Talk:Tim Loughton

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

Sussex Police investigation[edit]

Since no one chose to talk about a major edit, I'll kick it off.

Seems like that section is well cited and that it has received a great deal of coverage. Removal was justified as a BLP issue. What exactly is the BLP issue? (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I trimmed this heavily for undue weight earlier in the year, but what remained was a thoroughly sourced factual account of a series of accusations and comments which I actually think Loughton doesn't emerge that badly from, and was very well sourced to mainstream media whose accounts were largely sympathetic to Loughton. Spurious legal threats are not a good basis for removal of content, and removing more content than the IP user originally did is a particularly questionable and censorious response to a supposed BLP issue. Dtellett (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
@Black Kite: as they wanted to be asked about this. -- GB fan 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The BLP issue was nothing to do with Loughton (after all, no action was taken against him). Wikipedia was contacted by Loughton's constituent (easily identifiable, and name easily found in other sources) regarding Loughton's negative descriptions of him, to which he had no right of reply. If you can restore the section without any reference to Loughton's defamatory statements regarding said constituent, please feel free. Black Kite (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Clearly a notable occurrence in this individual's life, but definitely understand the BLP concerns of the constituent. I've edited the section through a "revert" (so as to alert GB), and think I've removed those aspects which paint the constituent in a derogatory light, while keeping the basic facts of the protracted incident. Hope this suffices. Onel5969 TT me 13:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes - that's much better, but I can't help thinking this is still a huge section for what in the end was an incident with few repercussions. I'm sure it could be trimmed down a bit further, I'll have a look later if no-one else beats me to it. Black Kite (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to cut it further. Issue is, it's so intricate, that deleting any further caused the account not to make sense. Anyway, at least it's better now. Gosh, I love consensus! Take it easy. Onel5969 TT me 14:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'm getting fed up with this now. You continue to distribute lies. Do you not realize that just because something is said in Parliament (an unchallengable legal vacuum) and regurgitated in a tabloid, that it doesn't automatically become true. The majority of information being distributed here is bullshit. There was no "racist" investigation, under British law an offence of Malicious communication cannot be racially aggravated, ergo cannot be racist, is that simple enough for you people. The only racist action was by Loughton, when he called me a "pikey cunt" but strangely he chose to leave that part out, and so you don't seem to think that it should be published. I would recommend that you remove this rubbish from your site again, as I am now completely fed up with the distribution of lies, and consider it harassment of myself by you and your contributors. This needs to stop immediately, and either allow me to add the truth, or remove the whole pile of lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:20, 7 July 2015‎

Looking at the content it appears to be undue weight. This section is 27% of the article by word count the rest of his Parliamentary career section is 52% of the article. Is this investigation that ended with no action as important as half of the rest of his parliamentary career? I do not know anything about him but so much weight is being given to this no action investigation. -- GB fan 16:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the whole section again; I think I was right to do it the first time. The 81 IP is absolutely correct that if we try to write this section using "reliable sources" then the content is going to be skewed towards Loughton's opinion of, and actions in, the affair. The IPs claim of what Loughton said cannot be verified, as the alleged tweet was deleted, but on the other hand I don't see any particular reason why such an WP:UNDUE section needs to exist anyway. It's not in any way a notable part of Loughton's career. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that is the right action. -- GB fan 17:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll disagree (not just to be contrarian), but I disagree with the interpretation of undue weight. Since the BLP issue is no longer existent, I think we should leave it in, since it is clearly referenced by RS. It's only a significant portion because of the lack of other information regarding this politician. Once the article is fleshed out, it will no longer be a significant % of the article. Rather than remove cited material, we could add contrary opinions (as long as they are not BLP :)). We could also add other information about the politician, fleshing the article out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talkcontribs) 18:17, 7 July 2015‎

