Talk:Paul Weston (politician)

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

Proposed merge of Liberty GB, May 2014[edit]

I am proposing replacing the current page Liberty GB with a redirect to the Liberty GB section within this article. A recent AfD discussion resulted in a consensus that the page should not be deleted, but did not reach a consensus on what form it should take. There were good reasons given for rescuing the content of the page but there is little indication that the party is notable at all beyond being founded by Paul Weston and through his actions (forming the party, getting arrested, etc). Sources that have been provided in the Liberty GB article discuss Weston in great detail but only mention his party in the context of Weston's activities. The editors of Weston's page have already done a good job of including information about the party, and there is no need to have it duplicated on a separate page at this time. Ivanvector (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not merge, per discussion at AfD, and DRV. There are plenty of citations which establish notability. Valoem talk contrib 15:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge The party as an entity has yet to prove notability. A merge will suffice until they achieve something electorally doktorb wordsdeeds 15:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per Doktorbuk. Actually the coverage of Liberty GB is already greater in Paul's bio. There would be only a small addition of material. It's not unusual for an organization to be described on the founder's page, especially if it is mainly known for the founder's activities. Of course, that could change. Turn Liberty GB into a redirect and develop the section on Weston's bio page. If it grows and needs its own article (especially if it has electoral success), break it off at a later date. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge. The party is more than Paul Weston. We need to think of Wikipedia readers, not us editors, who come here for information about something they have seen or read. It is most likely that they will see Liberty GB, not Weston. For example, several million voters in the South east England constituency will next week be offered the chance to vote for the Liberty GB list, not Paul Weston personally, and they will use an encyclopaedia to find out about the party. Of course, the two are inexticably connected, but Weston has a life outside of LGB. Also, as I said in the deletion discussion, in years to come Weston will no doubt be forgotten, but LGB will still appear in the records as a party that contested election(s) in the 2010s.
It's worth noting that both Ivanvector who posposes this merge, and doktorb, supported the deletion and actively opposed the recreation of the Liberty GB page and are rehashing the same arguments here - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May#1 May 2014. (And of course, I took the opposite view.) Many of the arguments they used then were spurious (for example, claiming that Searchlight, the Electoral Commission, The Independent, The Daily Telegraph, UK Polling Report and BBC News were not independent sources) and this does seem like just a ruse to get their own way by prolonging a discussion that should have ended two weeks ago. Emeraude (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You've misinterpreted my argument. If you recall, I was one of the other editors who supported recreating the article after it was salted. I support the inclusion in the encyclopedia of information about the party, but it's not notable enough to have its own page. I never argued against the independence of the sources. What I argued (and still argue) is that the sources don't cover the party in any significant detail. They are about Paul Weston's political antics, and this party is one of them. It's true that readers may come here seeking information about Liberty GB and they will find it on Paul Weston's page, where it belongs. Weston may have a life outside of Liberty GB, but Liberty GB has no life separate from Weston. That's what the lack of detail in the sources indicates.
As for the merge proposal prolonging the discussion, you're right. The consensus from the AfD was that the page should not be deleted but there was no conclusion regarding merging; this is the next logical step. Ivanvector (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: Just to be clear, I was not referring to Ivanvector re-questioning independence of sources. Emeraude (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, as per my reasoning in the AfD: Sceptre (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't ascertain any notability independent of him. Merely standing in a parliamentary election of sorts doesn't automatically confer notability; there are many parties that stood in 2010 that don't have articles either, especially when you get to "three candidates". Sceptre (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge I think the party is better covered independently. Aspects other than Weston have been covered substantially in the media. Including that material in the article on Weston would be inappropriate. Examples include coverage of the other party candidates and coverage of the Liberty GB radio host who was arrested for his criticisms of a controversial muslim monitoring group (I can't think of the name of the group at the moment, mama something?). Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it's fair to say there's no consensus in favour of this merge proposal, and it's run long enough. If someone uninvolved would like to close, please do so. Ivanvector (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arrest[edit]

I edited this section yesterday to take out wildly inacurate detail quoted from the Liberty GB website. While the quote was a true reflection of what the source says, the source itself is total bollocks of the sort expected from such an organisation. My edits were subsequently reverted taking no account of this and I have now replaced them, for the reasons set out here.

