Talk:James Purnell

date of birth?

Purnell's website http://www.jamespurnell.org.uk/ gives his dob as 2 March 1970 (as in the section Pre-Parliament). So it's wrong in the first paragraph and the side panel, which both give 2 October. Okay. I've altered it.

Daily Mail story

I have restored the Daily Mail story. There is no legal action pending. And the Daily Mail has neither printed an apology or issued a retraction. This is a matter of public record and since Purnell has been all over the newspapers today and lazy journalists use wikipedia, this surely should be here.

Hi there. I'm Mike Godwin, and I'm the general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation. I've edited this article to remove the Daily Mail story because it has been pulled by the Daily Mail. The fact that the Daily Mail has removed the article is evidence that the Daily Mail does not currently believe it can withstand legal scrutiny. It's the nature of defamation law in the United Kingdom that other newspapers are careful about publishing stories of a retraction of this sort for fear of seeming to repeat the defamation and create liability for themselves. If the Daily Mail story is restored, then a link to the story -- not a link to the website generally, which cannot in itself suffice as an adequate citation under BLP policy -- might be appropriate. In the meantime, the article is not available as a citation source. Now, I could simply restore this article and have it frozen with my edits, but I'd prefer to try moral suasion first. So I'm going to restore the original edit I put in this morning. Please understand that I am doing so after having researched the legal and factual issues involved. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. MikeGodwin 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Daily Mail Story confirmed by one of James Purnell's Political Assistants

One of Jimmy P's political biatches, sorry assistants aka Sean Parker-Perry (also Longdendale Councillor) decides not to remove this tid bit of information, in fact he says "added DWP confirmation that no case to answer frm tabloid story".

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=James_Purnell&diff=prev&oldid=106567847

So whilst it did happen, the DWP didn't give a shit that James used his the parliamentary car that night to get into someones knickers.

But coincidentally, when James starts to head up the culture club, Sean removes the statement completely!

http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=James_Purnell&diff=prev&oldid=142212449

There is definitely a political whitewash going on and I don't think it is fair to users of Wikipedia to be blocked of adding valuable information even though the story has been since removed from the Daily Mail website. Wikipedia is becoming a playing field for politicians to make them look squeaky clean.

I can prove to any Wikipedia admin that there is a political motive to this and prove that IP address is of Sean Parker-Perry. Many Wikipedia editors will be able to confirm that IP address is Sean Parker-Perry, who is a Longdendale Councillor, Labour party member, ex train conductor and now a political assistant for James Purnell. He has complained many times through your OTS.

--Gayboy-ds 17:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

Apologies, I've only just read this having reverted your efforts. The thing is that the original story was referenced in detail by a the Daily Mail gossip columnist, Richard Kay, headlined New Labour Romeo back with fiancée" on 01/02/2007. In the article, the affair with the Newsnight researcher and the ensuing controversy was re-printed in full. Obviously, if there were any legal issues pending, this would never have happened. The article must have been passed by the newspapers lawyers before going to print. When I reverted the edits, I inserted this as a new link at the bottom at the list of references (I wasn't able to delete the original link so left that in although as has been pointed out, it is no longer working). In the last two days, the link to the Richard Kay article has also now broken. The only conclusion I can come to about this, is that a) it's a technological gaffe and a coincidence or b) political pressure has been brought to bear to remove this article from the electronic archive.

I am concerned that this page is being white-washed for political motivations. However, I take on board what you've said above and I will go and delete the paragraph I have re-inserted. What I propose is that a substitute paragraph is inserted which takes in the above facts. I hope you will agree that this is neatest solution.

Just to add that one of James Purnell's employee's regularly visits this page and deletes any negative comments about the Labour Party MP. --Gayboy-ds 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

source for this claim?

Could you provide proof that the Daily Mail is being sued for the article? It seems fair to leave the reference to the Daily Mail article in and add a comment to the litigation with, of course, your source.

One gets the impression that this has entry has been cleaned and revamped to present a whiter-than-white image for someone being touted as a potential cabinet minister. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.70.48.19 (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

I added a link to a Daily Mail article from earlier this year which referenced the affair again. Once again, the controversial paragraph has been deleted by someone who claims the link is not working (the old one wasn't) and who then deleted my new working link. What is going on here? Can the droids in Purnell's office please just leave the entry alone now? This is a matter of public record, whether you like it or not.

last para commented out

I've deleted the last para - the Daily Mail is already being sued about the article in question and it may not be such a reliable source - David Gerard 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit Lock

Just to add that one of James Purnell's employee's regularly visits this page and deletes any negative comments about the Labour Party MP. --Gayboy-ds 16:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/83.104.50.161

I personally think something more sinister is at hand, this Longdendale councillor is protecting his employer from further public embarrassment which has been well documented in the national press.

