Jump to content

Talk:Jeremy Hunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 90.192.101.114 (talk) at 00:02, 4 August 2015 (→Requested move 30 July 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Meeting with Rupert Murdoch at the Olympics

The fact that Hunt schmoozed with Rupert during the Olympics really should not be omitted from the main article, otherwise it appears highly biased <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newsvideo/uk-politics-video/9453079/Jeremy-Hunt-and-Rupert-Murdoch-filmed-meeting-at-the-Olympics.html>,< http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-08-04/rupert-murdoch-meets-jeremy-hunt-outside-aquatics-centre/>. Brief encounter or no, the train appears to have done more than entered the tunnel - with criminal charges against Brooks and the Levenson inquiry still ongoing too -needs some form of organoleptic characterisation...212.139.109.29 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)hieronymous212.139.109.29 (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While no fan of any particular party: to say 'schmoozed', isn't that what we said about Andy Burnham and the ministers for health in beginning selective privitisation of the NHS? It is not acceptable to encourage tabloid wording (even on a talk page which is for honest technical advice). Carefully read WP:STYLE instead of using WP:EDITORIAL snippets like that. This is an encylcopedia; it's not a Commons PMQs or mudslinging competition, particularly with regards to one head of media outlet vilified by many of the the others and yet attracting of course plenty of new readers.- Adam37 Talk 14:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement

I quote - 'Hunt hung back for many years from putting himself forward for selection as a parliamentary candidate. When asked why he argued that he felt that he had "not achieved enough" in the real world outside politics.'

Where is the reference for this statement? This is another miserable example of anonymous MPs trying to increase their profile by editing their own wikipedia entries. Shame on you Mr Hunt. Hyperbole11 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British Council

Biased article, with a load of foaming-at-the-mouth cant about the British Council. Revise!

I have added an internal link to the South West Surrey Westminster constituency page, and have added an election result box. I did this through copying and pasting text from the link which used a template: TG312274 18:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things - 1. what is it about the British COuncil? If people have an allegation to amke they should do it in the open, not through Wikipedia, otherwise I think it is classed as a smear. 2. The photo of Douglas Alexander can hardly be used to suggest that he was flirting New Labour before the 2005 election as the photo was taken when he was an MP! To avoid allegations of pro-unt bias I have removed unsourced statements about his beliefs. Jimbo H 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all: Jeremy Hunt MP does not declare his very close business interest with The British Council in the House of Commons register of interest but does mention there that Hotcourses of which he is one the directors makes a financial contribution to his office at Westminster.

Whoever deleted from this Wikipedia article the cross-reference to the register of interest that substantiates this link does not act in the ethos of Wikipedia which is all about transparency.

The link between Hunt's parent company and Sheffield Data Services has also been removed from the site despite that also being mentioned in his Commons entry. That too is an important business link between a serving politician and the British Council which the general public is I think entitled to know about - not least given Mr Hunt's recent promotion to a Conservative Shadow Cabinet which has strong links with business. (See: 'Tory MPs' second jobs spark concern' Financial Times Tuesday August 14 2007). His portfolio is now 'culture' but will he, for example, be lining up with Fay Weldon and others to comment on the closure of British Council libraries in Europe?

As to the questions of business ethics the links with his current culture portfolio and with his predecessor Virginia Bottomley MP (who was British Council trustee when questions over intellectual property arose, and were hushed up by British Council - which is accountable to no-one and a public scandal) is established fact. A quick check back through History pages of this site to the original Tory 'puff' will even reveal that this described Bottomley as Jeremy Hunt's 'patron'. The photo of Douglas Alexander MP was, as far as I can see, prominently displayed on Mr Hunt's own constituency website with a reference to the 'Devil's Punch Bowl' that is unambiguous.

I suggest that whoever has tampered with these contributions reinstate the link to this politician's declared interests and the undeclared connection with The British Council which is implicit - but concealed for some reason.

This is the person who was been editing, not tampering Jeremy Hunt's wiki entry. When you say "whoever" I have at least registered my name rather than hiding behing an anonymous IP address.

