Talk:United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal/Archive 1

Archive 1

Creating article

Hello anyone who might look at this. Apologies for the look of the article at the moment. I'm not too used to creating articles from scratch. I've provided some basic references, but please dive in and help the article. It's going to be majorly in the news over the next few days, so new material will be coming out all the time. I've put the bare bones of a structure in but please expand/amend at will! Quantpole (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC) By the way, I'm not sure what the best title is for this at the moment, so I will also create some redirect pages. Quantpole (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of Abbreviations

My last edit removed some abbreviations from the article such as:

• FOI (Freedom of Information Act 2000)
• HoCA (House of Commons Authorities). Replaced with Commons Authorities

The reasoning behind that is:

• these may not be clear to users outside the U.K.
• they may not be helpful to those in Britain who do not understand or regularly use the abbreviations
• even those, like me, who understand the British system fairly well do not automatically get these abbreviations. I take especial dislike to HoCA as this is not an official abbreviation, nor an official body and not easy to understand.

aldibibable (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use the defined term the first time then use the abbreviation thereafter, viz Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOI"). That's fairly standard practice. – ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That is how the article originally stood, however when referring to things so frequently and using non-standard abbreviations in one section only, it does not seem like the best way to make the information accessible to readers. aldibibable (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Spelman

Does the rather poor picture in this section add anything to the article? Tonywalton ^Talk 02:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No.—Teahot (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed ^Khukri 08:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

High court case

I put this in: Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner [2008] EWHC 1084 (Admin) ... and someone deleted it. It's the case that led to the disclosure. I'll put it in a footnote, but I think that people would like to have it in the text, so consider putting it back. Wikidea 21:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Autoarchive

I'll set up autoarchiving as an option for this talk page. Considering the rate so far, how about setting it for 14 days (so any topic with no new comments added gets archived to an archive page after two weeks)? It can always be tweaked later.—Teahot (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Distinguish between "allowances" and "expenses"

The article needs to draw a distinction between reimbursable expenses and allowances. They are not the same. See [1].

== Also: "table" is ambiguous in U.S. -- was the motion put on the table for action or "tabled" to delay action? <<In January 2009, the Leader of the House of Commons, Harriet Harman, tabled a motion which would exempt members' expenses from the FoI, preventing any further disclosure of information.[9] >>

I have added a link to term 'table' on Wikipedia and its section on the use in the British parliament. Hope this helps. aldibibable (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

British Vernacular

I realize that this article is fairly new and concerns only Britain, but as an american, I have trouble sometimes understanding some phrases, I have to do a double take, so to speak, before I get the full meaning. Perhaps some American editors could comb over the article and smooth over some of the more confusing parts? fultron89 71.56.197.218 (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As an expat Brit (user name is a giveaway, right?) living in the US, I have a foot in both camps so to speak, so I would be happy to work on this. Any chance of a few examples? – ukexpat (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah could you be more specific? Obviously the article should be as clear as possible but at the same time it shouldn't be overloaded with background information, that's what links are for. --Joey Roe (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a fair deal of inside baseball; but its to be expected. Finance scandels are rather term ladden. --PigFlu Oink (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

What it doesn't seem to do is explain what the "Additional Costs Allowance", aka "Second Home Allowance" actually is. This would seem to me to be a bit essential. I can't find articles under those names; before I try to put a section together (a few lines) are there any articles anyone knows about that could be wikilinked here? Tonywalton ^Talk 01:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

[2] 91.106.31.71 (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm. I meant a link inside WP. I'll throw together an article in my userspace and ask for comments. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

MP's by expenses to payback

Any objection to including a summary table of paybacks? Probably more meaningful than a table of total expenses claimed, as these are in effect expenses admitted to be wrongly claimed. Example:

MP's by agreed expenses to payback

Name	Payback (£)
Hogg	2,200
Malik	1,050
Morley	16,000

—Teahot (talk) 11:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be a good addition to the article. Spiritofsussex (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

So do I. Even better if its possible to split the payback vs type of claim (spurious furnishings vs wrong second home vs CGT vs excessive food etc.) Some of these are more serious misdemeanours/ mistakes than others. Ideally the table should show all illegitimate claims, not just what has been paid back - but that would be very subjective. Who is to decide between the legitimate and illegitimate. Presumably, in the end, an enquiry will have to do exactly that. And then we'll get the answer.

Added the table but kept it simple. By only adding the amounts that the MP has publicly agreed to pay back, this limits the table to the most meaningful figure, i.e. the amount that the MP believes they would have a hard time justifying to their constituency. Note, left it without automatic sorting as this does not seem to sort numbers properly.—Teahot(talk) 13:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

NB Shahid Malik is not making a repayment but a donation to charity - he claimed that a repayment would be an acknowledgement that he had acted incorrectly.

The issue of repayment/'paid back' is further complicated by Hazel Blears, who is claiming to be sending a cheque to HM Revenue and Customs for unpaid capital gains tax - she is not repaying any sum to the Parliamentary authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.109.157 (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

And that is further complicated by the reported fact that any sum sent by her to HMRC would merely be held as a credit against future tax payments unless/until she submitted a revised tax return. I think a "payback" table is fraught with issues. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The table is a straight forward summary list of members who have said they would pay money back (it does not say where). The details are in the text of the article or in the original sources provided next to each figure. If there are issues then these should be discussed in the text and if the pay back figure is that complex then something can also be said in the footnote that relates to it in addition to referring to an original source. I don't think it's necessary to start duplicating the discussion later in the article in each table cell.—Teahot (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, although it could do with some sort of miniature "current event - this is may change rapidly" tag ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 23:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Suspension of peers

This: and the suspension of peers from the House of Lords for the first time in over 350 years. seems to have nothing directly to do with the MPs' expenses thing. It certainly points to something being rotten in the state of Denmark the UK Parliament, but is a separate issue. I propose deleting it. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Cash for Influence leaky_caldron (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Table of offenders

As the full details emerge - both through the Telegraph and subsequently, wonder if it will be possible to create a table listing the major types of abuse (I have kicked this off by adding 11 definitions of types of abuse the Telegraph has already identified) along with the names of MPs who have exploited them. At the moment, because the information is so new, much of it is on a 'case by case' i.e. MP by MP. But its clearly systemic - would be nice to see it in overview —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.202.54 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious at how much more time and money will be spent to shame back say ₤40. 98.113.199.242 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong place?

