Talk:Natascha Engel

Photograph

This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 00:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It has one now. It's only taken about two years from your note :-)

Lomcevak (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Original research

I have added the {{original research}} tag because of the speculation in the article over Natascha Engel's career and political philosophy, following concerns raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies. Sam Blacketer 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns and I've replied to Galloglass's comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Parliament_constituencies#Natascha_Engel which may address some of yours. As I said to Gallowglass, if you've got ideas on how to 'neutrally' present the facts, then please help :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Copyediting

I've completed my copyedit and am now happy with the article as it stands. As far as I can see, all the original research has gone, although no doubt more and better sources can always be found. I have no intention of reverting if Dsmith1usa wants to insist on his version; others are welcome to give their opinions on which is better. Sam Blacketer 13:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Sam, that's a good deal better. Clearly presented, easily read and all verifiable in reliable sources. Ta. Hiding Talk 14:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why it is not necessary to say 'unsuccessful'

To be "a candidate" must by definition refer to an unsuccessful candidacy. If a candidate was successful, then it would say "elected as MP" rather than "was a candidate". In addition, referring to all candidates who do not win as "unsuccessful" begs a question: was Roy Jenkins unsuccessful in Warrington in 1981? He wasn't elected, but by coming close he demonstrated the electoral appeal of the SDP and therefore scored a big political success for the party. Sam Blacketer 14:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Why it is necessary to say 'unsuccesful'

The current version - and we are not finished, yet - from what I can see says, 'he fought.' Nothing about your definition of 'candidacy'. But if you insist, with respect, on your pedantry, I look in the Collins dictionary I have to hand and it says nothing about direct implication of failure. And pulling-up an on-line dictionary, all the pointers are towards an expectation of success. But anyway, even if he 'fought,' to use your 'candidacy alternative,' I think it perfectly reasonable, with many others, I suspect, to tack on, possibly silently, 'Well ... did he win ?' (And that was exactly the question I asked myself! I've never heard of Randall [MP for Uxbridge] or Salisbury Jones.) It's rather like posting something like, 'Liston fought Clay.' (Fact) Yes, well, who won? Also, it was interesting to note that while I was being sermoned on what is up to Wiki standard and what is not, that you almost immediately tripped-up over your own shoelaces with an opinion about Engel being '...identified as a potential for future office.' At least you were 'gracious' enough to haul back on that (grudgingly, I suspect - never nice to be part of a bunch of preachers/inquistitors and then get 'hoist with your own petards,' eh?) So, in terms of word definition and what is or is not 'opinion' vs 'fact,' (btw. I do recommend reading, the 'Malleus Maleficarum,' the precision of some 'definitions' is, well, um, astonishing) that's two that have exploded (so far). I was running accross three 'pages,' yesterday, trying to keep-up with developments, so, now I've answered this here, I'll be working on the Engel talk page. No, I'll not 'simply' revert, but thanks for your contribution, and now let's hold you, and, indirectly, Galloglass - who appears to think that 'merely' arranging to get elected to Westminster doesn't register on the scale of political accomplishment - to your own 'high' Wiki standards. Be seeing you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs) 10:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Verifiablity

Sam writes: 'Her connections with allies of Gordon Brown were remarked upon.'

Where were they remarked upon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dsmith1usa (talk • contribs) 11:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

In the Independent on Sunday piece to which you provided a link.

'By contrast, Natascha Engel, an aide to the Treasury minister John Healey, has easily overcome local opposition to be selected for Derbyshire North East. However, she denies that having impeccable Brownite connections helped her to the job.

"I was expecting that to come up, but in fact people were much more interested in local issues," she said, adding that the term "Blair babe" was outdated and insulting. "It is sexist, patronising nonsense."

But it is likely that Ms Engel will have to endure a different sexist and patronising label as one of a new generation of "Brown babes".

Hope this helps. Sam Blacketer 12:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, with respect, Sam - you wrote that (I'm talking about your misunderstanding of timing. You do it later on with your trying to provide a continual text of what Engel did prior to being elected. There are things that were done [alledgedly] but the timing is unclear. That was why it was bullet pointed.) That was/is selective editing on your part from my original article. You well know, I pulled that from her period of being selected - the controversy over all-women select lists. My concern, and I gave references, also from people from BECTU, was about after the election. I hope this helps. (BTW. I notice, you are like Gallowglass when caught bang to rights on your previous claims to have some sort of divine insight into the meaning of words ... you move along. You don't answer the questions you are directly confronted with. Where's your previous 'confidence' on your definition of 'candidate?') . You do move on don't you (LOL)? **BANG** that's three Sam. You are so much fun, I think you could provide us, with you 'earnestness,' with Wiki entertainment until we die ... keep going :-) Dsmith1usa 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm having difficulties understanding both your meaning and tone. I don't see this as some titanic tussle between personalities, but as a joint effort to write a better article about one British MP. The comment about Natascha Engel's connections with allies of Gordon Brown follows in the text immediately after the statement that she had been selected as a candidate; the quote from the article is therefore highly relevant. Yes, I selected out the part of the article which mentions Natascha Engel as being close to Gordon Brown allies – I do not see the problem there. An accusation of 'selective quotation' normally means that contradictory writing is not selected, but I am unaware of anything either in that article or elsewhere which observes that Natascha Engel is unconnected to Gordon Brown allies.

'Titanic tussle' (laughter) oh, you do have a way with words, sort of, don't you, Sam ;-)? Nope, I definitely wouldn't put in the 'Titanic' class. More like, (all aboard )the Skylark.

For what it's worth, I still don't see why it is necessary to write that any election candidate who does not get elected is "unsuccessful". It is standard form in books like "Who's Who"

you see, Sam, now you start singing a different story ... before, according to you, writing 'candidate' was analytical with failure. I merely pointed out that there is no clear analytical connection. You start to gabble ... retreating from your previous stronger assertions, and, as I said before about Gallowglass and you, you ignore previously pointed out awkward points, and continue...

to write that a person had "Contested" an election without having to draw attention to their not having been elected. Any reader of the article will understand without having to have it pointed out to them.

which once again is you tripping-up over your holier-than thou shoelaces. This is your opinion on something which is completely subjective.

In the Wikipedia article on Screaming Lord Sutch it is never once mentioned that all of his electoral contests were unsuccessful. Sam Blacketer 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Screaming Lord Sutch Priceless, Sam, priceless, that you use Sutch an example. Oh, you are a one aren't you?

Thanks for your ever engrossing contributions ... you are a vast seam of possibilities that should be mined. Be seeing you.

I don't know how I have managed to offend you, but please understand this - if I change something you have written, it's not me criticising you as a person, or even as an editor, just me offering my opinion that the article would be improved by the change. Sam Blacketer 18:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Engel on Iraq

Ok. moving on a bit Sam Blacketer from making-up and then trying to defend fairy stories about connotations of the word 'candidacy,' let's look at Engel on Iraq and how you've taken information from my contributions and, in your zeal to 'lend a hand,' completely missed the point - do you look at the datings of documents (that whole hard business of timing)? You write:

However, she has said in an interview, [citing my ref. Labour MPs on Iraq - part two] that she would have opposed the Iraq war had she been in Parliament at the time.[emphasis added]

With respect, Sam, it seems to be a case of RTFQ (which of course is what Engel doesn't want gulls to do!):

Natascha Engel - North East Derbyshire

If you were an MP at the time, how did you vote on military action in Iraq? Against.

