Talk:Polly Billington

Blog sources

I removed several references to blogs detailing disquiet over the candidate section in Thurrock as blogs do not count as reliable sources. A check online combining Thurrock or Polly Billington with the other prominent candidates - Anne Marie Waters or Sarah MacKinlay - reveals that, apart from some articles in Your Thurrock, the appareent controversy has not been covered by the traditional media. I also found no RS claims that Billington had practiced the 'dark arts' by briefing against David Miliband during the 2010 leadership campaign. Philip Cross (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Returning to this article after two years, I find that the inadmissible sources have returned. I have removed them again for the reasons explained above and in my edit summaries. Philip Cross (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Official portrait of Polly Billington, Chief Executive of UK100.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Tom Dewey's arrest and Hackney Labour councillors' potential safeguarding breach

Background: I added a section to this page about the arrest and conviction of Tom Dewey, who was Polly Billington's running mate in the Hackney council elections in 2022. He was arrested during the campaign, but was not removed from the ballot and was elected as councillor alongside Polly. It was not until after the election that the allegations became public, and Dewey stood down. This is relevant to Polly Billington's profile because 1) there is an enquiry taking place regarding how the matter was handled, and 2) the Green Party in Hackney have raised the matter of potential safeguarding breaches by the Labour Group in Hackney over this matter - Polly was on the Labour Group at this time. The Green Party are concerned that when Dewey was arrested, the child sex offences allegations against him should have excluded him from standing and from campaigning due to serious safeguarding concerns, and the Hackney Labour Group of councillors did not do this. The Green Party are demanding to be told whether the Labour councillors were informed of Dewey's arrest or not.

The section itself: I carefully wrote the paragraph in a way that kept to the facts only, and used citations for each fact. I do not believe there is a risk of defamation, as the entry only contains information already in the public domain, and does not cite blogs or unreliable sources. I linked to the Green Party's official statement on their own webpage, where they explain their concerns. I linked to Hackney Gazette for the description of Dewey's charges and conviction. I later added another link to the Evening Standard to show it has been covered in the national press too. I later added a link to a BBC article which covers Dewey's arrest and the independent investigation set up 'to examine the decisions made by the council after it had been informed about Dewey's offences' and in which Hackney Green Party leader Zoe Garbutt is quoted as saying "We know some questions will be left unanswered and that's why we're still pleading to understand what everyone in Labour, including elected members and officers knew, and we are still dismayed at the limited scope of the behind the doors in investigation." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66953505 This is important as it reflects the ongoing concerns about the lack of transparency, and The Green Party's demand to understand if Labour councillors knew about the allegations and failed to take action at that time to protect the public. This includes all of the Hackney Labour councillors, including Polly Billington, and is therefore relevant to her page. To reiterate, the sources used were : The BBC, Hackney Gazette, the Evening Standard and The Hackney Green Party's own website. The information included came from these sources and I did not expand or embellish further on the information I found there.

Reasons given for undoing my additions by other contributors: It is claimed that Polly Billington isn't implicated in the Dewey affair. I agree that she isn't implicated in his sex offences, clearly; but she is potentially implicated in the failures of transparency and safeguarding following his arrest - this is where the main disagreement lies. As she is standing again for election again as a Labour Party candidate (this time a Parliamentary candidate), I believe this is in the public interest, particularly for those in the constituency where she is due to campaign. Polly Billington campaigned jointly with Tom Dewey for the two De Beauvoir seats on Hackney Council, which means they would have had joint election leaflets and posters, and so on. When arrested, Billington should have been informed, and it would be unusual if she wasn't. This is another reason why the Dewey affair is in my view relevant to Billington's wiki page. Another reason for undoing my additions was the 'Biographies of Living Persons' policy and potential defamation. As already stated, the only assertions made in the section I added are already in the public domain via the BBC, Evening Standard, Hackney Gazette and Hackney Green Party. I don't believe any of the statements in themselves are controversial, being that 1) Dewey confessed to and was found guilty of certain crimes, 2) Billington was his running mate, 3) Hackney Green Party called for an enquiry into the matter and demanded to know if the Labour councillors knew about Dewey's arrest, 4) an enquiry is now taking place, but the Green Party are not satisfied as is does not address the matter of what the Labour councillors knew at the time of the election. I don't think any of these points are even in contention.