I couldn't help but notice that Eliot Morley and Shahid Malik are in the "Pre-publication controversies" section, even though the revelations about them came as a result of the publications by the Telegraph. Perhaps the paragraphs about them should be moved into the "Newspaper disclosure of information" section? 86.149.48.167 (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Moved. 217.44.208.218 (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Now Malik is in twice. Lots of MPs are missing. CottonGrass (talk) 11:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are Morley and Malik listed twice? They are listed with the other MPs, and then have their own paragraphs. (Esp as Malik appears not to be one of the worst offenders). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reasons why individual sections have been created for some MPs from section 3.10 (entitled 'Elliot Morley') down to 3.17 - would it not be simplier and ease understanding if all MPs were put under their party like Labour, Con Frontbench, Con Backbench as they have been previously? Spiritofsussex (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. CottonGrass (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that support for separate sections, or a yes in support of including such information in the existing lists? Apologies for asking, I just want to make sure that nobody objects before I start changing the article. Spiritofsussex (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should be written as if it will be intact in two years time. The dates of revelation are irrelevant. The names should be sorted by party. CottonGrass (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I noted above, I also do not understand why Morley and Malik are listed twice - one in the list of MPs and then in separate paras - and why Chaytor is listed in a separate para rather than with the other MPs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.84.248.99 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have moved them. Different MPs now have very diiferent amounts of text about them which is probably a breach of WP:UNDUE. Text should be removed to the MP's own article. CottonGrass (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody clarify this comment if they have more detail: "David Maclean who introduced the 2007 Bill", i.e. what Bill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.109.29 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper disclosures/Telegraph revelations

This section was originally titled something along the lines of 'Daily Telegraph revelations' - it has since been given the title 'Newspaper disclosure of revelations' which is disingenuous. No other newspaper has this story; it is solely the Telegraph's. And, contrary to one comment, it is not 'advertising' to state this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.109.29 (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Responce

I responce to- "(cur) (prev) 15:30, 19 May 2009 TreasuryTag (talk | contribs) m (92,438 bytes) (What sort of person would be an expert on news coverage of British MPs' expenses claims?) (undo)" on the history of this page; would say- a master frauster like the Aussies Ian Foster (con-man) or Kit Miller (con-man)!--86.29.250.70 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Categorising the "honourable" Members

It seems to me that a Category is required into which all the named and allegedly honourable members shoudl be placed.

Because renaming of categories is a painful process we might wish to get this right at the start. It should be a sub category of Category:Political scandals in the United Kingdom. For discussion I suggest Category:Implicated in 2009 British Parliamentary Expenses Scandal. Obviously while it remains redlinked it has not been created. My purpose is to get the name right before applying it.

It may be that a further sub-category is needed later to categorise those implicated but exonerated, assuming that any do not have their snouts in the trough or fingers in the till. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I left it a while. No adverse comments have been received so I have created the category and started to populate it. I have added it to 50 MPs mentioned in this article, but have not added any others form other sources.

Also I had computer problems so I may have missed one or two. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I and others have now enetred some 73 MPs into this category. At the same time it has been proposed for deletion here. It seems to me that the proposer for deletion has raised some valid points which require discussion and I commend that discussion to those interested. Reaching a conclusion woudl be useful. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume it will be deleted. First should somebody not add the new names here? CottonGrass (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

←The names as it stood just now are below for consideration for the article Please forgive the format. This is a "temporary note" for consideration for the article or another simple list article, and has been produced by copy and paste.:

A

   * Michael Ancram
   * James Arbuthnot
   * John Austin (politician)

B

   * Ed Balls
   * Gregory Barker
   * Margaret Beckett
   * Hazel Blears
   * Ben Bradshaw
   * Gordon Brown
   * Andrew Burnham

C

   * Menzies Campbell
   * Ronnie Campbell
   * Ben Chapman (politician)
   * David Chaytor
   * Nick Clegg
   * David Clelland
   * Harry Cohen
   * Yvette Cooper

D

   * Tam Dalyell
   * Alistair Darling
   * David Davis (British politician)
   * Pat Doherty
   * Alan Duncan

E

   * Maria Eagle

F

   * Caroline Flint

F cont.

   * Barbara Follett

G

   * Andrew George (politician)
   * Michelle Gildernew
   * Cheryl Gillan
   * Julia Goldsworthy
   * Michael Gove
   * Chris Grayling
   * John Gummer

H

   * Mike Hall (politician)
   * Fabian Hamilton
   * David Heathcoat-Amory
   * Douglas Hogg
   * Geoff Hoon
   * Phil Hope
   * Chris Huhne

J

   * Stewart Jackson

K

   * Gerald Kaufman
   * Alan Keen
   * Ann Keen
   * Ruth Kelly  —Preceding unsigned comment added by CottonGrass (talk • contribs) 21:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 
   * Fraser Kemp
   * Julie Kirkbride

L

   * Andrew Lansley
   * Oliver Letwin

M

   * Ian McCartney
   * Martin McGuinness
   * Andrew MacKay

M cont.

   * David Maclean
   * Tony McNulty
   * Shahid Malik
   * Peter Mandelson
   * Michael Martin (politician)
   * Francis Maude
   * David Miliband
   * Madeleine Moon
   * Margaret Moran
   * Elliot Morley
   * Conor Murphy

O

   * Lembit Öpik

P

   * Eric Pickles
   * John Prescott

R

   * Iris Robinson
   * Peter Robinson (politician)

S

   * Jim Sheridan (politician)
   * Jacqui Smith
   * Michael Spicer
   * Jack Straw

T

   * Glenys Thornton, Baroness Thornton

V

   * Keith Vaz

W

   * David Willetts
   * Shaun Woodward
   * Phil Woolas

Y

   * Richard Younger-Ross

In due time consideration can and should be given to which, if any, should form part of this or another article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed unclear information

I removed the following for incoherence:

• A YouGov poll published in The Sun newspaper on 15 May 2009 found that 2% of those polled thought that "MPs are “reasonably honest” and that “few, if any, have not been deliberately abusing the allowances system”".

The problem originates in the source, where it says: "A tiny two per cent say MPs are 'reasonably honest' and that 'few, if any, have not been deliberately abusing the allowances system'". I presume this is intended to mean that 98% say that “few, if any, have not been deliberately abusing the allowances system”. qp10qp (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's likely some had no opinion/no answer and there were a range of options, e.g. extremely dishonest, neither honest or dishonest Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Fry

Why is this notable? Fry isn't an expert in this field. I think it should be removed. Robertcornell68 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, a celeb quote created to enliven newspaper articles by someone not actually involved must be considered recentism.—Teahot (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Robertcornell68. Not only is this not notable, but including it under 'Public response' seems inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.125.1 (talk) 08:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it but I don't usually do editing anymore. Robertcornell68 (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Prejudicial transcription of Margaret Moran

It is standard journalistic practice not to include hesitations or false starts when quoting people speaking without notes. So I have to ask why Margaret Moran is being quoted as saying "Well, I... I... I..." (etc.) This seems a deliberate ploy to portray her as inarticulate or incoherent. Any objection to cutting the quotation down to the actual sentence spoken? --Tdent (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This sort of statement should be removed on WP:BLP grounds as it is not attributable to the sources. The quote should really be trimmed down to "proper family life" as that is what the source says. Martin451 (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done - Chrism would like to hear from you 21:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Title

I think the "Disclosure of" part of the title is incorrect. The first sentence reads "The disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament is an ongoing political scandal..." I think the expenses themselves are the the scandal, not the disclosure of them. Reywas92^Talk 01:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article covers the Freedom of Information and legal proceeding regarding the releasing of the information so the "Disclosure of" part of the title covers that aspect of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the first sentence needs to be rewritten then. The disclosure is not the scandal, the expenses are. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Reywas92 - the first line implies that the disclosure is the scandal/controversy - when it is the expenses themselves. This further calls into question the title of this article, as discussed at length above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "In the United Kingdom a political scandal is going on following the disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament."? --Maarten1963 (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed. Reywas92^Talk 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Steen

So where does Anthony Steen's 'vigorous' defence of the system and his place in it fit in? [3][4][5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelzdking (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Maximum annual amount?