[emphases added]

And so we venture to the politician's Enchanted Lands of the counterfactual - the (Hopeful v Ignorance [sic]) general purpose 'let-off'). Now you may point to my pedantry, so to speak, and say something along the lines of, 'Well, clearly(!), what was meant was that,"If you had been ... how would you ... etc. etc." (a significant, and entirely meaning shifting change of tense and the degree of the hypothetical). This is rather like your earlier assertion that "Any reader of the article will understand without having to have it pointed out to them." You appear to be quite happy to zip the pointer sharply toward the subjectivity end of the 'objectivity---------------->subjectivity' spectrum at the 'meta-level,' and in doing so, remove important information that may provide a more 'objective grasp' (pure objectivity being a pot of gold at the end of some rainbow in the land of Oz, in the human way of being). So you're not so keen on 'fact' v 'opinion' distinctions around here - at this level - it seems. I believe, again with respect, that is called hypocrisy.

Why is pointing this out important, with respect to Engel. Well, it's like when I came along and started working on this benighted article and came accross a simple and bland, 'She opposed the Iraq war.' No, there is no justification for writing anything like this. The most you can do is say she claims. The reason it is very important is that Engel appears to have convinced everybody - including you it seems - that she has made some sort of verifiable pre-war statement. Probably on ther strength of the subtle opportunity for misinterpretation illustrated above. Now as she got elected to our consituency, be sure the Stop the War Coalition and 'fellow-travellers' tried to get hold of her 'form.' I was a part of the effort (viz. my original enquiry that sparked all this bullshit off). We found zilch. In fact, it seems that Engel has a real antipathy to writing things down or admitting the possibilty to be held to account (I have personal experience of this, btw. and ask some of her ex-colleagues from BECTU at ITV at the time trying to get union recognition: I included three references in this area, which you saw, in you 'god'-like Wiki wisdom to summarily remove.

You write, 'I don't know how I have managed to offend you,...' Well being patronizing is a good way to start:

I hope we don't have a difference of opinion on what constitutes "fact" and what is "opinion". Your remarks about how Natascha Engel redefines socialism is opinion, not fact.

Give me strength, do you think I need to be lectured, least of all from somebody that appears to be as so self-satisfied as you, on facts v opinions?

And yes, I'll have more to say on Engel and socialism (an advanced preview, she doesn't refer to it, she defines it! I hope we don't have a difference of opinion on the difference between 'references to' and 'definitions').

You say:

...offering my opinion that the article would be improved by the change...

Sam, I have no problems with this and if you read my initial tentative approaches wrt. the Engel correspondence I have, I show willingness to collaborate to improve. You may have different approaches in style, but bear in mind that others may have done a lot more study of the person that they are trying to write about than you. I take it you're not an NE Derbyshire constituent? Also, unfortunately, you got caught-up in my responding to Gallowglass who appears to think that being elected to Westminster is not (politically) significant.

BSY Dsmith1usa 11:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fish in a barrel (with all respect)

Please read Wikipedia policy and comment on contributions, not contributors. I will take the two points about the article which you raise in turn.

Oh, dear, this, with respect again, is turning into something like shooting fish in a barrel. Feel my empathy. (I'm also suspecting, the more, I read it, [with your opening invitation to 'Please read ...' etc. etc.] that you would have been quite at home with the Malleus Maleficarum ;-)

First, while it is the case that Engel's answer to the Guardian questionnaire is 'slightly confusing' on the face of it, ...[my emphasis]

I can see you are a master of understatement since it is (possibly) a posit...

...the meaning is clear because of the undoubted fact...[my emphasis]

...(well thanks for 'placing that firmly in position')

...she was not a Member of Parliament in March 2003.

...and who is that supposed to be clear to? Political anoraks? Now here's some of my subjectivity (taking advantage of your generous leniency at the meta-level). Being a part of this consistuency and knowing, from personal experience, some of the impoverishment - especially since the Thatcherite driven demise of the heavy industries - less fortunate people have little time to explore the political backgrounds of parliamentary candidates who they have had no say over and find out when they first appeared in a parliament; no they are too busy merely trying to survive on IB, IS or JSA. You'll be lucky if two in ten, round here, can tell you who Engel is - never mind when she was elected. (As far as those stats. are concerned btw. it was a straw poll but just after here election, I put my shoeleather on the streets and went and polled myself. I wasn't 'disappointed.')

Moreover, even if that source was ignored, there is an alternative and possibly better source: an article on page 2 of The Times of 26 April 2005 entitled "Only one in 12 of Blair's new candidates support him in public on the war". This article includes a table of Labour candidates which includes Natascha Engel in the "Against the War" column.

As far as your reference to the Times is concerned: Sam, who've you got writing your material? I wish I could take you down, as my guest - and I do suspect that you would need the 'protection' of a local - to one of the 'hard pubs' in the villages/towns near here, and watch the reaction while you poll their reading of the Times (ROTFL). Minding my own business while supping a pint of Mansfield one Sunday, reading the (Sunday) Times, and with no disrespect to my friends and acquaintances, one of the women patrons, in all innocence, God bless her, asked me, 'Do you read all those words in that newspaper?'

There is no source which I can find reporting her views at the time...

... thanks for more corroboration of our original findings around here...

...(not altogether surprising),

and why?...

...which is why it is written as her views looking back.

Zapping that pointer over to 'meta-subjectivity'.

What the article used to say is really neither here nor there.

Mmmnnn ... an interesting way of saying something. What it is I'm not quite sure and I don't think I'm alone. Why? has the (written) article suddenly cried off of saying what it did. Has a time-traveller nipped-back and altered history and the text is changed. Even Orwell didn't dream of this for the workings of the 'memory hole,' So I'll just leave off with, 'No unless you do have a real concern to get to the truth.'

Secondly, the problem which the article used to have in relation to the 'Political Sympathies' section was that it contained a great deal of original research: unless Natascha Engel actually spoke of the Golden Rule herself, there's no justification for introducing the topic in the article. Sam Blacketer 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to deal with this, today, but there were other 'fish' that were floating upside down begging to be put out of their misery, Sam. So, I'll do it tommorrow, rest assured.

Off over to Cif right now ... enjoy ... pass regards on to the likes of Gallowglass. You are all so much fun. In fact, 'Oooohhh, I do like you...'Dsmith1usa 10:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The naming problem (Engel and the Golden Rule)

Sam Blacketer complains:

... unless Natascha Engel actually spoke of the Golden Rule herself, there's no justification for introducing the topic in the article.'[emphasis added]

Well, if some talk of a 'Morning Star' [sic] and others talk of an 'Evening Star,' who has the 'right' name?

You say:

She referred to socialism as,...

