Jump to content

Talk:Julie Kirkbride

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

Old comments

[edit]

ser talk:82.41.216.72|talk]]) 04:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The group who set up the petition to get rid of Julie are denying that they have anything to do with RESPECT and the link shorty after that claim doesn't mention the party at all. Delete? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.51.2 (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly people claim things that are untrue. The Frances were members (senior ones at that) of Respect but 'resigned' when caught out.

Rsloch (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been removed once,that is a very poor source rsloch, have you got a stronger one? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The Times is a major national newspaper so calling it 'a very poor source' is just silly. In fact the article quotes the couple saying that they were members of Respect. Is their own admissions not good enough?

It is important that we distinguish what is a politically inspired campaign from the grassroots apolitical one it is being made out to be.

Rsloch (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Attempting to make this appear as if it is party political is the mistake. Everyone is involved, people from all walks of life and to assertain that this is the work of left wing activists is wrong, the people are who is behind this , all of the people. not as you would like to infer a single pressure groug working behind the scenes (Off2riorob (talk) 12:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)_[reply]

I don't think 5000 signatures is much in the circumstances or that the petition in itself had much to do with Kirkbride's resignation. It seems to me that this material has got out of hand and is swamping the essential narrative that Kirkbride resigned over the expenses allegations. I think the petition deserves no more than one sentence (if editors insist on retaining the ins and outs, then maybe all that can be tucked into a note, out of the way). qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I inserted the outs after Rsloch insisted on reinserting the respect detail, If you want to do a rewrite to consise it I have no objection at all. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
OK. I'll shift the gubbins into a note. qp10qp (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. qp10qp (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly relevant that senior members of the local Respect Party were involved in setting up the 'Julie Must Go' campaign as there are differences between grassroots petitions and ones set up by activists.

That said I'm happy with putting the details in the refs. Rsloch (talk) 17:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse travel

[edit]

"with Kirkbride claiming £1,392 to meet spouse travel". What's "spouse travel"? I don't know what this is, and perhaps many other readers might not. qp10qp (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse travel would be travel expenses for your wife or husband. Their expenses claims are complicated due to them both claiming and then claiming two houses and they each claimed a different house as primary residence enabling them to claim maximum everything , the spouse travel if you get asked to attend a event in say London your spouse can claim travel to accompany you and it looks like they were both inviting each other to events and claiming. Basically I feel that going into the exact expense claims is a bit of a waste of time and it is better to keep the details simple. Rather take it out than bother trying to explain it, there are enough simple abnomalities to go round. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Is this just an MP thing, or do you find it in other businesses? It seems to me that if you are driving or taking a taxi, you don't need to pay any extra money to take a spouse. But I suppose you do if you are taking a train. I agree that it isn't necessary to go into too much detail, and I expect this article will shrink as these events retreat into the past: I was just concerned about intelligibility. qp10qp (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
indeed , it's clear enough now.

If your in London and your wife is in Birmingham and you get invited to a posh do , you can fly them down or first class train and then if you are there late then don't need to go to your home which is on the outskirts of london you can also claim for a double room in a good hotel this abuse is compounded when there is a married couple of hogs. This is a singular problem that has grown up in parliament, usually in buisness they are paid enough to live on the high hog. You couldn't make it up so we have provided cites as no one would believe it. That is what comes of being self regulatory. Regards (Off2riorob (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Something just clicked in the back of my mind and, sure enough, I turned this up in the David Blunkett article: On the day that Sir Alan delivered his report, a Parliamentary standards committee led by Sir Philip Mawer also upheld a complaint against Blunkett for giving Quinn a taxpayer-funded railway ticket (reserved for MPs' spouses) to the value of £179. Blunkett had already admitted that he had broken the rules, saying that he had made an honest mistake, and repaid the sum in question.
I still don't really get it: it must be like the luncheon vouchers MPs used to pay with at Cynthia Payne's brothel! qp10qp (talk)

Duplicated apology ?

[edit]

Setwisohi where is the duplication ? I don't see it. You have also in your haste removed the cites relevent to the whole section. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

See my talk page. But note i. Don't write on more than one talk page at once. It's impossible to follow a discussion ii. Calm down. I haven't replied because I havent been online. Which, I'm sure you will agree, is a perfectly true and valid reason for not replying to a discussion.
As to the duplication; why does the article need to have Kirkbride's comments reported at all? How many times do we need to read that she didnt mean it? But, to be frank, I really couldn't care less if the comments stay. It's not that big a deal. Setwisohi (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well if you couldn't have cared less you should have left them in. Did you not think to discuss removing my edit with me first? (Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
We need to read the comment once; and it is reported once in the article. qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edits can be done and undone without discussion. I suggest you read a bit more about Wiki editing policy before you make such a fuss. If you do have any queries on Wiki policy feel free to ask, me or someone else. Regards Setwisohi (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting an editors edit without discussion is the first step towards an edit war. I find your couldn't care less attitude a bit off. You go to a page and revert an editors work and then you say you couldn't care less anyway and you suggest that I should ask you for policy advice, don't hold your breath. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As an uninvolved outsider, I should like to offer my impressions: they may or may not help to clarify things. It is not necessary to discuss every single reversion of any edit: frequently the edit summary is enough. Reverting without discussion is only the first step to an edit war if two stubborn editors choose to make a war of it: if either one of them is prepared to compromise then no edit war can take place. If someone has made an edit you don't agree with and you have reverted it then naturally you may well feel like inviting them to comment, but the notion that they have a duty to reply, and that you have the right to keep badgering to do so, needs justification. Also the idea that it is somehow wrong to make an edit and then go offline is odd: for how long am I obliged to stay on line and keep checking my talk page after every edit I make? Finally, "I really couldn't care less if the comments stay. It's not that big a deal" reads to me as a simple way of indicating "while I think that the change I made was an improvement, I do not regard it as important enough to pursue any further", and it seems like a misinterpretation to take it as meaning "I never thought there was any point to my edit". Well, that is my opinion: I hope it has been constructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all water under the bridge, I should think. qp10qp (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes , water under the bridge. But thanks to JamesBWatson for the measured comments. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relevance?

[edit]

I'm no fan of Julie Kirkbride, but I don't see the relevance of this:

death by auto-erotic asphyxiation in 1994. [11]

Surely, specifying the cause of death in this case is an unnecessary attempt at adding a spot of titillation. Norvo (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a commonly known fact and a relevant piece of history about an MP who prior to the expenses scandal was known for little else. See Wikipedia Policy article "WELLKNOWN" for further information. As it is relevant to her personal life and the defining details of the news coverage at the time it should not be removed unless proven entirely unnecessary. 81.101.118.73 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Julie Kirkbride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Julie Kirkbride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Julie Kirkbride. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Julie_Kirkbride&oldid=1207990914"