Talk:Caroline Flint

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

Expense[edit]

The 'Expenses' section has two parts, one that deals with CF, one that deals with the police and CPS statement about expenses in general. Having the two together suggests linkage which is misleading.

Hence I've deleted it.

Rsloch (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a step back from the conflict between us. Discussion is the key, please talk about it in preference to reverting. As I have said , there is a public and press desire to charge these people and the statement from the police stating that no criminal offenses took place is actually a very strong encyclopediac cite very worthy of addition. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What conflict? There's none on my side. I edited the page explaining why and yet again you change it.

Let me explain, if you put the section about CF's expenses next to a section saying that the police and the CPS investigated expenses the two could be linked. Not in they way you are saying but in a way that suggests the CF's expenses were investigated.

Rsloch (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way...it is normal to add sections at the bottom of the page. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Photo[edit]

This page needs a photo to be found Matthewfelgate 22:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minister for Fitness[edit]

How can this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5277350.stm be included formally? HornetMike

Sexiest MP[edit]

She's been voted sexiest woman MP now, can someone edit this in? Lukeitfc 11:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this? --Holford 21:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/fivelive/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Flint&action=edit&section=3 Editing Talk:Caroline Flint (section) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaprogrammes/worrickerawards.shtml There we go.Lukeitfc 11:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She was voted by listeners of a Sunday programme on Radio Five Live. Though I'm inclined to agree with the plurality of those listeners on this matter, I don't really think this particular award is notable enough to include. --Holford 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "personal life" section[edit]

There's a large paragraph that's recently been added to Caroline Flint#Personal_life, which is completed uncited, and could be highly problematic given WP:BLP, and the foundation's understandable preference for not getting sued. If this is a notable matter of public record, it should be easy to supply reliable sources; if it's not, this'll have to be removed. Alai 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all true, however, It is right to have been deleted due to lack of sources. If somebody can find sources, which seems unlikely, I elieve it is relevant. Lukeitfc 19:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno how to add a citation or whatever it's called-[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/06/07/do0701.xml is the Boris Johnson column in which he reveals that Flint is behind the targetting of middle-class, middle-aged people who enjoy wine. Perhaps somebody could add this citation in who knows how to do it?

Right Honorable[edit]

Have removed "The Right Honorable" from Caroline Flint's infobox. She is NOT a member of the cabinet, she merely ATTENDS cabinet and is therefore not a member of the privy council.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1371.asp

As you can see here, even the number10 website doesn't give her the title Right Honorable.

Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expenses scandal[edit]

There seems rather a lot here on her expenses. It's not quite explained what the scandal is. Surely, if these expenses are a scandal, we should be told who says so and why. Some of these expenses seem normal, so which are the scandalous ones? Is any action being taken against her? The article doesn't tell us. qp10qp (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you that there is rather a lot and is any of it punishable? Some of them are deffinitely scandalous (as in rather greedy and excessive)but bits need removing and they need consising.Is there any question of any action? (Off2riorob (talk) here is her response [[1]] 09:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The system is plainly scandalous. But for this article to say so in respect of Flint, it needs sources that say so. And the Telegraph just lists her expenses without specifying wrongdoing. So what we have in the article is a detailed list of expenses claims under the heading "MPs' expenses scandal". I was surprised to read all this because I was watching Question Time when she was on and came here to look her up. They were discussing expenses claims and none of this came up in the programme. I'll wait for other comments before trimming it and balancing with her response. As far as I know, she is not one of the MPs being investigated. She doesn't make it onto Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament or List of notable expenses claims by Members of the United Kingdom Parliament.qp10qp (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
cool, she is attractive and I was surprised to see how old she was. I reckon a general comment would be enough and her reply . (Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

best looking MP[edit]

I think that considering her complaint that she has been considered as window dressing that it is not really suitable .. especially not in the lede. The cite is not very strong and the competion was a bit non official... so I think it should go... (Off2riorob (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

On consideration, I agree should not be in lead. In fact, I agree it's not required altogether.
Just went to change it, and someone else has just removed it.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too right. I've removed the "sexiest" MP crap, which was sourced to newspaper and television blogs. qp10qp (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict..
Well said. I especially liked this..."unencyclopedic gossipy blog fluff". (Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
(I'm starting to feel that you and me are like the women knitting at the foot of the guillotine. Had no inkling Flint was about to resign!) qp10qp (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps we are! But it feels Ok. I would have promoted Flint, She may well come back to bite him. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Unfortunately, the game is almost up for the lot of them, and I doubt Flint will see office again. As someone put it on the news, it's a choice between getting rid of Brown and dying a sudden death or keeping him and dying a lingering one. I don't say this with pleasure, having been one of those who sat up all night in 97 on the bubbly. qp10qp (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They come and go...and nothing much changes...(Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Never sought to make personal gains from public funds[edit]

Flint is quoted in the article as saying that she "...never sought to make personal gains from public funds" yet it is obvious that each claim benefits the claimant, if paid. Someone had to pay the solicitor and if not the government purse, then probably her own. Surely the very act of putting in a claim is evidence that the claimant wishes to benefit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting every press comment about one incident.[edit]

Insisting on inserting every days press comments over one incident like her resignation is nothing less than POV pushing. It adds nothing to her bio at all , we don't work for the press to be constantly spreading their POV. (Off2riorob (talk))

The Observer reference of 7 June is a response to the Daily Mail piece already cited, and therefore valid on the grounds of balance. I cut the repetition of her comments on Friday though. Her interview as a new housing minister in February 2008 are the only indication in the article of where Flint was coming from politically in that job, and caused a minor stink at the time, more so than the Gibraltar incident. Off2riorob's edit was reversed consequentially. It is unfortunate for reasons of personal neutrality, having deleted a second Mail citation a day or two ago, that another paper is not cited in place of The Observer/Guardian, but these are 'primary' sources. Philip Cross (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit[edit]

'Just dropped by and gave this a gentle copy edit. 'Nothing too major; mostly toning-down some (possibly not deliberate) POV-pushing around the subject's policy activities while a Minister. As always, 'happy to discuss. John Snow II (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Caroline Flint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Caroline_Flint&oldid=1211141311"