MPs do not ahev to declare a connection unless they receive a direct financial contribution form an organisation - I assume that this isn't what you're accusing him of? I am still not sure what you accusing him of directly doing but as I stated in my previous post, serious allegations should be dealt with in the open and not anonymously through Wikipedia. Jimbo H 09:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of (unsourced) PR waffle about how he hung back from politics until he could make something of his self in life and how doing his finals was the toughest year of his life, it remains my humble - and disinterested - opinion that his current business links with The British Council (a publicly funded organisation falling within his current parliamentary brief)remain a matter of public interest. For some reason best known to himself Jeremy Hunt MP is very coy about these BC links.

Evidence of this can be seen, for example, in The House of Commons Minutes of the International Development Committee for Thursday 14 July 2005 under item 1 where members including Mr Hunt were asked to declare interests. Contrast his entry on that occasion with that of his Labour colleague Joan Ruddock MP: "Jeremy Hunt declared the following interests: remunerated directorship of Hotcourses Ltd. Hotcourses owns 50% of Sheffield Data Services Ltd and 100% of Schoolsnet; Consultant, Bristol Port Company; he declared a loan to his brother for use in his company Peacock Blue Ltd, and was an unremunerated Director and Trustee of the Hotcourse Foundation." What is left undeclared is the link between Hotcourses, Sheffield Data Services and Schoolsnet and The British Council - one of the main organisations this committee comments on.

Contrast Mr Hunt's approach to disclosure with that of Joan Ruddock MP. She has no directorships but "Joan Ruddock declared a non-pecuniary interest in that she is twinned with a woman MP in Zambia, arranged by the British Council". Now take a look at the press release linking Hunt to British Council on http://www.ucas.ac.uk/new/press/archive/news2001/bc2208.html and ask yourself why his Wikipedia entry mentions an old client list (BT, Bull Integris, Zetafax) of one of his previous PR companies but makes no mention of the fact that his parliamentary assistants (who get access to Westminster and Researchers passes) are supported by declared financial contributions from Hotcourses one of whose main clients is this peculiar quasi-governmental body British Council which has semi-diplomatic status, Neil Kinnock as its Chairperson, has recently been designated as a Home Office approved accreditor for immigration purposes, is currently in the midst of a huge row over its 'cultural' role not least in respect of the closures of libraries and information centres and its treatment of staff.

I have no objection whatsoever to this article having a link to Surrey Conservatives - but would point out the apparent contradiction in edits which add that in with one hand while taking out with the other the page reference from that same website in which Jeremy HuntMP is pictured with Labour's Douglas Alexander MP in 'The Devil's Punchbowl' - and expresses his support for the London Olympics. As that issue too may have an impact on his current Shadow Cabinet Culture responsibility that should stay too.

The place to discuss the problems of the British Council is on the British Council page. If you read my previous comments you would see that the reason I pulled out the web page showing Douglas Alexander is that it was inj the context of Jeremy thinking of changing parties BEFORE he was adopted as a candidate when the picture was clearly taken when he was an MP. With regards again to the British Council, as it is sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office it does not fall within his brief. I would also point out that you are hardly disinterested if you are editing a Wikipedia page.Jimbo H 13:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly very interested in The British Council which is a strangely unaccountable organisation which tries to edit its own Wikipedia entries to mislead the general public. I also believe very strongly in accountability of MPs and point out again that this concern is shared by 'The Financial Times'. I have no knowledge at all about Jeremy Hunt's political dithering before or after he enters Westminster as successor to Virginia Bottomley who was on the Board of Trustees of The British Council at the time of his business dealings.

If Jeremy Hunt MP or his supporters believe that 'as it is sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office [British Council - which styles itself as 'the UK international organisation for cultural relations and education'] does not fall within his brief' as Shadow Minister of Culture (sic) then the sooner a Hotcourse sponsored assistant finds the man a dictionary the better.

You are on a losing wicket, Jimbo. Wikipedia is not a personal advertising service for Conservative MPs. The undeclared interest in the British Council by Jeremy Hunt MP when he served on a Select Committee covering that body is clearly sourced above - and remains a matter of considerable public interest.

I would agree that the fact the Hotcourses has The British Council as a client is of interest and I didn't take it down when I last made some changes. It is however the case that the British Council is responsible to FCO rather than DCMS and I'm sure that you should be able to find that out relatively simply - I can tell you where to look if you want. I agree that Wiki should not have negative postings removed by people with a connection to the page in question and neither should i be used for promotion but neither should it be used for smears. You appear to imply that there are some shady dealings going ahead and as I have stated twice before, Wikipedia is not the place to air these grievances. Jimbo H 14:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The British Council is a major client. It is also by no means as transparent as you imply. There is nothing simple about getting answers out of British Council. But if you come across minutes (?) of any meetings involving Jeremy Hunt and the British Council's deal with Hotcourses, do be sure to post them.

