Talk:Jacqui Smith

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Doesn't Jacqui Smith, an important member of the government, after all, deserve a photograph? Your policy regarding photographs should be reconsidered. After all, US politicians' photos are heavily featured. Are not the DH and DWP some of the largest government departments? The NHS is not just a tiny organisation without global significance.

If you can find a usable uncopyrighted photo, feel free to add it to the page Lamuella 21:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced 'facts'

Despite this fact, it has been widely acknowledged that major crimes such as serious assault, rape & murder have increased year-on-year under the Labour government and, as of 2008, are at their highest level under said government.

If this is such a "widely acknowledged" fact, why is it not sourced? I also fail to see what Labour's record on crime has to do with her, when she's only been in the position of Home Secretary for one of Labour's eleven plus years in power. I thus question the paragraph's purpose in this article, along with allegations that she's a "liar".

This article is biased and needs cleaning to meet with Wikipedia's standards. Any negative assertions are not compensated for with opposing arguments and some aren't even referenced to a reliable, impartial source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginger Warrior (talk • contribs) 16:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not making any claims about bias in the article as a whole, but the "widely acknowledged fact" is now given a specific source.--Old Moonraker (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Family

Are her parents alive or dead? Is her sister whom she lives with her only sibling? What is her husband's occupation? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Her husband is a 'Parliamentary Assistant' employed by Jacqui Smith for a reported £40k a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.44.197.132 (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Public records that include personal details

WP:WELLKNOWN suggests that "Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth". This edit may not comply and should possibly be redacted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Any further comments about WP:WELLKNOWN before I apply the policy and remove the information? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, applying the policy and deleting this. It's duplicated lower down (in less detail) by material cited from the subject's own web page so there's no loss.

My addition of her sons' locations of births is valid, and did not breach Wikipedia guidelines. I did not add anyone's DOB; the months and years of their births were already stated on the article, having been added by someone else but have now been removed. When and where a notable person's children were born is basic biographical information, and is present on many other Wikipedia biographies. In addition, the sons' ages are stated in the article, but they are two years out of date, with no indication that they are not current. Smith's own website, in EL, states that both sons were born in Redditch, which the birth index shows is untrue (only one was born in Redditch) - proving a high-ranking elected politician to have stated something untrue is very important. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Expenses

I am amzed that this person can claim so much in expenses and not be held to account. If it were you or I claiming for this amount I am sure that we would be asked questions. Why do we as memebers of the public that actually voted for this party now have to put up with being musled in this way. It is appalling and the party should be ashamed of themeselves. It is becoming increasingly more obvious to me that whoever is in power eventually succumbs to the power themselves and think themselves invinsible. This is the time for change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.156.224 (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Kut wijf

Wat een kut wijf is dit zeg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.188.115 (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Translate the above, please. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Dutch MP row

My apologies, without realising, I have reverted an edit more than three times in an attempt to remove some questionable parts of the article. There is a dispute over how much can be written about the Dutch MP being banned from the UK, so instead of reverting again, I will leave it for now, in the hope that the situation will resolve itself. If anyone would like to take a look at it, or give their opinion on the dispute, I would be grateful for that. Best wishes to all. Sky83 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The "doing a Chamberlain" version insisted upon by User:Dutch91310 is unencyclopedic and not acceptable. Indeed, the whole story is probably too recentist for inclusion in any form.--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree, and I tried to explain that, but it didn't go down well really. I personally feel that this story will be a 'nothing' when you look back at Smith's career, and is barely notable now. I don't think User:Dutch91310 entirely realised what the bias was, but it was dripping in it, so that section definitely couldn't stay as it was, even if it was determined to be notable. The Chamberlain comment and the personal opinion as to why Wilders was banned was completely unacceptable and must be prevented from appearing in the article. I personally feel we'd be better off here just cutting the section entirely. Sky83 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the previous versions were not appropriate, but I'm sure the issue itself is easily notable enough - it just need to be written properly. The story is significant for a number of reasons - Wilders hasn't been convicted of anything, is democratically elected and his film doesn't contain any hate speech either. It would appear he has been barred because of how people will react to him - i.e. because of them rather than because of anything he has done. There are also issues as to whether the same would apply to critics of other religions.

