This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Presntly there's a "See Also" to David Abrahams at the end. Should there be a reference to him and his donations in the introduction, to put Cash for Honours in the context of other stories on Labour funding? On the pro side, there's a suggestion that Abrahams received planning permission after donating (so there's a similar whiff of corruption) and it shows Labour's continuing difficulties with funding. On the anti side I'd imagine that putting the two issues in the same context could be considered WP:POV as it suggests that the reader is invited to see a pattern of dodgy dealing (of course the press has already done that, but WP's standards are so much higher, aren't they? TrulyBlue ( talk) 09:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What happened with the Green Party was that the invitation to nominate one working peer was sent to Hugo Charlton, who sent it back with the name "Hugo Charlton" on it as a potential peerage recipient, without having consulted any colleagues. When the other senior members found out, they threw Charlton out and said that they would not be nominating anyone because of their dislike for the current set-up of the House of Lords. David | Talk 10:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The role "Treasurer of the Labour Party" seems rather ill-defined. Legally, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Treasurer is Peter Watt (the General Secretary of the Labour Party), not Jack Dromey; see the Electoral Comission register entry for the Labour Party. But on the Labour website Jack Dromey is called the "Treasurer" [3]. In their accounts the Labour Party call Jack Dromey the "Party Treasurer", and Matt Carter (General Secretary at that time) the "Registered Treasurer". Looks to me that Matt Carter/Peter Watt was/is the real Treasurer, and Jack Dromey really just has a honourary role. Does anyone have a clear understanding of this, worth putting in this article? (And I wonder if Matt Carter's resignation so soon after the election, with less than 2 years in post, has anything to do with this scandal?) Rwendland 11:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems confusing I agree. Dromey seems to be the National Executive Committee's elected man. This helps only a little [4]
-- leaky_caldron 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The title is currently "Cash for peerages"; this is unsuitable in two ways - firstly, as the article notes, because the term has been used for other occasions and allegations of such corruption, yet this article is exclusively about the current matter; secondly, because it's "Peerages" - it should be capitalised. I would suggest "Cash for Peerages affair, 2006", perhaps; thoughts?
James F. (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it in fact a scandal or POV?
“Cash for Peerages” has already become a generally accepted idiom, it’s surely now beyond POV. Even if no malfeasance is proven, the whiff of scandal will forever remain. It would be reasonable to expect it to be referred to in the future as the “Cash for Peerages” scandal, in the same way that “cash for questions” is still referred to more than 10 years later.
The debate over whether it should be “Peerages for cash” is, IMO, semantic. We do not know who said what to whom and in what order. Speculating that someone approached wealthy potential donors suggesting a donation/loan would result in the subsequent awarding of an honour at a future date would imply cash (first) for honours (later). Peerages for cash could imply “give me the peerage (first) and I’ll give you the cash (later)”.
Second, because it’s become vernacular, far more engine search results arise from c-for-p than for p-for-c.
On the point about it having been used before - not in Wiki it hasn't, plus care was taken to mention the earlier incidents - so it is not totally exclusive to the 2006 affair.
On balance, and unless there are dramatic headlines in the next few weeks, I agree with farsee50 that the intro. should be enhanced but the title left as is. Is anyone still unconvinced?-- leaky_caldron 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The first citation does not confirm the preceeding statement, i.e. that several potential nominees for peerages were rejected by an independent body because they had donated large amounts of money. The decisions are secret, which is exactly why Patel got so worked up.
The existing background was originally very inadequate for a publication that describes itself as an encyclopedia. It made it appear that MacNeill was the only complainant. This is factually incorrect. MacNeill was the only one that called a press conference, which is why he stuck in everyone's mind. In fact Scotland Yard announced that there had been three complaints. Later the same day it was revealed that one had been made by MacNeill, one by the then leader of Plaid Cymru, and one by an individual who remains unidentified to this day. See http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/07/20/uk-britain-honours-chronology-idUKL2025030320070720?src=072007_0816_TOPSTORY_no_charges_in_cash_for_honours_probe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.63.182 ( talk) 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
While (perhaps mindful of libel laws) no suggestion has been that the donations were directly connected to the nominations of the donors for peerages, the incident was nevertheless referred to the Police as a breach of the law against selling honours[2].
