Jump to content

Talk:John Whittingdale

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

Brother - Charles Napier, treasurer of the Paedophile Information Exchange

[edit]

John Whittingdale, MP, is chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and has responsibility for parliamentary oversight of the investigations into the BBC's handling of the Newsnight broadcast. He will also have some role in investigating the way in which the BBC followed allegations of "high-level Tory politicians" associated with Paedophile Information Exchange founder Righton. John Whittingdale's brother, Charles Napier, was the treasurer of the PIE (Former teacher jailed for sex abuse of boys by Kathryn Knight, The Times, 2 September 1995). Charles Napier continues to live in the family home with their mother, Margaret Whittingdale [1]. There is no suggestion that John Whittingdale has ever been involved in the PIE or its activities, but every possibility that this relationship will affect his point of view and judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.87.63 (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Whittingdale is also recorded in Hansard as having participated in more than 40 votes on issues related to paedophilia since 1996. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.201.64 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings User:109.77.87.63 and 109.76.194.70 This raises an interesting point similar to one on Ronnie Barker -whose son was on the run from the police at the time of his funeral. I don't think Whittingdale -or anyone else should be punished for the criminal activities of relatives. There is perhaps a case for adding half a line saying that the conviction occurred -just to show it has been seen but not regarded as significant to the subject. That's what was agreed on Barker's case. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The family relationships are definitely true, as is the conviction. The Hansard record might have some tenuous relevance if anyone connects an actual point in the record with the points in the case. The relevance of his birth family is as great as any other personal life issues, and it is not punishment to reveal facts that are in the public realm and public interest with regard to his own views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.194.70 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again & thanks for your explanation. I don't doubt the accuracy of the wp:reliable source quoted. I am trying to adopt a wp:npov approach asking what does this tell me about Whittingdale and his policies given wp:crystal bans speculation. At the moment I don't think the article tells us very much, but the reader has a reference. If we still disagree, we can ask other people for their views. Regards JRPG (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I say hello to Sippenhaft in Wikipedia. Of course There is no suggestion that John Whittingdale has ever been involved in the PIE or its activities, [...] but having a convicted paedophile as a half brother makes J.W. at least half a paedophile too - that's what the articles final sentence implies and how it is read by a casual reader. Personally, I found this information of no importance in this article. BerlinSight (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whittingdale's partiality is at issue, not sippinhaftsippinhaft, now more than ever with Whittingdale as Culture Secretary. As someone who has supported a paedophile through three prison sentences over four decades (and continued employment with children in between prison terms), Whittingdale's suitability is a significant issue when the BBC is struggling with its own continuing paedophile fallout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.168.207 (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement with prostitute allegation

[edit]

There is a minor 'edit war' developing with editor Philip Cross repeatedly removing text about this alegation. The link provided to byline.com [1] is, seemingly, more or less, currently the only suitable link not least as the story also includes allegations that the mainstream media is 'spiking' reports. What precisely needs to be done to allow mention of the allegations. Note he hasn't threatened to sue. (Sorry for any formatting errors, I'm a bit new at this)86.187.170.213 (talk) 09:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC) avsp[reply]

Greetings 86.187.170.213. Firstly Philip is acting quite rightly in accordance with Wikipedia policy & I would have removed the link too. The encyclopaedia does NOT break news stories. However as someone very familiar with the UK's draconian libel laws and noting the particular power of the Culture secretary over newspapers and television this is important in its own right ..but not yet for Wikipedia. Photographs help but your best plan is to get the allegedly significant security issues raised in parliament when absolute privilege rules apply. It may also be a matter for the Parliamentary standards authority. FWIW I did get my particular issue raised in parliament so it can be done. Feel free to contact me.
Regards JRPG (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


OK thanks JRPG. Its purely about libel then? Not anyone's bias? FWIW he does not seem to be suing, its been all over twitter. & byline are hardly unheard of. I suppose the story about possible undue influence being used to spike the story cant be mentioned either due to it being only an allegation? But if a journalist at, say, the Independent came forward & said the reason the story was spiked wasn't due to the 'truth' of it or for 'libel fears' would then that aspect of the reports pass the bar? To me the byline report is too much 'their relationship is an open secret in Westminster/Fleet St' which isn't any kind of evidence at all. Likewise there's no evidence offered that the woman involved actually is a prostitute. Both these were, I assumed, the likely reason for the removal. Just so you know, its not me who keeps reinserting the allegations, as if that matters. But, given the way its been long long trailed on twitter etc, I think it fairly likely that the edit war will continue. & even possible that the wiki edit war itself'll become an additional issue on twitter etc. Also it could all just be an April Fools type thing, possibly. Thank for your guidance/advice. avsp 86.187.159.223 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 86.187.170.213 An article needs to come from a wp:Reliable Source. In practice this means something like wp:Suggested sources#current news ..one of which is the Guardian. Wikipedia is US based and hence unlike twitter is relatively free of libel risk. However it is an wp:neutral point of view encyclopaedia, not a political blog and the regular editors take pride in ensuring accuracy. The better newspapers ensure a right of reply which helps balance an article. FWIW I have seen sources suggesting there will be "questions asked", no one would make an April fool joke about this. JRPG (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.byline.com/column/51/article/950
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Whittingdale. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 02:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Whittingdale. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Whittingdale. 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) 05:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Whittingdale&oldid=1257660551"