches against Italy and Wales, is understood to have ordered a consignment of banned drugs over the internet to aid his recovery from a sporting injury. He took the steroids for four weeks before being caught in a Rugby Football Union drug test at the end of last year.". Odd - are they not registered with a GP? There are a plethora of them in their area - and providing you register the medicinal use with the appropriate authorities , the positive test would have been allowed. All rather odd as a means of 'speeding up recovery from a cruciate ligament injury'????.Still, I suppose they had the receipts for the purchases made on his internet account and the court asked for all of them????? Can we see them, with the computer audit trail???Why on earth 'buy ' steriods on the internet when any GP could have prescribed them ? <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109403/Family-secret-Cabinet-minister-tried-hide-Rugby-playing-teenage-son-exposed-drugs-cheat.html#ixzz1o1K5CHy9> (79.70.236.201, 3:37, 3 March 2012)

This would never have been a big news story without the injunction. There are also some WP:BLP issues as Jonny Spelman is under 18 years old. Unlike Jack Straw's son who was taken by his father to the police station in 1997 after selling an undercover reporter £10 of cannabis [1] it does not appear that Jonny Spelman has done anything illegal. The personal possession and use of anabolic steroids is legal in the UK (unlike the USA or Australia) although it does fail the RFU's guidelines.[2] This article is primarily a biography of Caroline Spelman, not a discussion of the rights and wrongs of steroid use. To avoid concentrating on controversies which could lead to WP:RECENTISM, it would be best to give this a few days to settle down. Incidentally, the article Jack Straw does not mention the 1997 incident at all.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This certainly should be discussed, as a "six-figure" legal expenditure is big news in the lives of most people, and the issues of publicity, politics, and freedom of the press overshadow even that. I do not support having a separate article because it should be properly detailed in this one. By properly detailed I mean without neglecting the details of the story, including the inclusion of appropriate "exculpatory" information that can be sourced, such as that the steroid use is legal in the UK and only banned by the rules of a league in which the boy couldn't apparently play due to his injury. Wnt (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "six-figure" sum is a media estimate. It is known for a fact that the Spelmans' costs were £60,994 [3] and they will have to pay the costs of the Daily Star Sunday as well [4]. This means that the costs will almost certainly top £100,000, but the exact figure is not known.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Now that's the kind of detail we should have in the article. I don't believe in government injunctions against newspapers, and apparently they're not a tool for the poor or the faint of heart! Wnt (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, does anyone have the nitty-gritty about the actual substances involved? I've called them "commonly available supplements" in my recent edit [5] because Caroline Spelman said only "banned substance" and the headline might use, shall we say, a sensationalistic notion of what a 'drug' is. I've left out "steroid" because again, this has different meanings - anabolic versus anything vaguely related to cholesterol - and I think it might be unnecessarily pejorative. The article referenced after this says it is "widely available on the Internet" - I'm going to assume, for now, legally. My guess is he was taking something you'd never think twice about being a banned drug, and that's why he hobbled in to take the drug test without a second thought, but I could be wrong. The actual identity of the stuff would really help solidify the context, even if it is only suitable for a footnote. (I noticed someone linked to a RFU statement about Methylhexaneamine/DMAA, but that's not a steroid by even the remotest definition! Wnt (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the RFU has not completed its investigation, it is not clear exactly how Jonathan Spelman failed the test or what drugs he took. The Telegraph story says that it was steroids, but the specifics may have to wait until the RFU findings are published.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFU has now completed its investigation, so I have added the detail. This is highly pertinent information, given the lengths to which Ms Spelman has gone to keep facts from the electorate. Given that the injunction was lifted, we have legal authority to publish what Ms Spelman was trying to hide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.46.198 (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a WP:BLPNAME issue here. Also, the article is primarily about Caroline Spelman.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Caroline Spelman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speaks German

[edit]

Is it worth noting that she speaks excellent German. I saw her interviewed here: https://www.facebook.com/?stype=lo&jlou=Affy1c4pXqtDzCzDeKRf2bZf--wxIVclEKCMMbD9dPa_21S0jpDnhTNWI4mWvBN1_DnNtY0I_fvj-bgBnZ2Ly4P4q7HY4FBbx71yJakfDvjkEA&smuh=3819&lh=Ac-eMH0GyTs8M7Nk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.169.63 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caroline Spelman. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Spelman&oldid=1208371838"