Talk:Angela Rayner

Collapsible sections in the infobox

As it stands (19 June 2021), Angela Rayner is simultaneously:

1. Deputy Leader of the Labour Party (since April 2020)
2. Deputy Leader of the Opposition (since April 2020)
3. Shadow First Secretary of State (since April 2020)
4. Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (since May 2021)
5. Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office (since May 2021)
6. Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work (since May 2021)

It's really not necessary to list every one of these positions, certainly without being able to collapse them.

Equally, dividinng her Shadow Cabinet appointments into January 2016-April 2020 and April 2020-May 2021 would make the information much more organised.

GibbNotGibbs (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Present Shadow Cabinet positions in the infobox

As I noted above, Rayner currently occupies six offices, three of which she took on in April 2020, the other three she took on in May 2021.

Is it really necessary to state all six? Rayner is a somewhat high-profile figure because she is Deputy Leader and Shadow First Secretary of State. The other roles aren't well-known and I would argue are unimportant, seeing as they don't have a distinct portfolio.

Could we therefore leave all the unimportant ones out of the infobox (including them at the bottom of the page), or could we instead put multiple roles under one section of the infobox?

This would reduce the cluttered appearance of the infobox.

GibbNotGibbs (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

'Scum' comments and Duncan Smith / Amess

My previous addition of comments on this were reverted by a user who (correctly) said that it wasn't known that Rayner's comments were being linked to Amess's murder. The original text had not claimed that but I have reworded it to avoid any possible hypothetical misinterpretations. Both events are relevant to an encyclopaedic treatment of this controversy within Rayner's political career. BillyJones1000 (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

In the above comment I typed 'linked' when I meant to type 'linked by law enforcement agencies'. Rayner's comments have been linked to the murder as shown in the citation. BillyJones1000 (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

'Deputy Leader of the Opposition'

'Deputy Leader of the Opposition' is not one of Angela Rayner's listed positions on the Labour website (https://labour.org.uk/people/shadow-cabinet/) and I don't believe it is a recognised position- it is just something inferred from the fact she is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, and that party is in opposition. Therefore references to this title are merely inferences from her existing positions. This title was not (and is not as a past position) included on Tom Watson's wikipedia page. Therefore, I have removed it from this page. I would appreciate some rationale for including it before my change is reversed.

To just further make my point. Including this title is like doing the following. Say the deputy head of the biggest school in the UK has their own wikipedia page. The relevant role to include on it is that they are deputy head of X school. You don't then also add a new position, 'deputy head of the biggest school', because although this is true, that is not a formal position one can hold. It is only by virtue of their actual position that they can be referred to in this manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.113.196 (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of "controversial" before "remarks about senior members of the Conservative party"

The user User:Hiralious has removed the word "controversial" from "In September 2021, Rayner made controversial remarks about senior members of the Conservative Party, stating: "We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute pile... of banana republic... Etonian... piece of scum" three times in succession here, here and here, under the guise of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and WP:NPOV. Now, I did not make the original insertion of the word "controversial," but given the fact that the statement she made has been widely covered12345 etc, which was criticized by one of the most senior Labour member of the House of Lords, Andrew Adonis and not to mention the exhaustive list of Conservative MPs, these remarks are at minimum inflammatory. These aren't just remarks. Sources even noted that this was an "attack"467. These aren't just remarks, come on. At minimum "inflammatory" or something similar should be included before "remarks."

And so I can address WP:WTW, [t]he advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly, speaks for itself. In regards to the inclusion of the word "controversial" concerning WP:NPOV, pretty sure that based off of the widespread criticism and widespread reporting on the remarks, adding an adjective before remarks is very warranted and very neutral in point of view.

Also didn't want to refbomb and create a giant reflist, so please forgive the external link/reflist. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

In my edit that you reverted in its entirety just because you liked the word "controversial", I also changed the following:

Rayner was the subject of a misogynist report...

I removed the word "misogynist". The reason for that should be obvious to most people: Wikipedia does not hold an opinion on whether the report was misogynistic or not. It should simply report that the report was widely considered to be misogynistic, if that were the case. And in exactly the same way, Wikipedia does not hold an opinion on whether her remarks were controversial; it should, though, report that they were widely considered to be controversial, if that were the case. It isn't usefully informative to simply drop in the word "controversial"; you need to explain what the controversy was. And the article already does that. Hiralious (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I did not see your other additions in that edit, that's my bad. I also apologized on my talk page when you brought that to my attention. I'm only talking about the "controversial" remarks. This isn't a matter of teaching the controversy, as it's pretty well-illustrated. Regardless, as I've stated above, these aren't just remarks. "Inflammatory" or something similar should be added. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

"Inflammatory" or something similar should be added - it absolutely should not under any circumstances. Here is an incomplete list of adjectives that also should not be added, for exactly the same reason, that reason being the core policy of WP:NPOV. Perhaps it will help you to understand the issue.

• clever
• silly
• outrageous
• scandalous
• immature
• witty
• unnecessary
• harsh
• cautious
• aggressive
• classist
• justifiable
• accurate
• rude

Hiralious (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

What you are alleging is not in violation of WP:NPOV. These words which you included aren't even mentioned in the guideline lol. When a public figure calls other public figures "scum," those comments are innately not neutral. Having those remarks repudiated by political allies and foes further reinforces this. Your hardline assumption that to not describe the remarks with any adjective is disruptive to WP's goals. This is not a matter of editorial bias, literally she caused controversy by making these remarks. That's why these remarks have been so widely criticized and reported. Also, welcome to Wikipedia. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course these words aren't in the guideline. You are not supposed to need a list of examples to understand the concept of a neutral point of view. And of course the comments themselves were not neutral. Angela Rayner does not have a neutral point of view policy that she is obliged to follow. Did they trigger a reaction? Yes they did. So describe the reaction. The article spends two paragraphs doing exactly that. Adding an adjective that encodes any kind of opinion is a) not neutral, and b) redundant. Hiralious (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding descriptive words to further reinforce the reception of the "scum" diatribe is not a) not neutral or b) redundant. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Just saw your change: "made remarks" to "strongly criticised." This is much more inline with the sources. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to be disruptive to the talk page, but the user User:Hiralious has been banned for sockpuppetry. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Mail report

I'm having trouble fully understanding these two edit summaries ([1], [2]) reverting my edit removing claims not supported by reliable sources. As far as I'm aware there's no way to notify an IPv6 editor of a discussion, so I'm hoping they might come by and explain their thinking in a bit more detail. Am I wrong to conclude that this BBC article, which nowhere uses the word "joke", can't be used to support the claim that Rayner has joked about this affair, or that this article, which attributes claims to an on-background "senior party source", can't be used to portray that source's words as facts? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree, I've reverted to your version. Bellowhead678 (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It was wrong to remove those edits of mine, all properly attributed to reliable sources and I will re-add them now. You need consenus to remove properly sourced edits - don't do it again. The joke part was attributed to another source, all correctly added, the BBC link wasn't for that and there was never any suggestion it was. The BBC link was detailing the Conservative Party inquiry.