(I'll deal with the problem of 'references' and 'definitions' [especially to socialism] later)

..."the simple idea that if someone helps their neighbour, their neighbour will help them".[emphases added]

So, there, whether you like it or not, she, "...actually spoke of [to use your own language] the Golden Rule herself..." Whether she used, 'Golden Rule,' audibly or textually, is irrelevant. She gave an audible and (through Hansard) a textual record of a recognition of (ethical) action between human beings that there are many other names for. This verifiable information you saw fit to delete.

I take it you've not done much thinking about the naming problem? Godel's work, for example, that put an end to many fairy stories and much wishful thinking, was hinged on paying careful attention to something that appears so simple as the 'thing' and the 'name of the thing' (to put it as simply as I can).

So, I've tried to respond to your 'naming' difficulties.

Tomorrow, I will go on to deal with other of your 'facts' v 'opinions' concerns in this area. BSY Dsmith1usa 13:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have no idea what this point is relating to, but you're committing the very definition of original research per our policy on no original research. Hope that helps clarify Sam's edits and explain why yours are in conflict with our policies. Hiding Talk 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Block writes, 'I have no idea what this point is relating to,...

So if you don't know or understand what is being talked about, why do you think you are in a position to say anything useful?

Here, at the meta-level I'm reasoning about (claimed) objectivity at the object-level. Is it the case that Sam has had to call out other 'Wiki-gods' to defend that which he (clearly) lacks the strength to defend himself?

Laughable.

• • No, no Wiki-gods have been called down from almighty Eikilympus to rain down upon your head the mighty wrath of objectivity at the object-level, since that would be moving from the sublime to the ridiculous. What people are trying to point out to you is that your edits don't comply with our policy. Why don't I know what point this relates to in the article? Perhaps because you haven't fully identified it. However, I would have hoped you could have assimilated the broader point of my comment, but I'll restate it again for you. What you are advocating is:

“ the very definition of original research per our policy on no original research ”

.

• • Hope that helps. My parents used to tell me that if I had nothing nice to say, maybe I should say nothing at all. Perhaps you could consider that, along with our policies and guidance on civility and assuming good faith. Good day to you, and happy editing. Hiding Talk 11:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear, you do set yourself up, don't you? I like you, tooo...

My parents used to tell me that if I had nothing nice to say, maybe I should say nothing at all.

Are you telling us this attitude is, um, encyclopaedic? Being 'nice'. You and Sam have the same person writing for you, don't you?

As, I said, before, laughable :-) :-)

Anyway, Why does Sam seem to be needing you? Now twice you have confessed you don't know f**k about what you're attempting to talk about (you know this is even more fun, grappling at the meta-level - with you, Hiding, I'm persuaded, before the 'gods' finally turn me off, to have a go. You are a delicious challenge (unless the truth is, actually, Wiki, 'Can't stand the truth' - and you seem to the case in point why Wikipedia is growing, regardless of past good work - I've cited in other areas - to be a JOKE). Hope this helps, and btw. would you go on and explain to, Sam, that the phrase, 'Hope this helps,' cuts no mustard with folks that have been around the net/web for a quarter of a century. Responding to debates becomes pretty-well pathetic. Jeeezzzz, it was used-up as (an intimidation) tactic decades ago.

I'm tired. I'm among friends, right now, who are looking at all your pretensions. There's laughter. Sam one way and Sam the other. Yes I'll deal with your arguments at your beat at any level - object - "meta-level" - "meta-meta-level." What you, clearly don't have is the possession to 'turn it back on itself.' I'm going to make a guess on this, now you may have to take this one word at a time ... Godel's Theorem.

• Oh, you wanted a pointless debate. You have a fundamental misapprehension as to the nature of Wikipedia. But thank you for playing. I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff. have fun with your friends and be careful of the traffic. Hiding Talk 17:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See below.

The difference between 'refers' and 'defines'

Mmmnnn ... No, I'm not going to bother anymore, because, clearly, Wikipedia, initially full of good intentions, through the likes of you and Sam is turning into the joke that is being increasingly commented on.

I tried to help. BSY

On pointless debate

Block writes:

Oh, you wanted a pointless debate.

No, I made the mistake of thinking that hanging around the Village Pump would be a good idea in the attempt to work on my concerns on 'objectivity.' That perhaps there may be the possibility for good quality collaboration. Read, again, carefully, my response to your earlier contribution:

Um. I'm guessing the MP and article is Natascha Engel. Looking at the article I think you may have some problems with original research and the neutral point of view. That's just my opinion on the article. Hiding Talk 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. As for your concerns, I have them myself. One Sam Blacketer has added a tag to the article, which is fair enough. I reply to the concerns on the talk page.

It goes on:

If she publishes them herself on a website, or you post them on a blog, then you can cite them, but it's still only as reliable as the source you're citing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. Night GyrDsmith1usa 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

See, politeness all round. Irritation sets in when the likes of Sam tries to convince a 'newbie' that, for example, words like 'candidate' are analytic wrt. a state of failure:

To be "a candidate" must by definition refer to an unsuccessful candidacy. (the word according to Blacketer).

Tripe, and demonstrably so. You like tripe, do you?

Thanks Sam, that's a good deal better... etc. etc.

Can't stand the stuff myself.

I'm off to clip clop over the bridge with the billy goats gruff.

What consenting animals and adults do in their privacy is no business of mine (and I'm not even going to waste whimsy on your oh, so transparent allusion to trolls - I bet that's used-up all your humor allowance for the month - be gentle with yourself ;-) BSY

(btw. don't waste key strokes. I'll not be back this way) Dsmith1usa 15:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seven Questions to Natascha Engel

Shortly after Engel's election in 2005, since so little was known about her in the constituency that she had been parachuted after Barnes retired, I was moved, in a spirit of democratic concern (since the turnout and mandate had reached all time lows), to ask Engel seven questions that I thought were going to be occupying much of the time of this parliament.

She was in the middle of bearing her latest child (Anton) and so the response was delayed - understandably so - but the response, when it came was voluble and reasonably interesting. All the more so, since subsequent attempts to draw her out - in written terms - have seen a certain ...erm ... 'bashfulness,' should we say on certain matters.

So, here we go:

What action will you take to (addressed to Engel):

Q1: promote electoral reform such that each vote counts the same as the next leading to re-enfranchisement, the obviation of the need for the electorate to vote tactically "in the dark" to cut the power of an overweeningly arrogant executive - the "elected dictatorship" - and the destruction of the despicable "bogey-man" scare tactic of "vote for us or you'll get them" (the "1 in 10" argument deployed on the eve of the election, shown, formally, several times to be nonsense before the election and demonstrated by the action of the electorate to be nonsense)?

Engel on Electoral Reform: This is a subject close to my heart. I do not believe that the current system either encourages participation in the democratic process, nor is it representational for the reasons you outline. The first-past-the-post system is becoming increasingly obsolete. I have been trying to find out as much as possible about alternative electoral systems, but have been disappointed to see that every system has serious flaws.

