User talk:Jackstonian

If this stuff is true, where are the requisite citations to reliable sources?

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Parrs Wood High School. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to respond. My sincere apologies if I have offended anyone by not adding context.

Is it not the understanding and dominant factor of Wikipedia that is not an arena to be censored?. Wikipedia is a free source for everyone to use. Surely the school does not own this Wikipedia page? Wikipedia's own rules of conduct discourage editing by individuals with a "conflict of interest”.

There is a connotation of suppression on the entry here by A. Shakos’s rivergrabbing, an imposition of a point of view on others and a denial of the freedom of speech, a denial of the right to know.

If one looks back at the history of the edits on this page 'Parrs Wood High School' one can see that a governor at the School, Councillor Jeff Smith has censored a number of entries under the heading ‘Controversy’. This is clear censorship is it not? The true factual entries that certain Wikipedians have made have been removed by Councillor Jeff Smith!

Mr Shakos asserts that the entry is not factual. He has every right to make that assertion if true.

The governor mentioned in the June 2013 incident was the same governor who was unlawfully suspended from the board of governors highlighted in the ‘Judicial Review’ entry which is linked at (4) to the judgement in the case at Lexis and which can be found in full here http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/3489.html The text of the Judgement by Judge Pelling illustrates that the governor was suspended twice unlawfully over a period of nine days.

School records will corroborate that on the 30th April 2013 a motion by the chair to again suspend this governor was issued. It was issued because the governor made a protected submission to parliament. The governor was suspended from the board of governors on the 4th June 2013 and this fact will be recorded within the school’s ‘minutes’ of that meeting. The governor was suspended on that evening despite the fact that Parliament had issued a letter to the board of governors indicating that threatening a witness to a Parliamentary select committee was in contempt of Parliament.

Parliament stated to the board of governors the following:-

“On 10 May 1733 the House resolved in unequivocal terms that "the presuming to call any person to account, or to pass censure upon him, for evidence given by such person before this House, or any Committee thereof, is … an high violation of the Privileges of this House". This is still the case, and the House will treat as a contempt any molestation of or threats against those who have given evidence. Where action appears to have been taken against a witness because of the evidence they have given to a select committee, this would be investigated by a parliamentary committee and could lead to very serious consequences for the parties involved. In addition, it could also lead to criminal proceedings. Relevant pages of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice (24th edition, p 840) and to the memorandum by the Clerk of the House to the Committee on Standards and Privileges”, should be viewed”.

Further discussions by the chair of the governing board and Parliament led to a meeting of the board on the 19th June 2013 where the suspension of this governor was rescinded to which the school minutes will also have recorded this fact.

The submission that the governor made is a public record and was published on Parliament’s web site on the 2nd July 2013 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmeduc/365/365vw41.htm

I brought this entry in perhaps a to shorthand a fashion to Wikipedia, primarlily because of it's rareness that in over 100 years there have been only a handful of instances in which witnesses to Parliament have being sanctioned or threatened in some way and that when Parliament deems that it is threatened, it has a unique internal system outside of our judicial process for dealing with these matters.

I do not feel that it is fair nor reasonable for the requestor A. Shakos who is the head teacher of the school and where one of his colleagues has clearly in the past demonstated censorship to have my entry removed. However, it is correct that the judgement for this lies with the monitors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstonian (talk • contribs)

Unpublished letters are not verifiable published sources and cannot be used. Parliamentary testimony is not considered a reliable source and has no place here, except as evidence that somebody made some kind of claim. Are you saying this has not been covered anywhere in the press? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

School minutes of meetings are public documents and can be requested by anyone via freedom of information requests. They are public records of what occurs in board of governors meetings. They are of course not published in the press. I did not realise that entries in Wikipedia have to have come only from the press which some might argue is not reliable at times. You surprise me greatly on your comment that Parliamentary testimony is not considered reliable and has no place here. Giving testimony to parliament is the same as giving testimony to the courts and you will be in great trouble if you tell fibs. Entries for parliament / phone hacking / murdoch / leveson / select committee enquiries from parliament are heavily covered in wikipedia, how can they be construed as 'not considered reliable' and having no place here? In any case the parliamentary link is a reference to background only of why the governor was unlawfully suspended for a third time and your initial message asked for references. This latest part of this governor third suspension has not been covered in the press but the first two were. I mentioned above that Wikipedia should not be censored and there is clear evidence that a school governor has done this previously as politicians have their pages 'cleaned' up. The entry I made is fact, it happened and in is recorded in the public documents of the school and is intrinsically linked to the judicial review and parliamentary links. A school finding something uncomfortable is not a good enough reason for suppression.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstonian (talk • contribs)

School minutes are unpublished, and thus don't meet our standards. People make partisan, biased and unsourced assertions in parliamentary testimony all the time; it's inherent in the nature of such testimony. We need actual published reports from the press to meet our standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing, as well as our rather stringent standards on assertions about living persons. If the press isn't covering it, then you need to be hounding the press, not attempting to gain publicity in Wikipedia: that's not what we're here for. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no attempt to gain publicity on wikipedia at all. A matter of controversy occurred it is fact. You have allowed the head of the school to state something did not actually happened when it factually did and is recorded in public available minutes. You are aware that the school has previously censored this page. You are aware that the head has a conflict of interest. Parliament and the Governing Body were involved. School minutes are published because Education legislation dictates that they are. They are of course not printed in the mirror or the sun just as The Leveson report was not published in the press. I note that if it isn't in the press then it can't be factual and if it isn't in the press then no entry on wikipedia is allowed. I can see that you have clearly made the decision to approve the intervention of the school head and no amount of discussion will sway you otherwise.