Talk:Heather Brooke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Some notes[edit]

On her birthdate: I changed the "circa" to plain "born 1970". Her age is given as 37 in a March 2008 interview, 38 in a May 2009 interview, and she's identified as 26 at the time of her mother's August 1996 death. Assuming the sources to be accurate, that would place her birthdate between May-August 1970, but I don't have anything more specific.

I removed some paragraphs that were merely copied from the biography on her website. I also dropped this passage:

Asked by a Liverpool local news reporter what she would concentrate on next, she replied "It's time to look at the leeching lobbyists who have undue influence on ID cards and the like. The government won't budge on ID cards but aren't they friends with the ID card companies? The lobbyists are swarming around The Tories at the moment so it doesn't matter who you vote for. Expenses was the first stage, lobbyists are next!".

It might or might not be accurate, but if it is then it would obviously call for identifying the actual source. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Register of Company Directors includes a Heather Rose Brooke born on 15 December 1970 living in Fulham SW6 [1]. That this is appears to be the same as the subject of this article is indicated by the fact that her article about voting in the US Presidential Election (The Daily Telegraph, Wednesday, 3 November 2004) refers to "Then it's off to Fulham post office." Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Portrayal in "on Expenses"[edit]

Can anyone confirm what part - if any - Brooke played in the creation of the recent TV comedy play "On Expenses"?

This was more of a Spitting Image type cartoon sketch than a serious drama, but Brookes was depicted as a obsessive, bigoted American with delusions that ahe was as important to history as the Watergate journalists. I doubt I've seen on screen a more disagreeable, or loathesome individual. She actually had me feeling sorry for our greedy MPs. An American decrying the state of UK politics is laughable enough, but this dreary, self-centred woman was actually more insufferable than any waste of taxpayers money.

Was she consulted at all? I refuse to believe that anyone can be as so utterly vile in real life, even though the writers tried very clumsily to portray her as some kind of heroine.

See Brooke speaks about her roile w/ "On Expenses" for the details. Having met Heather, she's a bit more humble than given credit for and a whole lot better looking. --| I can only go one way. I've not got a reverse gear. | 02:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosefAbraham (talkcontribs)

As a BBC license fee payer, I would also really like to know whether Brookes received any public money from the BBC for any participation in this production. Anyone know where I can get access to this information?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC) 

Her first book would probably be useful! pomegranate (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks paragraph[edit]

This line seems not to give any evidence of bullying, and the statement 'thoughtfully' seems rather opinionated. Surly it should not be worded like this in her biography: "Brooke decided to be ethical in the wake of bullying by Julian Assange plus concerns for her nation's safety and instead work with The Guardian in screening and writing up news stories on the leak, thoughtfully working to protect America from truly dangerous leaks as an American patriot while disclosing newsworthy material" Stephen Judge (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

File:P1030149 edited-1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:P1030149 edited-1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 30 August 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done something weird with this. I uploaded a new cropped version, and have somehow managed to overwrite the old version entirely, including the uploader's details and the licence, even though the title didn't change. Just noting here that I'm aware of the issue, and working on it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Fixed. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)