Is there a reference for the maximum total possible amount of expenses? I can't find it in the 'Green Book' document, for example. It seems to be in the region of £20,000 and would be a relevant fact. --Tdent (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

23,083 [6] (costs staying away from home. Martin451 (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists of MPs

Is there a list of MPs who are not presently known to have put their snouts too deeply in the trough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

• [7]
• [8]
• [9] CottonGrass (talk) 04:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you after a list of people who are positively confirmed not to have done so, or those where it's not yet been shown they have? The former requires they got checked and are clear, the latter might mean they haven't been checked yet. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dorries silenced

Further to the current information about Nadine Dorries, it should be noted that her blog, in which she accused the Barclay brothers (proprietors of the Telegraph) of engaging in a deliberate campaign to destabilise the main UK parties, has been shut down as a result of legal threats. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/23/dorries-tory-mp-blog-taken-down cache of blog 87.194.131.188 (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title

As the article title has been moved a few times over the past few days I thought I would ope na discussion to see what should be the best one going forward.

Firstly can we have your (sensilbe) suggestions and a quick policy based reason as to why that should be the title and then we can move onto some kind of !vote to gain concensus. I'll start it off with the most recent two -

Sorry VK, I know you want just suggestions for the time being, but I just wanted to put in a quick thought to inform the thinking. When I started the article, my intention was to cover the saga over the last few years, and not just be tied to the Telegraph reports that are coming out at the moment (as this is just a part of the situation that has developed over several years). As such this covers various different types of claims, including second homes allowances, but also paying members of the family and so on. My preference is that we carry on in that respect, but I'm not going to have ownership issues if people think otherwise. Quantpole (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people have been quoting MOS/NPOV guidelines re: row, controversy & scandal, but no-one has yet provided a link to the most relevant section of the guidelines. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal deals directly with the issue (note that, despite the appearances of the section title, it only says to avoid the words in some cases!). Hadrian89 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Suggestions to date are as follows. Struck out items appear to be rejected or unlikely to succeed compared to other options, but are retained for completeness "in case".

1. Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament - current title.
2. MP's expenses row - former title. Strongly opposed to date
3. MPs' expenses controversies - previous title. Strongly opposed to date
4. Parliamentary expenses scandal - referred to this in the press. More opposed than supported to date. Also, discussion seems to be favoring some kind of specification concerning which parliament (ie addition of "British..." such as 6 - 9)
5. Expenses row - new proposal. Strongly opposed to date
6. British Parliamentary expenses row.
7. British Parliamentary expenses controversy.
8. British Parliamentary expenses scandal.
9. British MPs expenses scandal.
10. Westminster expenses scandal. How the BBC were referring to it on the news this morning Strongly opposed to date
11. 2009 British Parliamentary expenses controversy or similar
12. 2009 British Parliamentary expenses scandal

I would suggest that whether it is a "row", "scandal", "controversy", or other term, can be decided separately and easily. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Suggestions that appear to be rejected or unlikely to succeed

2. MP's expenses row: Strong oppose: Doesn't disam for British MPs, "row" is POV and unencyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Support ; common title, and I was unaware this article existed for several days while searching for it. Sceptre (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Comment - Common title by whose definition and according to what source. Strong Oppose - Poor title that does not disambiguate from other countries, is POV and non descriptive.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - does not specify country. Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - "Row" is extremely poor tone, year/country missing. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - I don't see how this affair can be called a 'row', in that there are no real underlying arguments or opposing viewpoints. 3. MPs' expenses controversies: Strong oppose: Doesn't disam for British MPs. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose POV due to the woird controversy and does not cover the attempts to block the disclosure.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - does not specify country. Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - year/country omitted. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC) 4. Parliamentary expenses scandal: Support this, or something along these lines - perhaps with the addition of 'British' for 'British Parliamentary expenses scandal'. Spiritofsussex (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose due to the use of the word scandal, as it is POV and weaselish.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs) That's not true. According to the OED, scandal is "1 an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. 2 outrage, rumour, or gossip arising from this.". There is observable public outrage about what some regard as immoral. We don't need to "prove" the morality to call it a scandal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.202.54 (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Comment - The use of dictionary definitions is a form of WP:synthesis and is not always POV.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose: Doesn't disam for British MPs, "scandal" is POV. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Comment, have you seen that it in logged in the Category:Political scandals in the United Kingdom?--Vintagekits (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - does not specify country, scandal is POV. Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - year/country missing. No major problem with "scandal", the term is a fair representation of virtually all major points of view reported in the debate, but we tend to use "more encyclopedic words. FT2 (Talk | email) 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Weak support - think Scandal is appropriate - but the title should include the date as there may have been previous - or there may be future parliamentary expenses scandals - have proposed title #12, below. 5. Expenses row: Strong oppose - Highly ambiguous, non descriptive, POV, Newspaper style and uninformative as to the content of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - this title gives very little information, no information as to country, or even whose expenses the row is about.Spiritofsussex (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose: Completely unhelpful title. "Row" is POV and unencyclopedic. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Strong oppose - horribly imprecise. Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - As several suggestions already, "row" is bad tone, no country/year. @@@@ 10. Westminster expenses scandal: Oppose. "Westminster" is a metaphor, not necessarily understood by all. Oppose Westminster could refer to all similar types of legislature, and scandal is POV, the title also does not inform what the article is about.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC) Oppose - not specific enough (Westminster what? City? Council? Orchestra?) What year? What country (Westminster, Colorado?) FT2 (Talk | email) 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament

Very Strong Support; this title has longevity and disambiguates from MPs of other counties. The title is also factual in tat it says exactly what the article is about from a neutral point of view. This title also avoid POV words and weasel words, such as row, scandal, etc. which are incredibly newspaper.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong support, not the shortest of titles but the only proposal that is NPOV and accurate. – ukexpat (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Support Not the most concise, but certainly the clearest and most informative option, as per above, conforms with disambig and NPOV rules.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Far too dry. I understand the reasoning behind trying to avoid POV, but this doesn't adequately describe the article. It is not a common name, and is incredibly unlikely to be searched for. There's nothing wrong with calling something a 'scandal' or 'controversy' is RS have described it as such. It also ties it too closely to the daily telegraph revelations, whereas I think the article should be more about the whole saga, going back 4 years. Quantpole (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Any title which uses the words scandal or controversy or row are POV and do not follow the MOS. The current title while dry and long winded is the only proposed title which complies with the MOS NPOV and is wholly accurate. Dry is what NPOV is by definition.--Lucy-marie (talk)

You'll have to point me to that bit of MOS. It is not POV if it is a scandal, controversy etc, so long as there are reliable sources to say so. From reading MOS, the general idea seems to be to describe the situation effectively, using common names where possible. Do you disagree that this is a controversy/scandal or do you simply consider them inherently POV, and so shouldn't be used for any article? Quantpole (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

See my comment at (8) for why I think controversy is ok and scandal not. Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The story is the expenses themselves. The disclosure is only how we got to hear about it. And disclosure makes it very narrow around the current Telegraph articles rather than what came before - or may come after.