As for the rest, if you have alternative sources offering a different interpretation of the inquiry that was made, please add them, the more context and detials the better. Alas you won't find any as they don't exist but you are welcome to try. 2A00:23C7:988:6601:2459:3272:269C:84A2 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I also wanted to add as I have now double checked, the references to it being a joke, made twice, are in both cases correctly sourced. On the second reference, to the MPs who corroborated the story, the Telegraph reports:

Angela Rayner joked to other MPs about the idea that she could put off the Prime Minister by flashing her legs, according to two people who witnessed the conversation in Parliament.

Two Conservative MPs have given the Telegraph their account of what happened when the deputy Labour leader was alleged to have made the remarks on the House of Commons terrace.''

It's all there if one clicks the link. I think politics in the UK is currently in an agitated sense and this particular story was a strange one, a huge story for a few days, seemingly all in Rayner's favour, but when the truth came out it was convenient for both sides to drop it. But on wikipedia we have to go by what's true and backed up by reliable sources. I think some of the bickering about it being a "joke" is a bit of a red herring. It's true the BBC hasn't put out an article saying "dear reader, when a middle aged woman talks about her "ginger growler" it's intended as a joke" but then that's not what they do and in this case they went to some lengths to not report the words attributed to her, even when they were corroborated. The BBC generally avoid vulgarities. The Telegraph in this case is enough as they make explicit that she was joking. That it was a joke of course doesn't alter what a followed, the hysterical over-reaction from many quarters and the following inquiry.

The assumption from Rayner's supporters was that this story would help her and there seems to be a deliberate attempt to try to suppress talk of it now things have reversed. Of course politicians do that, it's quite natural, but here we have to stick to the reliable sources. 2A00:23C7:988:6601:2459:3272:269C:84A2 (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

While it's important, of course, to comment on content rather than contrbutors, I can't help but suspect we're dealing here with someone who's not here to build the encyclopaedia, but rather is motivated by a fixation with the genitals of the subject of this article. The argument above (when the truth came out it was convenient for both sides to drop it) suggests they believe they're righting great wrongs. If that's the case then continuing to engage here is likely to do more harm than good, especially given ongoing attention to online harassment of female MPs. I could be overreacting, though – others' thoughts would be welcome. Either way, of course, the claim that You need consenus [sic] to remove properly sourced edits is an obvious misrepresentation of policy. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll just ignore your personal attack on me and my motivations.

I added the info back - it's all correctly sourced from the highest standard of sources. If you have alternative sources then please add them. I sincerely want the maximum info and context. You just deleting all I added showed a total lack of engagement and left the article giving a false impression. Rayner made the joke - that is now beyond any dispute. By you removing all the references (note, totally removing not adjusting) to for example BBC reporting that their sources in the Tory party found Rayner to have made the joke, it gave a totally false impression to the reader. Given that mutlple MPs are on the record with the titans of british media that Rayner did in fact make the joke and this was found the Conservative inquiry, as reported by the BBC then you can't keep deleting this information. You are welcome, if for example you can find a reputable source stating they have witnesses giving the opposite view, to add that (indeed I would be fascinated to read it as it would add a huge layer of complexity to the story as the way things stand literally everybody present, including members of Parliament no less, have been willing to go on record that Rayne made the joke so it would be shocking to find such a conspiracy of lies but stranger thigns have happened and I invite you to provide correctly sourced proof) - but you must stop this deleting of properly sourced material. 2A00:23C7:988:6601:4DDC:59AE:B322:CAB7 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yet another lie

Angela when next in the commons please ask the pm what's the lie of the day today. As he can't give a correct answer to the commons. Kind regards Graham Gorman 194.168.93.208 (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

PMQs might be quite interesting tomorrow? If he lasts that long. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong. It's all "business as usual". Despite nine senior ministers resigning. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Page for Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work

There was formerly a redirect link/page for Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work. This has since been deleted - I am not aware who/when this action was taken.

Surely a page for Shadow Sec of State for the Future of Work should be created when you consider other unusual positions such as Shadow Secretary of State for the Family and Shadow Secretary of State for Child Poverty are on Wikipedia with pages. Also, considering Rayner is the Deputy Leader of Labour, surely a page for her role is more important than Wes Streeting’s Child Poverty role which lasted for barely a few months before it was abolished? JLo-Watson (talk) 12:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@JLo-Watson: Shadow Secretary of State for the Future of Work was deleted following this AfD discussion in June. As it was a WP:SOFTDELETE, you can request it be recreated at WP:REFUND (though it could still be deleted again). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Rayner: Remainer or Eurosceptic?

In the light of Starmer declaring: “Britain’s future is outside the EU”, one wonders where Rayner stands. There is mention of the "European Union" or "Europe" or even "EU" on her page; so could any interested editor please help to answer to the question "Rayner: Remainer or Eurosceptic"? Arrivisto (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Arrivisto (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Tax fraud investigation

Rayner is currently under investigation for tax fraud by Greater Manchester Police owing to her allegedly false representations to HMRC meaning that it is tax fraud. I included this in the article but it was removed twice. It is relevant, as she is under investigation, and it is uncommon not to include situations where MPs are under investigation into an article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@UnicornSherbert, please give a quote from the source you cited which you think supports that interpretation of what the police are doing. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty. Here would be a prime example [3] UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately your prime example is behind a paywall. Perhaps you could copy the relevant sentences? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@UnicornSherbert, that's not a quote from a source you cited, that's another source.

So can we have a quote, or quotes, please, from any or all of the sources you've now cited, which you think supports your interpretation of what the police are doing. -- DeFacto (talk). 12:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The first BBC source you used says: "Greater Manchester Police is reassessing its decision not to investigate claims Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner gave false information on official documents."? The second BBC source you used makes no mention of the police? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

[4] Explicitly says it is for tax fraud. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you know what a paywall is? All I can see is the subhead which says "Stockport council is to review suggestions that Labour’s deputy leader committed tax or electoral fraud." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I have amended it so it says the police and the council, as it appears they are both investigating the matter. But it does say tax fraud and it does say under investigation. The matter should remain in the article, and people should await the outcome of the investigation. Further references have also been added. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The council are no longer investigating and the police are re-considering, after Tory MP James Daly asked them to investigate? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

They are investigating as the articles quite clearly have been dated March 2024. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You have now added a second source from The Times which is behind a paywall. The fifth source you've added, from SkyNews just says the same as the first BBC source, that the police are reconsidering, as they are obliged to do if someone claims a crime has been committed. So I think you need to adjust the claim you've added in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Reconsidering, investigating, looking into, it is all a synonym for each other. But it is quite clear that in any other instance it would be an "investigation"; the police "investigate" crime. That should remain in the article as it is factually correct. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is your source for the statement "Stockport Council announced that they were investigating Rayner for tax fraud."? I can't find that in any of those five sources you have added. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean the edit you yourself made said that they were so this is rather surprising. UnicornSherbert (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No. You added it here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

