Talk:Ian Blair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

Contents 1 Order 2 NPOV tag 3 Bias 4 Stubbed 5 Rewriting the Jean Charles de Menezes bit 5.1 Jean Charles de Menezes 5.1.1 Verdict 5.2 References 5.3 Suggested changes 6 Removal of sourced material about controversies

[edit] Order

Does anyone know the order of which Sir Ian was made a knight? I would assume he's a KBE, but I'd rather be sure. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Knight Bachelor, actually.[1] Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What does "2.2" mean in the clause "...he gained a 2:2 in English Language and English ..."? Avalon 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Lower Second Class Honours degree. British bachelors' degrees (in most universities) are divided into First Class Honours (First), Upper Second Class Honours (2:1), Lower Second Class Honours (2:2), Third Class Honours (Third), and Pass (with no Honours). -- Necrothesp 10:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a link to page on British Degree Classifications --JRawle 17:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is a blatant example of POV.. Nuke it and start again.

Yes Sir. PizzaMargherita 11:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

it's not our fault if this guy is to bad headlines like shit is to flies.

Only bad headlines? http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/08/01/465324.html

Not only POV but also potentially libellous - opening paragraph edited to remove such —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joekiki (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In truth i have read article several times now It is in essance correct The guy is and always has been a BUMBLING GLORY HOUND the truth is in his statments but he fantersises a lot to make storys good But over do's thinks to the point of fairy tales The guy is a coward who closes his eyes to real life and takes the glory from the actual heoros i have seen it before and no doubt will again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.125.8 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

This article reads like a massive criticism of Blair which is not POV and hence I have tagged the article17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree! I am new to Wikipedia and I find this Ian Blair page awful. Surely he can't be that bad!I have looked at Wikipedia in general and thought it informative until I happened upon this one. I think this casts doubt about ALL wikipedia pages as this is that bad. I really don't mind that I have not logged-on, I need someone to defend Wikipedia.

Bob

Everything on the page appears factual, meticulously referenced and relevant. I don't think we should remove major scandals from the bio of a public figure simply because he has accumulated so many. You are free to add any relevant information that casts him in a better light. However, NPOV doesn't dictate that a character must be made to look good. -- Jamougha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.56.220 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the tag. This article is way over the top in terms of lack of balance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We should try to balance, then. i'll see what i can do, but not right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Frankly this whole page seems as though it has been written by the Daily Mail on behalf of the Conservative Party. It may wellhave been. It is not in the best traditions of Wikipedia to allow itself to be used in this way. Ponkywatts (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys.

All the material is well referenced. If you have any references from reliable sources that can "rebalance" the article, go ahead. In the meantime, the NPOV tag will be removed.

Unless there are concrete and constructive proposals on what to change and how, while keeping the article referenced, the only bias I see is the above unsubstantiated comments alleging POV of the article. 83.190.216.88 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Blair seems equally unpopular with the far left as with the Tories. And the LibDems have picked one of his most open critics from within the Met as their candidate for Mayor. So if the critics of the alleged POV here just leap to the assumption that the article must be from a Tory POV and don't come up with specific examples, then they are not going to be taken seriously. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article, whilst (reasonably) well-referenced, is horribly unbalanced. In particular, by seperating out each "controversial" incident under a different sub-heading, it appears to place undue weight on each. Whereas, many of them should probably be grouped together under a less specific sub-heading. Also, many of the points are one-sided and lack a counter-balancing explanation/excuse/justification/whatever from Mr Blair (sorry, Sir Ian). DWaterson (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stubbed

I have removed most of the material from this article as a quite unacceptable hatchet-job. If these things cannot be discussed in a neutral manner, rather than a calculated portrayal of Blair as a bigot and I don't know what else, then it's better left unsaid. This was one of the most overtly vitriolic articles I can recall, and for a senior public official still in office and under no actual sanction for wrongdoing, that really is not acceptable. Here's what we need in this case: good, reliable, secondary (i.e. not newspaper, especially tabloid) sources which discuss the events in question and how they were received in the various communities and by other stakeholders such as ACPO and the Home Office. Arms-length sources, with an emphasis on analytical coverage. There won't be many books, but there will be heavyweight news magazines, learned journals, that kind of thing. We cannot get into the business of being a tabloid aggregator, because tabloids typically look only to today's sensationalism and do not go back and correct their errors. Links to many newspaper stories does not constitute being well-referenced, in a case like this, because the papers will all have their own political agenda. "Blair is teh murderer" is great newspaper copy, but not a good Wikipedia article, because it lacks intellectual rigour, reflection and context. Please, folks, we can do better than this. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the BLP noticeboard discussion, where several people (including me) mentioned that the Jean Charles de Menezes incident needs to be covered, I am going to start re-adding stuff. I will endeavour to do so in a sensitive manner. Please leave me a note here or on my talk page if there are problems. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting the Jean Charles de Menezes bit