For these reasons I have removed these 2 sentences. It also gets rid of deprecated references in the intro-- leaky_caldron 10:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The facts are these: you first sentence is plain wrong - the cited article doesn't say what you claim to be the case. No one has said why these lenders were rejected for honours - where are you getting that from? The background is far superior and is the next section - so it’s hardly "deep" into the article.
second: While (perhaps mindful of libel laws) no suggestion has been that the donations were directly connected to the nominations of the donors for peerages, the incident was nevertheless referred to the Police as a breach of the law against selling honours[2].
This is a FORTY word sentence - how can a reader unfamiliar with the subject get a quick understanding of that? The subject matter is also covered in a separate section.
I refuse to get into reverting wars with you. I hope other readers of this article will note the lack of co-operation and the single-minded attitude you have demonstrated and will amend the wordy and inaccurate intro you have drafted. leaky_caldron 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Dbiv asked "can I go into HIGNFY mode and add an 'allegedly'? da Lord Levy" after changing "at the solicitation of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy." to "apparently at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy",part of his recent edit [5].
As it's been published in UK newspaper The Independent that it was Lord Levy [6] (which is itself referenced in the article), I don't think we need the wolly wording as he's suggested. Thoughts? -- Oscarthecat 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)== John Prescott ==
Amidst all this sleaze in the Labour Party, there's been another allegation, involving troubles with planning permission. Appears that £200k was given to the Labour Party to "grease the wheels" in getting some troublesome office-block planning permission approved. [7] -- Oscarthecat 21:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph on Dromey's tour of TV studios announcing his inquiry using a non-online source (Tribune 2006/3/24 p5). To make verification easier, here's the whole paragraph I'm using as source, from an article by Tribune's Deputy Editor, Barckley Sumner:
This is the first really plausible explanation of Dromey's sudden actions I've seen, and Tribune being trade union owned and with a small part in the story, is in a good position to have accurate information. Without Dromey's announcement that evening I think this political scandal would have played out differently. Hence why I think it is notable. Rwendland 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about this?
The WP Baronetcy article states that James I (King of England and Scotland from 1603 to 1625) used the award of Baronetcies specifically to attract revenue to his Treasury. This Cash for Peerages article implies the practice started in the 19th C:
Historically, hereditary peerages were awarded to members of the landowning aristocracy and royal favourites. In the late 19th century, peerages began to be awarded to industrialists with increasing frequency
(I know Baronetcies are not regarded as Peerages) === Vernon White (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we get something in about Blair burying related news by releasing it the same day as Princess Diana stuff? It's outside my competency, especially this evening after a lot of red wine. But here's a helpful search result Google search showing the issue. -- bodnotbod 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If I donated, or let's just say 'lent', some money to wikimedia, could I be promoted to the notability and have a flattering article written about me?
The exact dates of the interviews of John McTernan and Jack McConnell have not been published, but as key figures in the Scottish Labour Party, where do we mention them in the article?
-- Mais oui! 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Who thinks this [10] should be mentioned in this article. I saw the original interview on Channel 4 and i think its notable accusation. Hypnosadist 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've dropped in a new section now the file on the investigation has been sent to the CPS. I've also updated the timeleine - please help expand. Now the file has been submitted, I feel it deserves its own heading/section as this is a significant development and can be added to as more information emerges. Regards. Escaper7 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely the verb is to lend, not to loan? I know the BBC tends to use loan as a verb in this context, but I always considered it a clumsy back-formation from the noun.