The informationis well sourced, verified, reliable, proportionate, neutral and significant. An elected MP issued a Harassment notice by the Police, the Police interviewing an elected MP under caution and the Police force being told they had broken the law. Special parliamentary procedure being used to raise the issue, and the Police force top brass being summoned to parliament. All are very notable and significant. All of this is contained in the section. The individual at the centre of the row with Loughton is not named and neutral language is used through out. DONTLIKEIT is not a reason to remove and is an abuse of BLP reasoning. The information is fine and cannot be removed on such flimsy grounds, when it is such importance to this notable individual. Sport and politics (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Since when is it undue weight to give a couple of paragraphs to a widely-reported, drawn out and relevant sequence of events which is the focus of 3 out of the top 10 Google hits when searching on the article subject? Is being the subject of two police investigations, raising parliamentary debates on their personal affairs and taking the unprecedented action of "sacking" a constituent via Hansard really a less notable aspect of Loughton's Parliamentary career than some Guardian journo's opinion of his debating style or a joke he once made about William Hague? Gauged by [non-recent] WP:reliable media coverage, it's by far the most notable aspect of his career, and the section was comparable in size to that of the more straightforward arrests of Damian Green and Eric Joyce. Frankly even this diff by the IP user complaining about the section is vastly preferable to blanking the section and not giving due weight to arguably the sequence of events the MP is best known for. Agree with the above user that if there's any problem with the relative size of the section it's due to the rest of Loughton's career not being covered in adequate depth Dtellett (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The wider content of the article may need looking at, but what needs to be seen here is that Loughton an elected member of parliament was interviewed under caution and issued a harassment notice. The police were summoned to parliament, the police were found to have broken the law, and the police were forced to apologies to Loughton for a breach of the parliamentary papers act, all the while the police denied any wrongdoing. The I.P. editor is the constituent involved with Loughton in the dispute and is in my opinion attempting to censor the information from Wikipedia. While Loughton was not charged, the police were found to have broken the law in relation to their actions against Loughton. The section is about Loughton and the police more than Loughton and the rude constituent. Due weight is irrelevant here, I agree with Dtellett the content and significance is what is relevant here and the rest of the article may need looking at to cover the rest of Loughton in more depth. Quoting other stuff exists as the argument here is a fallacy and is failing to see the woods for the trees. Sport and politics (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, you think that all of this nonsense it true because it was said in Parliament, well, here's a surprise for you, MPs lie, and tabloid hacks are not particularly well versed in truth either. You seem to think that I~ should accept being called names by this idiot and have it published without the right to correct inaccuracies. Ok you want to know where you're completely wrong, and I can prove beyond doubt in any court? Let's start with the claim about the allegations of racism, this is nonsense. The original name calling was not by a councilor, it was by a council staff member who had just been arrested and charged with assaulting myself and had decided to distribute lies to get him out of the shit with his employer. I never claimed that "unkempt" was racist, I objected to being called a "pikey cunt" by an MP, which is perfectly acceptable according to you, I assume? As for claiming that I am a "serial complainant", well, look who took up parliamentary time three times, and two parliamentary committee hearings with this, looks like someone else is far more intent on complaining than myself. As for having been "sacked", this goes against the basic principles of democracy and CAN NOT HAPPEN. As for making his life hell, I didn't tell any lies to the police, unlike him, who claimed that I had firearms in my house resulting in police raids and a very violent assault on myself, but hey, the tabloids are only interested in lies. It also appears that the apology to Parliament was mistaken for an apology to Loughton, because the CC flatly refused to apologise to Loughton at both committee hearings, but hey, he told the press that they apologized so it must be true. Either correct this shit or remove it, I am rapidly loosing patience with this now and any further lies distributed about me will be actively and aggressively challenged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hi IP editor. We're not (at least I'm not) trying to determine the truthfulness of the allegations. Just attempting to document the incident, without being derogatory towards you (assuming you are the person identified as a "constituent" in the article). If you take a look at THIS VERSION, I think you'll see I attempted to edit out the negative aspects towards you (which I won't reiterate here in deference to you), while keeping the other facts of the incident intact. Your subsequent edits of the article were unsourced, and were definitely a blp issue. If you could look at the version I referenced above, is there anything in that version which you still find derogatory towards you? If so, let me know, and I'll do another edit. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 19:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Surely the most important thing in an encyclopedia IS the truth. What is completely wrong in this article is as follows;
There was no "email exchange" it was a single abusive email from the MP.
The original name calling was not a councilor, it was a junior manager on council staff who was charged with assault against myself.
There was no allegation of "Racism" involved in this email, or the word "unkempt", this was an invention of Loughton to please the anti PPC brigade within the tabloid scum, who he provided with my home address and private phone numbers to encourage them to attend my home and abuse me on my doorstep.
If you look at the law, you will clearly see that racism CANNOT be considered in Malicious Communications legislation.
It is important to make it clear, as Loughton did in his press release prior to making the speech, that this speech was delivered under parliamentary privilege, which cannot be challenged for truthful content or any allegations made.
The complaint was not solely regarding the sending of the Hansard, and neither was the PIN, there were far more actions carried out by Loughton's acolytes in the interim, including the sending of various people to my home and making spurious allegations against me which resulted in further abuse and intrusion into mine and my family's lives.
There was no apology issued to Loughton, either at the PP committee or the HASC committee, it was flatly refused by Richards at both hearings, and so the only apology issued was to Parliament, not to Loughton, the claims made in the ITV news snippet are from Loughton himself, and his mate the commissioner, neither of whom are able to issue an apology on behalf of the police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I think you misunderstood my query above. I wasn't asking for your version of events, simply what you found derogatory. The facts of the event need to come from reliable 3rd party sources, using your version, or anything based on it, amounts to original research, which is a big no-no on Wikipedia. None of the content you added is verifiable by the existing sources. I see that you have an issue with how the incident was portrayed in the press, but they did say the constituent accused the pol of racism; the sources also support the use of the word "unkempt", but my edit didn't include that either. They did say it was "long-running" dispute, but do quote you as saying it was over a single email, so that change can be made, since it's supported by the citations. The description of who initially uttered the comment could also be clarified. They actually use the word "sack", but I think that quoting the pol in that instance is inflammatory. The cites specifically state that the second complaint was due to the receipt of the parliamentary report, but a description of why the constituent felt obliged to complain could be added. Other than that, the facts in the revised version of the article are supported by the citations. Your additions, however, were completely unsourced and represent a clear blp violation. Hope this makes sense. Onel5969 TT me 21:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