[edit] Jean Charles de Menezes

Main article: Jean Charles de Menezes

Blair's public profile rose considerably when he issued statements during the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 21 July 2005 London bombings^{[citation needed]}.

Sir Ian was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time of the death of the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. After the shooting, he telephoned the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and wrote a letter to the Home Office stating that "the shooting that has just occurred at Stockwell is not to be referred to the IPCC and that they will be given no access to the scene at the present time".^[1] In the UK police shootings are routinely investigated by the IPCC. He also made a false statement claiming that a warning had been issued prior to the shooting. Demands have been made for his resignation especially by Alessandro Pereira, a cousin of Menezes. The IPCC held an investigation into the false statements, and allegations of attempts to delay an inquiry. On 2nd August 2007 the IPCC announced its findings that the allegations against Blair couldn't be substantiated, instead placing the blame for misleading the public on Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who had failed to report his suspicions that an innocent man had been killed, and had released contradictory statements to the press.^[2]

Following the discovery that de Menezes was not in fact a suspected suicide bomber, Blair apparently considered resigning but quickly came to the decision to remain in office, "because the big job is to defend this country against terrorism and that's what I'm here to do". He may however come under further pressure when the IPPC report is published, and he has admitted that his decision would depend "on the level of condemnation".^[3]

Blair, or the Metropolitan Police, may face action for libel from one of his Deputy Assistant Commissioners, Brian Paddick. Paddick told the IPCC that a member of Sir Ian's private office team believed the wrong man had been targeted just six hours after the shooting. When this allegation became public following an unauthorised disclosure, Scotland Yard issued a statement claiming that the officer alleged to have believed this (Paddick) "has categorically denied this in his interview with, and statement to, the IPCC investigators". The statement continued that they "were satisfied that whatever the reasons for this suggestion being made, it is simply not true". Paddick's interpretation of this statement was that it accused him of lying.^[4]

On 28 March 2006, Paddick accepted a statement from the Metropolitan Police that it "did not intend to imply" a senior officer had misled the probe into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In a statement the Metropolitan Police said "any misunderstanding is regretted" and that Paddick had accepted its "clarification" and considered the matter closed.^[5]

In June 2006, a leaked copy of the Independent Police Complaints Commission report sparked further criticism and calls to quit.^[6]

[edit] Verdict

On 1 November 2007, a jury delivered a verdict that found New Scotland Yard guilty under health and safety laws. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Henriques, highlighted 19 "catastrophic errors" in the operation, but said 'this was very much an isolated breach under quite extraordinary circumstances' ^[7] saying that there had been "fundamental failures to carry out a planned operation in a safe and reasonable way".^[8] Ian Blair, immediately after the verdict was delivered, read a statement to the press, saying that there was "no evidence at all of systematic failure" and quoting the judge that "the failures alleged were not sustained or repeated". He said that he intended to continue to lead the Met,^[9] despite (among others) many MPs of the minority Conservative and Liberal Democrats parties calling for his resignation.^[10][11] The day after, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis wrote a letter to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith formally calling for his resignation.^[12]

On 7 November members of the London Assembly passed ^[13] a vote of no confidence in Ian Blair by fifteen votes to eight. Blair again insisted that he would not resign, saying "This conversation does not take us any further. I have stated my position. If you have the power to remove me, go on".^[14] He was also reported to say that he was being "driven from office by people who do not understand the facts and have a completely different agenda".^[15]