The advantage of FPTP is the constituency link. In an ideal world, FPTP gives the constituency electorate a direct avenue to get rid of an MP in an election. This means that there is some sort of accountability as well as a strong element of representation. In practice, of course, this often not [sic.] happen in 'safe' seats. I think also at local level, the argument about negative/tactical voting, does hold true. A Labour voter in North East Derbyshire who votes for the liberals (or UKIP in the last election) effectively gives a vote to the Tories. A Liberal in Chesterfield voting Tory would be to the advantage of Labour. Either way, the system is far from ideal and prevents smaller single-issue parties from having any representation. Given that the electorate is increasingly moving away from the idealogical frameworks which were presented by Labour and the Conservatives and towards cherry-picking from a menu of policies, our electoral system should change to accomodate this. I find the Billy Bragg model of proportional representation for the Upper House very appealing, but I would like to do some more research on this before making my mind up.

Q2: ensure the withdrawal of British forces from Iraq on the expiry of any current U.N. mandates at the latest, preserving British lives and saving British treasure?

Engel on British forces in Iraq: I am a Labour Party loyalist. I believe very strongly that I stood for election on a Labour Party ticket and was elected as a Labour candidate. If I disagreed with Labour policy, I should have stood as an Independent or as a candidate for another Party. I therefore have no intention of voting against the Labour whip. There are, though, matters of conscience and I believe that Iraq was one of those. I would have voted against the war on Iraq and if the voter was tomorrow, would still do so. I think we were wrong for many reasons. But I support Harry Barnes' views on this. He did vote against the war, but has been very involved in ensuring that the transition to democratic government in Iraq and the building of lasting infrastructure has been as smooth and beneficial as possible. I do not think we should withdraw British troops immediately. I think that would compound an already terrible situation. The withdrawal of troops would leave a political vacuum which could be filled by something far worse. Saddam Hussain not only slaughtered his own people, he also ensured that there was no infrastructure for anyone else to govern. The least we can do is to provide the minimum in terms of public utilities and services and to foster self-government in a country that has been ruled by fear. I would not have gone to war with/in Iraq, but I'm happy to see Saddam Hussain gone.

Q3: restrain Blair if he starts showing signs of his fatal weakness for the Sirens of Bush, for example, when the Iranians refuse to take orders, in June [this correspondence was in 2005], from Washington on their enrichment programs and Bush starts his demonization of Iran in the run-up to the already planned bombing raids - in concert with the Israeli proxy under Sharon [sic.] - in the Iranian nuclear facilities?

Engel on Restraining Tony Blair: I understand what you mean by that phrase but I would take issue with it. Tony Blair is the democratically-elected leader of the Labour Party, and as we are currently forming the government, he is the Prime Minister. His 'power' is directly related to the size of his majority and his ability to persuade. Each individual MP can vote for or against individual pieces of legislation/issues of the day put before them. You imply he has powers beyond this, which he does not. On the issue of Iran (and I obviously don't have any expert or inside knowledge of this any more than anyone else does) I don't believe that either the UK or the US has the resources available to commit to another war. From what I have read, they are already stretched in Iraq and other 'missions.' I also think that lessons have been learned from Iraq and another venture like this would be highly unlikely. There also seems to be some real diplomatic progress even after the elections with Iran, but I'll keep in touch with you on this in future as we see the developments.

Q4: protect the principle of "habeas corpus" and trial by jury and defeat further infringements of civil liberties, such as indefinite detention orders and I.D. cards, promoted under the guise of the "war on terror" or its sanitized sibling, the "national interest ?"

Engel on Civil Liberties: I voted with the whip on the first reading of the ID card bill. I find this area very difficult. I have lived in Germany and in Spain where ID cards are compulsory. It does make life different, and both countries are distinct from each other. At the moment, ID cards in this country are very much NOT about the "war on terror" and are therefore being called 'entitlement' cards. I'm not sure if they will ever be introduced, but if they are, I believe the cards and legislation will be very different from what is being outlined today. The argument that both the US and Spain have ID card systems in place [in the case of the US, Engel is factually incorrect - there is no ID card system in the US], and yet suffered attacks by terrorists is a compelling one. It means that the civil liberties v security argument is a non-starter. On trial by jury I am less worried. The proposal is to have more cases eligible for hearing without juries ie raising the threshold, rather than getting rid of juries altogether. That I would oppose, but given the huge backlog in our courts, and the types of trials that would be heard without a jury, I don't think this is what the press is claiming.

Q5: support the demand for complete political accountability in the Iraq adventure and possible criminal prosecutions before the ICC of British politicians - the enablers, justifiers and apologists - and complying military personnel for breaches of International Law including, but not limited to, promoting and prosecuting an unprovoked war of aggression against a sovereign state and acts contravening the Geneva Convention including, but not limited to, illegal detention and torture?

Engel on Iraq: I am going to limit myself to campaigning for the release of 'prisoners' held at Guantanamo Bay and closing the camp. Your question deserves a fuller reply but it will take me more time. I think, though, that any human rights abuses or torture must be stopped and prevented.

Q6: help your constituents bridge the democratic deficit between themselves, parliament and the EU through understanding constitutional arrangements? (This question was, 'scrutinize the proposed E.U. constitution for the enhancement or disadvantage of the local exercise of democratic power?' Superceded in a supplementary after the French and Dutch referenda.)

Engel on EU Constitution: This question has been superceeded by events [see above], but just to let you know, I am a strong supporter of Europe and the European project. I think the EU constitution was a missed opportunity, and will now not see the light of day (in the wake of the French and Dutch 'No' votes). I have just read your amended letter (I'm taking them chronologically...) and see that the question has changed. I could write a lot about how I intend to help constituents bridge the democratic deficit. I think that local forums such as yours would be the best way to engage people immediately - and even hold political seminars on this issue. I was thinking about a Question Time style debate where leading proponents of both/all positions could be invited to take questions. Some MPs have also set up Citizens' Juries and constituent polling/referenda on certain issues in their constituencies. I think these are a very good idea and I'd like to try this out to see how many people take part. Ultimately, I agree that this is a matter of 'education' - ensuring that people have a deeper understanding of the European debate that straight bananas and banning crisps. I have strong views on why greater European integration is desirable and how integration should work, but I know that there are many people who hold the opposite view, as sincerely as I hold mine.

Q7: bring climate change to be a forefront issue of Labour concern such that the environment, global commons and social justice, nationally (education, hospitals etc. etc.) and internationally (clean water supplies, electrical power, education, hospitals etc. etc.), become drivers of economic policy and not followers of the myths of the "free" market and the somehow Divine Providence if the "invisible hand" of Laissez faire (i.e. economics starts to follow politics rather than the other way round)?

Engel on Climate Change: I think that climate change has jumped right up the political agenda since the G8 meeting at Gleneagles. I think all governments - even the Greens - would have problems taking this issue on because people will always believe that hospitals, schools, transport, broken paving slabs etc will always be more important because they are more immediate. There is also the fact that people will not stop driving around in gas-guzzling cars or buy cheap air tickets for foreign holidays. So, I think that this is less to do with economics and more to do with the attitude of individuals. This attitude is not restricted to Britain, but the whole of the developed world. I also think that this should not just be a Labour issue, but something which should be dealt with by political consensus across the parties.