And could you confirm that you have access to the reports in The Times and have read what they say? If so, could you please copy the parts which support the claim you have added, which does not seem to be covered in the three others? The investigation of a crime, or crimes, is usually the responsibility of the police, not the local council. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This has already been pointed out. UnicornSherbert (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's been "already pointed out"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

User:UnicornSherbert, unless you can demonstrate how either of those reports in The Times support your claim that Rayner has been, or is being, investigated for fraud, I propose to remove them, as they are behind a paywall and seem to be redundant. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@UnicornSherbert, all that we know about police involvement is that they are reassessing whether they should investigate her, after previously deciding not to. None of the extra sources show any more support for your original assertion. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

She is under investigation and it really is as simple as that. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not that simple at all. Greater Manchester Police have stated that they are reconsidering whether to investigate or not. Additionally, none of the existing sources mention Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council. So, in line with WP:BLP, I have removed this paragraph until consensus can be established here. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No. GMP has stated it is reconsidering the matter. This means it will have to investigate the allegation as it is required to do so by law. The matter is under investigation too by Stockport Council. Both investigations are to establish whether Rayner has committed a criminal offence, more specifically tax fraud, electoral fraud or perjury. Usually, you are correct, crimes are investigated by the police. But certain crimes are investigated by local authorities, the CPS, the NCA, a private prosecutor, or the Director of Public Prosecutions or Director of the Serious Fraud Office. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

GMP are reconsidering whether to re-investigate or not. Where is your source that Stockport Council are "investigating"? From where has perjury suddenly appeared? CPS, the NCA, a private prosecutor, or the Director of Public Prosecutions or Director of the Serious Fraud Office are all wholly irrelevant in this case. Unless you have sources which say otherwise? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

1. It is a crime of perjury to provide false information to a registry office (which is what is under investigation in addition to the fraud as it is about where she resided and the fact she also reregistered the address makes out suspicion of an offence). 2. It is relevant because in this case the local authority (as well as the police) are investigating and I was giving examples of what other than the police may investigate. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you are saying that Rayner registered her address at a Register Office? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

So far as I have seen from the press, the investigation has arisen as Rayner bought a council home through right to buy but then sold it and around that time she said she was not living with her husband but had registered her children's birth certificates at the council home and realising this would mean more tax to be paid for her, she reregistered them at the other home even though she did not live there. She further failed to declare this to the Electoral Commission. There are therefore so far as can be seen multiple offences which may have been committed by this act, ranging from perjury and tax fraud and electoral fraud. This I would assume would be the reason the police have reopened the investigation, as there is a reasonable suspicion she has committed a criminal offence. Because this involves separate agencies and separate types of crimes she would be investigated by both the police and the local authority. Thanks UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you have "seen this in the press", please can you provide those sources? As far as I know, perjury happens in a court of law, when a person lies under oath. I don't think it can happen at a Register Office. But, whatever the circumstances of Rayner's alleged criminality, you have yet to provide a source that shows Rayner is currently under investigation by GMP. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

See section 4 of the Perjury Act 1911 (False statements, &c. as to births or deaths.), which is punishable by up to 7 years in jail. And I have provided sufficient sources showing that she is under investigation. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note that per Wikipedia:No original research, we aren't going to try to interpret the law ourselves. We need published sources directly supporting all content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

For instance [5] and [6] expressly sets out the different crimes. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure a tweet from Guido Fawkes can be considered a WP:RS. Regarding the report in The Express that's all hypothetical? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"hypothetical". Its not. It's one or the other. But either way she has committed a criminal offence by looking at what has been posted in the media. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure any of us here are in any position to decide if Rayner has committed any criminal offence. Unless perhaps you work for the CPS. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We may not be but the sources outline the different possible criminal offences she may have committed on the allegations made against her. They remain relevant and should remain in the article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems the only person who has accused her of perjury is Martyn Brown in The Express, on 29 February, who simply said: "Giving false information on a birth certificate is an offence under the Perjury Act and is punishable by prison or a fine." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't waste our time linking Twitter/X. As for the Express, you are linking an article from February. It cannot possibly support claims for anything that happened in March. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter when the criminal offence was committed as they can still be prosecuted. They are the same criminal offences alleged and so they are relevant. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You have still provided no source that says GMP are currently investigating Rayner for any criminal offences, much less which actual specific offences. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources you have provided say that GMP are re-considering their decision not to investigate. Stockport council are not mentioned. Who has suggested that Rayner may be guilty of perjury? Was that Lord Ashcroft in his book? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The sources I have provided outline that she is under investigation. "re-considering their decision not to investigate": they would have to investigate the matter to be able to decide whether there is a crime. It is perceived as an attempt to downplay the situation that the Shadow Deputy Prime Minister has lied either to tax officials or to the local authority, as the sources make clear. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, they don't. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course not, I forgot you work for the police and know their operations on this investigation... UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I don't "work for the police and know their operations." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

DeFacto, I have asked UnicornSherbert to clarify the content of the two reports in The Times which were added as sources, as they are behind a paywall, to establish whether or not they support the claim that Rayner is under police investigation. But it seems my request has been missed or ignored. I wonder do you have access to those two reports, or do you know any other editor who does? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, you can see archived copies of both articles on https://archive.is/ - by pasting their urls into the black input box at the bottom. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think they support the claim that Rayner is under investigation by the GMP? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, sorry I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but skimming through this Times article, the only relevant mention of the GMP seems to be this: "Greater Manchester police announced they were reassessing claims Rayner broke electoral law by misstating where she lived." -- DeFacto (talk). 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. So it suggests, as with the other sources, that GMP have not yet decided. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Not decided on what? They are investigating the allegations made to them. It does not matter which way it is put it all boils down to the same meaning. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "it all boils down to the same meaning". We have to edit based on WP:RS sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"Reassessing claims"; "investigating allegations" they appear to be very similar. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you clarify which URLs you are referring to? It is far from clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This is because my edits have been deleted. But: UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I was asking DeFacto to clarify which articles he was referring to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump, I was answering Martinevans123's question about the two The Times articles added to the article as sources by UnicornSherbert - this one and this one. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither supports a statement that the GMP are investigating Raynor for tax fraud. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

many thanks for confirming that. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note I have now opened a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Angela Rayner. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

UnicornSherbert, I am going to explain this to you as simply and plainly as possible. Wikipedia, per its own policies, will only include content on this matter that is directly supported by a published reliable source, Directly supported by the source, not arrived at through reading several different sources and drawing your own conclusions. This isn't open to negotiation here, and you are wasting our time with such arguments. We aren't interested in what the law on perjury says. We don't cite sources from February to support claims about what the GMP are doing in March. Either provide sources directly meeting our requirements - individually supporting all they are being cited for - or let it drop. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I will leave it there for now until the outcome of the police investigation is concluded, which if there is further action I will expect for that to be included in the article. No further comment is necessary. UnicornSherbert (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

