Talk:Nick Clegg

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)

Criminal Damage Act of 1971 1(3) 'destroying or damaging property by fire shall be charged as arson' thus I have changed the article to fit. I would also assume that 'rare cacti' are more valuable than the ones in B&Q.

Rsloch (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

However, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 does not extend, as far as I know, to Germany, and never has. I don't know whether there is a separate provision there for "criminal damage by fire", but I would assume so. Without an original source, assuming that he was convicted of arson, when the cited source says damage is original research. Rodhullandemu 14:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked into this- although the press report it as a conviction, Clegg says the professor was persuaded not to press charges. However, it is reported as arson, so I don't think it's unfair to call it that (at least informally). Have also added refs & replaced a {{deadlink}}. Rodhullandemu 14:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Setting fire to something illegally is arson regardless of what and if you are charged for. The best I can find re arson under German law is German Criminal Code Section 306 (1).

Rsloch (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

Maggot?

What was the original story about him connected to maggots and vetrinary science demonstration at some animal research institute in the early 80s? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.22.59 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/18/election-diary-victoria-coren suggests it was completely made up to make a public schoolboy seem more interesting and exciting than he really is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.242.214 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Leader

The infobox has Menzies Campbell as leader (now wrong) and Mark Oaten as previous leader. Do these mean as in leader of the front bench team? If so, both are patently wrong but when I tried to correct them it was overturned. LiberalViews 16:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, the infobox format in Vincent Cable appears to be correct; I propose we harmonise all LibDem front benchers to this format. LiberalViews 17:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Either the info has changed since the 21st October, or you're misunderstanding the infobox. Mark Oaten is listed as the previous Home Affairs Spokesman; the 'leader' part says under which leaders Clegg has been Home Affairs Spokesman. -UK-Logician-2006 00:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

To argue that Nick Clegg's atheism should not be noted against the religion item of the info box is pedantic. An encyclopaedia should note his religious belief , or lack of it, and this is the place to put it. Arguments that atheism is not a religion aren’t relevant. Lumos3 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont agree, atheism is not a religion. And it isnt pedantic because as a potential next UK PM this is a relevant issue and by claiming his religion is atheism we are clearly claiming more than the ref states, this is original research. I wont revert for now but this is disputed. What do others think. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lumos3. Technically, it's true that atheism is not a religion, but it's a perfectly sensible use of the field to note his atheism there. It would of course be more accurate to relabel the field as "religion (or lack thereof)", but I can't see any benefit in such verbosity.

I can't agree with Squeakbox's suggestion that we are going further than the BBC article says. Clegg said that he doesn't believe in god, which fits perfectly with the definition in atheism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Erm a) a politician's religion is rarely of significance in British politics; b) Clegg may have answered a question and got a write-up in the inevitable flurry of "all about the new leader" coverage but that's not the same thing as being one who is prominently identified by their atheism; and c) that field is ridiculously overused - see Template talk:Infobox Officeholder#Usefulness/uselessness of Religion field. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not know if Nick Clegg would call himself an athiest or not, but I do know that athiesm is NOT a religion, so properly the entry should read "Religion: None" rather than "Religion: Athiest". This would surely adequately identify his stance on religion without misrepresenting athiesm. 212.23.15.98 (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BrownHairedGirl. Saying "None" makes him sound like an agnostic or a non-denominational Christian. If he's an atheist then it should say so and be done with it. I can see that atheism is not a religion but some people say that same about Buddhism and there are plenty of Christians who would say that they are "not religious but faithful". If we think that its a problem to associate all these things with religion then lets change the template to say something like "Faith Views". But that’s not to my taste personally.

Interestingly Charles Bradlaugh's template says none but links to atheist (which he was) but that seems like covering the point rather than being correct.

CaptinJohn (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly none of the M(E)Ps listed in the National_Secular_Society article have this template.

