Talk:Paula Vennells

Indentations

A certain editor of this page seems to want to indent every single quotation as if it were a block quotation. I do not know of any academic field where this is accepted protocol and furthermore MLA and MHRA guidelines say that an indented quotation is normally suitable for extracts of 40 words or more. The Chicago Manual of Style suggests 100. I am insisting on this as a point of style and readability, otherwise I will insist that if we follow this editor's policy of indenting every quotation that is on a Wikipedia page we will have a lot of work cut out for us to do. I observe that there are many high quality pages on this site wherein quotations are not indented at all; perhaps my editor friend wishes to correct that apparent defect? Suffice to say I believe my approach is one of consistency and is based on protocols and conventions outside of my own biases. I invite your views on this. Knucmo2 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Your abusive post was removed from my talk page. You are now posting falsehoods about me here. Desist, on both counts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, let's have a look at the facts: 1) I had made some edits to Paula Vennell's page, about the Post Office scandal in the main. 2) You have made some stylistic changes to the page, including indenting all current quotations on the page. 3) I revisited the page and thought that there was no need for the second indentation, and I have several authoritative sources for thinking this seemingly cosmetic edit to be just that (I have quoted these sources above and on your page, which has upset you apparently. 3) You reverted my edit, without any consultation whatsoever. 4) I posted on your page - you seem to think the adjectives 'daft' and 'idiotic' are abusive. I am sorry but I do not concur, but I can't disagree that you obviously feel that way. 5) I posted a perfectly civil comment in a follow-up which you have also termed 'abuse'. I think this is a gross category error and in immense bad faith.

So it isn't a falsehood to say that you wish to treat the quotations in this way; your practice on this page proves it. On point of principle, I am escalating this through the correct channels. You will note I have not engaged in an edit war. Knucmo2 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Cabinet Office position

I recently added a statement that "In early March 2020, she resigned from her Cabinet Office position." The citation for this, which is from the Daily Mail, the only source to report it, included a comment attributed to the Cabinet Office:

We can confirm that Paula Vennells stepped down from her role earlier this month, as part of a wider refresh of the Cabinet Office board.

has been replaced, by User:David Gerard, with a citation to Hansard, where the only apparent allusion to my original statement is:

I am told that she was removed from that post yesterday

from a member of the opposition.

That is a far from adequate source for the statement.

I had, of course, viewed it before my edit.

While we - and I include myself in that - prefer not to use the DM, we are not prohibited from doing so. The second RfC on the matter, Wikipedia:DAILYMAIL2, concluded (my emphasis) "...non-controversial facts which were reported in the Daily Mail and nowhere else. We note that the use of the Daily Mail as a source in such instances, in addition to being allowed explicitly by the previous RfC, would be covered by WP:IAR in any case".

The original citation should be restored, until such time as that statement can be cited properly to a preferred alternative. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This is very like adding colour to an otherwise-cited statement when that colour is only found in a deprecated source. I appreciate your point - but if the particular novel detail is really only written up in a deprecated source, maybe it's not worth noting? Or yet, anyway - David Gerard (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Of course this is worth noting; as I said, the original source should be restored. It is deprecated in many circumstances, but - as I have shown - not this one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I note that this issue remains unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple citations are allowed. Why not use both? 87.75.117.183 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the Cabinet Office press release announcing her appointment. Chemical Engineer (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

In the current version (11 January), there is a statement that she resigned from a Cabinet Office position, but no prior mention of her appointment, or explanation. This needs to be corrected. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

PS: Now corrected - but some clarification of what this involved would be welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Editorialising of the biggest miscarriage of justice in British history

This claim is incontestable, and yet the entry portrays it as merely the opinion of the BBC and Channel 4. Unless editors can provide concrete evidence to the contrary (evidence which is notably absent from the article), then this is not an opinion merely of media outlets. It is demonstrable fact.

In the absence of evidence to that end, the article should simply read that Paula oversaw the greatest miscarriage of justice in British history. Anything else is editorialised nonsense. 82.32.196.160 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it is fine how it is. You kill your own point when you demand that editors prove a negative. It is fine to say that some view it as the greatest miscarriage: that is what we can cite. Otherwise you're just really demonstrating that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. It is you, not these other editors, who want to take an editorial stance here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

In all the hollabaloo it is overlooked that the crux of this whole demise is the blind faith in computer generated data. When the computer spits out a figure, people believe it and take that as uncontestable fact. Thjis needs to change. We must not take its word for it, like take the word of the computer to be fact. From what I read also elsewhere, the Post Office determines fixed sums for compensations. That is bizarre, because the compensation must be set according to the damage that needs to be compensated. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:6032:FF77:73B7:B12C (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Sentence that doesn't make sense

"… she resigned under pressure from her duties as an Anglican priest …"

This does not make sense. "she resigned under pressure from her Anglican superiors" would make sense, as would, "she resigned due to the pressure of her duties as an Anglican priest". Which of these meanings is intended? "Under pressure" implies that the pressure comes from a person or a body/organisation.

Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, good point. Yes it is a mess. I think it should read as if she resigned under pressure from a person or organization. It can't be the pressure of her priestly duties per se because that can't have been the source of the pressure given the – ermmm – other stuff she had going on. Unfortunately the DT article cited is behind a subscription wall so I can't get a clear read on what is meant, but I infer from what little I can see that it was church, or even public, pressure that we are talking about. But a clear, citeable reference would really help. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Update: I have shoved in a pair of {{snd}}s in the hope of making it clearer, but I am not convinced that it is a good or permanent solution, just that it might be a minor help. What do you think? Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a straightforward punctuation mistake. The sentence should read "… she resigned, under pressure, from her duties as an Anglican priest …" and I will WP:BOLD and edit accordingly. Matt's talk 11:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Another editor beat me to it. Great minds, etc. Matt's talk 11:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible edit protection request

An unsigned-in editor has either accidentally deleted most of the article or has vandalised it. I prefer to assume good faith and the former. However, the subject of the article is highly contentious and there has been a resurgence of very negative coverage in the UK press this week, so I think the damage to the article might be, but isn't necessasrily, purposeful. I have undid the damage for now. If it re-occurrs I will ask an admin to protect the page.Emmentalist (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024

Change 'In December 2019, the Post Office paid out £58 million to sub-postmasters who were awarded compensation for past false prosecutions of monetary theft'

To 'In December 2019, 555 claimants were awarded £58m in compensation to be paid by the Post Office, but after costs only £11m was left to share between them, a little less than £20k each to compensate for false prosecutions, making good losses, bankruptcy etc.' Source: https://www.computerweekly.com/feature/Post-Office-Horizon-scandal-explained-everything-you-need-to-know NiggleJim44 (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Geardona (talk to me?) 19:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024 (2)

More precise birthdate: Her date of birth is February 1959, according to Companies House. She is therefore 64 years old.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/FrbaY8os6pmqwP2GJqHADHcTh9Y/appointments 188.28.96.82 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 15:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2024 (3)

Please change under the Careers section:

In February 2019, it was announced that she would step down from her Post Office role (she was eventually succeeded by Nick Read[13]) and in April that year took over as chair of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust,[14] which runs St Mary's, Hammersmith, Queen Charlotte's, Charing Cross and the Western Eye Hospital in north-west London.

to:

In February 2019, it was announced that she would step down from her Post Office role (she was eventually succeeded by Nick Read[13]) and in April that year took over as chair of Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust,[14] which runs St Mary's, Hammersmith, Queen Charlotte's, Charing Cross and the Western Eye Hospital in north-west London. She resigned from this role in 2020.

https://www.imperial.nhs.uk/about-us/news/trust-chair-to-step-down-next-april Alexbarnao (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Geardona (talk to me?) 18:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Date of birth

She is listed on Companies house date of birth 21st February 1959 146.90.94.211 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

We can’t use public records for living people, as per Wikipedia:BLP. However, I found her DOB in the Times, which can be cited, so it’s been added. TrottieTrue (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What about her middle name Anne? Can we not use that Companies House information for that either, simply because it's a pubic record? FreeBMD shows here that her birth was registered in Manchester district. But I think that source is not useable for the same reason? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY is very clear: Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope it's not a pubic record, Martin. No, we can't use CH for BLP articles, alas. Ditto FreeBMD. I have wondered what her maiden name was - it appears that it may Vennells, and then her husband's name is unknown. Neither are hugely important, though I'm actually surprised she isn't in Who's Who, which would normally carry this information. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Well it took over 4 hours, but thanks. Her maiden name certainly was Vennells (unless the Registrar had some kind of crystal ball), although that does assume no secret marriages in between? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Post Office scandal

Unlike during the early days of this article, we now have a full WP article with all the details of the scandal. Do editors agree that this article should therefore just contain the headlines, and link through - we shouldn’t have quite so much of the detail here? MapReader (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Less detail would be a good idea. Just reading this as a non-involved editor, the overall impression is of a soapbox piece. I took out a couple of blatantly polemic phrases yesterday, but for a supposedly encyclopaedic piece, the tone is still very much a WP:ATTACK - "biographical material that is entirely negative in tone" is especially problematic with a WP:BLP. I may personally agree with everything in this article, but it's not Wikipedia's job to convince us what a terrible person she is - it needs to discuss Vennells' life in a neutral tone without giving undue weight to her failings or all the posts she's been removed from. Cnbrb (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024

Removal of CBE 2A02:C7C:9A3A:EA00:B015:9824:1E18:806A (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As per the section below, Paula Vennells remains a CBE until such time as the king decides to revoke it. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

CBE

It's been reported that Vennells is 'handing back' her CBE. However, unless her honour is annulled by the King she continues to hold it, see this guidance from the British Government:

An honour can only be forfeited by the decision of His Majesty. However, an individual may decide to renounce their honour voluntarily and take the practical steps required of those that have forfeited.

They would still hold the honour unless or until HM King annulled it. Their decision would not be publicised by the Cabinet Office and they would continue to be able to describe themself as holding an honour.