This question and answer series is reproduced with Engel's written permission to distribute. In the absence, apparently, of any means to render this material, through any Wikipedia machinery, citable and free of conflict of interest from contributors, me, Dsmith1usa 11:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC), particularly, it can serve, at least, as comparator for 'verifiable' references that may be brought in to resolve 'citations needed.'

All of the above is original research and has not been published; it is therefore not verifiable. I'm afraid I do not see how it can be used in writing the article. Sam Blacketer 13:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Hain 'n Natascha Interlink (Greasy Poles)

She didn't just vote, she went 'n campained ... down London, in Camden ... oh, btw. nothing to with her constituency ... which happens to be NE Derbyshire ... go figure ...

http://regentsparklabour.blogspot.com/2007/06/camden-deputy-leadership-hustings.html

Picture soon ... love'yall Dsmith1usa 09:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Engel becomes PPS ... to Hain (Greasy Poles II)

"Quelle surprize!?!"

Ya can't make this stuff up can ya?

Excellent contribution Nigel45. My eye's been off the ball with her, recently, fighting fires elsewhere: politico-media complex.

Regards - Dsmith1usa 09:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

David (Newton) Salisbury-Jones and Beating the Liberals: Lessons from Lambeth - Controversy

Background information for the record.

One Gavin Whenman posted, recently, on his web site:

http://www.gavinwhenman.com/

a note:

http://www.gavinwhenman.com/2008/03/03/leaked-labour-smear-document/

about his 'coming across' a document that appeared to have been the cause of some considerable controversy back in 1998 managing to make it into the headlines of the mainstream media:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/174929.stm

Whenman attributed the document to a 'Luke Akehurst' and gave a web site (call it LA₁):

http://lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com/

mirrored at:

http://www.voidstar.com/ukpoliblog/index.php/fid/641

A contributor to the blog pointed out that this was probably a 'spoof Akehurst' and provided a second web site (call it LA₂):

http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/

Checking Hackney Council's web site:

http://www.hackney.gov.uk/

seems to confirm that the 'second' Akehurst (LA₂) to be the 'real thing.'

The posited 'spoof Akehurst' claimed he originally tried to 'frame' David (Newton) Salisbury-Jones,:

http://lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/attack-attack-attack-yellow-peril.html http://lukeakehurstsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/beating-yellow-peril.html

a vet (who he identifies as the 'dutiful husband' of Natascha Engel) with a practice at the Vale:

http://www.valevets.com/

with authorship to side-step the 'controversy,' but then appears to reclaim authorship. The 'real Akehurst' at Hackney recalled that 'Dave' Salisbury-Jones was the author but that he [Akehurst] had distributed at Hackney.

The document in question is Beating the Liberals: Lessons from Lambeth:

http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1161562_f5icx/beatlib.pdf

The dating of the document, 1998, is consistent with Salisbury-Jones's term as councillor at Lambeth (Prince's Ward) 1994-1998. There is no direct attribution on the document itself, though.

A read through is sufficent to explain the controversial nature of the document in its expressed degree of political cynicism and implied contempt for political rivals (viz. the Liberal Democrats) and, indeed, the electorate itself.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what this is directed to. Any controversy over this 1998 document is not relevant to Natascha Engel given that she did not write it and there is no reliable source which has questioned her actions. The above, with its talk of 'spoof blogs' is the epitome of the non-reliable source: blogs themselves are certainly not allowed to act as sources for anything controversial. This is a biography of a living person, and David Salisbury-Jones is also a living person; we also need to be aware of turning this article into a WP:COATRACK. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I will certainly bear this in mind. Thank you.

Lomcevak (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Lomcevak (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

DNS-J Corrected Dates of Lambeth Service

Tim Jones must've got these wrong since digging around Vale Vets website, I see Salisbury-Jones has actually put his service dates on his mini-cv:

http://www.valevets.com/index02.html

Lomcevak (talk) 10:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

?Help? with Division Numbers

Much earlier I've put-up a footnote on a division on the Iraq issue. I see that earlier contributors have figured out something called 'division number.'

Would some wikikind tell me how I can figure this out? I've looked at the two previous divisions, but it is beyond me ...

(... me, oh, yeah ... particle physics ... no not string theory - I believe in finding things to actually test ... considered 'strange' by some ...)

... but I suppose that's politics for ya' :-)

Thanks for any help ... Lomcevak (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments on NE and local by-elections from LA₂ Blog (See above)

http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2008/04/council-by-election-results.html

Lomcevak (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why saying '... moved to ...' is misleading: Engel, Three Houses and the ACA

Engel (and her husband Salisbury-Jones) have interests in (at least) three residential properties. These are a (relatively) long-acquired property in Lambeth (acquired earlier than 2000?), the house at Barrow Hill (S43 2PG: acquired in July 2006) in her constituency and a third in Streatham (SW16 2RB: acquired in October 2007). All are freehold. (Engel also notes, in her register of interests, commercial property in London, which, presumably, is the property associated with her husband's veterinary practice in Streatham Vale Vale Vets.)

Information about these property interests is available, simply and straightforwardly, through public domain information resources:

  1) BT online telephone directory for all residential 
     addresses and telephone numbers in Barrow Hill, 
     Streatham and Lambeth

  2) Plug information from 1) into a commercial online estate
     agent, such as mousePrice for property profile, pricing
     and area photographs

  3) Plug information from 2) into online Land Registry for
     property title (ownership and mortgage information)

To simply say 'moved to' suggests a relinquishing and 'upping-sticks.' Clearly not the case with Engel - indeed she acquired the second (London) property after the Barrow Hill acquisition, deepening the London interests.

Thus the change in wording, for more accurate representation of the actual state of affairs.

Usefully, this situation also brings out, clearly, the current controversy surrounding the use of the Additional Costs Allowance (ACA). Parliamentary rules direct the use of the ACA to support of a secondary residential property (thus partitioning housing into primary [main home] and secondary) for the accomplishment of an MP's business between constituency and parliament.

Engel's website (pre-January 2009 major revision [saved information reproduced here under coverage of 'fair use/fair dealing']) said that, 'Natascha and her family live in Barrow Hill' which is likely to be interpreted, by the average NE Derbyshire constituent, as implying that Barrow Hill is 'primary.'

However the concentration of London property and her husband's work location could also be taken to imply, reasonably, that, really, London is 'primary.' So there appears to be a contradiction which only stands a chance of being resolved (if resolution is possible) by a full disclosure of how the ACA - of which Engel takes the full amount - is being used. (Note that resolution of 'primary' and 'secondary' may be extremely important information to a constituent in a gauge of an MP's commitment to a constituency and his/hers/its affairs.)

Freedom of Information campaigner Heather Brooke has been persistent in efforts to force Parliament to open its books on expense allowance uses, particularly ACA, and Parliament through Martin (Michael, Speaker of the House), himself under investigation by the the Commissioner for StandardsOffice for possible misuse of public funds, has been equally persistent in blocking moves to force opening-up.