Expenses

Is this relevant? There are modest overclaims and a query over his agent staying in his second home. Also he made his personal bank statements available to a loal papaer I think it was. Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Whilst Hunt has notably fallen foul of the authorities for letting his agent use the house, the relatively small overpayments due HOC clerical errors are trivial. I intend to expand the details of the investigation, provide a one line summary of the other overpayments and then give the expenses in context. This section should then look more like an encyclopedia article. JRPG (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I note Henry J. Mute has restored all the old text including frankly trivial details in the expenses section, see wp:undue This is supposed to be a WP:NPOV article. Hunt has clearly made two mistakes, allowing the agent to stay, which appears to me to be a way of boosting party funds and one of which has been described as having been caused by a "disorganised office". A possibly charitable description but the official one. Lets state the facts succinctly and ignore trivia. The mysterious reference to the letter of the 24th of June should be removed. JRPG (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry J. Mute (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Thank you JRPG for your welcome on my user talk page. I have read some of the pages but was struck by:[reply]

"Achieving neutrality As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage."

I added to what was already there, I did not delete. My sourced information was deleted, and believe it should not have been.

The 1p claim was itself trivial (and refused), but to include it is not. The expenses scandal was not only about the bigger claims like moat cleaning and duck houses, but also bath plugs, biscuits, chewing gum and the 1p phone call. The 1p claim has been on Wikipedia for 18 months, and for most of that time was the only claim that was was listed on the expenses section.

The Mail had claimed that Jeremy Hunt was one of the saints of the expenses scandal and whilst it is right to note that Jeremy Hunt was one of the lowest claimers, he was also one of the highest re-payers.

The other items that have been deleted reflect that there were more than just the two mistakes you refer to and cannot be blamed on a "disorganised office." If you look at Jeremy Hunt's candidate declaration, http://www.jeremyhunt.org/pdf/CandidateDeclarationForm.pdf the handwriting is not dissimilar to the handwriting on some of the claim forms he has blamed other people for.

There is nothing mysterious about the reference to the letter of June 24th. it is listed here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmstnprv/157/15702.htm Jeremy Hunt claimed his agent's use of his taxpayer funded home was proportionate to the equity he owned outright.This claim is also expanded in Jeremy Hunt's interview with the parliamentary commission and warrants a heading under Equity.http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmstnprv/157/15702.htm , so do not understand your argument that it should be removed.

I do agree that the expenses section should not be the largest but that is because so little has been entered in other sections. As a Secretary of State he deserves more.

Henry, firstly thanks for a courteous response and I'm pleased you've shown committment. Looking at the sources, the standards enquiry found Hunt guilty on 2 serious charges. This is most definitely notable. The commission then used extremely mild language to rebuke him. Disorganised office will appear nonsense to most people –hence an exact quotation. I’ll update this with thisTelegraph article which has some additional comments -unless you want to do it.
London MPs –particularly those in wealthy areas where staff aren’t needed to help with visas or benefits - will normally have the lowest expenses and that is true of Hunt. There are usually more press articles on expenses than anything else an MP does so it is important to ensure the section doesn’t fail the undue test. I don’t feel small details including the penny meet notability as overall expenses are low.
The amount he repaid £11554 following the enquiry would have put him 22nd on the Legg repayment list –which would be notable -but Hunt’s claims were not on their remit and hence weren’t included. The Telegraph awarded sainthood to a few people but I don’t think Hunt was one. Re the handwriting, that may be of interest to the press but we are banned from original research.
The Observer article is definitely notable. I’d like to see any follow up from a decent source about this employee.
We agree that the article should be larger. Unlike Cable, Hunt appears to be anti-BBC. This article, this one, and this one may be useful after the decision is made. I'd be delighted if you want to do this potentially most important section and am happy to help.
Regards JRPG (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another look at the errors in expenses. The overclaiming on council tax occurs on other MPs expenses -and seems largely due to the HOC authorities not understanding the rules of Council tax i.e a monthly payment omitted in February and March. There is no question of any wrongdoing, nor is the sum very large in the overall context of an MP's cost. The office supplies overpayment should similarly have been picked up by any self respecting auditing system and I don't think anyone would suggest it was deliberate. That contrasts with the very much larger benefits received by Hunt's agent and PA, both of which are questionable.
JRPG (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The C word