Do we have a guideline about how to handle this sort of situation, where someone has stopped using a British honour but hasn't had it formally revoked? If not, we could perhaps do something like mentioning the CBE later in the lead that than placing it adjacent to Vennells' name. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

She said in her statement, "I have listened and I confirm that I return my CBE with immediate effect." Gedney2001 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I suspect that means Vennells is returning her physical CBE insignia. There's no way for her to renounce the actual honour, as far as I'm aware. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

In line with the very British tradition of "what did we do last time" I invite you to see for example Jack Lyons (financier) or Harvey Weinstein for how this has been handled in the past. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use those articles as a template, because Lyons and Weinstein both had their honours formally revoked but that hasn't happened to Vennells. If her CBE is subsequently revoked they may well come in handy, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, until the point Charles III annuls it, which at this stage is doubtful, she is still formally a CBE and has the title whether she hands back an award or not. --MrModius (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I gotta say, I'm seeing a lot of WP:OR in this section. Shall we go with what we see in reliable sources, perhaps? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean? A.D.Hope (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

You are taking the view that she is still a CBE, on the basis of what you know about CBEs. But we have reliable sources reporting that she is returning her CBE "with immediate effect" [1]. I don't think you've got good reason to revert edits that remove the letters CBE from after her name at the very beginning of the article; I think you're doing that on the basis of original research. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've just added a BBC source to the article which states:

[...]the King is the only person who can decide whether someone has an honour, or not.

Paula Vennells, former CEO of the Post Office, now joins John Lennon in sending an honour back to Buckingham Palace. The former Beatle returned his MBE in 1969 along with a letter to the Queen protesting against the Biafran war.

Doing so has no formal effect. The government’s honours guidance says someone would “still hold the honour unless or until HM King annulled it - their decision would not be publicised by the Cabinet Office and they would continue to be able to describe themself as holding an honour".

Sources which simply state that Vennels is 'returning' her CBE are not being precise enough, and we probably shouldn't use them. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless on this issue there are some practical considerations. It is being widely reported that she has relinquished, using various words, the CBE, and most readers would reasonably infer from these reliable news sources that she no longer holds it. Second, given the public controversy, leaving the honour in the lead sentence and infobox will generate continual GF ‘correction’ edits, however much the formal position is explained. Thirdly, Lennon offers a precedent and his article the honour is removed from the lead and infobox and the article body notes the ‘official’ position that, technically, he still holds it. This has been the stable position of this article for a long time. MapReader (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about the CBE to Vennells infobox, as unlike in Lennon's case I'd say it's significant enough to mention in the lead. The fact British honours are 'unrelinquishable' does pose some issues and I'm not fully convinced the Lennon approach is the right one, but as you note it's stable and that's good enough for now. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader I think it's potentially misleading to omit that Vennells is still a CBE from the lead, as readers are unlikely to know how the British honours system works – see all the requests to remove "CBE" from the article below. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s a detail. See the Lennon article for precedent. As far as the current news cycle is concerned, she has relinquished it. The formalities aren’t significant enough for the lead - it’s properly covered in the article MapReader (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a key detail, and should be in the lead. The current wording implies Vennells is no longer a CBE, which isn't the case. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

WP should follow the sources, and none of the UK RS that I have seen are treating the technicality that she still has the MBE pending forfeiture as worth mentioning high up the story, and some don’t mention it at all. The top line is that she’s agreed to give it back, and there’s little doubt she will now lose it. Giving the small print of the honours process UNDUE in the lead seems like anorak-wearing, missing the wood for the tree. MapReader (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Our main source is this article by the BBC, which makes a point of qualifying that Vennells remains a CBE unless and until the honour is revoked by the monarch. It's misleading not to follow the source and mention it, especially as it isn't certain that the honour will eventually be revoked. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

What about something like:

Vennels was appointed a CBE in 2019; in January 2024 she indicated that she would like to renounce the honour, but will continue to hold it unless it is revoked by the monarch.

It seems likely that in time her CBE will be revoked, in which case we can shorten the sentence, but until that happens if we're going to mention her intent to renounce the honour we also need to mention that she can't actually do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Jaymailsays I believe the BBC source quoted above takes precedence over the original government guidance for our purposes, as it relates directly to Vennells. This means following the BBC's explanation of the situation, which doesn't mention the prime minister's involvement. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Please refrain from editing the PM's role in offering advise to the King! Who in turn asks privy counsellors for their view. Democracy wins out, not your unsupported view that the King is the arbiter. The Vennells page, with other connected subjects are being vandalised by editors who ought to know better. Jaymailsays (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The BBC source is the most relevant as it applies directly to Vennells rather than being our interpretation of the general guidance, so we need to follow its wording. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

My last edits aren't vandalism. They replace the BBC source with a better one and mention the Forfeiture Committee, which is the body that makes recommendations about revoking honours. If you could reinstate both that would be great. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@MapReader sorry to ping you, but as you've edited the passage in question you may want to participate in this discussion. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I didn’t enjoy being accused of “vandalism” by Jaymailsays, for editing into the article the interpretation as published by Britian’s authoritative national broadcaster. It doesn’t matter whether the BBC is right or wrong, since WP follows the sources, and at the moment the most reliable citation says explicitly that the recommendation comes from the Forfeiture Committee, with the citation referring directly to the case in hand - I.E. Ms Vennells and her CBE. Trying to infer something different from other sources that don’t refer to this case - even if ultimately proved correct - is OR by WP:SYNTH. It doesn’t matter what the correct position is - the BBC position stands until other equally or more reliable sources say something different specifically in relation to this case, and can be cited. MapReader (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

could @Jaymailsays please claiming vandalism on edits? none of the edits were vandalism, they were merely editing your intepretation of the article with direct text from the sources that were quoted. Mushyhuz (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

stop* claiming vandalism. Mushyhuz (talk) 10:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. All editors are required to WP:Assume good faith. You can disagree over content, but making accusations will not swing the outcome your way. It's easy to react emotionally about a current public hate figure, but this is likely to cloud judgement when reaching a rational solution. Maybe look at precedent of other Wikipedia articles. It's quite an unusual situation for an honour to be rescinded or handed back. Jimmy Savile's various honours expired on death, but the Honours Forfeiture Committee did state that he would have has his OBE stripped if he had been convicted while alive. Savile's Wikipedia article retains the OBE and other honours. Cnbrb (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

In the Commons at 1:38 PM Kevin Hollinrake, speaking for the government, said "I'm pleased that Paula Vennells handed back her CBE." The source relating to her relinquishment of priestly duties is behind a paywall, but the Bishop of St Albans will have revoked her Permission to Officiate, so no doubt there. He considered de-frocking her but decided against because the knowledge of the Post Office could not be imputed to her. 80.47.0.18 (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

So she's saved these guys some work? She probably doesn't need the £90 she could have got on eBay. But has anyone in the house yet suggested she should also hand back her millions in bonuses? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The tenor of the debate was that the people involved "should be held to account", and that is one aspect being looked at by the inquiry which is due to conclude by the end of the year. 80.47.0.18 (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

LBC says here: "Ms Vennells is thought to have earned as much as £5 million in her role as Post Office boss and is now facing calls to return £2.93 million in performance-related perks and payments in lieu of pension." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure that latter is a good comparison. Even if it’s true that honours expire on death (citation?), we don’t go round removing the honours from the articles of dead people, and to do so would be controversial, and unpleasant. And saying someone “would have had“ an honour removed is an opinion, not a fact, and hypothetical since the circumstance didn’t arise. Lennon is a better precedent, as he sent his honour back but it was never rescinded, and the article reflects the subject’s wishes. Respecting the subject’s wishes is more important given BLP. MapReader (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Since when do we strip people of honours based on popular demand? I mean no one could possibly be more disgusting or dodgier (terms that I rarely use) than Jimmy Savile. Doesn't alter a fact that he was still a knight by the time he died. Vennells' statement is meaningless. The BBC already made it clear that only the King can strip her of the honour. Keivan.f^Talk 08:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you proposing to go back and add in the MBE into John Lennon's lead sentence and infobox, then? The matter is spelled out in that article, as in this, so that readers have the full position. MapReader (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking through List of people who have declined a British honour the convention (although not unanimous) is not to use postnominals where a person has 'returned' their honour, so we should follow suit. The current form of words in the lead was introduced a few days ago by myself and seems to be stable, unlike longer versions which attempted to explain the return and why it wasn't the same as a revocation. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Jaymailsays

What's the best course of action regarding the edits to the 'Honours' section by Jaymailsays? The situation could easily be resolved if they came here to discuss the issue, but despite several requests they haven't and instead simply revert any alteration back to their preferred form of words.

Pinging: Jaymailsays, MapReader, Mushyhuz as the most involved editors, anyone else is free to contribute. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

S/He’s very close to justifying a report to ANI, I think. MapReader (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately you might be right. I'd really rather talk things through here, but it's looking impossible. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Is a formal WP:RfC now needed to resolve this? Poor King Charles might have to sign the "Grand Order of Forfeiture" from his hospital bed? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024 (2)

Please remove the CBE as this has now been handed back CarolineBAR (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion above. MIDI (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024 (3)

Please remove reference to her having a CBE - she has announced today she is handing back this honour with immediate effect. 51.148.138.226 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the discussion above. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

CBE title needs to be removed.