UnicornSherbert, if and when GMP report that they are investigating the matter, that fact might be added to the article. Until then, there is no reason why the ongoing "discussions" about Rayner's house sale, including the part played by Lord Ashcroft in his book, can't be added to the article, provided they are fully supported by WP:RS sources. But I'm not sure that the speculation reported any Martyn Brown in The Express is necessarily an appropriate source. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If published reliable sources report the results of any such investigation, we will include it. That was never under question. Sources come first, however. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Re-added 5 April

The material has now been re-added, with the addition of this source. I'm not sure that can be considered as a WP:RS, but in any case it offers no update on the story, instead just linking to the original BBC report from 28 March here, which says "Police reassess decision not to investigate Angela Rayner allegations." I don't believe that the claim made in the property118.com article, that "Greater Manchester Police (GMP) says it will reinvestigate the matter", is justified. There is no direct update from GMP. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've raised a query at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose which source to and not to include just because you don't like the source's contents. As I originally said the other day, the matter is being investigated and there is nothing much more to it. If anything this source provides more information as it directly says that he matter will be investigated by a detective chief inspector at Greater Manchester Police. The source further explains how a crime may have been committed owing to her personal affairs, including that she has either committed tax fraud or electoral fraud. The source should therefore remain in the article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The source really adds no more than what is covered in the existing sources. It just harks back to the BBC report of 28 March, i.e. 8 days ago. But it's the only one that explicitly says "Greater Manchester Police (GMP) says it will reinvestigate the matter", the same assumption that you made personally. The GMP themselves have said nothing more. If they had, I'm pretty sure that much better sources would have reported it. So let's see what is said at WP:RSN and if there is consensus here to add. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The first reply at WP:RSN says: "Not reliable and certainly not a high quality sources as should be used in a WP:BLP." So I think that whole paragraph should be removed again. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

1. There has not been enough time to achieve a consensus on whether the source is reliable so to remove the entire paragraph on that ground without discussion would be premature. 2. There is nothing stating it is an unreliable source currently which means (1) prevails. 3. Rayner is involved with (in whatever way you wish to put it) the police and the local authority because she is suspected of committing more than one interrelated serious criminal offences. 4. The other sources attached to the paragraph support (3). 5. The investigation by the police and the local authority remains relevant and will remain in the article. 6. The outcome of the investigations will certainly be relevant as it could determine whether Rayner remains the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, which if the investigation was pursued by either the police or the local authority the position for her as Deputy Leader would become untenable, particularly where the entire campaign is to have a different culture than the current government. 7. The current wording of the paragraph is a fair summary and is not biased. It says that the matter was previously investigated and that after being requested to do so, the police and the local authority have reviewed matters and in practice the investigation is reopened. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

With any WP:BLP article I think we have to err on the side of caution. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly miss the points I have just made. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I saw all your points, thanks. I certainly agree that it could have very serious consequences for Rayner's political career. It would probably be a good idea to get an input here from User:AndyTheGrump and User:DeFacto. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If you are not content on the current wording are you able to propose an alternative wording? Surely the fact that the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party is under criminal investigation should be in the article about her? UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

If we knew for sure that Rayner was under criminal investigation, then it should be added, with appropriate sources. We still have no sources which are good enough. We've just got one source that's not considered good enough for a BLP article. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait until we get confirmation that she is under 'criminal investigation'. All we know, for now, is that the police are investigating whether they will investigate her. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now raised the issue again at WP:BLPN. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The police don't "[investigate] whether they will investigate her", they simply investigate the crime. I would have thought that you would have knew this common sense fact. She is under criminal investigation and it should be in the article. If it was any other politician it would be straight in the article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

"Any other politicians" are wholly irrelevant here. You've produced one single source that matches your own interpretation of events. This source is not good enough for a BLP article. Other mainstream WP:RS sources have remained silent, as have the GMP themselves. If you don't revert your recent addition, you may find yourself sanctioned for breach of WP:BLP. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(Visiting from BLP/N) I agree that it is still too early to include these allegations. If things end up going badly for Rayner, which is entirely possible, then that will chnage, but for now WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There's been a flurry of recents news stories, though little of genuinely new substance. The Guardian article is probably the best open access summary. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. Again no mention of any ongoing criminal investigation, just: "Greater Manchester police are reviewing a decision not to investigate claims Rayner may have broken electoral law." I am not opposed to the addition of a summary of the affair, as long as it doesn't claim that GMP have decided to open a criminal investigation. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Fine with me: the ongoing reporting suggests that there is enough for a carefelly worded summary. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

So we could re-add something along the lines of:

"In March 2024 it was claimed, in a book by former Conservative Party deputy chairman and donor Lord Ashcroft, which was serialised in the Mail on Sunday, that Rayner was guilty of tax fraud, in the sale of her former council house. Rayner refused to publish her tax records or tax advice, and stated that she had done nothing wrong. Greater Manchester Police said they had found no evidence that any offence had been committed. The police later said they would review their decision not to investigate, after James Daly, MP for Bury North asked them to do so. On 7 April shadow foreign secretary David Lammy discredited the claims as "smears being run" to distract people from "Tory chaos" and the rising cost of living before the local elections.

Any suggestions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible minor edits below:

"In March 2024 it was claimed, in a book by former Conservative Party deputy chairman and donor Lord Ashcroft, which was serialised in the Mail on Sunday, that Rayner was guilty of tax fraud, in the sale of her former council house. Rayner refused to publish her tax records or tax advice, and stated that she had done nothing wrong. Greater Manchester Police said they had found no evidence that any offence had been committed. The police later said they would review their decision not to investigate, after James Daly, MP for Bury North asked them to do so. On 7 April shadow foreign secretary David Lammy defended Rayner, criticising the claims as "smears being run" to distract people before the local elections.

I have shifted the BBC reference forward, shortenened the last sentence and edited it for NPOV (it seemed to me to be presenting Lammy's views in wikivoice), and formatted the final reference. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

No objections at all. Thanks for improving. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be including that she was also accused of electoral fraud? And also that the substance is because she gave false information? Both of these are included in the sources you have cited. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source (with a quote for that)? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources 1 and 3. But also it should be included that Keir Starmer backed Rayner although he refused to personally verify whether what she had told him was factually correct. Probably because the evidence illustrates she either committed tax fraud, electoral fraud or perjury (by giving the false information to either HMRC or to the local authority). [7]. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

We can't speculate on Starmer's motives. We can just report what he said. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

We can not speculate on Starmer's motices you are right but the evidence is clear. You may not personally understand how the law works, but when someone breaks it they are expected to be held accountable for their actions. In this case it is ludicrous hypocrisy how the the person that is alleged to have committed it, taken with the evidence, prides herself on integrity and honesty. Nobody is above the law, not even Angela Rayner, and I am confident she will not be the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party this time next year. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be wise to leave our personal views aside here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Sjshart has also recently been adding material, so may wish to contribute here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I see this paragraph is not what was said above? And it has omissions. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, which paragraph? The one added by Sjshart? I was hoping they might self-revert until something was agreed here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

