Talk:Consulting Association

October 2013 news coverage

I've just made quite a large edit to the first paragraphs of the article - sorry to do so much all at once, but I didn't find the article terribly easy to read. I feel like the current state is still that the article is not very cohesive, like lots of people have just added a sentence or a paragraph here or there, and that these frequently don't fit with what was written before - there are sections remain unchanged despite more recent news and revelations.

I have just spent several hours on this edit, reading several of the referenced newspaper articles, and the publications of the Select Committee investigating the affair. My brain is frazzled, but I feel like now I have a much more detailed understanding of the affair - I am in a position to improve this page a fair little bit in the next few days, if I can find the time. However, I have some issues with this page that I'd like to raise / get help with.

These issues follow, please reply in the appropriate section below. Stroller (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Business or Organisation?

A couple of changes were made to the article by User:Crookesmoor yesterday, removing references which characterise The Consulting Association as an "organisation" and referring to it as a "business". Crookesmoor also removed the references to Kerr as an "employee", and the article seemed to imply he was like a "proprietor" of the TCA. Elsewhere in the article it's referred to as "a non profit making trade association" - from the testimony of Kerr and Callum McAlpine (who are both, admittedly, implicated in criminal activities) to the Scottish Affairs Committee (see the main article's refs for links) and from some newspaper articles it seems to me like the latter characterisation is more true. The December 2012 Guadrain article states that Kerr was paid £47,000pa + perks, tending to imply he was more of an employee, however complicit. Frankly, I think it would be more fair to just open the article closer to "The Consulting Association was an illegal blacklisting conspiracy run by some of Britain's largest construction companies", but I think that's going a little off the reservation. But I don't think Kerr "owned the company", I think TCA was established by the construction companies and they could (for example) have sacked Kerr if they wished to. Stroller (talk)

Addedndum: oh, I thought some of the confusion might have arisen from earlier reports, back in 2009 or so, when the scope and activities of the TCA weren't yet fully understood, and that the Information Commissioner's Office might have referred to it as a "business" when making the original raid. As per this pdf, it seems like "business" is a special word in the Data Protection Act(s) and "therefore the meaning of the word ‘business’ must be assessed in the context of those Acts to include public authorities;"

Also: I think the name of the organisation is "The Consulting Association" (with the initial "The") not "Consulting Association". Don't know if the article should be moved?

Citations

I've probably gone a bit overkill on referencing tonight, leaving the article littered with too many [1][2][3] tags. However, I think it's probably best to leave those for the present, as the article is in a state of flux, and will undoubtedly be receiving many more edits in the coming days and months, as prosecutions mount and demands for compensation come to court. For each reference tag in those opening paragraphs I have personally verified each statement - that's why I've stuck those damn <ref> tags in there, so it's clear that these statements are not hearsay.

Named references

I have converted at least a couple of existing references to named references, and have used this format for all references I've added. These allow a particular source to be referenced in more than one place in the article - so, for example, if you want to refer to the December 2012 article that is already referenced, you just need to use <ref name=Guardian-20121201>. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS - I think it's probably best to use this format throughout the article. Stroller (talk)

Parliament.uk references

I've added 3 or 4 references to the Scottish Affairs Committee reports at parliament.uk. I hope & trust these are ok to use as sources. Stroller (talk)

Article Structure

There's a tag on this article because it has no lead section or contents table. I have no idea how to do those, please dig in!

I think the "Further Measures" section can be removed / merged into the rest of the article, but I don't really know what other structuring to add right now. It probably shouldn't be hidden beneath the big list of "Member Companies", which should probably be the last part of the article? Stroller (talk)

I have hacked the structure around a bit, done quite a bit of updating (final report of the SAC, for example, plus launch of the compensation scheme) plus addition and improvement of references. It probably needs to be linked from a few places so that it doesn't become an orphan. Paul W (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Naming individuals

The sections "Chairs of the Consulting Association" & "Main contacts’ for The Consulting Association" have been deleted by user ScrapIronIV. The information in those sections is well referenced and as such I will put it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Ferrour (talk • contribs) 21:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It is sourced to a single individual "naming names" in an individual reference. Unless individuals are specifically convicted of committing crimes, Wikipedia does not name them. Removing them per the cited policy. Scr★pIron^IV 21:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160309171027/http://www.carillionplc.com/media/89869/sac_supplementary_submission.pdf to http://www.carillionplc.com/media/89869/sac_supplementary_submission.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)