[edit] References

1. ^ Commissioner's letter to The Home Office. Metropolitan Police Service - Homepage. Retrieved on October 4, 2005.
2. ^ "Anti-terror chief 'misled' public", BBC, 2007-08-02. Retrieved on 2007-08-02. 
3. ^ "Police head 'considered quitting'", BBC, 22 September 2005
4. ^ "Menezes claim sparks libel talks", BBC, 17 March 2006
5. ^ "Met Police 'regret' Menezes claim", BBC, 28 March 2006
6. ^ "Met police chief under pressure", BBC, 12 June 2006
7. ^ De Menezes shooting: Police guilty of 'catastrophic errors' , The Independent, 2 November 2007
8. ^ Blair should go, Financial Times, 2 November 2007
9. ^ Sir Ian Blair's statement in full, BBC News, 1 November 2007
10. ^ Man without honour: Despite de Menezes guilty verdict, Met chief refuses to quit, The Daily Mail, 2nd November 2007
11. ^ After his 'worst day', Blair faces more pain, The Guardian, 3 November 2007
12. ^ Letter from David Davis to Jacqui Smith calling for Sir Ian Blair to resign
13. ^ Assembly call to sack Met chief
14. ^ Sir Ian Blair defies no confidence motion, Times Online, 7 November 2007
15. ^ Pressure piles up on defiant Met chief, The Guardian, 8 November 2007

[edit] Suggested changes

• Title: a better title could be to do this by year, or as an overall section on "terorrism" or the July 2005 bombings?
• Paddick is no longer in the Metropolitan Police, and is in fact the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Mayoral elections, so this bit is out of date.
• Overall, the section appears to present the views of both sides, and uses reliable sources (though whether it correctly represents what the sources say, I haven't checked yet). There are two references from a tabloid newspaper (the Daily Mail), but the rest are not tabloid sources (though they could be engaging in tabloid journalism).
• The first sentence is awkward and unclear - needs rewriting to say what it is trying to say, or to say something more relevant.
• The most important thing is to say upfront that the details of what happened are disputed, rather than trying to present "what happened". Then mention the reports and the verdicts. Then give the responses from the press and Blair and the family.
• The amount of direct quotes could be reduced, or moved to the footnotes. Sometimes they are being used selectively, and at other times they are being used to show the two sides to an issue.
• The real problem is that the balance of what to say is unclear. Those with more BLP-writing experience may know how to handle this, and how to mention news coverage without going into disputed details.

Those are my suggestions, anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree with every word you say and you'll get no objection from me if you proceed along these lines. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that it is the POlice authority (who gave Blair a vote of confidence) not the GLA whoa ctually control his fate.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but if people could help out and start editing the article, that would be good... I don't really want to do the whole rewrite myself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And looking at it, a lot of it is blow-by-blow reporting from November; there should by now be analytical sources which cover the events of last November in a more dispassionate way. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Though it is disappointing that no-one else has done anything since I made an initial attempt to start expanding what is effectively a new article. Most of our articles on the Met Police Commissioners are pretty poor, actually, but as I was going back through them, I suddenly came across Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard. Now that is an article. Almost as good is Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy. Both, admittedly, were famous for things other than their brief police roles. Here is another nice one, Sir Edward Bradford, 1st Baronet, this time someone who served for 13 years in the role, and finally we get back to Richard Mayne - 39 years in the job! Maybe we should all come back to this article in 100 years time? Or (as I think) would that be abrogating our duty to write the best article we can, now? Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of sourced material about controversies

While it's refreshing to see that the editor who originally did the stubbing has explained his motives in a civil manner and doesn't seem to be driven by a political agenda, I find his explanation on this page insufficient.

I understand there has been a separate discussion on BLP noticeboard. It would have been nice to add a link to it. People who are watching this page may not be watching that one.

If other people are to improve the article and learn lessons from past mistakes, they will need specific references to policies to accompany the criticism, especially if their violation justifies instant mass removal of a lot of hard work.

I also cannot fail to notice that virtually all of the material that has been left is not referenced at all, so I call for an explanation as to why that was left intact (and more material added) without even a call for references.

In short, what has been done may have a justification, but the way it has been done can be seen as (probably unintentionally, though the edit comment "Disgusting" was not chosen very carefully) inflammatory. What I mainly dispute is the asymmetry between the amount of work that has gone in to write and source the controversies section and the effortless instantaneous mass-removal. I think a fairer and more constructive way of doing that would have been removing (or improving) one by one the parts that were not considered acceptable, with an explanation for each and references to WP policies, leading to a more pleasant atmosphere from which we can all learn from. 210.131.167.98 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that more could be added back in from the Jean Charles de Menezes bit above. Not everything, and not in the way it was said before, but still more than we have at the moment. Would you be able to add your views above? Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now my goal is to understand whether the mass-removal was done according to WP policy, because I'm not very convinced. Since the only way to get a response seems to be to revert this change, I've just done that. 210.131.216.139 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)