See: [8] UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I've left a note at their Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Re-added 12 April

@Jonathan A Jones @Martinevans123, The police have officially said they are investigating her for criminal activity in relation to her tax affairs and her reporting of false information. [9][10]. I expect that this investigation is restored to her article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No objections. But I note the sources mention only the police, not the council. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Keir Starmer has also refused to back her now (we can include this too?). [11] UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure about that. "Starmer refuses to say he has ‘100 per cent’ confidence in Angela Rayner" looks like a carefully laid trap. Is it only The Telegraph that is running this? (and it's a subscription-only source, so not ideal). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Other sources have reported similar. These two have the most detail on this issue I have found so far. [12] [13] UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the quotes of the exchange in The Spectator clearly show that Starmer thought that Andrew Misra was playing "a game" there. But it was the headline item on BBC Radio 4's news this lunchtime. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, if Starmer had nothing to hide then he would have no issue in answering a simple question whether he backs his deputy or not. The only obvious inference any reasonable person may draw is that he is dodging the question because he knows she is in the wrong, or he believes she is in the wrong. Whichever it is the article is right in saying he dodged the question because he refused to answer it. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Very sorry, but I'm not prepared to make that inference. If that makes me "unreasonable", so be it. He's said that it's now a matter for the police. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

He may have said that but he couldn't give a straight answer whether he still had faith in his deputy. The inference I refer to above is even further fortified when he has previously stated he was convinced she had done nothing wrong. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We're not here to judge the veracity of whatever Starmer says? Or to draw any kind of inferences? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

May be I should reword as follows. If it is relevant to state that he originally stated he was convinced she had done nothing wrong but then subsequently refused to state the same then surely that too is relevant? UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's fast moving but there are reports in the Guardian [14] and the BBC [15]. The Starmer stuff is undue without better sourcing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Now addded to article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

And, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm happy with this edit [16] taking all the commentary out. Keep this simple and stick to what, not why. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"Taking all the commentary out": you mention Lammy and what he said but seek to remove what Starmer and Reeves equally said. If anything Starmer and Reeves are more important and have more standing given one is the leader of the labour party and the other is the shadow chancellor. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted, I thought you wished to revert it simply where it mentioned Lammy but not Starmer or Reeves. I will continue to make the point as above, if Lammy is included then Starmer and Reeves should be too. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I'm very happy to have it all taken out, and indeed including any Lammy text was not my suggestion in the first place: I just cut back an existing suggested version. Less is greatly preferable to more. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian source clearly says that the investigation is for breaching electoral law (Electoral Administration Act 2006?) and avoiding capital gains tax. There is no mention of "tax fraud", and certainly none of "perjury". Should this be made clearer? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It has already been explained the background and the relevant law above, with appropriate references. Giving false information to officials could be a string of offences, including perjury (for false information to a birth registrar), fraud by misrepresentation (for giving false information to HMRC), tax fraud generally, electoral fraud (for giving false information to electoral authorities). What offence is chosen to be prosecuted is a matter for the CPS. Simply putting it down to "breaching electoral law" appears to down play the situation and its seriousness. UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows if it's "downplaying" anything until (or if ever) the CPS gets involved? Any discussion over laws on this Talk page is somewhat irrelevant. We have to simply reflect what the sources say - in this case The Guardian and Sky News. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph currently says "In March 2024 it was claimed, in a book by former Conservative Party deputy chairman and donor Lord Ashcroft, which was serialised in The Mail on Sunday, that Rayner was guilty of tax fraud, in the sale of her former council house. Rayner refused to publish her tax records or tax advice, and stated that she had done nothing wrong. Greater Manchester Police originally refused to investigate the allegations but later said they would review their decision not to investigate, after James Daly, MP for Bury North asked them to do so. On 12 April the police confirmed that they had opened an investigation into the allegations. Rayner subsequently said that she would "do the right thing and step down" if she was found to have broken the law.". Which part do you wish to dispute? UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not "disputing" anything. I think "tax fraud" may be too general. And there is no mention at all of "breaking electoral law". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's never a mistake to follow the sources more closely: while we should paraphrase we should not add our own interpretations. On a different note this story is very fast moving, and some of the sources we use have changed since we first added them, so we should keep an eye on this, and update if necesary later, but we shouldn't try to follow every twist and turn. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph as it is written displays what allegations Lord Ashcroft said in his book which then led the police to investigate. In any event, sources are showing some sort of fraud. It would be contrary to fact not to include fraud in the article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not use Ashcroft's book as the source for this, just a secondary source i.e. BBC News. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. This source from 1 March mentions Capital Gains Tax but does not have the word "fraud" anywhere. I'm all for paraphrasing, but I think that's usually trumped when possible criminal charges are involved. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There are other sources cited above which mention fraud. And you clearly missed the point I made above at 1830. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Which source(s) do you propose to add? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The word "donor" doesn't appear in this source and so was correctly removed here. It's easily found elsewhere e.g. here. Ashcroft donated £100,000 to the Tories for the 2021 London mayoral election. But I guess for him that's just small change out of an estimated fortune of £1.257 billion. Should "donor" be restored? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

As a general rule I advise against providing mini-bios of wikilinked individuals: the link provides all the details you could ever want about Lord Ashcroft and so contextualising him should be kept to an absolute minimum. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Two extra words is quite mini, isn't it. I guess the significant thing is he's a high-ranking Tory. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Could the addition of "donor" not bias the reader to believe he has somehow paid for or influenced the investigation? UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would imagine that Lord Ashcroft is a man of the highest integrity and that no-one would dare to think that somehow "money can buy privilege" in the painful dying months of this hopeless and clapped-out Tory government. One does wonder, though, given that he moves in the circles of big business and high finance, how and from where Ashcroft got the information for his book Red Queen: The Unauthorised Biography of Angela Rayner, about Rayner's electoral details. I thought one could choose to make these not public? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) p.s. am a bit surprised that the Red Queen book is not even mentioned at the Ashcroft article, especially as it has caused such a stir.