Comment- Without the disclosure there would be no expenses to talk about, also the expenses are only being talked about as the newspaper discloses them. Sinn Fein for example only mentioned on the day of the disclosure and haven't been mentioned again.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is broader in scope than the current telegraph reports. Quantpole (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose, too long winded and its not the disclosure itself that is are the heart of the issue.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - There are two issues here one is yes the claims them self the second is the attempt by the House of Commons to block their publication and exempt themselves from Freedom of Information legislation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - a bit long-winded, yes, but clear and better than most of the alternatives. Perfectly acceptable for now. Robofish (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose - misleading title - This article is about a specific incident, controversy, or whatever it is called, not about the generality of "expenses disclosure" (ie its processes, norms, history of disclosure rules, etc). This title mis-describes the article. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The article covers the history of the FoI surrounding this and could easily be expanded to include a history of the system itself.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - appropriate title, but only if it is refined to include United Kingdom rather than Britain (to account for role of Westminster and NI MPs). Macarism (talk) 07:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

6. British Parliamentary expenses row:

Oppose - Does disambiguate from other countries but contains the word row which is POV.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Support, this pretty much sums it up and conforms with WP:COMMONNAME. I dont think that "row" is anywhere near as POV as scandal or controversy either - and although I wouldnt mind either of those being used either because there is plenty of precident, I tink "row" is more common.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Alleviates concerns over national differentiation. I cannot see how row is POV, it's a pretty neutral term. We have to describe the article. It is a controversy/storm/hullabaloo/etc, as seen in many reliable sources. The title isn't a comment on whether it should be a bust up. No doubt there will be some people who think it a fuss over nothing, but that is a POV as well. Quantpole (talk) 21:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - 'row' is too colloquial for an encyclopaedia. Robofish (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose - per Robofish, but with the concession that 'expenses row' does seem to be the common title (Google throws up half a mil results for it). Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak oppose Better options exist below (row is a poor word, year missing). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - for the reasons I noted above, I do not think this affair can be called a 'row'.

7. British Parliamentary expenses controversy:

Oppose POV due to he use of the word controversy also does not deal with the attempts to block the disclosure.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - preferable to the above; 'controversy' is more formal and neutral than 'row'. Robofish (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - Precise, concise, formal and, I would argue, NPOV. See my comment at (8). Hadrian89 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Would support if year added - first suggestion so far that is of roughly appropriate tone. Still not sure "controversy" is the right word, but its not actually a wrong one. See #11. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Have come to think that this is the best title at present. As the arguments have been going on for 5 years, I do not think that adding a year is appropriate. (If it is agreed that a date should be included, then at the moment it wold be 2005 onwards). Quantpole (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Seems to be the best title but I would also agree that the year 2009 should be added to this Notjamesbond (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

8. British Parliamentary expenses scandal:

Support - also a possibility. 'Scandal' might be better than either 'row' or 'controversy' in this context. Robofish (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - although I appreciate that scandal technically means moral outrage, justified or not, I think the word still has condemnatory connotations to most English speakers (no, I don't have a source for that, though this does seem to treat scandal as a stronger term than controversy). The following is speculation I know but will hopefully commnicate my point: if we were to ask a spokesman from the angry mob and a defiant MP (let's say Eric Pickles, cos he's funny) whether or not there was a controversy, I think both would say that there was. If, on the other hand we were to ask the same if there was a scandal, I think the former would say yes whereas the latter would say that the media was treating it as one. Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - year missing, "scandal" is a poor word. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - as noted by others above, this affair falls within the OED definition of a scandal, and is listed in the category Political scandals of the United Kingdom. But I think a date should be added as there may have been past scandals or there may be future scandals.

• Support as second choice, second most common name and, pace Hadrian, I think this is a case where "scandal" is actually a neutral term and would be supported by WP:WTA, as it's nothing short of one; if it was limited to Labour, I'd oppose, but as it's MPs from all parties (except, if you believe George Galloway, RESPECT) who are embezzling the tax payer... Sceptre ^(talk) 13:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

9. British MPs expenses scandal:

Support. Scandal is a well recognised term for this class of story, plus the media is consistently referring to it as a scandal - it is likely to stick as the name. "British MPs" is more accurate than "Westminster" since many of the expenses were claimed for employees/ properties etc outside London. "MPs expenses" is likely to be the most common way people search for this article.

Strong oppose - Uses the word scandal which is POV and not every one will know what MP is an abbreviation for.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it difficult to get my head around a blanket rejection of words like scandal and controversy when both can be defined and observed. (The watered down solution is to refer to an "affair" - Profumo Affair etc.) But wikipedia is already well stocked with articles titled scandal and controversy - surely this debate is dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.202.54 (talk) 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - don't have a problem with 'scandal', but 'MPs' should be expanded. It's also poor grammar - 'MPs' expenses' should have an apostrophe. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose MP is poor grammar; and its a debacle that envelopes the entirety of the UK parliament; title should probably be "parliamentary" not "MPs". Also year is missing, and scandal is dubious (as above). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

11. 2009 British Parliamentary expenses controversy:

Adding a date to suggestion #7. Expenses are likely to be a source of "controversy" more than once in the history of a given legislature, probably have been before in the UK parliament, and may well be again. So adding a year to the title. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Date is misleading as this has been going on since before 2009 and is POV due to the use of the word controversy.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - second choice to the below, if 'scandal' is not appropriate. I don't see how 'controversy' can be at all POV. Robofish (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose because a controversy suggests that there there are two sides with opinions divided between them. In this case, there is no side supporting the abuses of the system, so no controversy. Bluewave (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

12. 2009 British Parliamentary expenses scandal:

Added date to suggestion #8. As pointed out in #11 above, expenses issues may raise more than once, so this article should be clearly defined as the current scandal. As outlined in #4, use of the word 'Scandal' for this affair falls within the definition provided by the OED and the affair is already listed in the Category British political scandals; as also noted in #4 there is observable public outrage at this affair.

Oppose - Date is misleading as this has been going on since before 2009 and is POV due to the use of the word scandal.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - probably the best name available at present. 'Scandal' may or may not be appropriate, but it does seem to be how many of the news sources have described it. Robofish (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. Row is a bit more journalese than encyclopedic. Controversy is wrong (a controversy needs two sides with opposing views). Scandal is the best suggestion so far, although it probably understates the severity the situation - crisis might be better, but can probably only be said in retrospect (since a crisis is a turning point). I also support making it UK, not British. Bluewave (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Should be UK not British

The title as it currently stands should be
"Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament"
not
"Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament"

This would then include the NI MPs, and referres to the nationality of the parliament, not its members. Martin451 (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree - use of "British" implicitly endorses the POV that NI citizens (and MPs) are British. "United Kingdom" is formally correct and neutral. Your proposal is a little verbose, though - I suggest:

