Talk:Gillian Keegan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gillian Keegan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

England C‑class Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics of the United Kingdom C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Template:BLP noticeboard

Rogate councillor

It is rare for a councillor to stay in office once elected as an MP. Is our information out of date or has there not yet been a by-election? - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush - no update here - seems like there has not been a by-election, I think they are only every few years and she will just sit as inactive till the next by-election. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it. Council elections are fixed periods but by-elections are, by definition, as and when needed. She must still be holding both offices at present, which will be stressful to say the least! - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Career, etc.

This first paragraph of the "Career" section seems a bit MOS:OPEDish to me. I think it might be a little better to drop the "she went on" and "over 27 years" and simply just list her jobs and the years she was at each position. For example, "She served as Chief Marketing Officer of Travelport from January 2011 until the end of 2012" (source for leaving position found here). Keegan's maiden name seems to have been Gibson. I'm not sure if that info is typically added directly to female politician BLPs, but it might be helpful in tracking down sources about her early career since most press releases. etc. from that time would've referred to her as Gibson. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keegan - Fujitsu

I think Michael Keegan left Fujitsu in 2018. His LinkedIn entry and The Register are evidence of this, and he also moved roles within the company in 2015. Mdrb55 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden name

What is her maiden name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8084:255c:f200:5cb7:285b:e8c1:b04f (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have semi protected this article because of the edit warring over a BLP subject.

Edit warring is not allowed. See WP:EW
Only reliable secondary sources should be used. Post office trial.com and the Government records are not reliable secondary sources. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:PSTS

Please discuss potential edits here and get consensus. I will remove the protection when you have agreed on something. Slp1 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry if this isn't correct protocol, but I would appreciate help. I've made some amendments which I believe are well enough evidenced to meet wiki requirements. There seems to be an effort to frame the post office scandal as a media controversy but the ipso ruling only related to 1 newspaper (The Times) that misreported one point. Ive avoided that paper and their erroneous detail. Garnett F (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keegan

Michael Keegan was never a Board Director of Fujitsu...edit warring is due to politically motivated trolling of Gillian Keegan's Wiki page and is inaccurate and factually wrong. Judge led enquiry https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ will determine what happened and misleading attempts to edit Keegans wiki page should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveSpart1 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to public records, Michael Keegan was a director of Fujitsu (FTS) Limited (03808613) 2010-2014, Fujitsu Services Limited (00096056) 2014-2016, Fujitsu Systems (Europe) Limited (02619865) 2015-2018 - is this the same person? There is also coverage at https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/20/fujitsu_exec_exit_and_restructuring/, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/japanese-giant-fujitsu-still-stamping-on-post-office-victims-0m88fmh02 and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/30/boss-overseeing-post-office-now-whitehall/. The Post Office scandal would probably be worth mentioning in an article about him (if we had one), but not in this article - whether it could be properly sourced or not, it looked out of place. I also agree with removing the other disputed additions. I'm not sure about the register of interests - I think there has been discussion on whether these should be included in articles, but I don't know what the current consensus is. A865 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are subsidiary companies related principally to the hardware business and statutory account filings and not to do with Horizon. Keegan was never a member of the Board of Fujitsu as previously stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveSpart1 (talk • contribs) 11:02, February 13, 2022 (UTC)

The Post Office contract was with International Computers Limited, which became Fujitsu Services Limited in 2002 (https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W14/748290244, https://www.bestpracticegroup.com/post-office-settles-horizon-it-system-court-case-5-lessons/). Companies House lists him as a director, but not in 2013 as was being claimed in the article (and the source cited there didn't support the claim). A865 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some detail which is taken from news reports that weren't subject to the media accuracy complaint. Efforts to frame it as purely a media controversy seem disingenuous. These details seem relevant due to Gillian Keegan's prominent government position and the fact Michael Keegan got a prominent government role a month after leaving Fujitsu. Garnett F (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Keegan and Fujitsu Scandal

There seems to be an effort to frame this as a media controversy that Keegan won, which would be inaccurate.

I've reinstated my amendments, but I'm happy to discuss further if required. Garnett F (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had understood that the article which claimed Mr Keegan was at the heart of Fujitsu's dealings with the Post Office during the Horizon scandal was the same that was subsequently withdrawn for inaccuracy, following IPSO's ruling in 2022.

The previous edits had been intended to reflect that AnoP9 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've rechecked and the IPSO finding is here - https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01951-22. I think you are right - IPSO found that, while "he was UK Chief Executive and Chairman of the company between 2015 and 2018" and "in his position as CEO of Fujitsu UK the complainant was ultimately responsible for the accountability and governance of the company" the Times couldn't point to documentary evidence that he had a “central role”. I'll amend to reflect that. Garnett F (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things here that I'll propose in an edit soon.

On a general point from looking at the page now, the bulk of Gillian Keegan's personal life section now reads about her husband and his background, which doesn't seem appropriate/proportionate. I can see that there's been a reference made to try to link this to her own role (the point on the timing of her appointment as PPS and his at the MoD) but when I clicked on the Telegraph article cited it didn't seem to support the suggestion that things were related in their timing (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/30/boss-overseeing-post-office-now-whitehall/)

Looking at the same article, it also looks like her husband was Chairman of UK and Ireland, but not Chief Exec after June 2015. His LinkedIn seems to suggest the same (https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelkeegan)? AnoP9 (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 - It could probably be shortened - I think it's grown over time in response to the efforts to shut it down or frame it, inaccurately, and a media controversy.

2 - the Ipso ruling I linked to earlier states, at para 15, that "The article reported, accurately, that the complainant had held the roles of UK Chief Executive and Chairman of the company between 2015 and 2018" Garnett F (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Have updated to condense and keep the personal life section as relevant as possible to this specific page. As I think another user @A865 suggested previously, I can see why there could be merit to discussion on these various specific points as part of a page on her husband directly, but not here.

2 - The IPSO ruling on para 15 indeed states Mr Keegan held the roles of UK Chief Exec and Chairman between 2015 and 2018, but not concurrently. As per earlier in same paragraph, he was Chief Exec from 2014 to 15, and then Chairman from 15 to 18. Both roles obviously have different responsibilities. I've amended to reflect specificity here AnoP9 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]