Developments continue developing: Angela Rayner’s former aide contradicts her claim in tax row. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, behind a paywall for me. What's the trick? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123 if you are unable to pay for access, copy and paste https://archive.is/ and then copy and paste the article URL into the website, it will show you. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. DeFacto sent me that link a while back, but for some reason it didn't work. So if I am " unable to pay for access", it means it's not fraud? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

What? UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Of course I am able to pay, but I choose not to. As, I assume, do you. Why does anyone bother to pay for paywalled newspaper access when they can so easily get round it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not a question for me to answer but an individual themselves. It may be worth anyone that is unable to gain access directly to the article @Jonathan A Jones has cited because of whatever reason to read this talk page and use the link as cited. UnicornSherbert (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was a rhetorical question. I wasn't actually expecting you to answer. Apologies for the digression. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we also mention that this article mentions a non-disclosure agreement, a payout and disability discrimination? UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we also mention the estimated amount of possible capital gains tax benefit, approx £1,500? (Ex-council houses in Stockport are really nor worth very much) Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows how much capital gains tax she may or may not be liable to pay until HMRC or the police conducts an assessment, which it has not yet done. Any amount before that publication would be mere speculation and therefore not fact and should not be included into the article. Further, I do not believe that the amount of tax she may have intentionally not paid is the issue that will get the most attention; it is the fact that she has previously said everything was above board but then could later to be found to be not the case. Also, the non-disclosure agreement, a payout and disability discrimination appear to be factually correct as they have come from a former aide; they are not something which would require further confirmation like the amount of tax owed by Rayner. UnicornSherbert (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I mention it only as it has been reported by WP:RS sources such as the BBC. I think it might give some degree of perspective. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would invite others to comment on the issue, but it should be observed that when I made observations at potential offences that may have been committed given the circumstances you asserted that they were mere speculation: the same would apply, mutatis mutandis, to any amount potentially owed until officials say what is owed or what crime she is charged with. UnicornSherbert (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair argument. The Guardian here says "no more than £3,500 in CGT, or may not have owed any tax in some circumstances." The actual calculations are given by New Statesman here. This looks like wholly relevant and useful information. The point is that there is a very definite upper limit to the amount that Rayner might have been liable to pay, and it's really not very large (compared to, say, someone's fortune of £1.257 billion). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The same applies to the media as it does to individuals; until officials charge her with specific crimes or say how much she owes then it remains speculation. It may even be that this story goes away and officials confirm everything is above board for her, although with the facts considered I believe that to be an unlikely result. Somebody else's net worth on Rayner's article is irrelevant. UnicornSherbert (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Gosh, if the story just "goes away", all this discussion will have been pointless. But I tend to agree, the actual value of things in cases like these, tends to be irrelevant. Like the cost of Boris's suitcase of Co-Op booze or Starmer's beer and take-away. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Still surprised there is no mention of her potentially "breaking electoral law", and that the sub-section is headed just "Tax controversy", when many reports are giving them equal prominence. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Martinevans123, why don't you add that then? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Added, with FT source. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

In terms of all the different developments, i.e. what others have stated, surely this is relevant to the investigation? This is usually included, particularly where she has been backed by senior members of her shadow cabinet. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

What are you suggesting exactly should be added? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It is highly relevant to the investigation category what her shadow cabinet colleagues have stated. In similar categories of police investigation like beergate, it was included of what Starmer and Rayner both said. Similar to partygate. This is the case in most similar instances. It is relevant to set this out in the article, and to include that she has been contradicted by her former aide. I do not at this stage recommend an entire new article like the two instances I have just referred to. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

You just want to add that her former aide, Matt Finnegan, has contradicted Rayner's account? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

And that her colleagues have backed her? I would say this is highly relevant, particularly where it would inextricably implicate them by saying they have full confidence in her. For instance, they say they have confidence but then say they have not seen Rayner's tax or legal advice, this would mean they suspect she may have committed a crime or they are too arrogant to confirm that she has not committed a crime. UnicornSherbert (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

... or that her exemplary past record suggests to them that such mistakes would have been wholly out of character? For instance. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean any person can commit any crime and cover it up and make it look "wholly out of character". UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure even a "political giant" like The Donald has managed to do quite enough covering up. And a murder is usually a bit tricky? I think support from political colleagues is to be wholly expected and therefore perhaps a bit redundant. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

None of this is appropriate. Keep the text sharply focused rather than constantly wandering off into tangents. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree, support from the colleagues is redundant. Recourse to other Wikipedia pages is unhelpful. There is a lot wrong on Wikipedia, so arguments should always be based on policy and guidelines, not precedent elsewhere. And again (and I put this in my edsum) we are not writing news reporting. We are writing an encyclopaedia. Many editors want to follow all the twists and turns of the news cycle, but WP:FART pertains (perhaps even more for the eponymous ex-president). We are trying to ensure that the page encylopaedically covers Rayner, not omitting the news, but creating an article that will, in years to come, appropriately summarise the matter in the appropriate WP:TONE. Our problem is that we are in the midst of the news cycle, our sources are WP:PRIMARY, and this is a WP:BLP. Hamstrung by this, all we can do is keep it tight and focussed on specific factual reporting. Or else we will end up with unmaintainable monster creations like Lucy Letby, no? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump has a constitutional right to break wind whenever he wants. But yes, Lucy Letby was quite a monster, wasn't she. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

References

More Sunak quips at PMQs

Extended content

BBC: The Labour leader joked that he was the "proud owner" of a copy [.. of Liz Truss's book Ten Years to Save the West..], adding: "It is a rare unsigned copy. It is the only unsigned copy. "It is quite the read. She claims the Tory Party's disastrous kamikaze budget that triggered chaos for millions was - her words - 'the happiest moment of her premiership'. "Has the prime minister met anyone with a mortgage who agrees?" To loud cheers from his his own side, Mr Sunak replied: "All I would say is he ought to spend a bit less time reading that book and a bit more time reading the deputy leader's [Angela Rayner] tax advice." Sir Keir leapt to the defence of Ms Rayner, who was sat behind him on the front bench, accusing Mr Sunak of being a "billionaire prime minister" who had used "schemes to avoid millions of pounds of tax" and was now "smearing a working-class woman"." Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) And comment in The Times this week from former Tory MP Nick Boles: [17] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC) I watched PMQs and I was howling at what Sunak said. This time we get to see the fun times of PMQs but Starmer can't slice the arguments like Sunak can. Rishi had a point, Rayner prides herself in being better than everyone else when it comes to propriety but then has her account of everything contradicted by many, and then refuses to publish her tax advice. The real question must be: why does a "working class-woman" need tax advice from an expensive accountant if she has done nothing wrong? It drives to the conclusion that she knew what she was doing from the start, which all the facts support. Starmer should be very careful if he wishes to survive, given he has been publicly backing her so confidently... UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Howling, eh? Jolly good. Um, the only real question I was aiming at was: "should any of this be mentioned in the article?" I'll not be posting any political analysis, in case someone comes along and dumps it off as WP:FORUM. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC) For the avoidance of doubt, it means I found it to be amusing. It was short and snappy and Starmer couldn't really say anything to come back after that. In terms of the content: it is, and has been found to be previously (as can be seen above), wholly irrelevant and is an illegitimate attempt to import this irrelevant nonsense into the article which is supposed to be factual and only pertaining to Rayner. UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Mentions by the PM and the Leader of the Opposition, in the House Commons, are "wholly irrelevant"? I'm surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC) They are in the present context. There has been previous consensus, as can be seen above, not to include inconsequential quibbles into the article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC) I don't see any mention of Sunak above. When was that discussed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC) You are clearly missing the point. "There has been previous consensus, as can be seen above, not to include inconsequential quibbles into the article." This was in relation to what others had said, including the Leader of the Labour Party, Keir Starmer, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, and the Shadow Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, when they all backed her but they said none of them had seen her so-called tax advice. The point was clear: if it is irrelevant to include the information where all of these Labour frontbench had involved themselves then too it is irrelevant for what the Prime Minister said about her. You simply cannot have it both ways. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Sorry, not sure I've even had it one way. So we can just ignore Sunk when he makes cheap political jibes in PMQs? Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC) The fact you just replied with that really underlines what I said in my last message. If you are unable to see that then that just compounds the issue, and I would suggest to refrain from adding matters which others have previously reached consensus not to include. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC) I've added nothing "which others have previously reached consensus not to include." My question was: should we include it or not? Happy to hear the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Maybe @Jonathan A Jones or @Sirfurboy could provide further contributions, given they both said not to include text of this sort which you are proposing. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC) Yes, they're very welcome. But I haven't actually proposed any text. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC) None of this belongs in the article. And this section is off-topic and doesn't belong on the talk page. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yet another PM's quip, this time from Deputy Oliver Dowden: "Angela Rayner says Tories ‘obsessed’ with her council house row in fiery battle with Dowden". But of course this might be "OFFTOPIC", so I won't even mention it. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we really need an exhaustive list of what Rishi Sunak and other politicians have been saying at PMQs? Ellwat (talk) 12:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably not, but at the moment we have none. I would have thought mention of this long-running battle, at PMQs, was noteworthy. I still struggle to see how it's "OFFTOPIC". In a similar situation we had the "joke" from Sunak over the Brianna Ghey murder, when Ghey's mother was a guest in the House. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I understand that once this situation has been resolved editors like us may want to go back and add in any comments made by notable people like Rishi Sunak. But at the moment there's no point adding this to the actual page, because it's other people making comments about a very particular situation that at the moment is still ongoing. Ellwat (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