Disclosure of expenses of United Kingdom Members of Parliament

Hairy Dude (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree it was an oversight when the article was originally renamed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, should be UK Parliament. Please rename. Setwisohi (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Whilst the average reader may well take British to mean 'of or from Great Britain', it is actually the official demonym for United Kingdom (see infobox here) - so the original title did cover NI MPs, and was not POV. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The title now disambiguates from the Scottish parliament.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I have never known anyone refer to the Scottish Parliament as the British Parliament. I really can't imagine anyone getting confused as to which one was meant. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

it is the reference to "British" parliamentarians.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As before, British is the demonym of United Kingdom. The Northern Irish parliamentarians are British because Northern Ireland is part of the UK. Hadrian89 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Scrap that, I was conflating residency and nationality. The NI MPs may live in the UK, but that does not mean they are (all) citizens of it. My mistake. Hadrian89 (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Year

I just got to this article from the main page, and don't claim to know very much about the topic (I just finished reading the article), but I'm gonna weigh in anyway and say that I think a date should be added to the article's title. It will help give a general of when this happened, even if it is just the year that the scandal was made public. Caleb Jon^talk 01:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been ongoing since 2005 and is still continuing, so the addition of a date would be difficult to pin down, as there is more than one issue here, such as the FoI and the actual release of the expenses.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue may have been brewing in the UK for a long time, with run-up issues, but the actual scandal (if that's the word) "broke" predominantly in 2009 -- expenses became a focus in the first few months of that year, the appeal against publication was given up in 2009, and as a result, the main publication and backlash took place from May 2009.

In that sense it's a bit like the Global financial crisis of 2008–2009 whose title is based upon the period it publicly "broke" (page currently starts "The global financial crisis of 2008–2009 began in July 2007"). The roots of that matter were also some years before. The earlier events are considered as background. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Forking out list of detailed claims (Article length)

The section "Specific individual allegations" is very long and contains a lot of detail that is encyclopedic, but "too much information" for the main article. It catalogs each claim or issue, which for a controversy of this scale is probably appropriate, but it's also a big chunk of data, specialist interest, and accounts for 55 of 130 KB of the page length (42.5%) at present.

To aid readability would anyone object to moving it to List of allegations in the 2009 British Parliamentary expenses controversy (temporary title) or whatever title the main article ends up with? Basically to help keep the main article focussed and not let it become dominated by a lengthy list of

"Person W is said to have claimed X, and defended themself by saying Y when asked. Other figures say Z."

repeated dozens of times over.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree here, the article is too long. I do wonder if it should be split into more than two articles. e.g. pre and post publication (current section 2 into one article, section 3 into another), or split based upon party lines. Martin451 (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

As a major event, the article can be fairly lengthy; the list of point by point "who did what" stands out as the main thing that doesn't fit and it unhelpful. Remove that to a sub-article, and the rest might look much more balanced. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is far from complete. [10] Kittybrewster ☎ 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This link is a Telegraph list of MPs and claims. As such it may not be 100% neutral (Telegraph has an interest in the case) but it will be factual so far as it goes. It raises the prospect of making the detailed list an external link, or updating ours based on the information presented. We could justify it either way. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A separate article is feasible. But only on the condition that reference to all/any MP's is moved to the new article. We cannot name some MP's in this article and some in another one. The trouble is, if we do that, what is there left of substance in this article?

As to some other suggestions made here. I absolutely disagree. Who had what (and for what) is the most important section of the article. It would be absurd to merely point to an external link or reduce the section to an afterthought. Setwisohi (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

But the individual allegations effectively are the story. I agree with Setwisohi, above, that it would be absurd to remove this detail from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

No. The "story" - the core of the article - is often an overview, on Wikipedia. It covers the key points of the topic overall. Individual long sections may be then given articles of their own.

In this topic, the fact that UK MPs were found to have done these things, this was what happened, this was the background and fallout - that is the overview. A list of "this MP said or did this, that MP said or did that" 100 times over is detail. It's not unimportant, but it would be better placed in a list article of its own, as done with many other topics. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If the detail on this page is going to be reduced to a list of the type of alleged offences (e.g. Avoiding Capital Gains Tax) I would support listing next to each of these the names of MPs alleged to have committed these 'offences'. This would avoid the detail and repetition that is objected to by some, but would provide a brief reference of who is alleged to have committed each 'offence'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Tricky. This article is too long. And I'd like to add more detail and more names. So I agree that it could - and perhaps should - be a separate article. But there is the tricky point that, by so separating the 'names' from the 'topic', there will be a significant dilution of this article. (Especially given that, if some names are moved to another article, then all names ought to be). You could give it a shot FT2 and see what happens? Setwisohi (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title part 2

A poll above has tended to favor certain forms of name for the article. This section attempts to test whether consensus exists for any of the alternatives wordings proposed. The previous section includes some arguments that have been made for and against various wordings. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Row, controversy or scandal Given a title such as "British Parliamentary expenses <row/controversy/scandal>", which of the words would be acceptable or preferable -- row, controversy, scandal, or something else?

1. Use of none of the above as they all fail the Words to Avoid criteria.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:Words to Avoid is a guideline that does offer exceptions under certain situations. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1. there is no "row" or "controversy" - the facts are indisputable. No issue with the use of "scandal" - it's widely recognised as such leaky_caldron (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:There is no controversy over the veracity of the revelations, true, but there is over which MPs are at fault, who is to blame for the faults, and what should be done now. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

1. I don't particularly favour any of them over each other, but I strongly support a title of this form, as the current title does not adequately describe the article. It is far more than "disclosure". I appreciate that Lucy-marie is trying to stick to WP:Words_to_avoid#Controversy_and_scandal, but we need something that describes the events. Quantpole (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   There is currently no problem with the current title and that incorporates none of these words to avoid.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   There clearly i a problem with the article title as 'disclosure' doesn't describe the events. Quantpole (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

2. How about 'crisis'? However, 'scandal' does not look too bad, to me. I know 'scandal' is usually best avoided, but it seems appropriate in this case, where there is provable wrong-doing by some of the MPs and peers (as evidenced by the fact that some have resigned and some have paid money back). Bluewave (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Crisis of what?--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Er...the issue of parliamentary expenses... Bluewave (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

3. I support "scandal". As Leaky Caldron notes above this is not a row/controversy as there is no real argument at its core. The public reaction, the media coverage, and political reaction clearly indicate that this is widely viewed as a scandal.

   Scandal is used in the undirected title of many potical and financial scandals - Watergate, Madoff Investment Scandal, Marconi scandal, Lewinsky scandal and many more. This qualifies for scandal in the title by precident and widely accepted public recognition. In future it could be looked back on as a turning point in British politics. Aren't we urged to be bold? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   Please note all bar one of the above examples are American. The term may be more accepted in the US than in the UK and Scandal is inappropriate over the current title. the current title is NPOV an explicit Scandal IS POV weaselish and uninformative.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   well obviously I disagree and you cannot convince me otherwise. I also fundamentally disagree with your opinion that Scandal is "weaselish" - I think it's quite the opposite - fully informative, consistent with public & published opinion and nails the topic without obfuscation. Like you, I would welcome other contributors views. leaky_caldron (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   How about the Marconi scandal, Galloping Major scandal, 2007 Labour party donation scandal or 2007 UK child benefit data scandal. There is nothing wrong with the use of scandal in this instance.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

   I don't think the argument against Scandal really holds up, Lucy-Marie - I don't see that it is a more American than English phrase; it is used in various articles on other subjects; I think the scale and reaction of these revalations justifies this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

