Talk:Catherine Meyer, Baroness Meyer

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

Note[edit]

I created this page to put down some of what I know and have discovered about Catherine Meyer. As anyone who has read one of her books will know, Lady Meyer has been an important figure in changing political attitudes towards child abduction. This page really only touches the surface so it would be great if anyone had additional information or references they wish to add. I will try and add content to it going forward as well. This is my first page and I have tried to format it correctly but let me know if there need to be changes. Thanks.JoshuaISDavidson (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed material[edit]

The reference to the Daily Telegraph and the Independent on Sunday are valid. They are two of the countries biggest newspapers and their coverage of a scandal involving Catherine Meyer, whether liked or not by her and her PR team, is newsworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assesment, but would like to have some input from the editors who removed the material. I will notify both of them of this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The references to the Daily Telegraph and Independent on Sunday (the latter with one of the smallest circulations for any British national newspaper) lack context and objectivity. There has been no "scandal", since PACT's accounts have been endorsed by the charities regulator, the Charity Commission. The references are not to news stories, but to gossip or diary columns. Most important of all, the source of the stories is a disgruntled former volunteer whom PACT dismissed for drunken and abusive behaviour at a fund-raising event before scores of witnesses.If necessary, he can be named. It is in other words a revenge smear, which has been pursued also on Twitter and Facebook. If there has to be a reference to the press stories, this must be qualified by: "On investigation, it was discovered that the source of these stories was a disgruntled former volunteer dismissed by PACT for drunken and abusive behaviour at a fund-raising event in front of multiple witnesses." (Holbornesque (talk) 13:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Do you have an independent reference for that? I have already found this letter (charity salary section), but that is from the organization itself and can't be presented as fact. Yoenit (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION FROM MATTHEW STEEPLES: The accounts of these charities are indisputable fact. Some 50% of income of this charity and considerably more in expenses were paid to Lady Meyer and her assistant. The Telegraph, who published three pieces in their "Mandrake" column on the subject, and the Independent on Sunday chose to publish this story based on the following documents that are in fact PACT's very own accounts. These accounts clearly illustrate the fact that an unusually large proportion of this charity's income was paid by a board (that happens to include Lady Meyer's husband and several of her friends) to Lady Meyer and her assistant. Here are two of the most recent sets of published accounts of the charity PACT:

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends04/0001081904_ac_20101231_e_c.pdf

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends04/0001081904_AC_20091231_E_C.PDF

Janet Street-Porter, a well known and respected columnist, also covers the matter at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/columnists/janet-street-porter/editoratlarge-the-giving-sector-is-a-mess-ndash-and-thats-being-charitable-2290324.html. Street_Porter rightly points out "The problems faced by parents who have children abducted are considerable, but does a charity this small really need two highly paid executives?" This criticism was backed up further by a number of letters from individuals from all over the UK. References to four of them follow:

1. Daily Telegraph letters (Letters from Jack Stonehouse, Matthew Steeples and James Squire), 16th May - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8515040/Business-leaders-believe-high-speed-rail-will-help-northern-cities-to-grow.html 2. Daily Telegraph letters, 19th May 2011 (Letter from Linda Hughes) –http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8521827/Britain-gained-more-than-its-moneys-worth-from-the-Royal-Yacht-Britannia.html 3. Independent on Sunday, 22nd May 2011 (Letter from Michael Ezra) – http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/iiosi-letters-emails-amp-online-postings-22-may-2011-2287416.html 4. Daily Telegraph letters, 28th May 2011 (Letter from Michael Ezra) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8542580/Surgeons-want-a-fair-hearing-for-proposed-NHS-reforms-involving-GPs.html

The source of the disputed story is not the person who those above level false allegations against. The person those above attempt to smear is Matthew Steeples. Matthew Steeples can confirm that this story was exposed by none other than a Daily Telegraph journalist who had no contact with him in relation to this subject prior to the afternoon of 11th May 2011, the very same day that the first story "Ambassador's wife faces questions over Bush and Blair's charity" was first published in the Daily Telegraph.

Matthew Steeples is, in fact, the one subject to a smear campaign by Lady Meyer's husband (http://www.twitter.com/sirsocks) himself and friends of Lady Meyer including one Mowbray Jackson (http://www.twitter.com/mowbrayjackson) on Twitter and elsewhere.

Matthew Steeples was not "dismissed" by this charity. He quit by his own choice in disgust at the way this charity allocated its resources.