Political whitewash

I totally agree. I think it's absolutely farcical that this has been removed from the site. The idea that there is some sort of legal action pending is categorically untrue - the Daily Mail repeated and reprinted the claims several months after it first aired them. It's totally obvious that the site is being monitored by people in his office and that they have won this particular battle. Congratulations. May you feel very proud. However, I suggest that the chap concerned learns the difference between slander, defamation and libel.

Picture

I think that this picture should be changed because it shows the back of his head —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.81.20 (talk • contribs)

Pre-Parliament

There should be a wikilink to Royal Grammar School, Guildford. Coyets 14:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Newsnight Controversy

I would like to start a new debate as to if the information about the newsnight interview should be included? It has been commented by many people on the Guido Fawkes blog if you do a search on there:

Google search

Just because the Daily Mail source can no longer be found/not since been restored, does this mean it should be removed even though it did happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gayboy-ds (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal life

says "Purnell is engaged to film maker Lucy Walker." but the linked to Lucy Walker is a boat, not a person and the other Lucy Walker in Wikipedia died before the subject was born. Should we remove the link? Simon Marchese (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it make no sense to keep the link. A citation for the engagement would be good too, I'll find one. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed the link and added a citation to verify his engagement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Smashing Simon Marchese (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

News just in ... well news to me anyway: "So, it is perhaps just as well that the sideburned smoothie, tipped as a future Labour leader, has managed to find himself a new partner to keep his spirits up. She is, I can reveal, shapely blonde political lobbyist Sophie Sutcliffe, who, at 27, is 12 years his junior." [1] Simon Marchese (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There appears to have been a small editing battle regarding Purnell's on/off engagement recently. I'm more concerned by the man's Parlimentary conduct myself but the two editors who have reversed negative information on this topic User:Sixtyplant60 and User:TwitTERerR have never edited anything else on wikipedia. Potentially this may be innocent but it does seem like sockpuppetry. In any case, I did a quick news search which suggests "The pair later got back together". See here. It's dated 5th June 2009 so appears to be the most up to date. Might be worth tweaking the 'Personal life' section. 2writer (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues such as this can influence a person's life (IIRC there was a recent incident in Parliament where the Conservatives tried to use wikipedia to prove Gordon Brown wrong, and it later emerged that a member of the party had edited an article on wikipedia to win the argument) and in cases like this the information must be scrupulously sourced (for further information see our policy on biographies of living people). The Daily Mail is a tabloid and does not count as a reliable source, broadsheets do count as reliable sources, but if the edit war continues I will remove the information from the article altogether. A lack of information shouldn't hurt the subject, but incorrect information based on poor sources could. Nev1 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm more than happy for the 'personal life' section to be removed entirely. Then we can concentrate on the more important issues. 2writer (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd also be happy for the section to be removed. As this seems the consensus, I'll do it. Rwendland (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the expenses section

Are there any claims that Purnell has done anything illegal? Are the police investigating? If not then the detailing of his expense claims is unnecessary and irrelevent. (Off2riorob (talk))

i think in this case it is justified to have a section on the expenses scandal. He resigned from cabinet in part because of the expenses scandal which caused huge problems for the government. It would be wrong not to point out that he too had expenses problems, as long as all the material is sourced i dont see a problem with it. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fair. It seems fully cited, it's in the public domain and together with most of the cabinet and most of Parliament, their expenses behaviour is being scrutinised and held to account by the media and public. I don't think it needs malfeasance to be established. leaky_caldron (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is fully cited. If you can find say, a denial by Purnell regarding the allegations, or perhaps a claim he will sue the newspaper in question, something like that - then that could reasonably be added as a balance. Beyond that, I see no good reason to make a wholesale removal of the expenses section. I mean, do you intend to suggest the same for all MP's? Good luck convincing people if that's the case. I see no reason why the section should be removed. Whether or not the police are involved in a scandal is not a prerequisite for inclusion btw. 2writer (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To include details ..of the smallest detail.. that are totally legal and not the subject of any investigation is POV pushing. Yes the public outrage is worth a comment but adding comments designed to delibrately perpetuate this outrage is more worthy of a tabliod pressure campaign than a wikipedia biography. It is worth remembering that we also are held responsible to create a neutrality in the article so just because you can find a cite pushing a certain opinion does not make it worthy of insertion. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

I am in no way suggesting the removal of the section just a more biographical write up than the tabloid one that is there at present (Off2riorob (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

perhaps something like this...with the main charge against him left in and the tabloid details removed.