4. Support scandal.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
5. Given the evidence that we do allow "scandal" as a valid description in exceptional cases where there really is no doubt that is the mainstream and most common view, I'd be okay with scandal on this, the above are fairly good reasoning. In general "exceptional wording requires exceptional cause" so to speak, so testing this one hard and with skepticism is reasonable. But I think on balance it probably might be one of those rare ones where "scandal" would be ok in the title. hence scandal or controversy would be acceptable for me.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the use of the words detracts from the quality of the title also no convincing arguments has been put forwards as to why the use of the POV words is needed and how they would enhance the current title. This is an encyclopaedia and not a journalists news column intent on selling as many copies as possible. The purpose of this article is to come from a neutral point of view and not take any side. The current article fulfils WP:NPOV and WP:WORDS. Both of which are official policy and guidelines of Wikipedia.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie; it was your good self who offered up the proposal to consider a title change and a number of worthy contributors concur with the use of scandal for this particular article. How should we now proceed? leaky_caldron (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

We should proceed within the policies and guidelines. If a majority of people concurred that we should rename the article thieving money-grabbers, that would not be proceeded with, but a concurrence between users would still exist. I would also like to point out that the title was bought for me to open as another user was unaware of how to proceed to open up a discussion on the title of this article.--Lucy-Marie (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

so is it being changed to scandal in line with the preference of the above users? If I change it will you revert it? I'm seeking consensus, not conflict. leaky_caldron (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the the substance of the article is being lost by this discussion as the money claimed for is not the exclusive purpose of this article. The article also covers the attempts by MPs' to exempt themselves from freedom of information legislation which would be lost by the addition or Row/Scandal/Controversy etc etc. to the article title.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But these sections are already entitled "Background" and "Pre-publication controversies" implying they are secondary to the main subject of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

absolutely not. Scandal covers every aspect of the affair, including the HoC FOI attempted block, the role of the Commons Authorities in "nodding through" claims, the means by which the information came to light, etc. It's all part of the same "scandal" and I cannot see for one minute the title change doing anything other than embrace all aspects - not conceal these very important aspects. Why not just weigh a doubt against a certainty and change the thing? leaky_caldron (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The FoI is not a scandal as it has arguments on both sides, this is opposed to the the expenses which are not a row or controversy as there is no central argument. The FoI has central arguments which are proved by the ability to have court cases and appeals against judgements. I though am wholly opposed to the use of the words mainly on grounds of POV and words to avoid, but also on how any word would be incorporated without destroying the current title which is NPOV and informative.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the H0C attempt to introduce changes to the FOI which would have kept the scandal from public gaze. As for the title, surely "Expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament scandal" is adequate. 1 fewer words than the current title! Just as informative and consistent with almost everyone's POV leaky_caldron (talk) 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say that by implying that the word scandal is in-line with almost everyone's POV that is the biggest argument against it as for the title to be a good title it must be a neutral POV and therefor by virtually nobodies POV.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely if the title is going to be changed, it should be to "United Kingdom Parliamentary Expenses Scandal" (not "Expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament Scandal") as this seemed the most popular in the preceding discussion; the latter is also nearly as ugly and verbose as the current title.Bsw123 (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

agreed. that is indeed much better leaky_caldron (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Without the word disclosure the title is meaningless as that is what the telegraph and the FoI judgement both facilitated. Also how does the word scandal enhance the current title?--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

disclosure is in the past now. Disclosure can be contained within the article. What we have had since the initial disclosure 3 weeks ago is now generally and widely recognised and referred to as the "MPs Expenses Scandal" or similar. It is a potentially momentus change in the perception of UK parliamentarians driven by public reaction to the scandal. Disclosure no longer does the subject title justice. leaky_caldron (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The disclosure by the telegraph is still ongoing. Scandal implies a POV on the article to the reader before the reader starts reading the article. This is bad for the quality of the article and furthers one point of view of another. The reader should be able to form their own POV from a neutral stand point by reading the whole article and not have a POV in the title of the article which scandal gives. Scandal Implies negativity from the start. This is opposed to the current title which is neutral as it does not attribute a negative or positive spin on the article, scandal attributes a negative spin on the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

But the revalations have been enormously negative in terms of the reputation of Parliament - I think you would struggle to find anybody who disagrees with that. But I think we are going round in circles here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

With all respect that is your opinion, what if somebody from Niger read this article they would not understand the centrism of the newly proposed title and may come to a completely differing opinion to the whole situation being a scandal. They may view it as a positive event for press freedom. That is why POV must in all cases be avoided.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I don't see how the two are mutually exclusive - the situation can be a scandal and a positive event for press freedom. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the only way this will be solved is if a disinterested third party is bought in to examine the current title and the surrounding arguments.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to re-iterate my call for a disinterested third party to independently look at the title and surrounding arguments.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

as suggested, I have asked a contributor from a previous scandal case to provide some input. see User talk:Pointillist#Talk:Disclosure of expenses of Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. leaky_caldron (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean someone who is not from Britain and who has not been involved in any form of discussion on a similar subject to this before. A request has now been placed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Phew! That lets me off the hook, then <g>. I don't think you need an inexperienced non-Brit to comment—that isn't the model used for appellate courts—but I can see you would like someone neutral. I have to be brief as I'm supposed to be packing my pith helmet and safari suit for my vacation in darkest Europe, but please don't get the impression that Leaky caldron was trying to "stack the deck" by involving me. Quite the opposite: as Leaky knows better than anyone, I made the case for "Pension scandal" as a section heading in the Fred Goodwin article, and then completely changed my mind four days later. I then spent several tedious weeks afterwards challenging "disgraced" over and over again in a variety of articles about British bankers, so I know a bit about the coalface of Wikipedia:Words to avoid. In this case, I agree that the situation is scandalous but it is really very difficult to know whether the scandal is about the rules/system for MP's expenses, the enforcement of the rules, those MPs who best exploited the rules and are now being excoriated by their own party leaders, or the cynicism of those party leaders who knew this was going on but did nothing to stop it. That sort of ambiguity is easier to unravel when a few years or decades have passed. Personally I'd sympathise with "scandal" for an article about the rules/system; for the time being I'd avoid "scandal" in this mixed-up article's title. If it came up in a well-sourced lead para I wouldn't object to it on the grounds that it would prejudice readers of the article: the lead is supposed to be a summary anyway. Good luck with this one. - Pointillist (talk) 00:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would not oppose any of the three words, so I am happy to support leaky caldron's/BSW's suggestion, which seems to have gained some momentum. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary vs. MP Given a straight choice between "British Parliamentary expenses <row/scandal/controversy>" and "British MP's expenses <row/scandal/controversy>" should the word used be Parliamentary, MPs, or something else?

1. Current title incorporates both so a change is unnecessary.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Parliamentary. It extends beyond MPs leaky_caldron (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Parliamentary per leaky caldron. Hadrian89 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Year or no year Given a a title without a year in it such as "British <whatever>" and a title with some year in it such as "2009 British..." or "2005-2009 British..." -- should the year, or some year(s), be included in the title? If so which?