Thus the issue is a very significant precedent , it also fits in well with other controversies and general critcisms of her overall approach to the job. --Shakehandsman (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To assist, a cut-and paste from WP:RECENT: "Established articles may be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens...and the relative emphasis on timeless facets of a subject which Wikipedia consensus had previously recognized may be muddled by this practice." Sums it up nicely, doesn't it? Geert Wilders has his own article. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no real objection to the information being included, just that the facts are the only things displayed. He was officially barred entry because he was considered a security risk. Now, whether or not we agree with that (and personally I feel that you are probably right in saying it was an anticipation of public reaction that was the driving force behind the ban), all that can go into the article is actually what happened. People have been introducing information with a shocking bias and have a clear agenda to go along with it. My, and others, objections have been hijacked into some kind of geographical whitewashing of history, when the opposite is plainly true. Information yes, opinion no. Sky83 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The information belongs here as well as on the Wilder's article as it was of course Smith who was responsible for the ban. Obviously I agree we shouldn't have opinions (unless they are quotes) and you were of course completely correct to delete the information as it stood because of the terrible way in which it was written.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why has the ban on Geert Wilders been removed? It is one of the most important controversies of our time and needs mentioning in detail, if it is not re-added I will claim the article NPOV. Twobells (talk) 12:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Wilders issue should be mentioned in this article - a paragraph, perhaps a section, is justified. The issue received considerable coverage by the mainstream British and Dutch media. It should not be removed as recentism - it is an important part of her tenure as Home Secretary. Readers of this article should be able to find out here what exactly her involvement was. Was it her idea to prevent Wilders entering the UK? Was it her decision alone? It is not usual practice to bar entry to a current, democratically elected MP. He was not intending to do anything illegal, nor 'disrupt the peace in any way. Considering the large number of terrorists and other serious criminals who have entered the UK (whether as visitors or immigrants), it is undemocratic to completely bar entry to an MP of another EU country. EU citizens are usuallly allowed to go to other EU countries whenever they wish. Barring Wilders is against the spirit of the EU, which Smith and New Labour claim to be strongly in favour of. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

She lives in South London with her sister?

"She lives in South London with her sister." Yeah right. What she really does is to claim to live in the box-room of her sister's house in south London and that this ludicrous falsehood enables her to enrich herself to the tune of 25000 pounds per year. If this isn't theft from the public purse I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rush-is-right (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point - will try to make that sentence more neutral.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should mention the facts of what is, for the purposes of the rules, the definition of 'main residence' and 'second home'. Is it correct that if she had stated Redditch as her main home and London as her second, that she would not have been able to claim the £116,000? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It works like this. It is allowed that MPs living outside of London need to spend money to support themselves while attending the Westminster Parliament. So MPs are allowed to claim the cost of their secondary residence as if it were an out of pocket expense. But what Mrs Smith has done has been to claim that the room at her sister's house in London that she dwells in from time to time is her primary residence, and this stunt enables her to render the costs relating to her real main home in Redditch refundable. So she benefits by claiming the mortgage interest payments and all the utility expenses and furnishing allowances etc. etc. from her Redditch property which in reality is her main residence. It's an obvious fraud which the Parliamentary Commissioner is investigating. Rush-is-right

The Andrew Marr Show

She was interviewed by Marr this morning; I'm not sure how much of the content of it should be included in the article, but it should be mentioned. She claimed that she does spend more time at her sister's house than at her Redditch house. Other topics covered were immigration, using evidence obtained through torture and Guantanamo inmate Binyam Mohamed being allowed to move to the UK again. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Anti-social behaviour "action squad"

I could not believe my ears. [1] 124.87.202.56 (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Purchase of Pornography Expenses Scandal

There is very little on the Secretary's purchase of porn films and claiming the cost back from the United Kingdom taxpayers. Can this information be added to the lead? This news has been flashed around the world, I saw the news break in the former Soviet Republic of Moldova. Other information would be: what films did Ms Smith watch?, has she purchased any other adult films, pornography or sex toys using UK tax collection receipts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.44.226 (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Smith's husband who watched the porn films while his wife was in London, but Smith who then claimed expenses for them, quite innocently it would appear. The second home expenses issue is more important frankly. Philip Cross (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I dont think it's quite necessary to go into such detail (such as naming the films) in the header - I've moved this further down. Whole business is daft, very reminiscent of Bangkok Chick Boys. Jw2035 (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Prostitution

AFAIK, she changed the rules about prostitution in UK. This was also very controversial, because prostitution is still legal but it is illegal for the customer if the "lady" was forced to do it (which is impossible to check). Isn't it worthy to mention this as well? Mrwoody (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC).

Mounting pressure for her to resign as home secretary

In the wake of her dodgy "second home" claims, and porngate, should this not be mentioned?