It was a totally unreliable source (i.e. Liberty GB website). The source is not independent of the subject and thus highly suspect, but it is also wrong in law and in other regards, some minor, some so major as to make a nonsense of their use:

1. A dispersal notice is not capitalised.
2. Nor is racially aggravated crime...
3. ...which is nonsense anyway (he would have been charged with a "racially-aggravated offence" - still not capitalised)....
4. ...which would be specified (e.g. "racially aggravated harassment" or "racially aggravated common assault").
4. The appropriate law (Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006) under which a dispersal notice is issued is vital information.
5. Similarly, we need to be clear which Public Order Act (in this case, 1986).
6. The maximum sentence under s4 Public Order Act 1986 is six months, not two years. *
7. All persons arrested and charged are finerprinted and DNA tested. This is standard procedure in the UK and in most other jurisdictions so there is no need to mention it - it is not mentioned in other articles about people being arrested.

Using LGB's website as a source is wrong on two counts.

1. It is, quite simply, wrong on every legal point. Of course, he may be facing up to two years for what he has been charged with, but that is not s4 Public Order Act 1986 on the apparent facts of the case, so it's still wrong.
2. It behoves Wikipedia to be accurate in what it reports and not to take nonsensical quotes from non-independent sources which have a clear political agenda and no reason to be accurate.(talk) 09:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Just to be absolutely clear, s4 deals with "threatening behaviour – fear or provocation of violence" and racially agrravated occurences of this. Sentence given on conviction will depend on precise nature of activity. "Fear or threat of low level immediate unlawful violence such as push, shove or spit" (the lowest level) would attract a sentence in the range of a fine to a medium level community order. The highest level, "Fear or threat of high level immediate unlawful violence such as use of weapon; missile thrown; gang involvement" would attract a sentence in the range of 6 to 26 weeks custody. This can only be tried in a magistrates' court. When racially aggravated, the offence can be tried in magistrates' or Crown court. The maximum in magistrates' court is still 6 months; Crown can go to 2 years, but only for the highest level of acivity. Seeing as there is no suggestion of missiles, weapons or gangs there is no possibility of anything like 2 years and it is extremely unlikely the CPS would ask for sending to Crown court or that magistrates would decline jurisdiction and send to Crown court anyway. Of course, Weston could opt for Crown Court trial. :Emeraude (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
thanks for your help. I agree that "he may be facing up to two years for what he has been charged with", in which case this entire section is (probably fallacious) WP:ORIG synthesis. It behooves Wikipedia not to misreport facts. The synthesis described here may well not be the offense for which Mr Weston is to be prosecuted, especially given the distinction between six (Emeraude says) and 24 months (Weston says). 66.185.200.1 (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're not getting the point. We cannot add unverifiable information, especially concerning biographies of living persons, nor can we make up our own synthesis of information. The text that Emeraude posted is backed up by reliable independent sources. Yours is not - Weston's political party is not an independent source. Please stop using it as a source for what you add to the article, and use only reliable sources. Ivanvector (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentencing details I was referring to are from the Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines which can be downloaded as a PDF file from the Sentencing Council website downloads page. The relevant details are on page 86 which deals with "Public Order Act, s.4 – threatening behaviour – fear or provocation of violence" and "Racially or religiously aggravated threatening behaviour" which is s.4 plus provisions of Crime and Disorder Act 1998, s.31. Every magistrate and criminal lawyer has a copy. Emeraude (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@66.185.200.1, this is the third time you've restored a version of the page which includes contentious statements not supported by sources. As editors have tried to point out to you, statements by Weston's party are not useable as reliable sources to back up these statements, and you've been asked not to include them. Calling Emeraude a vandal is a serious personal attack and completely unfounded. Do not do this again. Ivanvector (talk) 03:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude, your analysis of the sentencing details is also WP:SYNTHESIS if there isn't an independent source which has drawn that connection. I'm not a lawyer and I have no reason to believe your analysis is incorrect, but here we can only report on what independent sources say. The source used (Telegraph) says only that he was "arrested on suspicion of religious/racial harassment" but doesn't go into detail about which specific law he was arrested under. It seems to me that from your point 4 (the first point 4) down that we can't include your analysis since sources don't back it up. Would you agree? I'm not making any more changes until there's some agreement here as to what should be in the article, per WP:EDITWAR. Ivanvector (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not synthesis at all. I made no attempt to get two and two to add up to four. All I did was quote from the relevant laws and sentencing guidelines. Among the many references given in the article in its various versions there was a reference to s.4 POA - I think Weston's website says that and I assume he does at least know which law he was charged under. I gave details of s.4 POA so that's the reference. If you haven't, please read the relevant details in the Act and in the Sentencing Guidelines. As you point out, The Daily Telegraph says suspicion of religious/racial harassment and that is the offence under s.4 POA. There is, of course, the possiblity that POA was not the Act that was intended to be mentioned. Another possibility would be the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.4, with a charge of "Racially or religiously aggravated harassment – putting people in fear of violence", but seing as the maximum sentence here is 7 years and Weston's website says he faces up to 2, that cannot be the case. Emeraude (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, we should include a reference to Weston's website where it says that, as long as it's presented neutrally (I didn't see it), but I'm wary of using a self-published reference for this. I looked through some of the other articles listed as references and didn't find any mention of POA, but I didn't have time to go through them all. We need to have a source which makes this connection explicitly, otherwise even though you may be right (I believe you) you are still synthesizing a conclusion from the sources where none has explicitly been made. Therefore you are the source, and that is not allowed. Unless a good source explicitly says it, we can't use it, other than common knowledge but that really doesn't apply here.
What we appear to have so far is:
  • a number of sources saying he was arrested for failing to comply with a section 27 dispersal order (the Act is not mentioned),
  • mostly the same sources saying he was either "further arrested" or "re-arrested" on suspicion of religious/racial harassment (again, the Act is not mentioned) - notably, the police did not say this,
  • I can find no sources (other than the party) which discuss sentencing or potential sentencing. Statements by the party shouldn't be used unless an independent source backs them up.
It looks as though he was to reappear on May 24 but I find no coverage of this. Did I miss anything else? Ivanvector (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, ivanvector, I disagree with your contention that news or announcements from political parties are forbidden on wiki. For example, see the references at Political positions of David Cameron (ref 7 and 96, I think). So in the absence of a reply, I vote for the restoration of the last revision. Cheers. 66.185.200.1 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have opened a thread at WP:BLPN to invite outside input on this. Ivanvector (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely rare for the statute to be mentioned by newspapers when saying why someone was arrested or what they were charged with. "Religious/racial harassment" is the POA s.4 charge - there is no other. It was actually Liberty GB's website which says that he was re-arrested under Section 4 of the Public Order Act, which carries a potential prison sentence of 2 years. As to May 24, that is merely a date for reporting back to the police and is unlikely to be reported anywhere unless some change was made (e.g. charges dropped) as it is not a court appearance so not covered by court reporters. Emeraude (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Arrest[edit]