The most newsworthy event of this politician's year happened on 06.12.10 on the Today programme when James Naughtie mistakenly employed a rather rude spoonerism when introducing him. This was reported on every daily newspaper and on television and radio news bulletins on 06.12.10. However my attempts to include this on Wikipedia (without resorting to vulgar language) have lasted barely 30 minutes. It's a form of censorship that's depressingly common on Wikipedia. Furthermore I am being asked to justify myself. Why are the other editors not justifying their attempts to present an airbrushed, sanitised biography of this individual? MyThoughtsExactly (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, things like this make the news. They are quickly forgotten about. Being the subject of a gaffe is hardly notable, and in this case, it's probably not even worth mentioning the the gaffe perpetrator's bio. See WP:TRIVIA and WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, a quick look around will confirm that censorship is not common. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Ohnoitsjamie. If Hunt had used the 'c' word, then it may be noteworthy, but it was someone else who accidentally spoonerised his name, so this story is about Naughtie not Hunt who was merely the innocent object of Naughtie's mistake. BabelStone (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about sanitising or airbrushing. It is about keeping trivia out. This was a trivial incident that some people found amusing for one day or so but will swiftly be forgotten. You are right to describe it as a newsworthy event. But because it was newsworthy does not make it an event of any significance in a biography of Hunt. It's not something he did or said. Rather, somebody else mispronounced his name on radio to briefly amusing effect. There might be an argument for including a reference to the episode on the James Naughtie page, but not here, as far as I am concerned. In fact, thinking about it, I don't even think it should appear on the Naughtie page. I would go so far as to say that in a year or so this incident will be almost completely forgotten. Dubmill (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have touched a raw nerve, I had no idea Mr Hunt had so many active supporters on Wiki. Well using the trivia line of argument could open up a can of worms on this article and many other biographical articles. Who is to say what is trivia? What trivia is deemed worthy of mention? For instance why has mention of his Latin dancing pastime been allowed? Is this essential to the biography of a Cabinet Minister, a Member of Parliament and Privy Councilor? You seem to allow trivia that suits and disallow trivia that might be embarrassing. MyThoughtsExactly (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't characterize myself as an "active supporter," as I hardly know who he is. I frequently add articles to my watchlist not because I'm interested in the topic, but because they've been targeted with frequent vandalism or POV pushing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a supporter of Hunt. In fact I had never heard of him until yesterday. The mention of his interest in Latin dancing is perhaps questionable. Then again, it is something he does himself, and seems to fit under the heading of 'Personal life', unlike this. Dubmill (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I watch this page because I live in Hunt's constituency, but I have never voted in an election, and am certainly not a supporter of his (I was in favour of keeping in the article the mention of his much-ridiculed 1p expenses claim). I oppose the introduction of this material simply because it is not relevant to his article as he was not involved in the verbal slip by Naughtie. Incidentally, it was a strange coincidence that this irrelevant trivia was readded this morning by an IP belonging to Glasgow City Council when MyThoughtsExactly appears to be a Rangers fan. BabelStone (talk) 10:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:MyThoughtsExactly has been blocked for sockpuppetry, per WP:DUCK. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns

I updated the sentence on campaigns he has been involved in but more work is needed. 'Inappropriate over development' is a very biassed, poorly defined phrase - it isn't neutral. 'saving' a hospital is not neutral and shouldn't be used unless there was a campaign of this name - in which case it should have been capitalised. The only citation present was a link to Mr Hunt's page on the Conservative Party website, in which he refers to campaigning against closure of the A&E department of a hospital, not the closure of the hospital itself as previously stated. The other campaigns mentioned lack citation - so if none can be found then mention of them should be removed. I also think it made more sense to list hospital related campaigns together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.6.140 (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree that "inappropriate" is a loaded word! Also agree that we have a lot of problems with inaccurate summarising of sources -saving a hospital as opposed to the A+E. Another problem is the omission of a summary of the right to reply of politicians.
Hunt's web page isn't ideal as a wp:source but if there's nothing in the local newspaper then it's the best we can get.
"some local developments" is vague to the point of meaningless and lacks a citation, feel free to remove. Hunt's webpage would have mentioned the more important campaigns but I suggest waiting perhaps a couple of weeks, then removing them. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to feature information