The American Heritage Dictionary says
so maybe I'm just a British critic labelling this usage an Americanism. I don't have access to a British dictionary currently. Interested in anyone's thoughts. 194.74.200.66 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The current final paragraph is detailed on the Goldsmith memo injunction, which I feel is a side-issue to the new perverting-the-course-of-justice direction of the enquiry. It looks like it was put there shortly after the event and has been left. May I suggest something along the lines of:
194.74.200.66 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The CPS calls this the so called "Cash for Honours" investigation, [11] [12] and "Cash for honours" seems a much more popular name in the media. Should we therefore rename? If so, "Cash for Honours" or "Cash for honours"? Rwendland 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian headline for Friday was no one to face charges in "Cash for Honors" inquiry and I was surprised that when one searched for that on Wiki nothing came up rej4sl July 20
Why do we have this sidebar? Normally templates should only be used on articles that are included in the template. I think that it clutters the page. TerriersFan 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of accuracy, Angus McNeil was not the sole complainant, even though reports frequently give the impression that he was. The Metropolitan Police announced that it had received three complaints, one from McNeill and one from Elfyn Llwyd of Plaid Cymry. The third complainant remains unidentified.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/nhons28.xml
And entries for March 21:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1011/1011754_cashforhonours_factfile.html
86.143.150.79 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do editors keep resisting the inclusion of the Guenonian-traditionalist critique of modern politics, as this subject is a prime confirmatory instance of the radical-traditionalist thesis on the reign of quantity over quality in modernity. Prince Charles, an adherent of Guenonian spiritual elitism himself, certainly understands these supra-economic problems which go beyond mere administrative corruption and point to corruption of the soul:
http://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/traditionalists-by-appointment-to-hrh.html
Nobility, in its highest spiritual and knightly sense, clearly has lost all meaning today when dignities are allowed to baseminded profiteers, usurers, dionysian popular idols and anti-Christian sodomites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.77.165 ( talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The above section fails to cite any sources. If someone with knowledge on this topic could please add references to support the statements made. If references can't be founf then the section should be removed. Thanks Biggleswiki ( talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Cash for Honours. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Presntly there's a "See Also" to David Abrahams at the end. Should there be a reference to him and his donations in the introduction, to put Cash for Honours in the context of other stories on Labour funding? On the pro side, there's a suggestion that Abrahams received planning permission after donating (so there's a similar whiff of corruption) and it shows Labour's continuing difficulties with funding. On the anti side I'd imagine that putting the two issues in the same context could be considered WP:POV as it suggests that the reader is invited to see a pattern of dodgy dealing (of course the press has already done that, but WP's standards are so much higher, aren't they? TrulyBlue ( talk) 09:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
What happened with the Green Party was that the invitation to nominate one working peer was sent to Hugo Charlton, who sent it back with the name "Hugo Charlton" on it as a potential peerage recipient, without having consulted any colleagues. When the other senior members found out, they threw Charlton out and said that they would not be nominating anyone because of their dislike for the current set-up of the House of Lords. David | Talk 10:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The role "Treasurer of the Labour Party" seems rather ill-defined. Legally, under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Treasurer is Peter Watt (the General Secretary of the Labour Party), not Jack Dromey; see the Electoral Comission register entry for the Labour Party. But on the Labour website Jack Dromey is called the "Treasurer" [3]. In their accounts the Labour Party call Jack Dromey the "Party Treasurer", and Matt Carter (General Secretary at that time) the "Registered Treasurer". Looks to me that Matt Carter/Peter Watt was/is the real Treasurer, and Jack Dromey really just has a honourary role. Does anyone have a clear understanding of this, worth putting in this article? (And I wonder if Matt Carter's resignation so soon after the election, with less than 2 years in post, has anything to do with this scandal?) Rwendland 11:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Seems confusing I agree. Dromey seems to be the National Executive Committee's elected man. This helps only a little [4]
-- leaky_caldron 11:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The title is currently "Cash for peerages"; this is unsuitable in two ways - firstly, as the article notes, because the term has been used for other occasions and allegations of such corruption, yet this article is exclusively about the current matter; secondly, because it's "Peerages" - it should be capitalised. I would suggest "Cash for Peerages affair, 2006", perhaps; thoughts?