The article currently says he was arrested for not moving on, and re-arrested for some racial offense at the police station. It is not made clear why. It makes a difference, as not moving on from public property when you have no licence to use it is an offence, whatever you are saying. The "re-arrest" is more serious, as it seems to criminalize ideas. The police statement covers the first point, but not the second. Is more information available as to what he was charged with at the station, and why? 31.108.176.2 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The re-arrest was not for ideas but for actions. The detail in the whole of this section is almost entirely derived from statements by Weston and his comrades and, of necessity, is therefore suspect. It is likely that he was arrested initially, as you say, for failing to move on. At the police station, where the police had the benefit of advice from Crown Prosecution Service lawyers, an additional or alternative charge was made. This could consist simply of adding the "racially motivated" phrase to the original charge - in English law many offences have a "racially motivated" aggravated version in accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. For example, criminal damage (Criminal Damage Act 1971, s.1(1)) and racially or religiously aggravated criminal damage; harassment – putting people in fear of violence (Protection from Harassment Act 1997, s.4) and racially or religiously aggravated harassment – putting people in fear of violence. The second is a possible extra charge in this case, or some other public order offence all of which may be racially aggravated. Emeraude (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further. Surfing arond the net, it seems that in addition to the failure to disperse, he was charged under Section 4 of the Public Order Act. This is "threatening behaviour – fear or provocation of violence". The source, unfortunately, is an extreme right website supporting Weston. If the source was not fully accurate it could be Section 4A - "disorderly behaviour with intent to cause harassment, alarm or distress". In either event, racially aggravated, of course. The source also states the police had decided not to proceed in June 2014 unless further evidence came to light. Assuming S4, Weston's claim that he faced up to 2 years prison is technically correct but a gross exaggeration based on what seems to have happened and the maximum in a Magistrates' Court would be 12 weeks. The most likely would be a fine or medium level community order. Even if, as he claimed, he elected trial in a Crown Court, the result would be unlikely to be higher. Hope this helps. Emeraude (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Privately educated?[edit]

No info on family background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.83.117.198 (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Satirical understatement[edit]

He was married to a Romanian after meeting her in Romania.

Perhaps this effect wasn't intended, but this is normally the province of satirical understatement. — MaxEnt 19:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

The year of birth is given as 1965 in the article, but the category at the base of the page claims his date of birth to be 1964. Further, the category "far right English politicians" seems unsupported in the article. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth needs research. Far right is not questionable - he has been a member/leader of so many far right groups that he has to be right wing himself. Emeraude (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Weston_(politician)&oldid=1210376840"