CaptinJohn (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You can be a secularist and a member of a religion. Secularism is about the position of religion in society, not in your pesonal life.Biscit (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with putting "none". He says he's "toward the agnostic end of the atheist spectrum", whatever that means ("atheist end of the agnostic spectrum" would make more sense, semantically speaking) and considering he's allowing his children to be brought up as catholics, he's not exactly a "hardline" atheist anyway. - 88.109.229.84 (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the anon that we should put religion none and then just include atheism in the bulk of the text. Tim, while UK politicians religious beliefs arent significant in the way they are in America the religious beliefs of a PM are significant because of the role of the C of E in the UK government, which is again why I would support saying none in the religious field. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You all seem to be missing something. He didn't say he was an atheist: he said he was non-religious. Jainism denies the existence of gods, but it's a religion. (What else would forbid killing a plant?!) Agnosticism is neither religious nor atheistic, although it does not preclude religion while it does preclude atheism. Buddhists are usually one or the other. Anyway, my point is he simply is Not religious. Calling him anything else is OR. I know - I read the article on it.85.92.173.186 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait - Jainism isn't necessarily atheistic. I could have sworn Wikipedia said it was a few days ago. Well, the rest is still right. 85.92.173.186 (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Buddhism does not believe in God either so saying one does not believe in god does not make for atheism as one's religion and to assume so is oroginal research. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

For goodness sake, Squeakbox, that's pedantry-on-stilts. If he was a Buddhist or a Jaian he'd have said so, but he didn't. The plain reading of those words is meaning that he is an atheist is supported by The Times:

• "Nick Clegg says: 'I don't believe in God'". The Times. 19 December 2007. Retrieved 2007-11-20. Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrats' new leader, has defied political convention with a frank admission that he is an atheist. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

... so I will reinstate the atheist tag, with The Times article as a ref. If you can find a reliable source which demonstrates that The Times got it wrong and that Clegg used a plain and straightforward answer as a devious way of not acknowledging that is in fact a Buddhist or a Jain, then of course please update the article.

Oh, and User:85.92.173.186, Clegg did not he was "not religious". Listen to the interview or see The Times article: he was asked "Do you believe in god", and said "no". That's exactly how atheism is defined, someone who does not believe in god. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true. An atheist is someone that doesn't believe that gods exist. God is just one particular god. Not believing in God does not entail atheism. Ilkali (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a much better ref. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems good to me!

CaptinJohn (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to BrownHairedGirl. Maybe the BBC fails RS lol. Or maybe I misread it. Actually, agnostics don't believe in gods either. Now, where the agnosticism/atheism distinction lies is another matter. I'll keep out of this discussion though, because you probably won't like what I have to say on that distinction. 85.92.173.186 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to one of the reports I saw, he issued a follow-up "clarification" statement that included this para

“However, I myself am not an active believer, but the last thing I would do when talking or thinking about religion is approach it with a closed heart or a closed mind.”

... whatever that means.

I think you're right that the agnosticism/atheism distinction is potentially a long discussion, but I suggest that it doesn't belong on this page. I'm sure that Clegg will be dragged back to this issue in the future by journalists keen to probe further, so we'll have lots more sources to cite. It'll be interesting to see how Clegg handles this issue, and whether he sticks to his initial "don't believe in God" line or tries to obfuscate for fear that the religious lobbies will give him grief for not signing up. I suspect that by the end of next year we'll have a copiously-referenced "religion" section in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that he'll be called back to this issue in the future which should clear up whether he's an atheist or an agnostic. In the mean time I am going to change the user box back from saying none to saying atheist just becuase saying none and linking to atheist seems like avoiding the issue. If anyone wants to make it say (and link) to agnostic then we can have a vote or something and although I disagree Im not really that bothered. Really its just that saying none irritates me.

Hope that ok with everyone. Any objections, give me a shout.