The latest gambit has been to plead MP's 'security': that disclosing address information, for example, may put MPs 'at risk.' In the case of Engel (Salisbury-Jones) at least, this pleading is made nonsense of here, since by following the three steps I have specified earlier, all such information (and more) is gatherable in under an hour, online.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Additional Costs Allowance (ACA [second homes]): Martin (Speaker) Loses Case in High Court

As predicted (above) the Judge wasn't wearing the 'security' argument.

Lomcevak (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this article for some time after being involved last year and I'm bound to say I think it is straying quite far from its purpose. It is a biography of Natascha Engel, not her husband, not anyone else, and it is a biography of the important parts of her life and not an attempt to record every fact of marginal relevance. We do not, for instance, need to know the names of her children. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only thing I would say, from my perspective, is that I would have thought that a child is an important part of anyone's life and Engel, as a specific case, seems to make an especially big deal of it, with respect to wanting to show her constituents. So naming the children, in her entry, IMHO, is, in a sense, merely reflecting the importance she appears to attach.

Anyway, in adding 'Lukas,' I think I was merely following a pattern of whatever I found here before. So feel free to remove. I have no problem. I can't speak for anybody else though, obviously.

Lomcevak (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I share your concern Sam. Hiding T 12:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Freedom of Information (FOI) Act request pending

Further to the previous main entry, an FOI request has been made to the agency of the FOI officer in Parliament for complete disclosure of Engel's use of the additional costs allowance (ACA). The FOI officer has declared - in this case - that a reply will be made available July 8 2008. (Whether that means, 'Here's the info. you request ...,' is another question.)

The problem, already manifested to John Lyon (appearing before sub-committee, this week), is that without forensic accounts examination of the use of ACA, constituents (and HM Revenue) have no idea of what is 'primary' and what is 'secondary' independently of what MP's may profess.

Neither we voters nor HM's Treasury can hold them to ACCOUNT!

Standards 'watchdog' Christopher Kelly has today 1/7/8 voiced his concerns that he is not happy with the state of affairs.

Lomcevak (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

FOI Officer Response

Unsurpisingly, the 'on-demand' request was refused 4 July 2008 (from my perspective, as a US citizen, there is a certain sense of unmissable irony in the 'date of the refusal').

The counter (in anticipation), with evidence, goes in 16 July 2008.

Lomcevak (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

FOI Officer Second Response

Having provided the serving FOI officer with detailed point-by-point 'rebuttal' to his previous refusal, underlining the uselessness of supplying ACA usage information with address information 'redacted' (that's the word they use in FOI circles for 'censored') in discerning an MP's current take on what they consider to be their 'primary'/'secondary' housing ranking at any given time (this appears to be 'flexible' when being considered from a 'capital gains' perspective) ACA only supposed to be being applied to 'secondary' housing and ...

... having made it quite clear, with supporting documentation that I already have all the specific address and phone information as to with respect to Engel's housing: I just want to have ACA usage, through receipts, for example, as to which house an ACA use has been applied, the serving FOI officer expresses a state of 'confusion': do I want to know geographical location or actual address ... sigh.

Also copied directly to Kelly (Standards in Public Life: see earlier) but received no response at all (even acknowledgement). Kelly has now got over his original 'exasperation' with MPs to give them yet another year to get themselves sorted over this whole business.

So it looks as though The Mail on Sunday article (17/8/8) on Parliament FOI 'censorship' is corroborated, that the Information Commissioner himself seems to have been 'gotten-at' and that all Parliamentarian talk on TRUST, TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY can be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Why am I not surprised ?

Lomcevak (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, btw, I've added, now, a link to a 'redacted' (for 'security' purposes ya'know ;-) copy of the Mother of All Parliaments' last FOI response, for the record.

Lomcevak (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

QDOS Link

I've added a link to a curious site that seems to be monitoring web presence/web effectiveness of around 50 000 people.

They present, in bar chart form, certain discreet 'parameters' that they then sigma ('sum-up') in a Cartesian (xy) continuous plot. The formulaic summation - the expression of the sigma - from discrete to continuous is not disclosed (this, of course being of the most interest to our 'scientific'/encyclopaedic turn of mind).

As 'things' develop in terms of the future of 'New Labour' (locally known, from what I see as NuLab [which now I will refer to this phenomenon in this discussion section]) and the prospects for her re-election, it may be of value in reflection the 'state-of-play.'

I leave the valuation of this to my fellow Wikipedians.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure QDOS is an appropriate external link; it does not appear to have had much independent press coverage. The above tends to suggest it's being introduced in order to promote a point of view. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Then in the absence of your surety, feel free to remove it my friend.

Lomcevak (talk) 12:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous IP 'Contributions' from the University of Central Lancashire (UoCL) (Preston)

This is a 'heads-up.'

Engel's Wikipedia entry was subjected to severe 'redaction' in some areas - like removing references to her 'close connections' with Gordon Brown (among many other things) through an anonymous 6.168.138.127IP at the UoCL (see revision history starting at 20:17, 13 September 2008).

The excision of information appears to have the pattern of removing possibly 'inconvenient' facts about anything that does not contribute to a 'positive' view of Engel's political relationships and political 'development.' For example, the reference to her being Hain's PPS is retained while the footnote reference to Hain's current police investigation is 'redacted.'

This version was first reverted byII MusLiM HyBRiD II . Then what appeared to be two 'tidy-up' contributions from one Fetler appeared. These two were followed by a rapid undo of MusLiM HyBRiD II's reversion on the same anonymous IP identified above before there were two more 'tidy-up' attempts by Fetler (rather like a sudden realization that the two previous Fetler edits had been done against the wrong version [!] ;-)

And so on and so on ... if you read the revision history you can see how it went. Notice the timings between the anonymous IP posts and the Fetler posts. Almost done back to back.

The interesting thing is that the anonymous IPs are at UoCL as is Fetler. When Fetler asks me why I keep reverting him I answer him civilly.

Fetler's response about the anonymous IP bit - 'I forgot to log-in' - doesn't appear to stack-up if you examine the revision timings.

Anyway, I close out my engagement with him with words among which are some to the effect of 'be careful of using anonymous IPs.' (Also note that one of the UoCL anonymous IPs 193.61.255.87used has received quite a few warnings and blocks from Wikipedia.)

But then, something weird happened. I was almost about to break-off but I went stooging around Google for Engel's work with UKYP - the UoCL originated revisions had used a break-out under a seperate heading of her work with youth - and looking at the Board of Trustees I see that among them is somebody who took a degree at (guess where) UoCL, somebody called Sam Ellis.

This, in itself would possibly raise one of my eyebrows, but when I recall Engel's website, what do we find but one Sam Ellis who is on the staff at Engel's office as a caseworker. That raises both my eyebrows !

Now all this is circumstantial, but you don't have to be a Poirot to have suspicions aroused and to advise that future 'contributions' from UoCL deserve to be examined especially closely.

In these econopolitically heated times, be it global banking failure or (merely) New Labour having angst about Gordon Brown's 'leadership' the creation of memory holes is a serious business.

Lomcevak (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of a Breakout on Youth

Clearly Engel appears to be paying attention to the 'youth constituency.'

One of the recent 'redesignings' of this page 'broke-out' her youth work as a separate section.