Main article: United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

In May 2009, details of MPs' expenses including Purnell's were disclosed. Specifically, that he told the parliamentary authorities that his main home was in Manchester and claimed the “second home” allowance for his flat in London. In October 2004, Purnell sold his London flat but told HM Revenue and Customs it was his “principal home", not his "second home". An act that is termed flipping, as a result he knowingly avoided paying Capital gains tax on the sale.

Purnell's actions have not been investigated by the police. On 5 June 2009 the police at Scotland Yard and and the Crown Prosecution Service issued a statement regarding MPs' expenses, which stated that they had not found evidence of criminal activity and that it was 'highly unlikely' that MPs would face charges. The police said that the incidents of flipping second homes to avoid paying capital gains tax was not a matter for police investigation

Mentioning that his actions have not been investigated by police is a none starter. It's self evident. The other stuff belongs in the main article about the expenses scandal. It seems opinion is against a change. But give it a couple of weeks as people pop in and out, you may get a few yays to the numerous nays. Right, I'm off for the night. 2writer (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with changes being made to the section on expenses, it doesnt need to go into huge detail. I just dont think we should remove the section entirely. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

agree with User talk:2writer about the police. There will be more to say in the main article now that police investigations appear to be leading to a few probable charges. Unless Purnell is investigated (most unlikely) no need to mention it. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict..:::No, there is no desire to remove it at all. Just as you say BritishWatcher, a removal of the excessive erroneous detail. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

There is a feeling and thought in the public that these people have committed crimes and I feel that under those circumstances the fact that they haven't should be made clear. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

sticking to the established and verifiable facts is all that is needed. If you say "he has not committed a criminal office" then you will be accused of WP:OR. leaky_caldron (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree with you there. What is this scandal then? It is a published fact that Purnell has not committed any crime..Then we should ref and cite to explain somehow what is wrong with these expense claims, why is it relevent? It is not original research to add this fact. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

this then...simple and clear and..encyclopedic.

Main article: United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

In May 2009, details of MPs' expenses including Purnell's were disclosed. Specifically, that he told the parliamentary authorities that his main home was in Manchester and claimed the “second home” allowance for his flat in London. In October 2004, Purnell sold his London flat but told HM Revenue and Customs it was his “principal home", not his "second home". An act that is termed flipping, as a result he knowingly avoided paying Capital gains tax on the sale. The police said that the incidents of flipping second homes to avoid paying capital gains tax was not a matter for police investigation(Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

That sounds like a good suggeston i was just going to post....

How about we add a few words before the sentence on him coming under particular criticism. so it read something like.... "Whilst not breaking the law, Purnell has come under particular criticism over his expense claims".....

But your suggested wording is good and explains the situation well. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob you need to clarify what your objections are and what you want to remove. Initially at least three editors felt you were proposing the removal of the whole expense scandal section. Now it seems you want to alter it. Your objection was based on this: "Are there any claims that Purnell has done anything illegal? Are the police investigating? If not then the detailing of his expense claims is unnecessary and irrelevant". After it was made clear that police involvement is not a prerequisite, you claimed it was POV. You then provided rewrites that oddly omit the one clearly illegal action by Purnell. Namely this: "Also in 2004 Purnell claimed £395 for an accountant’s bill which included “tax advice provided in October 2004 regarding sale of flat”. Taxpayers actually paid for the tax avoidance advice he received although HMRC have clearly stated that Ministers are not allowed to claim for accountancy costs for personal expenditure.[7][8]" If legality is your benchmark, I would have thought that this would be a prominent part of your proposed rewrite, yet you seem happy to delete it, which makes me wonder what your position actually is. 2writer (talk) 12:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was clear, take out the erronous twaddle and leave the good stuff behind (Off2riorob (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