Matthew Steeples did not have knowledge of the first story written by the Telegraph, but in fact first became aware on 11th May 2011 when he was interviewed in the following article, published on 12th May 2011: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8507740/Cilla-Black-is-carrying-Paul-OGradys-baby.html

The links relating to the expose on how Lady Meyer's charity allocates its resources are backed up by ample evidence and should not be removed by Wikipedia as they come from a variety of impartial sources. These individuals happen to be respected columnists and whatever Lady Meyer thinks of them, she cannot change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy folks. I am comming from the BLP board. I just removed the disputed "material" until things could be sorted out. How really notable is this, err, dispute, revelation, accusation, errr, this whatevertheheckyouwanttocallit? Seriously, is this a huge story or more a TMZesque thing? I am on the wrong side of the pond and have zippo knowledge, but per BLP, we/you/I should be very careful in the weight/inclusion given to this type of "material". Just becasue you have a link to a paper doesn't mean automatic inclusion. Anyways, cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your removal of the material. Your comment does not even make sense. notability has nothing to do with article content. This is a story published by mainstream newspapers, which you would have known if you had read the actual sources. Just because you say "BLP" does not mean automatic removal. Yoenit (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it was published by mainstream newspaper doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. If this really is a big deal and widely covered in say a year or two from now, yet alone today, then maybe revist. I am not seeing consensus for inclusion so I will remove it again. Eventually maybe we both should defer to others? --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am against inclusion of the material and have explained my reasoning in more detail on BLPN. In addition, I'm not sure that any consensus for inclusion would be valid if, as I believe, possible BLP violations are involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn't what constitutes a BLP violation work by consensus as well(if you know what I mean)? Look at the santorum mess for example. Whatever the final consensus is there, folks would be hard pressed to reverse that based on BLP. Anyways, thank you, --Threeafterthree (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This information is relevant. This accusation is relevant as these activities bring charity in general into disrepute. The whole thing stinks and the fact that two national newspapers have repeatedly covered this show the level of public interest in the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.158.186 (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three, if I understand you properly, I agree. If there's an issue of whether something constitutes a BLP violation, that issue would have to be resolved, either by consensus or by some other method. Here's an extreme example when consensus wouldn't matter. John Doe is a BLP. I say that John Doe committed murder without any source. My edit is reverted based on a BLP violation. Ten editors come along and establish a consensus that it isn't a BLP violation. At that point, I assume, some dispute resolution would have to fix it. But the supposed consensus would end up being meaningless. Unfortunately, in "real life", things aren't always so clear-cut.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, guys, whether we are getting it right on all the requests for citations. Some don't look necessary. The text itself explains what Meyer did in the US, campaigning with American parents. Ditto her cooperation in the UK with the police, Home Office and other NGOs - she's a member of the Home Office Strategic Oversight Group. She gave good citations for winning her complaint against the Lord Chancellor's Department and being a 2010 ICAP selected charity. A lot of the PACT detail is on its own page. Do we really need citations for her parents, education and early career in financial institutions that have since disappeared? But I agree there are others like membership of the LIFFE board that need collateral. Lutetia99 (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We generally need sources for every assertion of fact in the article. If the PACT detail is on its own page, then it shouldn't be a problem to find a source from that page and include it here. It's normal to include citations about one's family, one's early career, etc. The age of when something happened doesn't alter the equation. The article is very poorly cited as it stands, and the first step to improving it is to tag it. However, if sources aren't found after a certain period of time, the assertions may be removed as unsourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. All have been noted, though not sure how we can add citations regarding her schooling, university or early career as the Internet didn't exist in those days and therefore no citations available. Also, what would one need as citation for her parents? On the rest, I added links to some articles but I see that this is not what is required. Lastly her being on the board of directors of LIFFE is also difficult to cite as LIFFE was taken over by EURONEXT and only citations are other articles about her past career. Would a link to those be acceptable? Giraferusse (talk) 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet doesn't have to exist for there to be cites. Newspaper articles are often kept on the Internet, although the publications predate the Internet. In addition, there are books that may have information in them. Unfortunately, if no cite is found, the material has to be removed. That's just Wikipedia reality. As for the LIFFE issue, you could post the cite here, and I could look at it, but it's hard to answer your question in the abstract.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine Meyer. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Catherine Meyer. 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:

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) 06:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Catherine_Meyer,_Baroness_Meyer&oldid=1200419418"