On 6/23/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: # # ^ "Right-wing activist jailed for cheque thefts", The Independent, 28 November 1992, p. 2. # ^ records of the Court of Appeal, case number T19921351 No UK law against mention spent convictions. Otherwise tabloids would never be out of court. Foundation doesn't have any UK assets and there is not reason for any of the board memeber to enter the UK. It is. It has been blanked by a member of OTRS. Admins have already ben slightly made aware of the problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incide… Where exactly are they going wrong? -- geni

I suggest focusing on his political activities. If they are not notable, the personal details of his life are not either. Fred On Jun 23, 2006, at 11:20 AM, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

On 6/23/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: Indeed. I wouldn't be put out at all if the article was deleted; he's at the threshold of notability if that. However, if we're to have an article, it should be brief but accurate. It does seem that, aside from being a source of juicy 'nutjob tory right' quotes when needed, his conviction for pilfering funds from his health authority position is the most newsworthy thing he's done. And I'd certainly agree that most of THAT press was sheer schadenfreude at seeing a "high Tory" caught with fingers in the till. I couldn't find any reference material that suggested that reporting upon a spent offence that had entered the public consciousness through publication in the national press at the time was likely to be forbidden under the Act. Granted, I'm now in the USA and the only law libraries I have access to are American ones, but I suspect that Sussexman and sundry anon contributors would have raised some if there were to be found. It would be a much different matter if it were regarding an conviction that had never garnered press attention, I suspect. This is a very difficult area for Wikipedia because, unlike most complaints, it has nothing to do with publishing untruth or speculation. It's about our publishing a sourced fact with more than enough in the way of citations to justify it, but that someone is arguing should be removed because of privacy law - despite the public nature of the very sources upon which the article is based. Note that the article has not gone into salacious detail of his conviction - the article's words were (more or less - not looking at it right now) 'retired from public life following a 1992 conviction for theft". Nothing else. I'd also note that it's easy to get a solicitor to write threats on headed paper - regardless of the legal methods. -Matt

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:17:18 -0600, Fred Bauder <fredbaud(a)ctelco.net> wrote: How about a person who was a prominent member of the Law'n'Order party, a rentamouth for the far right, who was caught with his fingers in the till to the tune of over £100,000 - with the public purse as victim? Guy (JzG) -- http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG

On 6/23/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Well there is some fairly solid stuff about how you are allowed to get hold of the information. -- geni

On 23/06/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote: a) You will note that I did not say "you cannot ever publish this material". You just need to have a good reason to. I would not place my money on all occurences in Wikipedia being good. b) Bound over to keep the peace is spent one year after the binding expires, assuming no recidivism, and that article says nothing about how long he was bound over for. c) Now's the fun part. That article is clearly in an archive and can be proven* to have been untouched for three years. That simple fact opens up huge new vistas of legal questions, and nobody knows what the answers to any of them are... This field is complex. I don't know what I'm talking about, but I recognise that fact. I would be really quite grateful if you did the same. * the BBC, bless them, archive every single alteration made to their site at commitment, so you could prove this if you had to -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk

On 6/23/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote: Yeah ok I conceed the point -- geni