1. No year is needed as this is ongoing and a unique event. There are not going to be multiple years of revelations of expenses, Eg a 2008 expenses and a 2010 expense revelation. It will all be dealt with in this one overarching revelation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
2. agreed leaky_caldron (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
3. I agree with Lucy on all 3 points above. Also we don't know when the event will end, it could easily last into 2011 (one year after the latest the next general election could be) due to those who loose their seats getting another years pay. Martin451 (talk) 20:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Agreed. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(I've formatted the above for ease of reading, please fix if disliked) - FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

If Scandal is being used in reputable sources then use it if row etc is more common use those instead, i would suggest a google search to ascertain which one has the most use. Sherzo (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Scandal is only being used by the media and not in academia, it is being done to make more newspaper sales and more watches of news items.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus

It seems to me that there is a consensus to change the title now. To see whether we have consensus I suggest a straw poll. If it is determined that consensus has been reached, I propose that the name is changed to United Kingdom Parliamentary Expenses Scandal. Quantpole (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Quantpole (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Support. Bsw123 (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Support. leaky_caldron (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Bluewave (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Support. I still think 'controversy' would be the ideal word, but am happy to support this suggestion. Hadrian89 (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Support. Its much better then the current title. Happy to look at a change to another title at a later date.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WIkipedia is not a democracy or an experiment in democracy, as to why this is banned by the rules.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Very Very Very strong oppose - The discussion above resulted in no concensus and a disinterested party has given their opinion that unless it is very well sourced the article title should remian the same. There is no concensus for changing the title as seen by the long and rambling discussions above. The best thing to do is to let this die down and when the whole situation has resloved itself, discussion should start again on the title when the full extent is known. --Lucy-marie (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Question - is Sherzo the disinterested party you mention? I take it that Pointillist is not that party because he did not satisfy your criteria. Also, Wikipedia does allow use of straw polls - it is just that they are not binding. Hadrian89 (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist is the disinterested party just not my disinterested party Pointillist is the disinterested party, for Leaky caldron.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist was indeed my suggestion, one which you appeared not to favour, prefering instead the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard route which has yielded no comment, unless Sherzo's tacit support/suggestion is based on that appeal for a neutral opinion. For information, "expenses scandal" outnumbers "expenses row" by about 3 to 1 and "expenses controversy by 7 to 1 in a search using Google News. Not all necessarily related to our "scandal", but broadly indicative I believe. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because more mews organisations are sensationalising the events doesn't make it a scandal. The way news organisations sensationalise is a common approach to increase viewer numbers and sales. Wikipedia is not in the business of pandering or copying sensationalism and as such must avoid pandering to POV and towards copying journalistic styling and sensationalism. -- Lucy-marie (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was that if User:Sherzo was responding to your Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard request, then I was simply following up his suggestion to assess the respective journalistic uses. He may have been the independent, non-UK expert opinion you were seeking. Clearly you prefer to ignore his advice. This series of disclosures does not need to be sensationalised by the media in order to be widely, if not almost universally, considered to be a scandal of equal proportion to existing articles already containing the word "[Scandal]]". leaky_caldron (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There have been many comments supporting the change. And it is also worth bearing in mind that Lucy-marie changed this articles name without discussion or any attempt to reach a consensus. This is a straw poll, following on from the discussions to see whether consensus has been reached. I'll make that clearer in my initial comment. Quantpole (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie moved the page once before any discussion had started, and once to included United Kingdom which had been discussed and not opposed. I think that your point is irrelevant in this discussion. Martin451 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie was invoking wikilaw when she has made changes without any attempt at discussion. I think that's relevent. If you don't see it that way, fair enough. Quantpole (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop commenting on individual users and comment on the content of the discussion.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I am against the use of Scandal, but I think consensus has more or less been reached to use that word. The above proposed title is a lot less cumbersome than the current title.
  Note that there are nearly 30 redirects to this page, and if someone moves the page, they should try and move the redirects as well. Martin451 (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest that an end-date is necessary for this straw-poll to bring this discussion to conclusion. I further suggest that, given the previous lengthy dicsussions, the end-date for submission to this straw-poll be 1700hrs today, 3 June. If the proportion of views remains substantially the same by this date, I propose the article is renamed. Bsw123 (talk) 08:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(1700hrs BST!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsw123 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think that deadline might be a little close, perhaps 24 or 36 hours would be better if we are to have one at all. Could I also draw everyone's attention to this (no doubt most people have seen it already). Hadrian89 (talk) 08:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• I dont think is any rush. Leave it at least a few days I reckon. The more opinions we get the better IMO.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeh, no reason to particularly rush. Quantpole (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I say the standard seven days should be followed so 9 June, then real discussion and opinion will have enough time to come out of the woodwork.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does it say 7 days is standard? (not doubting you, just curious!) Hadrian89 (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It standard convention for most things such as merger discussions and AfDs etc, it allows for parties to have enough time to formulate coherent responses and gives a reasonable length of exposure.--Lucy-marie (talk)

• It has been seven days since the straw poll was started, there are 6 votes for the change, 2 votes in the RFC section to include "Scandal", vs. 1 opposed, and 1 more or less neutral (against scandal but for the concise title length). I think that there is consensus to change the title. Martin451 (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

recently removed Fraud Act background

If charges are eventually brought under this act I would favour the inclusion of the narrative background leaky_caldron (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Going into the specifics is probably unnecessary, I'd argue. If any charges are brought, stating that they were charged with fraud is enough detail; the average reader doesn't need to know the legislative history of the Fraud Act, nor speculative OR on the nature of the charges. If someone's charged with a serious assault for example, we don't include a detailed exposition on the relationship between the various provisions of the Offences Against the Person Act. Given that as yet no charges are forthcoming, its both OR and crystal-balling to include it IMO. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sub article for "list of specific claims"

As discussed above ("Forking out list of detailed claims (Article length)"), I have moved the specific claims lists (only) to a sub article and summarized them in the main article. The reworked article should be more readable, and allow easy expansion of individual claims, while meeting Wikipedia norms for long articles that have relevant "in depth" sections" and without omitting any existing information. What I have done is as follows:

1. Sub article for the detailed list of claims - Moved the specific pre-Telegraph, and specific Telegraph, disclosures, to a sub-page. The sub-page has an awkward name and finding a better one will be good, but for now at least it's accurate if cumbersome. See that page's talk page for a suggestion on a better title.
2. Sub article intro - Given the new article enough of an introduction to explain the context. The introduction itself probably says enough that a section intro for each main section, isn't needed. ("List of..." style articles often let the list do the speaking.)
3. Summary style for these sections in main article - In the main article, I have summed up both sections in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style, which states:

   • "The idea is to summarize and distribute information across related articles in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. Thus giving readers the ability to zoom to the level of detail they need and not exhausting those who need a primer on a whole topic... Summary style is accomplished by not overwhelming the reader with too much text up front by summarizing main points and going into more detail on particular points (sub-topics) in separate articles."
   • "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles... until a topic is very thoroughly covered. Thus by navigational choices several different types of readers get the amount of detail they want."

   I have briefly summed up the pre-publication casesas examples of the kinds of matters known before 8 May 2009, and written from the original text, an overview characterizing the disclosure by the Telegraph on and after May 8.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Have commented on the talk page of the new sub-article - here Talk:List_of_notable_expenses_claims_by_Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament Setwisohi (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

UKIP?