James F. (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it in fact a scandal or POV?
“Cash for Peerages” has already become a generally accepted idiom, it’s surely now beyond POV. Even if no malfeasance is proven, the whiff of scandal will forever remain. It would be reasonable to expect it to be referred to in the future as the “Cash for Peerages” scandal, in the same way that “cash for questions” is still referred to more than 10 years later.
The debate over whether it should be “Peerages for cash” is, IMO, semantic. We do not know who said what to whom and in what order. Speculating that someone approached wealthy potential donors suggesting a donation/loan would result in the subsequent awarding of an honour at a future date would imply cash (first) for honours (later). Peerages for cash could imply “give me the peerage (first) and I’ll give you the cash (later)”.
Second, because it’s become vernacular, far more engine search results arise from c-for-p than for p-for-c.
On the point about it having been used before - not in Wiki it hasn't, plus care was taken to mention the earlier incidents - so it is not totally exclusive to the 2006 affair.
On balance, and unless there are dramatic headlines in the next few weeks, I agree with farsee50 that the intro. should be enhanced but the title left as is. Is anyone still unconvinced?-- leaky_caldron 20:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The first citation does not confirm the preceeding statement, i.e. that several potential nominees for peerages were rejected by an independent body because they had donated large amounts of money. The decisions are secret, which is exactly why Patel got so worked up.
The existing background was originally very inadequate for a publication that describes itself as an encyclopedia. It made it appear that MacNeill was the only complainant. This is factually incorrect. MacNeill was the only one that called a press conference, which is why he stuck in everyone's mind. In fact Scotland Yard announced that there had been three complaints. Later the same day it was revealed that one had been made by MacNeill, one by the then leader of Plaid Cymru, and one by an individual who remains unidentified to this day. See http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/07/20/uk-britain-honours-chronology-idUKL2025030320070720?src=072007_0816_TOPSTORY_no_charges_in_cash_for_honours_probe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.63.182 ( talk) 20:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
While (perhaps mindful of libel laws) no suggestion has been that the donations were directly connected to the nominations of the donors for peerages, the incident was nevertheless referred to the Police as a breach of the law against selling honours[2].
For these reasons I have removed these 2 sentences. It also gets rid of deprecated references in the intro-- leaky_caldron 10:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The facts are these: you first sentence is plain wrong - the cited article doesn't say what you claim to be the case. No one has said why these lenders were rejected for honours - where are you getting that from? The background is far superior and is the next section - so it’s hardly "deep" into the article.
second: While (perhaps mindful of libel laws) no suggestion has been that the donations were directly connected to the nominations of the donors for peerages, the incident was nevertheless referred to the Police as a breach of the law against selling honours[2].
This is a FORTY word sentence - how can a reader unfamiliar with the subject get a quick understanding of that? The subject matter is also covered in a separate section.
I refuse to get into reverting wars with you. I hope other readers of this article will note the lack of co-operation and the single-minded attitude you have demonstrated and will amend the wordy and inaccurate intro you have drafted. leaky_caldron 13:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Dbiv asked "can I go into HIGNFY mode and add an 'allegedly'? da Lord Levy" after changing "at the solicitation of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy." to "apparently at the suggestion of Labour fundraiser Lord Levy",part of his recent edit [5].
As it's been published in UK newspaper The Independent that it was Lord Levy [6] (which is itself referenced in the article), I don't think we need the wolly wording as he's suggested. Thoughts? -- Oscarthecat 21:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)== John Prescott ==
Amidst all this sleaze in the Labour Party, there's been another allegation, involving troubles with planning permission. Appears that £200k was given to the Labour Party to "grease the wheels" in getting some troublesome office-block planning permission approved. [7] -- Oscarthecat 21:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a paragraph on Dromey's tour of TV studios announcing his inquiry using a non-online source (Tribune 2006/3/24 p5). To make verification easier, here's the whole paragraph I'm using as source, from an article by Tribune's Deputy Editor, Barckley Sumner:
This is the first really plausible explanation of Dromey's sudden actions I've seen, and Tribune being trade union owned and with a small part in the story, is in a good position to have accurate information. Without Dromey's announcement that evening I think this political scandal would have played out differently. Hence why I think it is notable. Rwendland 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something about this?