These have already been found to be irrelevant to the article. It appears to add nothing to the article. It seeks to reopen a matter finally determined by consensus above. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

A lively exchange, at PMQs, by the subject of the article herself, widely reported in the press, is "irrelevant"? I'm a little surprised. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Eh? In this case it was Rayner herself and the Conservative Deputy Leader Oliver Dowden (because both Sunak and Starmer were away)?? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I watched PMQs, Dowden ripped Rayner apart. She thought she was clever and got ripped a new one. I am surprised Starmer thought it was good to his party to put her in for speaking. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You do realise that she is Shadow Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

She might not be after the police look at the evidence. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what your own personal appraisal of the exchange has to do with inclusion in the article. If there's any comment here that's "off topic", it's that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Well you started trying to include things off-topic more than anyone.

To prevent an edit war, I oppose that the material you are proposing to include, for the reasons cited above, and I will not respond further to this section unless required.

Other editors are free to do as they like but I would suggest simply supporting or opposing the content in a similar manner I have. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, no need to tell us that "Dowden ripped Rayner apart", thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Woman who lives in Lowndes Lane says ..."

I disagree with this addition, which is starting to border on tabloid gossip and adds very little to the narrative. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, and the whole speculation and allegations made, beyond the fact of the investigation itself, and sourced to primary sources, is not encyclopaedic content. I took it all out, but as usual, UnicornSherbert simply reverted it [18]. Per WP:ONUS, he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It shouldn't be there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I can see an argument for including some of this, but not in the lurid form that was being used, so I have taken the most over excited commentary out. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

With this edit we are starting to stray into edit warring territory. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not gossip. There was not "over excited commentary" it was a direct quote from the source. It is a source from a key witness in the case. It remains relevant. I see you clearly disagree with Rayner committing crimes, and then subsequently trying to cover up those crimes, which the sources support unequivocally, as most of us do. UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Rayner has committed any crime. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly miss the point of what a witness is. The witness is the evidence. So yes, there is evidence of her committing crimes. UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence gets presented in a courtroom, as part of a criminal trial. You seem to be somewhat biased. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, missing the point. I am assuming again, by what you have said, you do not understand what a witness is. A witness is a person who gives evidence in a case. The witness therefore in this sense is the evidence. I am trying to put this in simple terms to explain given you have not comprehended it the first time. In these circumstances, a key piece of evidence (i.e. the witness) has contradicted what the suspect has said and has said that the suspect is lying and that the suspect has provided false information to the police (which too is a criminal offence).

I could say the same about you being biased by not trying to include a direct quote from the source. I do not wish to turn this into a battleground but I am concerned that that is the ploy you are seeking to achieve. It is petty and counterproductive. I would suggest to stick to the subject of the article. UnicornSherbert (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm discussing Angela Rayner and what has been reported about her. That's the subject of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The crime was reported by James Daly. The neighbour or the former aide did not report her. They just were witnesses in the case. They are evidence against her, I am assuming in addition to other evidence, given it is highly unlikely the police would open an investigation of this magnitude on simple hearsay. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

There is, as yet, no "case". Apart from the very biased one that you seem to have already constructed in your own mind. You've even decided on a verdict. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, your assertions are manifestly without foundation. I refer you to the comment at 11:09 today UTC. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The police have charged Rayner? The CPS have agreed to a trial? All news to me, I'm afraid. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

We, as members of the public, don't know if she has committed a crime. The only people who decide whether she has is the jury. Until she is either exonerated or is found guilty, let's stop deciding for ourselves whether she is guilty or innocent. Personally, I think any witness statements/opinions are fine to include so long as they meet WP:RS. Ellwat (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

May I also add that I think because this comment in question comes from a reliable source like The Times, it should be included. However, if Rayner is found not to have broken any law or to have committed crime, and only if, then it should be removed. That's a question for the future. Ellwat (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Times is a reliable source, but when it is reporting a statement made by a witness, it is a WP:PRIMARY source. As I said in my edsum this morning, this article is a BLP and so WP:BLPPRIMARY pertains:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.

Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and this is a BLP violation. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a trial transcript. It is what the neighbour has directly said to the press, so your comment is a misapprehension of both reality and the policy cited. Consequently, there is no violation. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

or other public documents. If a newspaper reports a witness statement it is a primary source. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not a public document though? UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's wholly inappropriate to be conducting "trial by newspaper" here, whether that's The Times or any other paper. If and when Rayner is charged with any crime, then sub judice concerns will also apply. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is conducting a trial by a media. We are citing imperative information that has been said by a witness in the case. There is a difference. It does not say that she is definitely guilty, and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. Your assertions are manifestly without foundation. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

And how do we know that your so-called "witness" is a reliable one? Sorry, but I agree with Sirfurboy🏄 above, that you are violating BLP. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

By citing what a key witness has said? What is wrong, do you not like that multiple witnesses have come forward with evidence of Rayner committing crimes and that the police have confirmed that she is under investigation for multiple offences? The information is key. If what you are saying is right then we may as well delete the entire thing from her article. That surely cannot be the case? UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm proposing deleting your latest additions. Not the entire section. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Changed my mind. I'd be happy to see all of your recent additions go. As in this edit. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

For what reason? UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it infringes WP:BLP as per Sirfurboy's argument. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No it does not. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