charging for this and that wrongly, is naughty but not illegal, there was a commonly accepted thought running through commons that this money..to the limit..26,000 was just an additional part of salery. There is no big crime here, actually I am more inclined to say it seem like a concerted effort on the part of the press to take away any vestige of trust that we have in our politicians, thereby the press themselves become more powerful, the press almost seem to be running the country these days. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Hmm, ok but Purnell has essentially denied the flipping. Read this statement from one of his spokesmen: "Any allegation that James avoided capital gains tax is completely untrue. When he bought his constituency home, the sale of his London flat fell through, but it was sold within the period that HMRC continue to treat it as not being liable for CGT. No one pays CGT when they sell the only house they own and James was not liable for capital gains tax on his London flat. This would have been true for any taxpayer — there was no special treatment. To be clear that he was paying the right tax, James sought advice at the time and has since contacted the HMRC to ask them to double check. HMRC have confirmed that there is no CGT to pay." Purnell has rechecked with HMRC and they've said it's all legit. Nev1 (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nevi, Thanks for that, I didn't know. we could say that this is the main charge and it is denied by purnell and add that cite. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I put it in for people to have a look at it, what didn't you like about it 2writer? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

You'll have to clarify what you're talking about as it looks like you're addressing Nev1 here. Incidentally I believe Nev1's cleanup is preferable to your proposal. Your argument appears muddled in my view. Are you now removing your objection to the article based on your original statement regarding police involvement for instance? 2writer (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

my edit that you reverted, what didn't you like about it? I think I have made my self clear, my desire is to remove the excessive pov pushing erroneous detail. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I've already answered you on my talk page but I'll repeat it here if you didn't see it: WIth respect, it's not about whether I liked your edit or not, rather about overall respect for procedure and other editors. The matter is under discussion as you know, yet you arbitrarily removed a large chunk of the article being discussed. Other editors will have opinions and it's not the done thing to just steamroller ahead regardless. Patience is a virtue. 2writer (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anyone else here that wants to keep the eronneouus tabloid twaddle apart from you, did you not even look at it? did you just revert it without looking? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

I looked and I'm also well aware of the kind of edits you make. Please allow others time to enter the discussion. Be patient and don't take reverts as a personal attack. 2writer (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

An urge to be more careful

As I have stated in a previous section on this talk page, this a biography of a living person and since wikipedia is such a high traffic site and one people turn to as a reference point (rightly or wrongly), it can have real life implications. As a result we much be rigorous in our sourcing and exercise editorial discretion. For example, The Sun cannot be considered a reliable source, and this article in The Guardian was used to source a quote that wasn't in the news article. Tabloids are not reliable sources. I urge people to be more careful.

Even when information is sourced, we still need to be careful. Before I made these changes, the expenses scandal section reads like an attack and is not put in context. For example, was he one of the worst offenders (as the article seems to make out) or was he about average? If so, the section is probably given too much weight and should be trimmed. If we include the allegations that Purnell has made less than honest expense claims (and I'm not sure that we should until they are proven) they must be given in context. For example, The Telegraph noted that although there were allegations that the MP had claimed expenses for rent both he and his partner paid, there was a rebuttal by a spokesman for the MP; for this not to be included is sloppy at best and at worst biased, dishonest, and downright wrong. Nev1 (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this rewrite though I've removed the word 'then' from the sentence "...his then fiancée was paying the rest". Don't want to see that nonsense fought over again. 2writer (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

the fact that whoever was living with him and donating anything to the bills is twaddle. So what? (Off2riorob (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

The point is, it's presenting both sides of the event. Purnell would have been perfectly within his rights to claim expenses for the rent paid by both him and his partner, but the rebuttal is the important bit in which his spokesman stated that he claimed less than what he paid towards the rent. You may think it's twaddle but people will come here for a summary of what happened. Nev1 (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was claimed that he attempted to avoid capital tax on his flat and he denied that. done. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

both sides of the event, yes good. It is irrelevent the little detail about that he get rent from his girlfriend..If you want to keep all the twaddle then enjoy. Did you see my edit? Have a look at this milliband article David_Milliband especially the expenses section.. that is graded one better than this article, I can spare little time to attempt to help this page, if you want to keep all the detail just say. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I did see what you wrote, it needed a copy edit. It was also too brief on the matter in my opinion. As I've stated already, I don't think the allegations should be given too much weight because they have been refuted, however readers (and that is who we are writing for) will expect more details than you gave. What kind of expenses did he claim, how much, what was the response etc.