CaptinJohn (talk) 09:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. I think that linking "none" to atheist is potentially a little misleading, and that it's best to be clear and link directly as you have done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have two problems with listing Clegg's religion as 'atheist' in the way it is currently, both of which have been argued by a significant proportion of contributors, yet ignored with no satisfactory solution being found. Firstly this is a feature designed for US politics where a politician's religion is often central to their identity as a politician. In the UK it is not. Their religion is (with very few exceptions i.e. Northern Ireland) incidental. It does not, therefore, belong in this basic summary of the man but would be far more more appropriate in the main body of the article only. Secondly - and it is semantics - but I feel very uncomfortable reading that someone's religion is atheism. It's just not right. There must be a sensible way around this.--

Athiesm ain't a religion, maybe if it said religious views rather than religion ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.249.81 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I solved that problem.--EchetusXe (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Two issues: Clegg's atheism is mentioned twice, once under Beliefs, and again at the end in the Personal section. Also, the Personal section says that Clegg is the only athiest leader of a UK party. This surprised me, as it suggests Gordon Brown believes; the actual reference supplied says "Clegg is the only English political leader to state that he doesn’t believe in God", which is not the same thing as "the only leader of the three major British political parties not to be a believer". JBel (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed. Off2riorob (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Alleged membership of Conservative Association at university

Greg hands has alleged that Clegg was briefly a member of the Cambridge University Conservative Association. Theres a copy of a membership list on Hands blog and it's been mentioned in quite a few diary pieces in the print media, but these aren't really suitable for use as a reference. Has anyone seen anything anywhere that might corroborate this information?

I don't think that there are any, or that any reliable sources would print it, unless Nick confirms the story. I would support including that information iff such verification happened. Ross^English 13:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

short of going and inspecting the society rolls at Cambridge University Library which should list it there i doubt there is any easy definite way to check Dasy2k1 (talk) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Privy Council membership

This document [[1]] provides evidence of the date of affirmation. I have an email from the Privy Council office proving the date of his appointment but no means by which to publish it. How is this possible?

Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Photograph

Does no one else think the current photo is somewhat insufficient, that it would be better for one of him in a suit. On the Next United Kingdom general election page his picture looks out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.31.221 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Clegg says that "I believe Britain can be better." He is partly Dutch and Russian. He does not explain why his British nationalism does not lead to Teutonic supremacism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the article? Are you wanting to change something? Road Wizard (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not a nationalist of any description. His party is strongly opposed to nationalism, as evidenced by its policies, which involve being in favour of huge-scale immigration into the UK from all over the world, along with allowing asylum seekers to work, which would obviously increase the inflow of asylum seekers. Claiming to want the country to be a better place does not indicate that person is a nationalist. Such statements are typical of politicians of various ideologies. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed 'Nick' from 'Pensions Gaffe' section as was inconsistent with rest of article that merely refers to him as Clegg. 12:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC) User: 82.24.222.199 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.222.199 (talk)

Family and personal life

His wife is named in the infobox, but there is no mention of when or where they married. Does he have children? His parents are stated as name, profession, past tense - are they dead, or alive but no longer working in those jobs? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 12:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Expenses row

I feel that the current section on 'expenses' in the controversies and criticisms section should be moved to the section related to his leadership from 2007. I feel that this should be the case because Nick Clegg has contributed a lot to how this story has developed over the past few weeks (speaker resignation/electoral reform proposals etc...) and could potentially be a significant point in his leadership. What does everyone else think? Notjamesbond (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I feel that the "Nick Clegg allegedly claimed the full amount permissible under the Additional Cost Allowance, including claims for food, gardening and redecorating." section should be removed alongside "Clegg claimed the maximum allowed additional costs allowance in expenses from the taxpayer for his second home in the year 2007-2008 [54]." the first of these the majority of MPs could be accused of and whilst claiming a max, this is not a controversy as he did not abuse it. The second does not relate to the expenses controversy that this section is referencing and again is not controversial. I would keep the telephone calls section in as this was seen at the time as controversial. Democritic (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Electoral Performance

I've added a new 'Electoral Performance' section to the bit about NC's leadership. I think it's a fair summation of the Lib Dems electoral results but feel free to check if I've been fair.

Rsloch (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The facts are there but like any facts they are subjective. I'd avoid use of the word 'badly' as there can be many different interpretations of election results. The by-elections for example were in areas poorly represented by the party and so it wasn't really a suprise when they didn't do anything Notjamesbond (talk) 22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are more concerned my summation of the results rather than the 'facts' themselves. Considering the Lib Dem's record at by election, not to have come close in either English by election is a bad result for them.