This single sentence section is currently supported by the Daily Mirror. As a tabloid newspaper. the Mirror is a wholly inappropriate source to support such a claim. Similarly, both The Sun and the Daily Mail are simply not acceptable. This claim needs a better source or, as per WP:BLP policy, it will be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see that we now have what I would consider fully acceptable sources for this story - six quality UK news sources. As they essentially all say the same thing, however, I'm not sure so many are really needed. I'm also still not sure that a single sentence of 25 words warrants a subsection all to itself. I also fail to see the value of using the Daily Mirror as a source alongside those other quality sources. I think it's wholly redundant and should be removed. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
So, I've removed the Daily Mirror source because (a) it's unnecessary and (b) tabloid sources are not preferred for BLP content. I'm still not sure why we have six separate references for that one single sentence. I'm a bit uneasy about it, as it looks likes Wikipedia is trying to make a point. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I have added it back as that is the source which states easiest how much money Loughton claimed. It is also only removed due to your personal bias. There are six sources as someone tried to claim the section was "single source" and "BLP violation"Sport and politics (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd very much avoid specifying any amount of money if this is based on a single tabloid source. I think six, and certainly seven, separate sources is wholly over the top. If RS newspaper sources can be found, it's usual to use just one or two. I simply don't see any added value in giving the reader seven sources. To me it smacks of deliberate political muckraking. But happy to get other editor's views. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC) p.s. a real education for the Daily Mirror to provide us with a picture of a bath and a rubber duck there. Are MPs expected to do without water altogether in their London residences? Or perhaps use Perrier?
And which of those seven sources tells us that Loughton has claimed "... for hot water, in relation to taking hour long baths every morning"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This feels very much like dislike of the things being reported and an attempt to try and censor or remove what is covered, due to it not being liked. The whole debacle on my talk page and this discussion page are a load of hogwash, blown out of proportion, with Admins being run to and hidden behind. Going down the path of; do they do without x and y, is a Donald Trump style distraction. This is primarily about a dislike of the Mirror as a source. It is only in the newspapers due to how excessive the water bill claim is, and that the tax payer is footing the bill. No one is remotely going near the distractions arguments being attempted to be bought in. The information is heavily reliably sourced. Simply trying to remove one of the sources because it is disliked, is a personal bias, and the £662 appears in multiple reports on the issue. This is clearly notable information, and trying to continue this futility of throwing distractions, in an attempt to scare off the information being from retained should cease. Keeping this discussion going is a waste of everyone's time, and bordering on POV pushing. Sport and politics (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm now "hiding behind Admins"? So... an MP likes to spend an hour in his bath every morning. How extremely shocking. It's only the Daily Mirror that decides to link it with a claim for his annual water bill. To my mind it's just a worthless made-up sniping political piece of tabloid fodder. But I am a little surprised you have the temerity to use the term "hogwash" here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion - I'm not sure if the notable part of this story is supposed to be that his utility bills are higher than average, or that he enjoys taking baths. I don't think it's notable as a scandal yet, despite the efforts of the Daily Mirror. The other sources seem to just cover his taking of baths, which is trivial. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I note the active thread at WP:ANI, which is how I found this topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion I also found this via ANI. Tabloids are taboo here and, as Power noted, the bath-taking does not wash with our standards of what belongs in an article. Specifico pulled the plug on the whole section, and there's no need for anyone to further drain the community's time by arguing against the clear consensus here. Lepricavark (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion as framed. I also found this via ANI, but "tabloids are taboo" is bollox, they aren't generally looked on as the best sources because of a tendency to trivialise and sensationalise content, this is especially true of BLP's. If the utility bill or any other part of his expenses are really widely criticised, we should we able to find a more neutral way of reporting that. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I guess that means you disagree with what I said, although you didn't explain why. At any rate, tabloids are not good sources for BLPs and I think we agree on that. Lepricavark (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Whale7 has been strangely silent since kicking this whole thing off. I wonder if they have any views on the matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC), the Reason I quoted the Mirror over BBC was because the Mirror had a figure in the headline whereas the BBC didn't.Whale7