I initially drafted this, but would like to check if it should be added to either of the articles, in case it is separate or too minor:

Draft: "Separately, a UKIP MEP was criticized by The Times for using his staff allowance to pay for his niece and two other assistants, who also work for a business in which he is involved."

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6390929.ece

It doesn't seem to go anywhere, nor have other sources stated this was improper or they didn't do any assistance work. Some sites note that there have been attempts to use this to smear. Hence checking other editors views, "in case". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC

Dispute over the inclusion of scandal in the title. Arguments currently centring on WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:NPOV.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Include From all accounts, it is some sort of scandal, so in the spirit of calling a spade a spade, let's call it that. (uninvolved editor) Ngchen (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Include I cannot see in what way it is not a scandal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales has just called this "the MP's scandal" on BBC News at One. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Include I cant think of another word used more on this matter than scandal by all the press here. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Resignations etc.

In the section Resignations and disciplinary action, there are at least two MPs who have announced that they will step down for family reasons. Should these be included, after all they could be genuine, or they could be using family reasons as an excuse. If family reasons is an excuse, including them could be classed as WP:OR if no cites are available to the contrary. Martin451 (talk) 19:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No way Hewitt and Hughes should feature in an article concerned only with dubious expenses revelations unless/until details of their expenses claims show inappropriate behaviour. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have removed them. Martin451 (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Along the same line of reasoning, I've removed the reference to Purnell's resignation from cabinet; he hasn't resigned because of anything to do with his expenses claims, its a wider Labour matter. - Chrism would like to hear from you 23:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And should the same go for Ian McCartney? Hadrian89 (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

his own article implicates him in the Telegraph disclosures but he is not listed in this article's sub-article detailing the paper's revelations.((here)) I would leave it as it is provided that there is a link between the expenses revelations and any MP resigning in the imediate aftermath for any reason. leaky_caldron (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hoon and Beckett should be included in the resignations because of the proximity of their resignation/sacking to the scandal and the fact that they were both very publicly named and shamed in the Telegraph and other media. There is no inference drawn in the listing of them under the resignations section, just the simple fact that they are no longer in office. Blears didn't resign over the expenses but she is listed. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Hoon and Beckett were mentioned in the disclosures, yes. That doesn't mean that everything relating to either of them is automatically relevant to this article. If there's a link (citable) between their resignations and the expenses, then it can be included. As yet however, it appears both resigned over not being offered jobs they wanted in the reshuffle and so the fact they've resigned is no more relevant to this specific scandal than that they've been to the toilet since it broke. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is generally a fallacious argument. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

surely the same logic applies to Blears, yet there seems no dispute over her inclusion in this section. leaky_caldron (talk) 17:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The cited source (as well as most of the media) makes the connection between expenses (specifically the 'revelation' that there was more than one house) and the manner in which Brown responded to it fairly explicit. She was accused, Brown didn't particularly back her, she resigned because of it. There's the link. Beckett and Hoon have both resigned over their position in cabinet. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed as well I'd inadvertently reverted your first reversion while adding the mcnulty cite - hadn't noticed the intervening edit and for some reason it didn't bring up an edit conflict. Wasn't intended. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

A section "Other resignations" ("At the same time, a number of other notable resignations took place...") would be sensible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal case

I've started an article on the legal case here Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v Information Commissioner. Francium12 (talk) 11:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

you may wish to look at Freedom of information in the United Kingdom and Freedom of Information Act 2000 and possibly Heather Brooke. leaky_caldron (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Alleged areas of abuse

Surely there is sufficient evidence of actual abuse to remove the WP:Weasel word "alleged" from the heading. It's already in the first sentence, which covers those areas which might or might not be actual. Since £500,000 has been repaid, 14+ resignations and police involvement makes the saga more than just "alleged". Trying to be WP:Bold here. leaky_caldron (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Any claims that have been admitted by an MP are not alleged. MPs resigning, paying back monies, or just excusing their actions are admitting the claim, and so it is not alleged. If a claim is made by the Telegraph, and the MP completely denies it, and the parliamentary blackwashed publication does not substantiate the claim, then it is still IMHO alleged. It is questionable whether unsusbtantiated claims should appear here due to WP:BLP, so I would say remove alleged from the heading. Martin451 (talk) 14:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with removing "alleged" from the title.

Regarding BLP, that section is a description in list form, of the types of item reported by sources as "areas of abuse". It's not "accusations against specific MPs" per se (except where specifically stated and sourced); BLP is not really an issue unless specific accusations are mentioned in relation to a specific (named) MP. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Timeline of..." article needed

With the matter ongoing one way or another for months (or according to some, since 2005), and new material and phases happening almost every day or so for nearly 2 months now, this article is starting to need a "Timeline of..." subarticle to help capture how the scandal has developed and to provide a timeline of the issue for readers. Does someone want to try figuring one out? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Title: Expenses or allowances?

It sems to me that expenses have been permitted within the allowances system. 91.106.16.175 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Repayment

I've provided an update for information regarding Sir Thomas Legg's audit panel and Brown's repayment for expenses claimed for gardening and cleaning costs. It might need expanding though and possibly renaming. Presently the section is titled Repayment. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"Independent audit" or "Outcome of independent audit" something like that would probably be better than repayment. Or "Repayment after independent audit" BritishWatcher (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it to independent audit as I agree that is a better description for the events covered in this section. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a story in several of yesterday's (14 October 2009) UK newspapers that several MP's are complaining about having to re-pay money that they have mis-appropriated. I'm not sure if the stories are true as, as they were in newspapers and I only saw the headlines.

Ah, the contemporary British MP - the morals of Grytpype-Thynne & Moriarty, and dependent on the whims and short attention span of the Neddie Seagoons of the British electorate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.44 (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Goudie and other Lords' expenses?

Ought we not to have a section on peers involved in the expenses scandal, eg. Baroness Goudie?

• http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/glasgow/Baroness-39claimed-23000039.5764272.jp
• http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6889016.ece
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/6432112/Baroness-Goudie-facing-allegations-over-second-home-expenses.html

--Mais oui! (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not read the above case, but the most obvious one is Baronees Uddin given that her case has gone to the polcie. Therefore I've added the section as requested.--Shakehandsman (talk) 06:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Approval Of The Expenses

Nowhere in the article does it say who approved the expenses, apart from "Commons Authorities". Who are they? There is no explanation and no link. As a British voter, I would like to know. The approval of these expenses is just as damnable as the claiming of them. --New Thought (talk) 10:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pre-publication controversies" section

Isn't this a bit synthetic? An arbitrary collection of previous noteworthy incidents along the same lines isn't really necessary here, especially when some of them date back over a decade. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of Parliamentary Privilege to escape prosecution...is nothing new

It's interesting that much has been made by the four MPs to try and use their parliamentary privileges to try and get out of their legal problems. However this nothing new and should be mentioned - maybe in the a side bar - of other MPs that have tried to do the same thins. In August 1951 John Lewis MP for Bolton West tried to use Privilege to escape the law, after he hit a policeman in his car (he only backed up his car and struck the PC three times). Amazingly this little stunt is largely forgotten now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.32.156 (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)