Rsloch (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

POV statements by any editor are a breach of WP:NPOV and cannot be accepted in any article, especially that of a living, active politician. Such statements can be acceptable when given by an unbiased independent source, with references included and even then great care as to be taken and the requirements of WP:BIO need to be closely adhered to, hence my revert of your recent edit.

Rsloch, you also need to provide a summary on each edit of the change you have made and why. As an experienced editor you should under no circumstances be leaving the summary box empty. Thanks - Galloglass 09:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A neutral point of view 'doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but rather a specific, editorially neutral point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints', thus POV statements are acceptable if neutral. I added this section to get other views on if what I had written was a NPOV. Please debate not revert.

A rare and slight error that is hardly worth the fuss.

Rsloch (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

14 April Debate Victory

On the 14 april first debate of the election he recieved the most support in what he said during the debate in the polls which suprised most of us why isnt this in the article yet?♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

We need a proper section about his performance in the 2010 election, but we need to make sure that it focuses on him, rather than on the Lib Dems as a whole. I think the debates are an important topic and should go in, but they shoud be mentioned alongside other information about his campaigning. Cortical (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a bio not a day by day political poll commentry, it is not what we are here to do, this is like adding the blow by blow football result, supporters might want to add that he is up today but when it is added tomorrow that he is down it will seem silly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

But we need some more information about the election though - at the moment there's very little. Cortical (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that having some commentary of the result of the debate is a good idea. Clegg's "win" got a lot of press coverage and would seem to be a significant point in the election campaign no matter the result. But certainly anything more than one or two lines is just WP:RECENTISM. – Toon 22:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well this is not a news report, it is a biography of his life, the notable issues not if You gov said he had this percentagw today, the pollsters are doing daily reports, are we to add them all, no, are we to chose the ones we like, no.I would agree that a small comment that he got the best reviews from the first ever chat on telly would be ok, but daily poll reports is going to be silly. Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning specific polls in this way is inadvisable. There are plenty of polls, which will change daily - I don't think this one has any distinct importance. – Toon 22:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever this section needs a current affairs tag adding Dasy2k1 (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. That template is intended for "breaking news", not a sustained election campaign. The template specification clearly advises "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic", so I've removed it. Rodhullandemu 22:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would count yesterday as breaking news, but i agree that given the number of times he is likly to be in the news untill may 6th Current Person isnt really ideal for the job, perhaps there should be some form of election candidate template for this sort of thing, somthing that would be expected to be there until the election itself before being removed Dasy2k1 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Polls dont need to mentioned and I can understand why they cant be trusted, however the fact many where suprised (especially the media who largely mocked who lack of recognition and public appeareances) where stunned how well he presented himself on the debate and the statements of many of the audience members should be used. One woman even switched from being a Labour supporter to campagining for the Lib Dems after the debate who was in the audience. Also both other candidates Brown and Cameron were noted in stating I agree with Nick response. Polls are subjective both other information is revelant. Pior the the debate the Lib Dems had never really being taking serious as a party and had little creditbillity as being taken serious as a real party or serious candidate just like the Green Party♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sweeping brush

If nobody minds, I'm going to go right through and copyedit this article. To be frank, its in a bit of a state, and will be disappointing for anyone seeking to learn more about Clegg, given the current political situation. Parrot of Doom 12:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of years need changing. It says that he joined the European Commission in 1994, but goes on, in the description of what he did there, to refer to somethin in 1993. Also, it says that he decided to "leave Brussels" in 2002, implying that he ceased to be an MEP, but he was an MEP until 2004. Engelsepiet (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Need sources for MEP section

This section was tagged as needing sources. I googled key words from all the uncited statements in the MEP section and couldn't find any independent reliable sources on the web, they were all mirror sites or by the subject himself. Anyone able to find some good references? Tom B (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

A little here

from there..Nick Clegg's political rise began in the mid-1990s when he began working at the European Commission. A far cry from the school of Hitchens, during this period Clegg worked as an aide to Margaret Thatcher's former home secretary, Conservative veteran Leon Brittan. Tipped for great things by former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown, Clegg became an MEP in 2001. He was selected as a parliamentary candidate for Sheffield Hallam in 2004 and won more than 50 per cent of the vote at the 2005 general election.