Paula Vennells has handed back her CBE and therefore needs removing from page. Dyleds890 (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above A.D.Hope (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Formally and legally, you can’t renounce the award, even if you send the medal and certificate back. MapReader (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether she technically still holds the honour, the CBE should be removed from her profile, even if just to respect her decision. MTunnic (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

As per my comment above, I have changed my view about this, significantly influenced by the precedent we have with Lennon. Provided the article body explains that, technically, she still has it, we should be fine with the removal from the lead sentence and infobox. MapReader (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Returning to this point, as clearly there is continuing disagreement over whether her statement that she would "return" her CBE should be mentioned in the lead. In my view it quite clearly should be mentioned - referring to her receiving the honour but then not mentioning that she has returned (or is trying to return) it, or have it revoked, is unbalanced and misleading. What she has said (direct quote here) is: "I am, however, aware of the calls from sub-postmasters and others to return my CBE. I have listened and I confirm that I return my CBE with immediate effect.” Now, whether or not she returns the physical insignia, it is not in her power to have the CBE removed - here - "However, despite the offer by Ms Vennells, the only person who can strip someone of an honour is King Charles. People can indicate they would like to renounce their honour, as Ms Vennells has now done - but doing so has no formal effect. Until the King is advised by the Honours Forfeiture Committee and acts on its advice, Ms Vennells will continue to hold her CBE." So, the only issue is the precise wording of the statement that needs to be in the lead. In my view, the clearest and most simple wording is that "...in 2024 stated that she would renounce the honour.". I'm perfectly happy to consider alternative forms of words, but the principle of stating clearly that she is doing what she can to renounce the honour should remain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No objection. My only concern was that the word "renounced" was not used in the main body. I guess any exact synonym could be used. And yes, it's only King Charles who signs the paper, but it's really the Honours Forfeiture Committee which decides. Can they ever refuse the request of a recipient? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead as you've recently edited it is fine, and the best way of dealing with the matter given the absence of the honour from the infobox etc. MapReader (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Again returning to the point at issue - what is most important to readers is that she has said that she is returning the CBE. The extent to which, in fact, she is able to do that, is in many ways a procedural detail, which should be mentioned in the article but not in the lead. As a procedural detail, the CBE needs to be retained in the infobox until it is formally removed - but the opening section should report what she has said about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC) (amended Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC))

The current wording is incorrect, so I can't support it; Vennells has not returned her honour, and cannot do so. The number of edit requests on this talk page strongly suggests it is not common knowledge that the recipients of British honours can't unilaterally hand them back, so even a more accurate version of the current wording would still be misleading.

My attempt to include the full context was reverted by @MapReader, so at the moment the only part of the sentence which has consensus is Vennels being granted a CBE. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s a widely evidenced fact that she has announced that she is returning the honour, and this is clearly noteworthy enough for inclusion in the lead given the huge public controversy. If it’s evidenced, notable and significant, you don’t have any justification for excluding the associated wording from the lead. MapReader (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If Vennells' announcement is going to be in the lead then we must also include that she can't unilaterally return her honour. This is mentioned in the BBC article which is currently our main source:

However, despite the offer by Ms Vennells, the only person who can strip someone of an honour is King Charles.

People can indicate they would like to renounce their honour, as Ms Vennells has now done - but doing so has no formal effect. Until the King is advised by the Honours Forfeiture Committee and acts on its advice, Ms Vennells will continue to hold her CBE.

You've previously prevented this context being added, but if you rescinded your objection then the issue could be resolved. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Those are the comments from the pub bore in the corner seat, which rightly can be - and are - covered in the body of the article. The key point that she’s recognised that she should return the honour is notable enough to merit mention in the lead. Readers that want to know the full story are well served by the dedicated ‘honours’ section of the article. MapReader (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The key point is that Vennells has, to use the BBC's phrasing, indicated that she would like to return her honour. As of today she is still a CBE, and we shouldn't imply otherwise. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The John Lennon article - and others, going by the comments above, provide us with a precedent. With a BLP in particular, we need to give due regard to their stated intentions. MapReader (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

MapReader is correct and A.D.Hope is wrong. It is simply not the case that "we must also include that she can't unilaterally return her honour" in the opening section. The only thing that needs to be said in the opening section is that that she received a CBE and that she has said she will return, or is returning, or has returned "it". Whether the "it" is the insignia or something else, and whether she is entitled to "return" the honour itself, are points of detail that need to be addressed in the article but not in the lead. The article, at this point, should be mute on whether or not she "has" a CBE - she did have one, but has said that she is returning it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree with both of you. The current wording, which omits the full context, is misleading and will lead readers to assume Vennells no longer has a CBE. I believe an RfC is the only way forward to resolve the issue. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that you (apparently alone) believe that whether or not she now "has" a CBE is of fundamental importance, worthy of being explained in detail in the lead. It just isn't. What is important is her statement that she "is returning it". Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC at the bottom of this talk page, and will follow its result. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope the RfC is useful, I just didn't see the point of us going around in circles for another few days. Some new voices are both welcome and needed.

Maybe you, me, and the other involved editors (@Martinevans123 and @Martinevans123) should mutually agree to leave this article alone for the duration of the RfC? Let things cool off a little and return refreshed? Just a thought. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I've been involved twice over? I've no intention of editing the lead section. And when I did edit the lead, it is was really only to try and make it consistent with what was in the main body text. I'm not that bothered to be honest. Just a thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I only meant 'involved' as in 'actively editing the article'. The four of us have been at this for over a week now with an unusual number of disputes, which is why I thought a breather might do us good! A.D.Hope (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I repeat I'm not involved in any "dispute" about the CBE. And I still maintain that I'm one single editor, not two. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm speaking generally, Martin. Not sure what you mean about being two editors. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This thread is just about the CBE? Oh well, I tried... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote that we could 'mutually agree to leave this article alone' I was referring to the entire article, not just the CBE sections. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Well apologies, but I can't agree to that. If I see something that's incorrect, I will probably correct it. I'd expect you to do the same. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It's your choice, I just wanted to make the suggestion. I'm stepping away for a few days, unless I'm needed in the RfC. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope you enjoy the break. Kindest regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2024 (4)

She is no longer cbe please remove 2A04:4A43:561F:B3F0:C42B:98CE:CFBA:7727 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

CBE Paula Vennells

It is important to stress these are royal honours sanctioned by the reigning Sovereign . Whether we agree with the monarchy or not we are stuck with the prevailing system. Only the Sovereign can annul the honour. Jaymailsays (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It is important to stress that Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. We are not bound to slavishly follow British (or any other) conventions or customs. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Jaymailsays is right, only the monarch can revoke British honours. The BBC article this article uses as its main source goes into it. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This is appalling

As someone who surfed into this article, I feel I can express my thoughts as a fresh pair of eyes. This is the worst side of Wikipedia on display. In fact it's by far the worst article I've ever read. It presents as a character assassination / personal vendetta, and totally lacks any sensible measure of objectivity. It appears that those responsible are fighting tooth and nail to enshrine their right to do this. Very sad. 222.155.105.207 (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you need to provide examples of any text that goes against our policy or is not supported by citations. Vaguely deriding the article is not at all helpful. Graham Beards (talk) 08:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Graham, thanks for your reply. I think you demonstrated the problem, in that assessment of the article can only be done by minutely examining small pieces of it, and determining if each complies with the rules. The problem is the "bigger picture", hence why I mentioned "a fresh pair of eyes" looking at the article. The article, from the start to the end and almost everything between, is a detailed compilation of negativity, and virtually nothing else. Beyond the negative there's very little - even the very brief mention of her schooling managed a snide dig (which of course is based on fact so is perfectly okay...). There's Kiwipedia articles about some real human monsters - take Bill Cosby as an example. The sexual abuse is well covered - but only represents around 20% of the article. It has balance - this article has none. 222.155.105.207 (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you need to provide examples of any text that goes against our policy or is not supported by citations. Deriding the article so intensely, without some real examples, is not at all helpful. What do you regard as the "snide dig", exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We do need to make sure the language used in the article is neutral and that it only covers Vennells' role in the Post Office scandal rather than the scandal as a whole. While the article has been improved since, if you look at its state in December it's clearly had problems. The use of 'resigned – under pressure' in the lead is an obvious example of loaded wording, and it remained in the article until two days ago. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

So that problem is now fixed? What are the others, which mean that this article "has no balance"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The 'Post Office scandal' section really needs going through, although I did give it an overhaul recently to make it more focussed on Vennells. For example, the quotes from Lord Arbuthnot and Kevan Jones MP are highly (and deservedly) critical but don't add much to a reader's understanding of events, and I'm not sure the fact Vennells terminated a Panorama interview in 2020 is noteworthy. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd have thought the nine words "who terminates the call rather than answer his questions" is quite fair and balanced. The point is that questions were being asked by Nick Wallis four years ago and she refused to answer them. Or perhaps she just had a dodgy telephone connection? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The question is less whether the wording is balanced, and more whether the inverview is noteworthy and whether including it affects the balance of the article as a whole. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Then yes, I think that's notable. It's less of "an interview" and more of a stonewall? What's a lot more notable, however, is the question of her earnings and perks at the Post Office. As I posted above, LBC says here: "Ms Vennells is thought to have earned as much as £5 million in her role as Post Office boss and is now facing calls to return £2.93 million in performance-related perks and payments in lieu of pension." I wonder if any other media outlets have reported on this. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