And before you go round accusing people of not reading what you write, maybe you should have bothered to check the sources quoted in the article. Tabloids are not reliable sources but they were left in and there were misattributed quotes and statements that should have been removed earlier since you claim to be putting this article under scrutiny. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

yes ..I just ripped all the crap out. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Ok, enjoy, I have seen though, from the more 'quality ' articles the excess detail being removed. Good luck with the article(Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

All of my edits need copy editing, I have copy editors following me round.(Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

C-class isn't a huge leap from start-class, and the standards for both are pretty low. Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Edit request by Anon111

{{Request edit}} If you find this link useful may you please add it to the article’s external links: Interview with James Purnell on Power and Ideas Thank you, Anon111 (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Anon111

 Not done Promo link. jonkerz♠ 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

His role in incapacity benefit reform/ESA?

He played a vital role in a significant and controversial piece of social change... shouldn't we have a section on this? The ramifications of it are only just being fully realised, and it seems like it's not working out as it was claimed it would (it seems to have led to lots of people with health problems being moved to lower rates of benefits, but few being able to move in to employment). Anyone able to put something together for this? Or is there a separate article on these reforms that should be linked to? Ta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.12.198 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture

The Australian picture is out of date and dislikeable. It is much better to have his official photograph. Can we have a consensus on that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngieWattsFan (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The photo we've had on the page for a while is perfectly reasonable. It looks like him and we have certainty over it's legal status - it's clearly licensed on flickr as a suitable CC type and is suitable for use. We can be absolutely certain of it's provenance. In contrast the "official" photograph you replaced it with earlier today was uploaded to wikipedia by a user who has been permanently banned from wikipedia specifically for uploading images of dubious copyright provenance. This image was then transferred to the Commons but, if you explore the alleged permissions on the image page these are far from clear.

For example, the image supposedly has this source. This page does not even have the same image on it. The NA also make it clear in their image copyright section that the images they have uploaded to Flickr are to be considered copyright free, yet the "official" portrait does not have this as it's source - in fact it's source is quite clearly not provided correctly on either it's wikipedia page or it's commons page (and, fwiw, the archive should be an archive - the fact that the url provided as the source doesn't link to the image (or a page with the image on) strongly suggests to me that it never did. This is typical of Marquis de l'Eirron's uploading of images and is precisely why the user was banned from Wikipedia.

Furthermore the FOI requests linked to ('other versions') do not include any public use release of images - simply that the images were provided under FOI terms to a private individual. No where do they state that they are available under a license suitable for use on Wikipedia. As a result we have to be cautious - particularly given that they were uploaded by a known serial copyright offender.

There's also a perfectly reasonable point to make that "official" portraits are those provided in order to show the subject in the best light possible. There is a strong argument that can be made, therefore, that these are actually not suitable for use on Wikipedia from an NPOV position. Given Purnell's issues with manipulated photographs in the past this is, perhaps, particularly ironic in this case.

In summary, we have a perfectly adequate photograph that is neutral in tone, represents the person perfectly adequately and of which we can be certain of it's copyright status. Let's take that as a good thing and simply use it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No because we should have the official photograph. If this was against copyright, then I presume that this would have been removed by Commons. It has not been removed by Commons. The photograph we have is a rather old photograph, it is not the official one and it does show his face clearly. The official photograph should be used as it is a purely better photograph and I think the man himself would probably agree.--AngieWattsFan (talk) 19:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The image we have is perfectly fine, shows his face clearly and is a close enough representation. It is in established use over a long period of time and is one that we know, for certain, is copyright free. The fact that you suggest that the subject of the article might prefer another image to be used is also clearly suggesting that there is a case for considering NPOV with regard to images. We absolutely have to consider this - if you're suggesting that someone may prefer an image to be used on their article then we should be extremely wary about such things - it clearly suggests that we should use a more neutral image instead. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The image is not fine and it does not show his face as clearly as possible. This may have been established over a long period of time, but that does not guarantee that it is the best one to use. Just because you think that the other picture may not be copyright free, that also is no guarantee. It is a better picture, so I am with Angie.--86.146.203.248 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Purnell. 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/20080628165459/http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/consumer_rights/reports/Consumer%20rights%20and%20problems/First_which_awards_news_article_557_117068.jsp to http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/consumer_rights/reports/Consumer%20rights%20and%20problems/First_which_awards_news_article_557_117068.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100811001527/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835226-alan-johnson-to-take-on-boris-johnson-for-london-mayor.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23835226-alan-johnson-to-take-on-boris-johnson-for-london-mayor.do

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Has James Purnell made the BBC Labour biased?

It is evident that with his labour history James Purnell has been appointed a head of the BBC and has inevitably biased their broadcasting. Should this appointment ever have really been made? 2A02:C7C:826:600:9CB3:BC83:D8D:BFC8 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)