You don't think the figure is kind of misleading, as it's for an annual water bill and not a bill specifically for "hot bath water"? I'd guess that Loughton's electric or gas bill might have been more appropriate. But exactly how big is his bath? And what temperature? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Tabloid sourcing[edit]

I see we have acquired The Daily Express as a source on this BLP. I have counselled the editor who added it please not to repeat this, but I thought I would check here in case anyone thought it added anything to the article. This tabloid story is mostly based around the reaction to an episode of Have I Got News For You? Don't get me wrong, I used to love that show in its hey-day, but a serious source on a living politician's article? I am not seeing it. What do others think? --John (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If you keep watching at that link you get Alex Jones plugging giving Rebecca Raine a leg up and then... Kim Kardashian wearing a "PLUNGING top" for a make-up, tutorial. What's not to like?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
"Plugging" -- not PC. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Express is the house journal of lowbrow right-wing Tory support, veering towards UKIP. So when they run a piece on how Loughton was thoroughly embarrassed over Europe on Have I Got News For You, that is a more interesting standpoint than Private Eye saying the same thing. The content is also supported by a piece by Loughton himself at the Conservative Women website.
Your views on HIGNFY are uninteresting here, the views of the Express on one of their own are. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I used to love HIGNFY, and have been to see it three times; unfortunately, like most things on the BBC, it's become too left-wing and biased and I don't bother with it now. CassiantoTalk 18:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy just to use YouTube (of course) and the good old Conservative Women. I'm really not sure what The Express adds, apart from Hislop's jokes (which I still always relish) and Kim Kardashian. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tim Loughton. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)