As I recall, I was the editor that added the bit in about the Wallis phone call. One of the often mentioned aspects of Vennells's conduct, since the scandal broke, is that - aside from the appearance in Parliament, which was obligatory - Vennells has declined all interviews and refused to answer any questions about it. That's still her position - now she's using the excuse of the inquiry (which is fair enough), but declining to answer any questions has been her position for a very long time. Which, of course, was why Wallis phoned whilst being filmed, to see whether or not she would engage, and to record the fact that she wouldn't. That's why it's notable, as an instance that stands as a demonstration of a significant and long-running aspect of her response to the scandal. And, until she does tell her side of the story, it is of course difficult to "balance" the widespread criticism she's received with anything that is more symphathetic or explanatory. MapReader (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I quite agree. Either she didn't know what was going on, which betrays utter incompetence and/or gross mismanagement. Or she did know, which betrays complicity and coverup? When is she scheduled to give evidence to the enquiry and for how many days? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not our role to puzzle this out, Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite agree. It's our job to report what reliable sources say. Even Computer Weekly reports here that: "Subpostmasters reacted to Vennells’ apology with dismay. “Saying sorry that people suffered is not apologising, it is sympathising,” said one former subpostmaster. “The claimants don’t need sympathy, they need justice." Martinevans123 (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That source could be useful elsewhere in the article, but how is it related to the interview mentioned above? A.D.Hope (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it's pertinent to the question of "balance" in this discussion thread, But would you prefer me to open a new discussion thread below? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Has it been widely reported that Vennells has been avoiding interviews? We need to be clear that the current example is representative of wider behaviour, not a single incident we've independently chosen to highlight. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely it has, by the BBC TV and radio programmes, and in Wallis’s book and blog, and in Private Eye. A notable aspect of this topic, given the scale and gravity of the scandal, is that until very recently the extent of media coverage (in both ‘serious’ and ‘popular’ media) had been remarkably limited. This is now changing fast. I have some sympathy with the OP’s concern that the article focuses on the negative - this arises partly because she’s offered no substantive explanation or response to the heap of criticism that’s been made of her, and partly because it reflects that in RL she’s become the focus of criticism, as the person in charge. Until she appears at the inquiry, it simply isn’t possible to build a ‘case for defence’ into the article, and depending on what she says (probably this summer), the content of the article may well change significantly at that time. Meanwhile the only way to balance the article is to find more stuff about the positive things she did at the Post Office - the new services, focus on marketing, improving financial results, etc. MapReader (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

In that case we could alter the passage to something like "Vennells has been criticised for not giving interviews", with accompanying sources and possibly using the Panorama incident as an example.

More generally I do think we should stick to the bare facts as far as possible, rather than extensively quoting people's opinions on Vennells. I don't doubt that Lord Arbuthnot and Kevan Jones have captured the public mood, but we could condense the Parliament passage to "Vennells' actions as CEO have been criticised in Parliament; Lord Arbuthnott, for example, claimed that she was "faced with a moral choice and she took the wrong one". That gives a flavour of the criticism without giving the speeches excessive prominence. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Do the "people's opinions on Vennells" include those of the wrongly convicted sub-postmasters? The "bare facts" for them amount to prison sentences, bankruptcy, social exclusion and ridicule, loss of family homes, suicide, etc., etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't sub-postmasters' opinions of Vennells to be notable in themselves. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not even if there are 736 of them? Their views just don't matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It would probably be appropriate to mention a joint statement by some or all of the sub-postmasters, particularly if it was widely reported, but singling out individual opinions to include in the article might be perceived as cherry-picking. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, they might be perceived that way. But the sub-postmasters don't have any official spokesman and they are not involved in any legal joint action. So, somewhat ironically, although their views are certainly reported, they won't receive much any visibility here. Perhaps the CEO of a company is perceived is judged to be in some way "way above" this level of criticism? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that sort of approach makes sense. The prominence of those quotes really arises because, when MPs first started criticising - in pretty strong terms - Vennells’s tenure at the PO, that was pretty much the only notable thing in the public domain about her, other than the simple fact of her job(s). The amount of published material to draw from is now expanding rapidly, and the argument for giving prominence to particular instances is reducing. We just need to be careful to also reflect the gravity of the impact of her decisions in relation to the scandal, and the still strong probability that inquiry will find her the person most accountable for Britian’s biggest and a tragic miscarriage of justice. MapReader (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, we can start to generalise a little and let individual judgements and rulings speak for themselves.

Say a hypothetical passage read "A 2023 judgement found Vennells was not good at her job", we wouldn't need to follow that up with a quote from a Lord saying just how very bad she was, because the judgement speaks for itself. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't just her, of course. There were also the three intervening CEOs after 1999. I'd agree that we need not duplicate material here that belongs more at British Post Office scandal. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"We do need to make sure the language used in the article is neutral and that it only covers Vennells' role in the Post Office scandal". That nails the problem down. Why doesn't the article title reflect that specific topic? It's simply called "Paula Vennells" - anyone (like myself) surfing in expecting any sort of biographical article is in for a rude shock. It has some very cursory and selective biographical content added to give that impression, but much of that is framed with unnecessary negativity. The title does not reflect the very specific content you mentioned above. Either the title is wrong, or the content. The example of Bill Cosby I mentioned, the article "Bill Cosby" is a clear biography, with notable inclusion of the sex scandals - as you would expect. 222.155.105.207 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What I mean by that is that, in relation to the Post Office scandal, this article should only cover the parts relevant to Vennells; it previously covered other aspects of the scandal. The article should also cover the rest of Vennells' life as appropriate. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There's the problem - it doesn't. The article is at least 90% about the Post Office scandal - it doesn't cover "the rest of Vennells' life as appropriate". As a supposed biographical article, it lacks any semblance of balance. If it was called "Paula Vennells - Post Office Scandal" it would be perfectly appropriate, and people would find exactly what they're looking for. 222.155.105.207 (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The most notable thing about Paula Vennells is that she was CEO of the Post Office during the last years of the Horizon scandal and its immediate aftermath. It's doubtful whether she'd be notable enough for a standalone article otherwise, and it's why a large part of the article is about her role in the scandal. Nevertheless, the article also covers her early life, education, other jobs, and personal life. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@222.155.105.207 who are you, Paula's mum? pyrococcal (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly not a former sub-postmaster. Just guessing. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree here. The question isn't really about specific words or phrases but of overall balance. It's tricky to get this right, because as AH Hope says, the most notable thing about Paula Vennells right now is her Post Office role. However, we have to bear in mind that this is a current bandwagon and Vennells is a popular hate figure right now, and we can't have an WP:ATTACK page in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia WP:BLP rules discourage "biographical material that is entirely negative in tone" - and while it's generally well sourced, WP:UNDUE weight is being given to Vennells' failings. My feeling is that some trimming would be needed to balance it out, otherwise it's just a soapbox piece. 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs)

Bishop of London

Why is it notable that Vennells was not appointed bishop of London? @Martinevans123, @Albin-Counter A.D.Hope (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not. The same claim can be made about Boris Johnson or Mickey Mouse. It's notable that she was shortlisted. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact she was shortlisted hasn't been confirmed by the Church of England. The BBC article about the shortlisting relies on unnamed 'sources':

Ex-Post Office boss Paula Vennells was shortlisted to be Bishop of London in 2017, sources have told the BBC [...] The Archbishop of Canterbury pushed her application and was seen as a supporter of her, two of the sources added [...] Ms Vennells was interviewed for the role of Bishop of London - the third most senior in the Church of England - but not appointed from a final shortlist of three [...] A spokesperson for the Church of England said: "We never make any comment on who is a candidate, or not, in what is a confidential discernment process."

It's also worth noting that those four sentences are the only ones in the article which relate directly to the shortlisting, the rest is filler. Overall I don't think the information is notable enough to include. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying it's not notable, or that the source is not good enough, or that the BBC can't write articles every well? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

All three seem to be true in this case – the BBC is reporting C of E gossip that someone didn't get a job. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

How many people get shortlisted for Bishop of London? Is that a common occurrence. As Albin-Counter said earlier, the post is the 3rd highest in the Anglican Church? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't one of rarity or importance, but notabilty. Did Vennells being shortlisted have a wider impact, or is it just an instance of a person not getting a job they applied for? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Does her attendance at the University of Bradford have "Wider impact"? We still happily report that as a fact. I'm saying it's not just any person "not getting" any old job. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A person's university education is generally considered notable. The fact a person was rejected from a university wouldn't be inherently notable, however, unless it had some wider impact. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that being an undergraduate ay the University of Bradford is slightly more common than being considered for Bishop of London. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it's much more common. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say probably thousands of times more common. But we still report as "notable". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We do, yes. Notability isn't inherently tied to rarity. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

"The fact she was shortlisted hasn't been confirmed by the Church of England." Does it ever? Or has it made a special exception to not mention Vennells? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that names are sometimes leaked, but the C of E doesn't publish its shortlists of candidates for bishoprics. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

So either we believe BBC or not. I'm a bit surprised that you chose to describe information about such a prestigious post as "gossip". And of course, no parties have refuted the claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The BBC is generally reliable, so we can trust that a Church of England source did leak the information they report, but that doesn't make the information reliable. The C of E has stated that it doesn't comment on shortlists, and the lack of a more specific denial isn't an admission that the leak is true. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Does the Church of England generally engage in this sort of devious "gossip mongering"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. Someone leaked the information in this case, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it was Justin Welby himself, as he was a supporter? But not just him, as the report says "two of the sources". So at least three. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Does it matter? The sources aren't named, any guess is pure specuation. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought we would expect the BBC to do a certain amount of fact-checking before making such a claim. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

They contacted the C of E, which declined to comment on the shortlist. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any compromise or consensus rapidly emerging here, so let's see what any other editors say. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

WP doesn’t need to find out what actually happened; that’s not our job. We just need to represent what can be reliably cited, provided it is relevant and notable. You will see that I have tweaked the wording in the article so that it refers to media reports - which is true - rather than the fact of her shortlisting, which appears to be speculation. I agree with those above who argue that, given the seniority of the position and the clear relevance of Vennells’s post-Post Office career given the already known scandal, and the reliability of the sources (BBC, Standard), some reference to it should be made. We also need to remember how the media works - it is unusual for the (reputable] media to report things that are just being speculated, especially in relation to living people for the same reasons that our BLP policies are strict. Things reported in the media as speculation usually mean that they’ve been reliably told, but off the record. MapReader (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The BBC doesn’t publish gossip it can’t stand up, about living people. They have the same BLP considerations as we do. What this means is that they have a reliable source who wishes to remain anonymous. Nevertheless if the BBC published it, it means that they are satisfied the information is reliable. MapReader (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The rewording is incorrect; the media reports date from 2024, not from the time of the appointment in 2017. The Evening Standard article also quotes the BBC one, so we're effectively dealing with one source.