This article needs to feature information about his corruption concerning News International's bid for BSkyB, as well as what this implies about him as an immoral person.  :-) 86.186.94.202 (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are strictly required to follow a neutral point of view and all information must be verifiable. If we want to refer to him as "corrupt", it must be a quotation from a reliable source and the word should appear in quotes. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let's see what we can do! 86.186.94.202 (talk) 07:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the page today September 4th

Well done everyone for getting this page up to date so quickly . I went hoping for a imsight into this new SOS Health and got sooooooo much information. Wikipedia for ever.YellowFratello (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cousin of HM Queen Elizabeth II - more reliable source?

Do you know of a more reliable source for this statement? The owner of the amateur geneaology site you have quoted (Darryl Lundy) states himself : "This website is the result of around fourteen years of work by one (somewhat eccentric) person collecting information on the European royal families and on the British Peerage, and then entering it into a range of various genealogy programs. Along the way I have changed the way I have presented information, and adjusted the formatting to reflect the strengths of each new generation of software. I continue to find conflicting info while expanding it."
If you have a reliable source, can you post it please? Its a rather grand connection - 212.139.109.29 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.109.29 (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The statements about Hunt's family history are based on original research and interpretation of primary sources, and the cited sources do not explicitly support any of the claims. For such claims to be included in the article they need to be directly made by a reliable source. Therefore I have removed them from the article. BabelStone (talk) 23:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Homeopathy - Royal Spokesperson in Government?

The Guardian of 10/09.2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/sep/04/do-you-believe-in-homeopathy-jeremy-hunt?commentpage=30#comment-18071761> drew attention to Hunt's support for homeopathy and intimated that he promoted this form of alternative medicine at the behest of the Royal Family - who his CV suggests he is distantly related to. There were queries as to whether any parliamentary rules existed re: civil servants and politicians being independent of the monarchy - I was wondering if there should be more links to this, as it appears to have the potential to become a hot topic?212.139.100.203 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.203 (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Homeopathy - Royal Spokesperson in Government?

The Guardian of 10/09.2012 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/poll/2012/sep/04/do-you-believe-in-homeopathy-jeremy-hunt?commentpage=30#comment-18071761> drew attention to Hunt's support for homeopathy and intimated that he promoted this form of alternative medicine at the behest of the Royal Family - who his CV suggests he is distantly related to. There were queries as to whether any parliamentary rules existed re: civil servants and politicians being independent of the monarchy - I was wondering if there should be more links to this, as it appears to have the potential to become a hot topic?212.139.100.203 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.100.203 (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re relationship to the royal family, I don't think this is significant. However Hunt's support for homeopathy has already raised many eyebrows. Whilst Prince Charles is a supporter, Hunt won't get anywhere unless he has the support of Cameron -but that may have been a motive for giving him the job. Crystal ball gazing is verboten so we'll have to wait and see what actions follow. Feel free to post any other links. JRPG (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I ran across a tweet from Richard Dawkins referencing this article. It strikes me that our article, which says bluntly that he's a supporter of homeopathy needs to be updated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wife's surname

I have been reliably informed that his wife's surname is not 'Liu'. Many news reports give the name as 'Guo'. I have made the change, with a reliable source. I grant that there are a number of sources with the incorrect name, but I am told (and have partly confirmed, although a more thorough search may turn up some other original source for the error) that they all appear to follow the first appearance in Wikipedia. A strange side note is this one which says "he refuses to give her surname" - this may have been true in that interview, but does not appear to be true more generally.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC) [Addendum] This appears to be the first insertion (unsourced).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PC post nominals

"PC" as a post-nominal is usually only given to those otherwise entitled to the style "The Right Honourable", i.e., Peers of the Realm. Is there a good source for why the Rt. Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP gets "PC" as well? — 86.156.45.114 (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles relevant to the Health Secretary section

Requested move 30 July 2015

Jeremy Hunt (politician) → Jeremy Hunt – According to article traffic, the cyclist has only been viewed just over 1,000 times in the last three months,[1][2][3] whilst the politician has been viewed over 45,000 times in the same time period.[4][5][6] Unreal7 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

!ipuser90.192.101.114 (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jeremy_Hunt&oldid=674444466"