What are the secondary sources we are following? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reconsidered the policy you have cited. It does not assist in your assertions and if anything it supports the information to be included as proposed. UnicornSherbert (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to have answered my question. What secondary sources are we following? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Ellwat and @Jonathan A Jones I am conscious that this is becoming a battleground by @Martinevans123, and your comments would be welcome. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Errrm. I fixed your ref here. I've since made one revert. Sorry if you think that's "battleground" behaviour. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Not just on about the revert. Look at the talk page. I will let Jonathan and Ellwat have a read and share their views before responding any further. UnicornSherbert (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The battleground behaviour here is almost entirely from UnicornSherbert. Martinevans123 has behaved entirely correctly in edits to the article itself. Time for a WP:BOOMERANG? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

It would be satirical to include "In April 2024, her former aide, Matt Finnegan, and her neighbours, contradicted what Rayner had said publicly" but then not the proper information from a subsequent source, i.e. the source which said that her neighbour said she was lying. Either it is all in the article or none of it is. @Ellwat seemed to have agreed, and @Jonathan A Jones seemed to in some context. I have tried to put it another way given we have got no further forward in achieving consensus to include this. I will also point out, as can be seen above, @Martinevans123 has agreed with my opposing views in a discussion about this investigation. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the other source which has been the subject of objection, I would also propose the addition of this source [19] which includes further revelations and more neighbours saying she lied to the police and other authorities. It also states that labour are playing the story down, which is what I originally said, given the gravity (and which others have joined in agreement (see above)). UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Would you include the quote from Sylvia Hampson who called the Labour Deputy Leader a "f---ing liar" for claiming that she was living in a different address to her then husband? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I would propose to keep it simple and say that many of her neighbours said she was lying, which is in the words of them and the article. There is also this article which I additionally propose to add. [20] UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Have you read WP:PRIMARYNEWS yet? Stop adding allegations and trivia from primary sources. Again, WP:BLPPRIMARY. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

As explained above: the allegation was made by James Daly but the evidence was given by the neighbours in format of their account. The policy cited therefore is of no application here. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Who has decided that any of this is "evidence"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you still have not grappled with that fact then I am unable to help you any further. I have put it in the most simple terms I possibly could with care and understanding and you still do not understand. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence applies in a criminal trial. Rayner is not on trial. Or at least, the only trial is the one being conducted by the Tory press. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No. By that logic, evidence with the police is not evidence. The latter of your sentence appears to be an unsubstantiated and scurrilous diatribe. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So has any of this "evidence" been passed to the police? When did that happen? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read the sources then you would see that that is the case. Maybe read the sources before commenting. UnicornSherbert (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't see them, as they are paywalled. And https://archive.is/ does not work for me. If you want to clarify the dates, regarding the neighbourly "evidence", you could copy quotes here, for us all to see. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones, @Ellwat I propose that the information stated by the neighbours be included. I seek to achieve consensus today further to the failure of consensus yesterday. I would say the case has already been made, and I would also add if this was any other politician, particularly a Conservative politician, every last detail to the bone would be included, especially when Boris was under investigation for so-called partygate. To prevent bias and to keep the article factual, I propose the information be included. It may also be beneficial for a RfC, but others suggestions would be welcome before that was proposed. UnicornSherbert (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What happens in other articles is irrelevant. Firstly this is not an issue of bias, it is an issue of lack of secondary sources, and BLPPRIMARY. Secondly, we don't address bias in one article by making another article equally biased (if it were a matter of bias). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As I have said before I am happy with either keeping the current minimalist version or with removing this sentence entirely, but not with the extended version which I trimmed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, if this were a Conservative MP they would be jumping at the first opportunity to include the information. So why not when it's the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party? What is the difference? In addition, it would be preposterous to include part of the information but not to its true extent, and, as others have said, including the articles, it is a grotesque example of downplaying. I move to include the information as cited, which is what key witnesses in the investigation have said. It is not saying "oh because this person said this she is definitely guilty", quite the reverse: it states the facts and allows readers to draw their own conclusions, which is common policy, and if anything, in fairness, this approach restrains any opportunity of bias. UnicornSherbert (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You don't have the faintest idea of what my politics are or of what I believe about Rayner's guilt. That's not a problem. What is a problem is that you seem to think you can deduce them from my insistence on following Wikipedia policies. You are too invested in the rights and wrongs of this particular story to edit a BLP related to it, and would be well advised to move to a topic you care less about. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

For completeness, in my message of 16:55, I was not referring to you, so I am sorry if you thought I was referring to you.

The reference to "they would be jumping" could may have been said better however it was to no one specifically but rather the public generally. UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

An RFC on this would be a complete waste of time. Ah yes, Partygate. Was Johnson found to have broken the law, or not? Can't quite remember. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It's ludicrous to draw any inferences from Partygate when Angela Rayner said Boris Johnson should resign before the police had even conducted their investigation, but when it is the police is investigating her she does not wish to resign. It is double standards at its finest and humiliating. UnicornSherbert (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Not just Rayner who called on Johnson to resign, as I recall. But Sirfurboy is right, it's wholly irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Not just Rayner" which did it, but she still did it... Two wrongs do not make a right. But to hold someone to a high standard and not expect to hold yourself to the same standard, regardless of who it is, is hypocritical. What is irrelevant? UnicornSherbert (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

So, has anyone yet called on Rayner to resign? Apart from yourself, perhaps. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Unless I have been left on Mars then the point is simple. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this the only other planet available? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Apparently not. But that would be a matter for science. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jonathan A Jones above. You seem to be overly invested in this topic. You seem to have a very clear WP:CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Had you considered stepping back from this article for a while? Perhaps until the entire matter for Rayner is resolved in some way. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the fair-minded and informed observer could easily see that both you and I have both contributed significantly to this article. On that basis, it would mean you should also refrain from engaging further. I had restrained myself until others have commented but we still have not achieved the objective of the discussion which is what we should and what we should not include in the article. This was my basis for the RfC. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it that way. My objective is simply to ensure that the article content is a fair reflection of the actual facts, in keeping with Wikipedia BLP policies. Not to get Rayner convicted of multiple criminal offences. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Reflection of the actual facts": it is quite plain that it is a fact that the neighbours have said that she is lying to both media and the police. So how is it factually correct to omit such a significant piece of information. It is almost misleading to omit such. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Was that all the neighbours? Or just the ones that The Times chose to ask? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't just the Times which wrote about it. Your point is filled with bias and previous examples of when she has had evidence made against her, even in the form of witnesses, have been attacked repetitiously and spuriously by you. Now more than ever are the points I made above on display. UnicornSherbert (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

This was my basis for the RfC. Have you ever started an RfC before? How did it go? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Per your own standards, outside cases are irrelevant. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

As you know. I can't see The Times or The Telegraph as the archive link doesn't work for me. So I am at somewhat of a disadvantage. I previously asked if you could possibly copy any relevant quotes, which supported your arguments, here. But my question still stands: I wasn't asking which media outlets have reported these neighbourly accusations. I was wondering who had asked those particular neighbours, and why? What percentage of all the neighbours was that? Perhaps your sources don't make that very clear? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)