The BBC article does not link the shortlisting to the Post Office scandal, so on what basis are we doing so? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

So the Evening Standard also trusted the BBC's sourcing? This article is about Paula Vennells, not the Post Office Scandal? By the way, The Daily Telegraph headline is "Former Post Office chief executive Paula Vennells ‘nearly became Bishop of London’" Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact Paula Vennels did not become the bishop of London is not notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We've already done that one above. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I remain unconvinced that this is notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's Vennells, not Vennels. You are quick to pick up alleged errors by others. :-)

You've considered the matter important enough to enter into a longish debate about it, hence providing the counterexample to your own contention, methinks. ;-) Albin-Counter (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The length of the debate has no bearing on whether the content is notable enough to be included in the article. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Correct; agreed. The shortlisting would certainly not fit into British Post Office scandal but it is relevant here.

Further, Vennell's alleged venality and hunger for power which may have contributed to the PO fiasco is somewhat evidenced by her seeking (the shortlisting follows an application by the person him/herself) to obtain this very senior ecclesiastical office. Had, to use the argument attempted by User:A.D.Hope, Boris made such an application, then, successful or not, coverage would be WP-worthy. Albin-Counter (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Will Mellor, who played sub-postmaster Lee Castleton in the ITV drama Mr Bates vs The Post Office, has noted the apparent contradiction between Vennell's priesthood and her responsibility for the Post Office scandal, saying "... she is going to church, she is a priest, preaching about being a good person, I don't know how she slept at night": [2] I would imagine that many of the sub-postmasters will feel the same way as Mellor. But of course, they aren't "notable" here, they're just victims. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is related to Vennells' alleged shortlisting for the post of bishop of London, Martin. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought the Bishop of London was position in the Church of England. I thought you had to be a priest or something, Adey. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There’s clearly consensus here that this should be mentioned. The discussion should be about how it is qualified, given the sources. MapReader (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It would have to be something like:

In 2024 it was claimed by unnamed sources that Vennells was shortlisted for the position of bishop of London in 2017.

The weakness of the sources and the fact the shortlisting didn't lead to any further developments really does suggest this shouldn't be in the article, though. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It already is something like that. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not a strong claim at all. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If you understand how the media works, especially in relation to living people (especially relatively well connected and wealthy ones), you’d see that the BBC would not have printed the speculation without a very reliable source, who for whatever reason wants to remain unnamed. It’s 90%+ likely that she was shortlisted, and we just need to find the right form of words to avoid suggesting it’s an 100% fact. MapReader (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

On what basis are we including the possible shortlisting, though? Why is it independently notable? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't call me 'Adey'. Mellors' statement has no bearing on the issue, that I can see. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Better than Hopey, surely? You're right though, Mellor probably wasn't on the selection panel. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I prefer 'A.D.', if that's alright. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

A consensus seems to be emerging. I'll try to avoid calling you, Shirley. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I appeared before the well-known Judge Stukley at the Shoreditch County Court - he was a striking figure in his red gown. The handwriting on the notice of hearing wasn't particularly legible, and I addressed him as "Judge Shirley." "Who is Judge Shirley?", he asked. Things went downhill from there and he finished the hearing by sentencing me to 28 days in Pentonville, but we made up later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.0.18 (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Albin-Counter: Not necessarily - User talk:164.39.151.170#Change of direction. A number of people were considered for Bishop — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.0.18 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Where are we up to with this? I'm still not sure what the justification for keeping the information in the article is. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday you said: "It would have to be something like:

In 2024 it was claimed by unnamed sources that Vennells was shortlisted for the position of bishop of London in 2017."

And that's similar to what we have. You also mentioned "The weakness of the sources" and "the fact the shortlisting didn't lead to any further developments". I'd say that the BBC is a perfectly good source. And that notable facts or events don't necessarily have to "lead on to" anything. Vennells was a school governor for 7 years and we mention that, but what did that "lead on to"? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I suggested that form of words but I don't think the content should be included in the article.

I haven't looked closely at Vennells' school governorship, but an obvious difference is that she actually held that post whereas she was never bishop of London. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Why suggest a form of words if you think the point can never be mentioned? Perhaps the other two editors, who agree with including it, need to also have their say. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's widely reported so to not include it would be a WP:DUE failure. Also, I've taken out the "unnamed sources" stuff. That's inappropriate - the BBC haven't highlighted it so highlighting is a back door way to cast doubt on the report - a type of "scare quotes". The BBC have reported in an unqulaified way and that should be enough for us. i don't see why there's such an unnecessarily long thread about it. It should be a non-issue. DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Is WP:PROPORTION not more relevant than WP:DUE in this case? The fact Vennells might have been shortlisted to be bishop of London is a minor fact about her, and including it is disproportionate. I'd argue it's also WP:RECENTISM which won't become any more notable as time passes. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest it's such a long thread because one editor has very strong views about it. It seems the proposed compromise wording that we eventually arrived at yesterday was but a decoy to extend the discussion. I had thought that a consensus had been reached. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I am very surprised that it's considered an noteworthy detail. If it came out that Vennells had interviewed for Woolworths back in the day would we also mention that? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd never thought of comparing the Diocese of London to Woolworths. Do you think they do "Pick and Mix"? Make mine a Raspberry Mitre! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I do wish you'd take this more seriously, Martin. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

And I wish you'd give the dead horse the last rights... but hey. You could always pop a question over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism? Maybe getting shortlisted isn't so notable. Perhaps it happens every other week these days? Lighten up "A.D." It's always wise to get sorted with "him upstairs" - you never know what's over the Horizon, do you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

So, is your position still that this is worth mentioning because not many people have been shortlisted to be bishop of London? If being shortlisted was notable in itself then shouldn't an article like List of people shortlisted to be bishop of London exist? A.D.Hope (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If you really do want to start that article, at least we'll have one top candidate for inclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Of course I don't want to start it, because being shortlisted to be a bishop isn't notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You're missing the point. WP:DUE requires us to reflect coverage. You're making your own value judgment about how important it is - that's irrelevant. DeCausa (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not policy that something must be included in the encyclopaedia because it's been covered in the media. WP:DUE is more about giving all significant opinions weight than whether or not to include a particular fact. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Quite. Also, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Got me there. I could try and knock something up. It's bound to have Pete Broadbent in it (unless he was just acting, of course). It might distract me from this "lively exchange of ideas". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Who are the "sources" that told the BBC? It may be claimed as in some way significant by the BBC, but it's not - it's tittle-tattle, and there's no purpose in including it in her biography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Probably the sort of sources who won't provide any information if you publish their names. I think that's pretty common practice in journalism and the media in general. I'm not sure the BBC have claimed it's "significant". They just reported it, as she's in the news. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's not "significant", there's no reason to mention it in her biography. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure most of what the BBC has published about Vennells hasn't has a "significant" label attached to it. So it comes back to a value judgment by editors here? Or you might argue that it's significance is reflected in how many other outlets have re-published the BBC claim. I must admit I've not counted. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yesterday I linked to a draft update of our article on the disgraced Archdeacon of Canterbury. Like Paula, he was effusive on Twitter but has gone silent. For example, on 25 April 2018 Paula tweeted:

Thank you to all the great Post Office colleagues who have made us such an inclusive place to work! Quote. Post Office News.

The draft links to appointment procedures for Archdeacons. For the procedure specific to the 133rd Bishop of London see [3]. At the time, Rose Hudson-Wilkin was a front runner, so the short list is likely to have been:
* Rose Hudson-Wilkin
* Sarah Mullally
* Paula Vennells
Rose became Bishop of Dover instead and Justin Welby invested her with powers usually reserved to himself. A reader's letter in the Mail on Sunday on 31 December 2023 refers to "News that Archbishop Justin Welby is being given a knighthood." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.0.18 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@ A.D.Hope: @Martinevans123: A sporting analogy:

MICHAEL DAWSON: "Arsenal not winning the league had a major impact on them not winning the league." - Graham Wray, The Sun, 12 January 2024.

For those who didn't catch "Mr Bates v The Post Office" on ITV 1 (or would like to do so again) there's a second chance this week (all times GMT):
Monday, 15 January 11:15 PM - Tuesday, 16 January 12:10 AM
Tuesday, 16 January 10:45 PM - 11:45 PM
Wednesday, 17 January 11:40 PM - Thursday, 18 January 12:30 AM
Thursday, 18 January 11:15 PM - Friday, 19 January 12:10 AM
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.0.18 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to see that The Sun missed the Bishop shortlisting, but I see it was mentioned in The Daily Telegraph: [4], although I can't see, without a subscription, if it cited "unnamed BBC sources" or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Here https://archive.today/BRqDd are X-Ray spectacles to enable you to see that which was denied you at the DT.
• Feeding a troll may entertain you but it, to those who don't write filtering code (I do), exposes them to their endless and largely or wholly nonsensical argumentation and sabotage.