Regardless of other issues that are already noted on this page and may have carried to consequnces at the anon. IP use/block at UoCL, I, after careful thought, personally, believe that this may be warranted.

I'll do it ala 'Fetler' and then I put it to the Wiki community consensus.

Easy revert, if it's not to go ahead. No problems with me.

This is an ongoing change ... before it's made, if anybody is awake then just post back here ... soon.

Cheers Lomcevak (talk) 09:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Job Done

I've broken out ... struggled with the editing, but it's there ... I think it's OK, but ... revert ... if you will ... noprobs with me ...

Lomcevak (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Engel's head above the parapet ?

I've now double reffed a Daily Express piece to cover both Engel's stance on parental smacking of (their) children and the appearance of (public) rebellion against the 'party line.'

This is notable, in the case of Engel, given her past record of 'not rocking' the New Labour (vote) boat, so to speak.

Lomcevak (talk) 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Meetings with constituents 12/13 June 2009 re: MPs expenses: 'Should I stand down ?'

In the context of 'improvements to the article' I'm adding this information to the discussion pages as background to possible later updates to the Controversy subsection on 'meeting constituents' requested by Engel to 'help' her decide whether to stand again in light of her use of expenses etc. etc.

I 'audited' the 'meeting' in Clay Cross, June 12. It was very poorly attended: I estimate that at any one time in the two hour period from 7.00pm to 9.00pm there were no more than about fifteen constituents (and that may be generous) in the same place at the same time ... there was much 'wandering' backwards and forwards and much discussion held outside the meeting place (Clay Cross Social Center) where the general consensus was along the lines of 'a complete waste of time.'

The consensus was that poor attendance had much to do with the minimal advertising to the constituency ... the only refs. were those given in the Derbyshire Times a couple of weeks ago (see specific refs. on article page).

As such, one of the 'minders' said that Engel would run it (said 'meeting') along the lines of one of Engel's 'coffee mornings' cum constituency 'surgery.'

At no time did Engel try to group the meeting together and address it as a whole.

Attendees were split between separated tables in the 'meeting' room with Engel moving from table to table. Some asked questions about her addresses and 'flipping' while others used the opportunity to ask about more local controversies (post offices for example).

Nobody ever heard questions asked by others in a general context to be given the opportunity to say, 'I never thought of that ... and yes ... let's hear the answer.'

If Engel tries to represent the meeting at Clay Cross as a 'vote of confidence' (I cannot speak of Dronfield ... perhaps others may come forward) then she is very much misguided.

This needs to be noted because in the local press, through Ivers at the Derbyshire Times (DT), she is given a very easy ride and makes assertions, which are duly copied as 'fact' that have received no 'independent' verification ... i.e. Engel's assertion that she has not engaged in 'flipping.'

Lomcevak (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The above has been copied to Ivers at the DT and I've asked her if she has 'any problems' ... there has been silence ... draw your own conclusions ...

Lomcevak (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ludicrous claims

I've scanned and uploaded to my public fileserver a copy of page 7 of the recently disclosed 'Complete Expense Files,' where Engel was classed among those making the most 'ludicrous claims.'

This information is copyright ... but ...

I have done this copying under 'fair dealing' and as a matter of in the public interest.

I believe I am within 'The Rules' on this matter and I act in 'good faith' ... (heh, heh, heh, ... hoh, hoh, hoh ... [another 25 cents for more laughter - I won't charge you to Parliament's expenses ... new category: 'What a joke' :-()

Lomcevak (talk) 10:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I may have met you at the meeting on the 12th, if so have a google and give me an email. If not sorry to have bothered you. Kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.33.139 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're the person I think you are then you should find I've emailed you

Lomcevak (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Obfuscation

In light of MPs' continuing obfuscation over where they actually 'live' as opposed where they 'claim' to 'live' as a matter of public interest I have provided a reference to the residential history of Engel (as my MP). Such information is a matter of public record if you know how to get to it. The issue of 'security' was always a red herring.

At this time I have not uploaded Land Registry records that provide further information on 'ownership' and mortgage details.

Lomcevak (talk) 10:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

FoI Requests being sent to Legg

I am sending FoI requests to the offices Legg and Engel to try to bring these matters (allegely in public service) to public view.

Lomcevak (talk) 10:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Malicious attack on Hotlinkfiles.com user database

Another 'heads-up.'

On the 17th of September the public file hoster HotlinkFiles(.com) came under attack from malicious hackers with the result that, according to the engineers, much of the user database was destroyed. The engineers say that the file system (contents) is intact and it is the (difficult) case of re-linking (to users) that they are having to deal with and which is problematical. However they are working (security alert) their socks-off to deal with and resolve all the problems.

Needless to say I was distressed by this development since I have chosen Hotlinkfiles to be my public host and the fact that many files pertinent to this Wiki entry have to be accessed through Hotlinkfiles. Now it must be said that just about all these files represent controversial aspects of Natascha Engel as an MP for NE Derbyshire.

What is additionally distressing is that I'm a Wiki editor who wants to see an ever increasingly effectiveness of Wiki (first port of call, for ex.), in all its aspects, but particularly with its reliability: you make ilinks or xlinks and you monitor, for the forseeable future, and take ownership for, the contribs you have made.

Therefore I now have again 'one' eyebrow raised ... the Poirot in me tells me let's set the 'little grey cells' on standby (at least). I've had my eyebrows (both) raised before.

Lomcevak (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also having to do some re-linking at this end too, since some files, it appears, have had to be renamed at the remote host in the US. I'll not finish this until 21 September 2009.

Lomcevak (talk) 11:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Testing links and general overhaul

A site that I relied upon (Hotlinkfiles.com) recently came under attack, which meant that several links on this site were disabled.

Hotlinkfiles. com is back and site service is up, now.

My intention is now to go through this Wiki entry, to check all links and also to scrutinize recent restructuring.

Lomcevak (talk) 12:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Copyediting of Expenses section

There is a dispute over a recent copyediting of the article. Does this original version give undue weight to the expenses issue, and is this version as copyedited to be preferred? How does WP:BLP apply to details of family homes of Members of Parliament and is the information in the original version properly sourced? Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Blacketer:

I'm trying to be cooperative with you in your efforts to 'improve' the article and I agree with some of your earlier restructuring of a section that could no longer bear it's own weight.

However, it is my opinion that in engaging in further radical surgery to later sections around the highly controversial area of expenses, particularly with today's developments in mind: the Legg Letters going out, is a subjective bias too far in what you appear to think a more objective point of view.

Before you make any further changes, would you give specific details here of what you want to change and why. I understand these pages are for the specific purpose of discussing improvements to the article and I think a progressive use of such a facility is such discussion take place and agreement reached by interested parties before a change goes in, especially to any reasonably long established article.

Could I also point out that in your previous round of edits, apart from making improvements you introduced several errors.

