Talk:Nick Clegg

Biography: Politics and Government Stub‑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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Arson

Is his German conviction actually for 'arson' as such? All the references I can find say he damaged some cacti. Does anyone know the formal charge of which he was convicted? If not, perhaps this should be changed to something like 'damaging plants'.217.44.182.191 10:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I have clarified it, but I would say it's debatable if it should be in at all, it's a relatively minor point. LiberalViews 09:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A criminal act (admittedly very minor) by a standing politician is significant in the eyes of many voters --MartinUK 08:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it shouldn't include weasel words like "technically". Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't weasel words. The word "arson" in English criminal law implies the very serious offence of burning down a building, etc. If the incident had happened in Britain, Clegg and his companion would have been charged at worst with Criminal Damage. This is to do with not misrepresenting the nature of the offence in the English version of Wikipedia - arson is more widely used in Germany and would be understood differently there. I believe some clarification does need giving and if this isn't the word "technically" then we need to explain the actual nature of the charge in more detail, since this is clearly being introduced in the article to smear Clegg and is hardly mentioned in the media generally. LiberalViews 13:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The context is already explained in the article. Arson in English law is "the crime of setting a fire for an unlawful or improper purpose" and since 1971 it has existed as a single offence so your belief about UK law is incorrect. Fys. Ta fys aym. 13:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]