I had given the recidivist two chances and thereafter consigned it to the idiotbox, which works like a black hole. Nothing emerges from it, ever. Albin-Counter (talk) 22:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I was actually responding to A.D.Hope. He doesn't like being called "Adey", so I doubt he'd appreciate being called a troll. But I'll persevere: are there any RSs, other than The Telegraph, that mention the shortlisting? Not a question that I would expect an anon IP to answer. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the first time I've been called a recidivist, and I can't say I expected it when I first started editing this article. Surely unilaterally blocking editors (consigning them to the idiotbox?) goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, as well – I know we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, Martin, but I do at least do you the courtesy of considering what you say. A.D.Hope (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I appreciate that courtesy. I would certainly never call you a recidivist. And I certainly can't banish anyone into a black hole. Even if I wanted to. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Husband name

Public records (Civil Registration Birth Index) indicate that Paula Ann Vennells is her birth name. Some sources seem to suggest that her husband also goes by the name Vennells, though perhaps he may also use his birth name, John D Wilson - they married in Bedford in 1994. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

OR? Remember too that such public records are frowned upon by WP:BLPPRIMARY. I think we need robust secondary sources and due weight to go there, but cannot currently see what value it would add to the article, or why we would want to detail it. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Companies House gives it as Anne. FreeBMD gives only the initial A. The CBE revocation petition site at change.org page also gives it as Anne. But that's also a banned source? How about Crockfords here?Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The spelling Anne seems to be correct. I didn't suggest that her husband's name should be in the article - simply that attributing the surname Vennells to him is perhaps incorrect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that the detail at Crockfords requires a subscription, so to get to any detail you have to drop something in the offerTORY? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Try this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, both seem fine to me. Although I now see it was already there for the CBE in the Honours section... Martinevans123 (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes John D Wilson seems to be on LinkedIn, retired from ABB and now working in the voluntary sector. Not sure his birth name is really needed for this article. Although articles for most female individuals almost always favour a record of maiden names? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that, if a reliable source were to report his full name, we should include it - but, so far, I don't think they have. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Revd Paula

The opening sentence is slightly ambiguous: "... a British former businesswoman and Anglican priest" suggests that she is still a priest? Should it not say "... a British former businesswoman and former Anglican priest"? Or am I just being distracted by her image in the infobox which makes her look like a priest? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think she still is an ordained priest - just doesn't have an active role any more. The Church Times, 3 days ago, describes her as "THE Revd Paula Vennells, the Anglican priest who was chief executive of the Post Office".[5] DeCausa (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah right, so one of those Sleb vicars? But the sentence is still a bit ambiguous. Perhaps she'll have another go at Bishop of London now that her public profile has been "raised" a bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

How about "...a British former businesswoman who was also ordained as an Anglican priest..." ? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a great proposal for a WP:DYK! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Didn't see the suggestion before I amended it to "and is also an Anglican priest". Found a Times article which confirmed (2 days ago) that she continues to be a priest. DeCausa (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

For brevity's sake I've rearranged the sentence to '...is a British Anglican priest and former businesswoman.' A.D.Hope (talk) 13:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I had considered that but decided against it as it seemed to give greatest prominence to her priest-role, which, could, in current circumstances, come across as a little ... pointed. I could have been overthinking that though. DeCausa (talk) 15:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The counterargument is that she's still a priest but is no longer a businesswoman, so it's appropriate to list the former first. Generally I favour whichever form of words is the least convoluted. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the greater danger is that the reader will see "Anglican priest" and will assume she actually does something in that line, i.e. is a real vicar. It's just a title? You know, a bit like "CBE"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

If we're equating Vennells' status as a priest and her appointment as a CBE then I'd put both back in the lead sentence unless/until they're revoked. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd equate them. I suppose she could still do weddings and funerals, as side-line, if she has to hand back that £3 million? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

She could, as she's still a priest. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the current A.D.Hope's wording. It should refer to her as a former businesswoman first - that is what established her notability - and her role as a priest later. I doubt even whether her role as a priest needs to be mentioned in the opening paragraph at all, let alone the opening sentence. Incidentally, you don't need to be a priest to do weddings and funerals. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC) (updated by Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC))

I think the current version is an improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think Ghmyrtle's is the best version. DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Property details

According to The Times here Vennells lives ".. in a £2 million detached farmhouse near Bedford." Is the value of that property trivial? If it was £200 million, would that also still be trivial? I'm not sure where the cut-off for triviality would be. The average UK house value is about £290,000. Is the £3 million she was paid in bonuses also trivial? You could even buy a house for that! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that a passing reference to the value of Vennells' house in the Times indicates notability. I believe the bonuses she was paid have received a reasonable amount of media coverage, and are therefore notable. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I see. So if multiple sources gave the value, that would be notable? I guess that piece can't have been a "Times exclusive" as it's backed up by the Daily Mail here who also tell us it's Grade II listed. But we can't use the DM, as it isn't trustworthy. Bedsbulletin tells us here that it's actually on West End Road, Kempston, But I suppose that's even more of a "passing reference". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Being mentioned in multiple sources is an indicator of notability, but how something is handled in those sources is also important. If an article is about the Post Office scandal and happens to mention the value of Vennells' house that doesn't intrinsically make her house value notable, but if her house value were somehow connected to the scandal then it would be notable. See what I'm getting at? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Like the value of the house owned by that poor sub-postmaster, who was on the radio this morning, who lost it all and had to live in a caravan? (and yes, I guess that's really trivial here, isn't it). But notable people who are financially successful get the location, style and value of their homes mentioned all the time in their Wikipedia articles. Regardless of whether they've been linked to a national scandal? Or is that all far too Hello! for your liking? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's far too Hello! for my liking. Where someone lives is conventionally mentioned in biographical articles, other details need to be justified. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it's handy for the village Post Office? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not worthy of mention here. As a former leading businesswoman, married to another business person, it would be quite a surprise if her house were much more modest than it apparently is. There are also BLP issues, though I'm sure if someone wanted to find the address, they could. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they could just read Bedford Today? Or see a picture of it on virtualglobetrotting.com... And yes, her husband seems to have been a highly paid company executive. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2024

Change "During her time as CEO, the Post Office went from losing £120 million a year to making a profit." to "During her time as CEO, the Post Office went from losing £120 million a year to _apparently_ making a profit."

There is now a question as to whether the Post Office actually made a profit or if this was all or in part based on illegally claiming tax relief on compensation to which it was not entitled: https://twitter.com/DanNeidle/status/1745920610893434993/photo/1 Mdonkin (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 02:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @EphemeralPerpetuals. I've commented on this further down the page at some length. @Mdonkin correctly noted that a post office press release is not an acceptable source for a claim. You have asked him/her to provide a reliable source, but this is surely incorrect - the empirical claim that a post office press release is not acceptable is confirmed by simple fact of observation. As it happens, I can find no non-deprecated source which justifies this claim and plenty which suggest that it can not be viwed as true given the now legally accepted unreliability of post-office self-reporting during the time in question. The claim should surely be removed simply because it should not be there in the first place, having had no non-deprecated source to justify it. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Charlie Campbell 28 - I'd like to apoligise for making a rash decision, this is not an area I'm well versed in. I simply saw a Twitter link, deemed that to not meet WP:VERIFY and moved on. Would you like me to strike out my "not done"? I wouldn't feel confident editing this page as I lack the background knowledge and don't aim to get into an edit war in which I don't have proper knowledge of the topic. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)^talk 16:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That's super nice of you, @EphemeralPerpetuals. I think, to be honest, it's probably best to leave it now as it's been superseded by the latest discussion. Also, it was a semi-protected edit request and I've no idea if that would have been in order. Thanks so very much! Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on CBE in lead

How should Paula Vennells's CBE be handled in the lead of this article? A.D.Hope (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• My position is that the lead should mention that Paula Vennels received a CBE in 2019, that she offered to return it in January 2024, but that she retains the honour until the king revokes it. The wording could be something like this:

Vennells was appointed a CBE in 2019; in January 2024 she offered to return the honour, however it can only be revoked by the monarch.

This broadly follows the BBC article which is currently our main source.

A previous version of the lead omitted the return/revocation entirely, but this is not ideal as it is significant information. The current version omits that Vennells remains a CBE until the honour is revoked. This is misleading, as readers unfamiliar with the British honours system are likely to assume that she is no longer a CBE. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a point of grammar - the word "however" should never follow a comma, and the wording needs to be corrected (link). Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. Substituting 'but' would resolve the problem, I think. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Leave out. For myself, I think the lead should focus on what has made the person notable or famous. Is declining the CBE the event that made her notable? If not, I would add as a separate section in the body, perhaps with the headline CBE Controversy -- where the details of the awarding and declining can be fleshed out in more detail. Personally, I like clean leads. Slacker13 (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• Isn’t a proper RFC supposed to offer a tightly defined question, or proposition, or set of options?

Regardless, I will comment.

The established precedent - Lennon and others - is that the individual’s wish regarding their honour is respected in the infobox and opening sentence of the lead.

That someone has been awarded an honour but decided to reject or return it is notable enough to mention in the lead, especially when the question had attracted interest from over a million people in a petition. Wording that makes clear it is the person’s decision or intent or willingness to reject the award is better than wording that suggests the award hasn’t been made or has been cancelled.

The body of the article can set out the full circumstances, including the specifics around how an honour can be awarded and rejected (or annulled) , which would be too much detail for the lead. MapReader (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

An RfC question should be neutral and brief, and the above wording is the best I could do. I hope you agree that it's neutral, if a little vague. I also hope you don't mind if I format our comments to make them easier to distinguish. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• As stated in an earlier thread, what is important for the opening section is that she has said that she is returning the CBE. Whether or not she technically still has the CBE, or needs to await a formal decision following a recommendation from the appropriate committee, is a point of lesser importance - one that is addressed in the article, but does not need to be explained in the opening paragraphs. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
• Procedural note. @A.D.Hope: You should change the RfC question to:

  Should the lead state the following: Vennells was appointed a CBE in 2019; in January 2024 she offered to return the honour, however it can only be revoked by the monarch.