Please let's cooperate ... but I'm willing to keep reverting if you won't. Lomcevak (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

See your talk. The article was in an appalling state before and has been much improved by reducing the undue weight while preserving all usable information. It is not improved, but damaged, by your blind reverting. As for the Legg inquiry, this is an irrelevance until there is a reliable source for what the letter to Natascha Engel says (which is not likely to be until December). Speculating about what it might say is subject to WP:BLP which I encourage you to read carefully as your content violates it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see much of the spirit of cooperation here, just bullying. I'm sorry but that's the way I see your attitude. 'Appalling state' it appears to me is just another POV. I just see the expenses as largely a set of statements of fact. It is a fact, for example, that the Telegraph classed her in the 'Ludicrous claims' section of their summary: their words, not mine. And I can see how one subjective view would be that this is adding 'undue weight,' especially if you're the politician in question.

Fact is the politicians are going to get scorched some more over the next few months and I can understand, if not sympathise, with those who find themselves in a predicament over their claims and are complaining over 'unfair treatment' (undue weight) especially if it comes to having to pay back six figure sums or contradict themselves by being forced to pay back money that they earlier protested they never would (the spirit v letter [of the law] business - pertinent to Engel)

Anyway let the chips fall where they may.

Lomcevak (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight is a Wikipedia requirement and it is part of neutral point of view, the absolute and un-negotiable foundation of the project. I regret that the article you had prepared was and is overbalanced in the sense of including vast amounts of irrelevant detail in the expenses section and as such gives the impression that Natascha Engel's expenses were far more controversial than was in fact the case. The 'ludicrous claims' is an example: as written up, it implies that there were further 'ludicrous claims', when in fact all that happened was that she was included among 50 MPs in this category because the Telegraph classified the DVD of her maiden speech as being a ludicrous thing to claim for. I have a copy of the supplement and she is towards the bottom of the list. Natascha Engel is not, by any objective measure, one of the key figures in the expenses scandal, but the article in your preferred version represents that she is.

With regard to any repayment, it is not consonant with the purpose of any encyclopaedia to engage in speculation about what might happen at some point in the future. The details on Engel's home ownership are in my view excessive anyway even if they did not fall foul of WP:BLP (which they do). Finally, can you identify any of the errors in the version as copyedited by me? You mentioned them above. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The "citations" in this article are truly appalling as they're linkspam, as are the see also section. There is no provenance to any of the links listed, nor publishers. This article is an RS mess, and shows signs of significant hobby-horsing. Cite all the references properly, including authors, and publishers. Delete all non-RS citations. Then delete all claims not established by an RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Prefer the concise version, but please don't take quotes out of their context. Also agree with Fifelfoo that there is a lot of hobby horsing here. the formatting of references is inexplicable if you take into account WP:AGF. Hiding T 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The long version shows an undue obsession with her expenses. The shorter version is to be preferred. Many MPs suffered bad expenses publicity, some worse than hers (I don't recall her name at the time in fact), and none have Wikipedia articles that look like hers. Start with the short version and tweak that as needed. Sumbuddi (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Blacketer writes:

Finally, can you identify any of the errors in the version as copyedited by me? You mentioned them above.

Yes, easily: missing closing ']', for example on your formation of references. So regardless of whatever good intentions may have been, your copyediting was pretty 'appalling' in itself. Again, I have no problems with changes and suggestions for improvements, it's just the attitude which you and your 'colleagues' seem to approach the whole business and very wearing to me. I just feel it doesn't need to be like this.

BTW hotlinkfiles.com, the file service I have been using to support some important external references like Engel's claim as to where her 'primary' house is as to where she actually 'lives,' for example (very much a part of the ACA controversy which continues to blast through parliament), appears to still be suffering after the recent attack (see above). I was thinking of shifting the stuff to another site and relinking to here, but in light of the 'cooperative spirit' that I have seen shown here, I don't think I'll bother. The points have been made and I'm content to watch the 'outworking' in the 'real' world.

Ah, well ... you all have fun now ... and enjoy the expenses spectacle as it dominates the remainder of this parliament.

Lomcevak (talk) 09:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of repayment, I think you have confused two separate issues. Look carefully at this revision: it says "but she said that she would not be repaying the money" (the money in this case being that relating to claims for household goods). The word 'not' is most definitely present in this sentence. There is however a later sentence which states "she later agreed they were inappropriate and repaid the cost" which relates to the maiden speech DVD and Walter Crane postcards.

Even if you were correct, I don't think that missing out the word 'not' and the presence of minor misformattings of external links is properly dealt with by wholesale reversion of the edits. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's good it went to discussion at least and it's good that other editors do come to bring expertise and their views on say standards in formatting of references, 'fill yer boots I say' ... but personally, I don't think immediate 'whole sale' surgery of an article covering a lot of contentious material paralleling events that are currently wreaking havoc with the 'status quo' in parliament, right now is a 'proper' way of dealing either. You have your opinions and I have mine.

Personally, I think I've brought quite a lot to the table in this entry, particularly in raising the ACA stuff over a year ago and the queries on where Engel 'actually lives' as opposed to where she claims to live, when most folks had no idea what ACA was. Note here I am trying to use the discussion page in the best way I can, presenting detailed reasoning as to why I'm making a change ... I've checked back in the editing history of this article Mr. Blacketer and it was you who introduced the completely unsupported allegation that implied that she'd 'lock stock and barrell' moved to Dronfield.

Trying to get to the bottom of things and representing it fairly without reducing it to political pablum should not be confused with 'hobby-horsing.'

I see much talk of 'cooperation' and 'being nice' around Wikipedia, which on dealing with controversial matters appears really to be platitudinal.

As I said before, you all enjoy the fireworks, now. There's going to be plenty and again, I'm content to reflect on having done 'my bit' (along with many thousands of others) so I will sleep easy.

Bye. Lomcevak (talk) 10:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what you mean above, because I'm reading it to mean you are using as sources information you are personally putting on to the web. Is that correct? Hiding T 12:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Coming in from RFC.) The trimmed version is far superior. Nevertheless, it and the current version may still suffer from undue weight, as more than a third of the content under "Parliament" is about the expenses. If this much coverage of the expenses is really necessary, then the rest of the article should be made longer so that the expenses don't dominate. It appears at this point that there's something of a play-by-play being recorded here, and too much devotion to the news cycle. ~YellowFives 05:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Engel DIDN'T 'move to' Barrow Hill

I have spent some considerable effort in pointing out why saying 'move to' is MISLEADING. The most you can say is she 'bought a house.' The recent expense disclosures show that she considers LONDON as PRIMARY, since she claimed interest and much 'white goods' costs on BARROW HILL, making it SECONDARY.

I will keep reverting this and you can send it for another RFC on this issue, if you want, MR. Blacketer.

Lomcevak (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The designation of which home is 'primary' or 'the main home' for the purposes of the ACA is a technical one and does not necessarily reflect the actual lifestyle of the Member involved. In many cases, as the rules indicate, there will not be a single clear answer as to which is which. One cannot assume that the fact that ACA was claimed in relation to a home means that the Member had little connection to it. Further, the designation of main homes under the regulations governing ACA may be poorly sourced (members could alter it at will until recently). Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite. It is this very 'flexibility,' to put it mildly, which has 'brought down the house' so to speak. All the *more* reason for NOT saying a definitive 'moved to.'

Lomcevak (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)