Talk:Federation of Small Businesses

JOHN ALLAN - FORMER ELECTED FSB CHAIRMAN ISSUES STATEMENT - 16th April 2016

The statement is relevant to all previous entries made on Wikiepdia by several FSB members who are gravely concerned as to the future of the FSB and being a matter of public interest. The Chairman's statement has been circulated across the FSB membership and can be viewed here

References

Disputed edits

The additions were unreferenced or poorly sourced (letters uploaded to Google by a member). Independent reliable sources should be the main sources, and most of the article lacked them so I've reduced it to a stub. Peter James (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be based on information from the FSB's website; third-party sources are needed, although material published by the organisation may be used as a source for undisputed facts that are clearly significant. The letters and documents uploaded to Google and Imgur are unsuitable as references. Peter James (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

There's an article in The Times about the recent leadership election controversy (Hurley, James (28 March 2016). "Row over 'unopposed' election of FSB leader". The Times.) Peter James (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Even if it is accepted that the FSB website should be the main source for this article some of the text being added here is questionable. For example does the FSB really announce that it has abandoned one of its founding principles? Or that the election will undermine the credibility of the FSB? Does it mention "offences under the Companies Act 2006"? Are these opinions attributable to reliable sources or just the opinions of editors of this article? Peter James (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter James , we agree and this is one of the reasons we're keen to include more references that give a fairer and more balanced view. The opinion in respect of possible offences under the Companies Act 2006 is from legal counsel on behalf of a group of FSB members, as shown below:

• In S.175 of the Companies Act 2006 it states:

1. A director of a company must avoid a situation in which he has, or can have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or possibly may conflict, with the interests of the company.# Numbered list item
2. This applies in particular to the exploitation of any property, information or opportunity (and it is immaterial whether the company could take advantage of the property, information or opportunity).

In addition to the Times article, the Federation has been quoted as saying "170,000 members", however it has been widely publicised by themselves (including on Wikipedia) that they have 200,000 members - and this information is generally known to be false.

As the Federation of Small Businesses is a limited registered company : it is therefore subject to The Companies Act 2006. It should also be noted that Max Cliff" (for example) assumes these edits are by a former disgruntled member, but they are actually a group of FSB members who are gravely concerned about the governance of the FSB.

Currently, several legal challenges are pending (which we are not yet able to disclose details of) but as you rightly identified, they relate to the article published in The Times on 29 March 2016, however, there is further misinformation in the Times article. For instance, Sandra Dexter is quoted as saying: "The elections were overseen by Electoral Reform Services (ERS) to ensure the results are robust and the process is independent and transparent.". For clarification, the ERS does not oversee the number of counting etc, the ERS does not take part in the internal candidate selection process. However, the ERS was not involved in the selection of the National Chairman as he stood unopposed (which we have linked in the article itself) (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I suggested The Times as the only independent coverage I could find for this. Because of what you're saying, maybe the recent controversy shouldn't be mentioned at all. Your comment about the Companies Act 2006 seems to be irrelevant unless you can find anything reliable about this in connection with FSB - if this has not been published it is original research and cannot be used in the article. The same applies to the number of members - "generally known" is not enough, a published source is needed. Peter James (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

What does "Sources put forward by concerned FSB members are never disputed by other contributors" mean? No additional sources have been put forward, and I've assumed good faith so far but now it looks like you have no intention to edit within Wikipedia policies. If edits such as this continue I'll probably make a request for protection of this article. Peter James (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

ITS QUITE SIMPLE for the FSB to resolve disputed matters as follows:

(1) The FSB should be able to produce reliable evidence that it has 200,000 members (2) Show that the Co-op bank is not part of the Co-op group that in turn supports the Labour Party (3) Show how and why the new National Chairman was appointed unopposed despite there being two other candidates standing.

As concerned FSB members we stand to be corrected. However, all we want is the truth. We do not believe that the FSB should be built on misrepresentation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.164.125 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is quite simple to resolve, but not via disruption of Wikipedia's article about the FSB. (1) could be the result of rounding, (2) "misrepresentation" seems to be only your opinion, it's about the recommendation of a service provided by a company, not of any political party that company's owner supports (and many large companies' owners and directors support political groups), (3) an explanation, if appropriately sourced, could be added to Wikipedia, but again you shouldn't be adding your opinion to the article. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

References