I would support that change; it is neutrally stated and factually accurate. Leaving out that her CBE won't be revoked until the king says so could potentially mislead a reader who doesn't go past the lead into thinking that her offer is effective immediately. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the suggestion. My hope is that this RfC will settle the wording entirely, however, and focussing the discussion on a single option may make that more difficult. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• No objections, although the bit about the monarch could be left out and just explained in main body text. I am surprised it's not still shown in the infobox, but perhaps that's a separate RfC? (I looked at John Lennon and his MBE is not shown, even though it wasn't formally rescinded?) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• Present wording looks fine - Dear me, what a lot of ink expended. For me, the current wording, which states she was awarded it in 2019 and, in 2024, expressed her intention to return it, looks fine. It's accurate, and acknowledges her stated intention. I think the legal position - she remains a CBE until the honour is rescinded - should be explained in the body, or in a footnote, for completeness. And on that point, the note should make clear that here, as in almost everything else (let's not go down the Royal Victorian Order rabbit hole), the king acts on the advice of ministers, on this matter the Forfeiture Committee. KJP1 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to note, the current wording is 'in January 2024 she stated that she was returning the honour'. This does not have the same meaning as 'in 2024 she expressed her intention to return it'. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not exactly the same meaning, agreed. But I'd see the first as encompassing the second. I think things may become easier here when she has actually "returned it". But she really can't depend on first class post, these days, can she. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

As of right now it's outright incorrect, if it's true that CBEs cannot be returned. There must be sources somewhere that tell us that without it being OR. If not, it's a case of WP:NOTRIGHT. JM (talk) 07:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not "outright incorrect". It correctly reports what she has said. It's Vennells herself who has said something that's technically incorrect. A small footnote could easily explain this. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Why bother with a footnote when we could use more accurate language? It's been reported by the BBC that Vennells can't actually return the honour, so we don't need to follow her inaccurate wording exactly. (talk) A.D.Hope (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

• I would also go with Present wording looks fine. The full position is spelled out in the article; this is simply a matter of what goes in the lead. Like John Lennon, her intention regarding 'return' of the honour will be respected (i.e. conformed with) in future reporting, and she isn't going to be referred to as "Paula Vennells CBE", regardless of whether the Committee and monarch ever get round to considering the matter or not. That the formal legal position is that an honour can't be rejected is a technicality, proper for mention in the article, but which is not a detail that needs (or justifies) spelling out in the lead. MapReader (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  You would outright oppose any explanatory footnote in the lead section? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  A lead is the article summary, or overview; an explanatory footnote isn't appropriate. Also, a reminder that an RfC is a request for comment from a range of editors; it is often unhelpful to jump on any contribution that expresses a contrary view. MapReader (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was merely intending just a clarification, not an unhelpful jump. I've seen footnotes used quite successfully in the lead sections of a number of articles. But whatevs. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just pay some cognisance to WP:BLUD. IMHO the lead is supposed to summarise the essentials as an overview to the article, and footnotes on the minutiae don’t sit happily there. MapReader (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  If anyone else feels "bludgeoned", please let me know. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  Politely asking to clarify is not bludgeoning. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:26, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's no rule against an explanatory footnote in the lead, and plenty of high quality articles have them. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

One question: is Charles and/or the Forfeiture Committee obliged to announce that the honour has been rescinded and if so when? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

I can think of a number of things Charles is not obliged to do but does nevertheless: Investing a donor in a secret ceremony (these ceremonies are gazetted in advance) Instructing High Court office staff to forge a form and tell the plaintiff that if it isn't returned "the papers would be hurled into the wastebin" and "they would hold on to the expensive court fee." A topical poem: [6] The answer to the question is "yes" 89.240.113.74 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Sorry, "What's the rarest level of human hospital?" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2024 (UTC) They never agreed, but the relevant comment is the last one in the discussion (the final sentence is not relevant). 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2024 (UTC) I'm sorry, I have no idea what you mean. Maybe other editors do. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC) Quote: If "clinics" are included the number of "specialist hospitals" (in Harley Street and elsewhere) is greatly expanded. News reports overnight say "Charles is doing well" and "the queen is by his side." While I wish him a speedy recovery, she is nothing of the kind. You may recall that a litigant filed a case in the High Court challenging her use of the title because English law specifically prohibits members of the royal family from marrying in register offices. The court office wrote back months later (target time for reply is five working days) to say the papers would be hurled into the wastebin if a court form declaring the case to have no prospect of success was not filed. Naturally they would hold on to the expensive court fee. The Civil Procedure Rules Committee examined the form and declared it to be a forgery. Also overnight it is reported that a jury has ordered Donald Trump to pay 83 million dollars in damages. His lawyer says she will appeal. Even Trump does not attempt to prevent his opponents having their day in court. (emphasis added),

[7] - This says that decisions of the Forfeiture Committee are "usually" published in the London Gazette. As an aside, while searching for that, I also found they say the following, regarding voluntary forfeiture:

"Can an honour be forfeited voluntarily? - An honour can only be forfeited by the decision of His Majesty. However, an individual may decide to renounce their honour voluntarily and take the practical steps required of those that have forfeited. They would still hold the honour unless or until HM King annulled it. Their decision would not be publicised by the Cabinet Office and they would continue to be able to describe themself as holding an honour."

Hope this helps in reaching a conclusion. I think it confirms what we already knew - Ms V can say they don't want it/will give it back, but they can't make it forfeit. KJP1 (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Just by way of illustration, here's the London Gazette announcement regarding Jean Else.[8] KJP1 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Well kind of helps, thanks. I mean there's no suggestion at Jean Else that she was intending to hand back her honour. And she was made a Dame, not just a mere CBE? I'm just guessing that the expected sequence of events would be: the Forfeiture Committee make a recommendation; it's signed off by King Charles; the committee (or Cabinet Office?) gets it published in The London Gazette. But I guess there's no real strict timetable for any of these steps. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No, just an illustration of the announcement that will, likely, appear in the LG at some, entirely undetermined, date in the future. Nothing more. I see that Jean Else is now practicing as a medium. Life can bring some unexpected turns. KJP1 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah I see. Many thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC) I'll look forward to eventually meeting Dame Gypsy Paula Petulengro in her new career.

Where did we end up landing with this? Is there any scope for even a slight tweak to '...Vennells stated she wished to return the honour', to indicate that it's not a done deal until Charles strips it? A.D.Hope (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

If there's a consensus that it must be referenced in the lead, and I'm not sure there is, then I'd stick a footnote at the end of the last sentence. Something to the effect of: "{{efn|Recipients of an honour can indicate their intention to renounce it, return their [[insignia]] and cease to use the [[Post-nominal letters]]. However, forfeiture only comes into effect following a decision of the monarch, who takes advice on the issue from the prime minister, who will themselves receive a recommendation from the [[Honours Forfeiture Committee]]. The monarch's decision, and an announcement of the cancellation of the honour, will normally be published in the [[London Gazette]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://honours.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/how-to-nominate/forfeiture/|title=Forfeiture: Can an honour be forfeited voluntarily?|publisher=[[Cabinet Office]]|access-date=11 February 2024}}</ref>}}"

People may well think that's a bit wordy; I'm sure it could be trimmed. KJP1 (talk) 18:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No objection to a footnote. But I think the consensus was that we leave it as is until the forfeiture is officially announced, who knows when. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No issue at all, if that’s the consensus. My initial “vote” was stet. KJP1 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a consensus that the fact Vennells can't return the honour must be mentioned in the lead, although I do still think that the current wording is inaccurate by omission. It is a bit weird that you can't give up your own honour, I wouldn't expect a reader to know that. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Good heavens, even Queen Camilla ought to know that? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not "inaccurate by omission". it accurately states that she has said that she is returning it. That is all that matters for the lead - the technicalities of what she can or can't do can be left to a brief note in the main text. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the average reader knows that British honours can't be returned by their bearers? I do not, therefore the implication that Vennells can return the honour is misleading. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

If you don't mind me elaborating, imagine if the sentence was instead 'In 2024, Vennells stated she would be returning as CEO of the Post Office'. This is not something she can simply declare she is doing, so we would either add a caveat or, more likely, not include the information in the lead at all. Either would be appropriate. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

CBE is a minor honour. How important is this anyway, considering that there is current litigation to establish whether Camilla is queen which is mentioned nowhere at Wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles. For example, writing in Wednesday's Evening Standard Victoria Moss says:

Famously, Katherine Hamnett wore her "58 per cent don't want Pershing" slogan tee. Hamnett - who yesterday shared a video of her hurling her CBE into a wheelie bin in protest over the war in Gaza - did not attend.

There's no big talkpage discussion about the "publicly relinquished her CBE" reference in her article, which is not in the lead, so let's get real about this. High Court office staff hurling papers into the wastebin on the instruction of you know who is very much lead material, so can someone go over to the protected article and add it in? The law relating to royal marriages, which was drafted while the "marriage ceremony" of George IV and Maria Fitzherbert was fresh in the memory, appears to have been worded to cover just this eventuality. Someone should also go over to another protected article, Prince Harry, and remove all those links which claim he lied about the date of his wedding. It was private, same as that of George IV, which was only invalid because his father had not given permission. Queen Elizabeth did give permission for Harry and Meghan to marry. 92.21.199.184 (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended content

Only got the news this second. Martinevans123 is claiming the above comments are "offtopic." This is nonsense. An examination of how a similar situation is dealt with in another article is very relevant to how it is dealt with in this article. His comment on my talkpage is pure waffle. 92.21.199.184 (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC) On Saturday I linked to the Cabinet Office webpage providing answers to 20 questions ranging from "Can honours be removed?" to "Where are forfeitures published?" My link was removed as "Improper use of talk page" yet five hours later the exact same questions and answers were linked to again and nobody objected. See WP:TPO. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC) You added this? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC) And this? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC) This needs to be followed up, as if anything happens to Charles (and God forbid that it does) Camilla will be claiming all the rights of a queen dowager. While a church marriage cannot be challenged in court after the death of either party, the ceremony was legally a "non-qualifying ceremony." Judging by the way Trump's lawyers behave, Camilla's lawyers may be expected to advance the argument nevertheless. One of Charles' first acts as monarch was to appoint Dr John Sorabji as his deputy private secretary, no doubt with just this eventuality in mind. There's a profile of Dr Sorabji here [9]. It notes: He is described as the "general editor" of 'The White Book', a hefty practitioners' text containing the rules relating to civil procedure, and has perviously [sic] advised ... he drafted the forms used in the High Court. This is relevant to the discussion above. If you wish to transfer the entire discussion to Talk:Charles III or Talk:Queen Camilla we would have no objection. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Sorry, but I don't think this is relevant, and it's also WP:CRYSTAL, and should be hatted. You are free to place it at those other two Talk pages, which might be relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC) It's fully sourced, as you might expect - for example Civil Procedure Rule Committee Secretariat Freedom of Information response 19 September 2023 (Ref. 230901052). 89.240.113.74 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC) You've added a link to a "Legal Cheek" article with the headline "King Charles hires UCL law lecturer as deputy private secretary". I don't see any mention of Paula Vennells, or even of the honours system in general. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC) Charles secretly ennobling a donor is discussed above. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) The discussion is relevant here for the reasons stated, and more so on the talk pages of other articles where it could form the basis of amendments to the articles themselves. We have identified four such articles: Charles III, Christopher Chope, Queen Camilla and Antonia Romeo. However, two of them are protected, so we need your help. Looking through the paperwork, we find that the notice of intention to apply for Judicial Review was served on 16 October 2022 and Sorajbi's appointment was reported two days later. Coincidence? We think not. Two further Freedom of Information disclosures: - 89.240.113.74, 13:20, 8 February 2024 Taking another look through the papers, I see that the prime minister has been informed of the defalcation of his Justice Secretary and Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. Of course, he knew already - you don't throw Judicial Review papers citing the monarch in the bin without getting clearance from the very top. In fact, everyone seems to know - there is a copy letter from Angela Rayner saying she would like to follow up but can't because the plaintiff doesn't live in her constituency. So the last thing Charles is going to do at this point in time is revoke Paula's honour (pot, kettle, etc.), especially with the police peering over his shoulder regarding the Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz affair. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