Next steps? The contributors that want the section removed are mainly concerned with the relevancy of the Tom Dewey affair to Polly Billington herself. I believe I have demonstrated relevancy. What happens now? Should this go to resolution? I am happy to rewrite it, but I do not think excluding it entirely is the correct course of action. TrueJoytheDove (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Polly Billington's Senior Adviser role at the PR lobbying firm Hanover Communications

I added a section about Billington's role at Hanover Comms, and provided what I believe to be useful context, but the section has been cut down to one sentence and added to the end of another section by another user. The sentences deleted by another contributor detail Hanover's clients such as large pharmaceutical firms; also McDonalds, Goldman Sachs, and Uber - these clients are listed on Hanover Communications' own website, which I added as a source. I also included a quote from the Guardian regarding Hanover being UnitedHealth's lobbying agency in its efforts to win large amounts of NHS contracts. I included a quote from an NHS campaigner that the Guardian used in their article. I also added context re Hanover's representing fracking giant Cuadrilla, citing an Open Democracy article. Using the Guardian, Open Democracy and Hanover's own website as sources is not in contention as far as I'm aware. In fact I can't see a reason given in the edit history for removing the contextual information. Polly Billington will be standing as a parliamentary candidate for the Labour Party in the upcoming general election, and therefore details of (and the implications of) her current employment is relevant and in the public interest. Voters ought to know that she has a senior role in a lobbying firm that has represented controversial clients such as Cuadrilla, Meta, McDonalds, Goldman Sachs, UnitedHealth and Uber. The UnitedHealth information is particularly relevant as the NHS vs private health is usually one of the key topics that the UK electorate take into account when voting. I hope this information can be added again as politicians' Wikipedia profiles shouldn't be used merely as puff pieces, only featuring what the politician wants to be seen. If information is accurate, relevant and in the public interest, it should in my view be allowed to remain on the wiki page. Can the editors that cut the text give a reason why, and can we discuss putting it back? TrueJoytheDove (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Who provides grants to UK100?

I added these two sentences on Jan 1st 2024: "UK100's total income from grants in 2022 was £1.2 million and in 2021, £1.35 million. Aside from IKEA, UK100's published company accounts do not disclose the origin of other grants." The second sentence has been removed by another contributor, and I cannot see a specific reason why in the editing history. This is directly relevant as Billington founded UK100 and was its CEO until recently. UK100's website says its funding can be viewed in its annual accounts, but actually the accounts only disclose the income from grants but not the sources of the grants. I believe this is relevant as it shows a lack of transparency by UK100. I also added a citation link to the Companies House page where this can be verified. As this is both relevant and verifiable, can it be re-added to the page? TrueJoytheDove (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing and weight

@TrueJoytheDove: Answering all your questions above, we follow the sources. Especially for biographies of living people, to make any statement in an article we require a reliable source to have made that statement in connection with the subject of the article.

So, is Tom Dewey's arrest relevant to Billington? If it is, it shouldn't be a problem to find a few newspapers that have published articles saying so, and we can publish their views on how Billington is linked to the case. If none of them have made that connection, we can't either. Same for your other questions - find a reliable third party source questioning UK100's funding sources, and we can include it. If no reliable source has thought this was interesting, it's not Wikipedia's job to go trawling their accounts to make a story out of it that no-one else thinks exists.

Reading all of Wikipedia's core policies - WP:Neutral point of view, WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research would probably be helpful, along with WP:Biographies of living persons. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, WP:TIGERS and WP:What Wikipedia is not may also have relevant thoughts. TSP (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)