Off2riorob (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks Robster but it doesn't have anything on what he did while an MEP, Tom B (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, it may be hard to find independent reports, I will look a bit more and get back tomorrow, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:6LsZWZr-sq4J:www.politics.co.uk/mps/party-politics/liberal-democrats/clegg-nick-%24452144.htm+Clegg+co-founded+the+Campaign+for+Parliamentary+Reform,&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk He was elected as a member of the European Parliament in 1999, where as Trade and Industry spokesman for the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe he led the move to open up the domestic telecoms market, allowing consumers to pick their telephone provider for the first time and advocated trade measures against illegally logged timber. He was a co-founder of the Campaign for Parliamentary Reform, which argued for more transparency and accountability in the European Parliament. Throughout his time as an MEP, Nick wrote essays on public policy issues including greening the WTO, secondary education policy, and reform of the EU’s decision making procedures. For several years he was a columnist for The Guardian Unlimited. Nick stood down from the European Parliament in 2004 and lectured part time at Sheffield and Cambridge Universities. Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

nice one. i'm not sure about reliability, it's hard to check what with it being a caché and cannot seem to get politics.co.uk. i think a lot of sources might use politicians own-made cvs, so hard to get independent sources as you say, Tom B (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Ignacy Wyssogota Zakrzewski

Mentioned in first section regarding family. Ignacy Wyssogota Zakrzewski (1745-1802) was a notable Polish nobleman!!!!!! not Russian!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.116.158 (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

What I will do if this might happen

I first rewrote the comment a bit and tidied up the citation and then realised it is not what we are here to do, it is a comment that is pure speculation, it may never happen, imagine it is the 7 may and the the labour are in second place.. what will we have to do with this content that after insertion two weeks later had no value at all?

edit summary, speculative political comments, wait and see what happens and then report it.

Clegg said on April 24 that he would not support the government if Labour came third in the popular vote, and said reform of Britain's electoral system would be a condition of a deal with the Conservative Party. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning something about all this but I agree a lot of it is speculative. Historically, I think the role of the LibDems in this election campaign, regardless of its outcome, will appear significant but not so important that we need day-by-day updates on what he said to which newspaper etc. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If there is support to add it I am fine with that? Personally I don't think we should be adding stuff that we may have to remove after less than two weeks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, a mention (ie a sentence or 2) might be of value even after the election. I'll see if I can work something in that won;t expire in 2 weeks' time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mr CLEGG and TRACECA

Mr Clegg wasn"t the initiator of TRACECA and not the initiator of the 93" TRACECA conference The first conference was organised by Mr GONTIER and chaired by Commissioner Van Den Broeck in Brussels 3rd of May 1993. In this time Mr Clegg was not in charge for TRACECA.

Mr Clegg strated to be in charge of TRACECA only end of 1994 and leave the TRACECA programme in June 1995 just enough time for him to start a "comprehensible" court case against Mr Gontier.

The working group of Tashkent was organised several months later by a team of experts working for the Company TRACTEBEL (this team was lead by Mr Battersby), Mr Clegg took part of the meeting. This meeting has never been recognised as official TRACECA Meeting.

Mr Clegg was clearly not interested by TRACECA or any programme developped within TACIS, he handed over the programme to Mr Stroobants in June 95.

I met him only once in August 1995, try to speak with him about TRACECA, but it was these last days before to join the team of Mr Britain, and he was not really cooperative.

I have sticly nothing against him, and I am sincverely impressed by hi career, but to link TRACECA to Mr Clegg like its presented, seems to be a bit too much !!!

Mr Graille Marc

Coodinator of the EU Food Aid for the Caucasus and Central Asia 1994-1995 Coordinator of the TRACECA Programme 1994-2003