References

It seems that this matter is now finally resolved, as the honour has been revoked. I have attempted a summary in the lead section, but happy for other editors to improve it if required. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

About time! I wish they'd think of us poor Wikipedia editors when doing these things, imagine all the bytes we could have saved.

I've simplified the lead wording. I'm quite happy for the detail to be in the body, so long as it's clear Vennells is CBE-less in the lead. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

15 honours forfeited since August 2023, so she's hardly alone. One wonders if there are other notable individuals whose Wikipedia articles still show an honour that has now been revoked. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Profit claim

I have removed a claim in the article that the post office moved into making a profit under Vennells. It is referred to above in an unsuccessful semi-protected edit status request by @Mdonkin. That request was denied by @EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk but my edit here contains no such request. My reasoning is that the sole reference to justify the claim that Vennells moved the post office into profit is a press release by the post office she was CEO of at the time. That does not satisfy WP:Reliable Sources in normal circumstances, but in this case doubly so since the scandal in the UK has exposed that the post office under Vennells routinely lied at the time about very serious issues. The @mdonkin request actually cited a very good (but I don't know if it's WP:RS) source arguing that the post office did not truly move into a profit that year, but in any event I have looked (on Google, not WP:OR) for a reliable reference to the effect that the post office did move into profit that year and I can find no such reference. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Has the Post Office not been obliged to publish annual accounts, like any other UK business? Would they be considered WP:PRIMARY? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Martinevans123, they are really interesting questions. I am a long way from being an expert, but I think scrutiny of the PO accounts at Companies House would probably be OR. It's a really interesting thought, though. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I see that DeFacto has now found a good source anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

and it is disappointing that an obviously genuine fact is deleted like this. If the querying editor felt strongly about it, the right course was to find a better source. MapReader (talk) 09:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @MapReader, thanks for your comments. Please assume good faith. I also recommend reviewing WP:Reliable Sources. You have reverted my edit to re-insert what you describe as; "a genuine fact" (which is of course a tautology). Your new reference is to an online business PR publication which invites readers to upload the text of own stories. The personnel named at the website are all from a PR background - none are from a journalistic background. Such publications simply take online content from press releases, and from PR officials (hence the upload facility) from and at the entities they report upon. The purpose of the Wikipedia reliable sources articles is to ensure that publications which lack any provenance are not used to justify specious claims. In particular, the status of vendors and e-commerce providers is relevant here. Business Leader UK has no charges or prices available; it is an online commerce entity which exists to sell products (e.g. the workshops it self-advertises). It is very far from an acceptable source. Notably, the claims it makes are not repeated in any non-deprecated source I can find. Whilst, on the other hand, the post office is the largest story in the UK at the moment because its officials lied about much of the most important aspects of its operations. It has been reported, for example, in non-deprecated sources such as the Guardian and Financial Times (I cite at the end of this note as I understand linking to an external source is not acceptable) I should stress, that the post-office may have erred in calculating its tax liability in respect of monies recovered from postmasters over the precise period you refer to. The 'error' is far larger than the profit claimed in post office PR and so even on the post office's own terms those years would return a loss. The claim that Vennells returned the post office to profit is very far from a; "genuine fact" and is indeed not supported by any non-deprecated source. It should be removed, in my opinion. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/13/post-office-could-face-100m-bill-over-compensation-tax-relief-says-expert#:~:text=It%27s%20also%20unlawful%20%E2%80%93%20so%20the,to%20postmasters%20as%20tax%20deductible. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Martinevans123. I honestly do not think s/he has found a good source. See my comments below. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

So I guess your comments above are also addressed to DeFacto? Is it true to say that in the past, people genuinely believed that the PO made a profit of £35 million in 2017/18? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is likely true. I can't find a reliable reference to it in a decent source, but if the post office reported it as a press release then it would, at the time, have been accepted as true by reliable agencies. I guess one form of words could be something like "at the time, the post office claimed it had moved into profit that year..." but we'd still need a non-deprecated secondary source, I think. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Bad faith editing by Martinevans123, KJP1 and Ghmyrtle

Not relevant to this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The fact that Camilla and Charles are not married was mentioned briefly in the course of a relevant discussion about transparency in the honours system informing the editing of this article. During that relevant discussion I answered the relevant question posed by the last person to contribute before myself. My link was hidden, although a link quoting the same wording from the same source supplied by another was not. Apart from the wilful disregard of one of the pillars ("Assume Good Faith") there are a number of breaches of the Universal Code of Conduct. KJP1 12:46 - A key theme of the discussion was the need for the utmost integrity of the people who bear honours KJP1 13:28 - A serious personal attack in breach of Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 3.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct. Distinguished King's Counsel Lord Pannick and Law Professors Stephen Cretney and Rebecca Probert have written academic papers proving that Charles and Camilla are not married. Nobody has written a paper proving the opposite. No members of the royal family have married in register offices - free salamanders would not tempt them. Yet KJP1 describes my brief aside as a "rant". If Britain's Best Barristers are wrong why did Camilla, Charles, Christopher Chope and Antonia Romeo feel the need to mount a Watergate style cover-up? KJP1 does not appear to be very competent [10]. He accuses me of sockpuppetry in violation of Article 2.1 of the Universal Code of Conduct. KJP1 12:44 - Three minutes after I removed some words from one of my comments he added them back. Editors may not edit other people's comments under any circumstances. This was abuse of rollback, which may only be used to revert vandalism. The same applies to Martinevans123 (12:35, 2 minutes, 13:13, 3 minutes). KJP1 13:44 - A serious personal attack. One of my ancestors wrote a medical textbook and was superintendent of a large hospital. What medical qualifications does he have? Ghmyrtle 13:00 - When a comment has been removed from a user's talk page, adding it back is harassment Notwithstanding that the above two appear to live in --------shire (information which has been self-posted) KJP1's 47 edits to User talk:Ghmyrtle satisfy me that they are distinct individuals. Here's the timeline: 2016 - British government argues that the consent of Parliament is not needed for Britain to exit the EU. Pannick argues in the Supreme Court that it is. He wins. 2016 - British government pressures the Queen to prorogue parliament in an unprecedented act before the summer recess to prevent Britain's exit from the EU being discussed. Pannick argues in the Supreme Court this is unlawful. He wins. 2005 - British government argues that the proposed register office marriage of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles is lawful. Writing in The Times, Pannick says: It is difficult to understand how the happy couple can marry in a civil ceremony, as they intend, without causing a right royal nullity. You finish the sentence. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Look who's laying down the law [11]. 89.240.113.74 (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

IP 89.240.113.74, if you believe any editor's editing here has been "in bad faith", you are of course entitled to report it to WP:AN/I. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Formally stripped of her CBE

She has been formally stripped of her CBE, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68384240 Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

See comments at "RfC on CBE in lead" above? the article has been updated. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Role as COO of Post Office Limited

I have added mention of Vennells' role as COO of POL prior to becoming CEO. Without that piece of information, the article could be seen to suggest that she had no responsibility for the Post Office scandal prior to becoming CEO. As the developing story shows, that is clearly not the case. Yes, there is a lot more that we will learn in the near future, but for now the simple fact that she was COO for a while is notable.

The source used is a witness statement in the enquiry. This seems a good source as that fact was not challenged in the hearing. There are also other documents in the hearing that confirm the COO role. If need be, I would expect there to be a newspaper article that could be used as a source. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. But are witness statements in the enquiry regarded as WP:PRIMARY? A newspaper article would probably be preferred. When she comes to give evidence herself, Vennels may deny her responsibility at that time? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Vennells may possibly deny responsibility (not sure how – the main business system has surely got to fall under the remit of a COO – but that's OR), but she cannot deny the job title. At an absolute minimum, we have the date that she became a director of POL (Oct 2010) at[12]. Without something prior to becoming CEO it looks as though she arrived from outside the company.

I am looking for a newspaper article, but the sensation-seeking journalists do not seem to have commonly worked this one out yet. There is probably one somewhere, though.

Anyway, I thought we were allowed to use primary sources with caution? That is the reason for the article saying that it is the evidence of an enquiry witness, not just baldly stating it as a fact. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 20:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that is preferable for now. I have no real objections. Evidence is given under oath, after all. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

We have this source, The Times[13] which says that Vennells joined the Post Office as "network director" in 2007. Listening to the enquiry evidence, we learn that network director is the person in charge of the network of Post Offices. At around this time, also learnt from the enquiry hearings, we hear that the Post Office changed the terminology of their senior positions: Managing Director became CEO, for instance. It is possible, then, that "network director" transitioned into "COO" – or perhaps this was a promotion. It's hard to say. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 21:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)