Jump to content

Talk:Mark Meredith

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

Untitled comments

[edit]

The Elected Mayor as the Labour Party sole Council Executive representation on the Council Executive is the official Labour Party spokeperson on matters related to this Local Authority.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.224.195.66 (talkcontribs).


The article is a bit thin on detail in terms of earlier life and perhaps on events during the term of office, now nearly eighteen months in. Will try to do a bit more research.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.153.102 (talkcontribs)blp=yes.


An editor has asked for a citation on the issue of Mark Meredith's sexuality. It was first referrred to in the local newspaper, the Sentinel on Sunday in March 2005, prior to his election, but I cannot remember the exact date. Of course his sexuality has been mentioned on a fairly regular basis in the weekday Sentinel newspaper since. He has been acknowledged by the Labour Campaign for Lesbian and Gay Rights campaign as one of their own; and of course, has given numerous interviews to various gay periodicals where he has made is sexuality quite clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.153.102 (talk) 11:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]



The article is is not quite right in that the charge laid against him was not the same as the Tory councillor. He has been charged with 'complicity' in corruption in office. This suggests that he himself is not being investigated for corruption, but that he was aware of corruption on the part of another person or persons but did not report it.

As of 8 June 2009 Mark Meredith has left office and the post of Elected Mayor is now abolished in Stoke on Trent. The new Council Leader, Ross Irving is a Tory and surprisingly is also openly gay, making him the third 'leader' of this City Council (and from a third political grouping) in a row. This may be unprecedented.



Since all the allegations of corruption have been dropped, there is a strong case for the deletion of their reference from the article, or perhaps reducing the issue to one reference?




—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.20.60 (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]