The WP Baronetcy article states that James I (King of England and Scotland from 1603 to 1625) used the award of Baronetcies specifically to attract revenue to his Treasury. This Cash for Peerages article implies the practice started in the 19th C:
Historically, hereditary peerages were awarded to members of the landowning aristocracy and royal favourites. In the late 19th century, peerages began to be awarded to industrialists with increasing frequency
(I know Baronetcies are not regarded as Peerages) === Vernon White (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we get something in about Blair burying related news by releasing it the same day as Princess Diana stuff? It's outside my competency, especially this evening after a lot of red wine. But here's a helpful search result Google search showing the issue. -- bodnotbod 21:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
If I donated, or let's just say 'lent', some money to wikimedia, could I be promoted to the notability and have a flattering article written about me?
The exact dates of the interviews of John McTernan and Jack McConnell have not been published, but as key figures in the Scottish Labour Party, where do we mention them in the article?
-- Mais oui! 01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Who thinks this [10] should be mentioned in this article. I saw the original interview on Channel 4 and i think its notable accusation. Hypnosadist 13:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've dropped in a new section now the file on the investigation has been sent to the CPS. I've also updated the timeleine - please help expand. Now the file has been submitted, I feel it deserves its own heading/section as this is a significant development and can be added to as more information emerges. Regards. Escaper7 14:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Surely the verb is to lend, not to loan? I know the BBC tends to use loan as a verb in this context, but I always considered it a clumsy back-formation from the noun.
The American Heritage Dictionary says
so maybe I'm just a British critic labelling this usage an Americanism. I don't have access to a British dictionary currently. Interested in anyone's thoughts. 194.74.200.66 15:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The current final paragraph is detailed on the Goldsmith memo injunction, which I feel is a side-issue to the new perverting-the-course-of-justice direction of the enquiry. It looks like it was put there shortly after the event and has been left. May I suggest something along the lines of:
194.74.200.66 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The CPS calls this the so called "Cash for Honours" investigation, [11] [12] and "Cash for honours" seems a much more popular name in the media. Should we therefore rename? If so, "Cash for Honours" or "Cash for honours"? Rwendland 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian headline for Friday was no one to face charges in "Cash for Honors" inquiry and I was surprised that when one searched for that on Wiki nothing came up rej4sl July 20
Why do we have this sidebar? Normally templates should only be used on articles that are included in the template. I think that it clutters the page. TerriersFan 13:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of accuracy, Angus McNeil was not the sole complainant, even though reports frequently give the impression that he was. The Metropolitan Police announced that it had received three complaints, one from McNeill and one from Elfyn Llwyd of Plaid Cymry. The third complainant remains unidentified.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/28/nhons28.xml
And entries for March 21:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1011/1011754_cashforhonours_factfile.html
86.143.150.79 00:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Why do editors keep resisting the inclusion of the Guenonian-traditionalist critique of modern politics, as this subject is a prime confirmatory instance of the radical-traditionalist thesis on the reign of quantity over quality in modernity. Prince Charles, an adherent of Guenonian spiritual elitism himself, certainly understands these supra-economic problems which go beyond mere administrative corruption and point to corruption of the soul:
http://traditionalistblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/traditionalists-by-appointment-to-hrh.html
Nobility, in its highest spiritual and knightly sense, clearly has lost all meaning today when dignities are allowed to baseminded profiteers, usurers, dionysian popular idols and anti-Christian sodomites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.77.165 ( talk) 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The above section fails to cite any sources. If someone with knowledge on this topic could please add references to support the statements made. If references can't be founf then the section should be removed. Thanks Biggleswiki ( talk) 14:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Cash for Honours. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)