08:2208:22, 16 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
So have you (and not for the first time by all accounts), so I don't think you're in any position to judge!
07:2207:22, 16 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
Actually, it is relevant to the article, as it has big implications for Whiteley; the Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct applies in this case.
08:2608:26, 15 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
Not entirely sure why you keep undoing - the links are quite clear that this is factual information. Are you related?
07:1607:16, 15 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
It's local public interest, so very relevant. As to whether it's "proven", that's not in question at present.
08:2208:22, 16 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
So have you (and not for the first time by all accounts), so I don't think you're in any position to judge!
07:2207:22, 16 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
Actually, it is relevant to the article, as it has big implications for Whiteley; the Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct applies in this case.
08:2608:26, 15 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
Not entirely sure why you keep undoing - the links are quite clear that this is factual information. Are you related?
07:1607:16, 15 September 2008diffhist+719
Whiteley
It's local public interest, so very relevant. As to whether it's "proven", that's not in question at present.