Talk:Anna Soubry

80.176.224.174

Just seen who this is, Notts Conservatives. May explain why a sourced comment by Anna Soubry was removed. They also added a link to themselves on Nottingham South. Bevo74 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats ok as I'm redirecting the page as per: WP:POLITICIAN --Wintonian (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Improvements.

Firstly whilst every editor will have an interest in politics, as stated above we each have a requirement to fully understand and meet the WP:BLP policy. The article contains a number of negative stories. I propose making sure all of these include Soubry’s reply, in particular

• Slightly expand “legalisation of cannabis” to show it in context.
• Expand “ashamed of Nottingham” to include reference to Nottingham Crime, a major issue in 2005 due to the activities of one gang but I believe now resoved.

However the stories which were blanked did contain Soubry’s reply and I don’t understand the objection. The section should be updated if necessary to ensure it’s accurate and fair but to the best of my knowledge it is. Please advise why you think otherwise.
Please also make sure you understand the rules on conflict of interest.

I have also suggested trying to find some more positive stories but have had difficulty finding these so far.
Soubry is appearing on the Politics Show on 28-11-2010 discussing the Citizens Advice Bureau. They usually have a 7 minute slot. I intend to record it and provide a concise summary which can be discussed/amended prior to updating the article. If someone else wants to do it I’d be delighted. JRPG (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Additional proposed text for Political career.

On 17th November 2010, Soubry was appointed as parliamentary private secretary (PPS) to Simon Burns at the Department of Health.
JRPG (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. It took longer to sumarise than I had expected. Anna Soubry on the EM politics show is at around 40mins. I have a sound recording should there be any queries.

Politics Show

On 28 November 2010, Soubry appeared on the East Midland version of The Politics Show to discuss her efforts to help the Citizens Advice Bureau.

The program reviewed the current state of Nottinghamshire’s CAB which is facing a 30% increase in enquiries plus cuts in its budget from local councils and the Ministry of Justice.

It also briefly covered Chris Leslie’s oral question to Ken Clarke earlier that month on the same topic. In the overview, Simon Hartley Jones of Mansfield CAB said the cuts to the CAB beggared belief, threatened it with closure and contradicted the Big Society. Soubry was shown speaking to local CAB workers and it was stated that her Broxtowe CAB handled 33,000 enquiries last year.

In the studio interview Soubry said she had asked the leader of Nottingham County Council, and Clarke who she described as a “long standing supporter of the CAB” to reconsider. She also said the Government had made a £100m contingency fund available for charities facing problems in the immediate aftermath of the cuts. A reduction in the CAB’s capability would add pressure to MPs workload and it was ridiculous that MPs had hotlines to help with immigration and benefits when the CAB could do this. She believed it was imperative to continue to fund them from the public purse but also believed the banks and credit card companies who bear some responsibility for debts could help. An additional serious concern she would take up was that even at this late stage, the CAB didn’t know what its budget would be for the next financial year.
Asked about John Major’s view of the Coalition, Soubry said the first party she joined was the Liberal Democrats and she regarded the parties working together as “brilliant” It was an exciting time in politics.
JRPG (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this section could be renamed "support for CAB"? as that is effectively what it is about, and fits in better with the umbrella title "Political Career and constituency issues". Oojimaflop (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Please go ahead. JRPG (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

SLAVERY SECTION

I suggest the phrase "their courses" is replaced by "the seminar". This better reflects the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.183.18 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC) SLAVERY SECTION

You're absolutely right, I'll ask for it to be changed -or assume we can change it by mutual consent. I'd really appreciate if you can read the sources and see if I've made any more mistakes. I'm particularly keen to ensure that Soubry's "right of reply" is properly included. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Trams.

Can anyone find a citable article saying what the objections are to the tram route? Plan B is to get Anna to discuss/debate it on the politics show.JRPG (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Barrister???

Does anyone have a reliable source for her practicing as a criminal barrister? Chambers? Case work? Can't find any at all212.139.109.158 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)twl212.139.109.158 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Stops fight in cafe

Intervened to stop a brawl in a cafe, June 2014,(Coachtripfan (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC))

Uhm ..I'm not supposed to edit your posts but it was done with friendly intent, the 'references' keyword was missing. You have a reliable source so please add it. JRPG (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Circumcision controversy

Feel free to disagree with me but I didn't find the discussion told me anything I didn't already know about the subject, nor did I see any of the alleged inappropriate conduct by Soubry. An article about an individual referenced has just been deleted & I didn't notice him mentioned in the clip. Selecting clips from YouTube and commenting on them is a type of wp:editorialising -see WP:NOYT I intend to delete the section as per wp:BRD
JRPG (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Partner

She has two daughters. But it takes two to have children. Who was her partner/spouse/father of her children? It's relevant, as a major part of her past life and choices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.162.39 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It's only relevant for us if she chooses to put the information into the public domain. Otherwise it's not for us to speculate and gossip. This is Paul (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Brexit Reshuffle

The main summary does not note that she left the cabinet after Theresa May's reshuffle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.187.71 (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Soubry. 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/20070708221148/http://www.kch.co.uk:80/barristers/profile.asp?profileid=84 to http://www.kch.co.uk/barristers/profile.asp?profileid=84

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: 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) 17:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anna Soubry. 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/20120917163355/http://www.annasoubry.org.uk:80/about-anna-and-broxtowe to http://www.annasoubry.org.uk/about-anna-and-broxtowe
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714164813/http://www.kchgardensquare.co.uk/team/barristers/anna-soubry/ to http://www.kchgardensquare.co.uk/team/barristers/anna-soubry/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720235244/http://www.beestonexpress.co.uk/images/beestonexpress/Oct15pdfs/Oct15p3.pdf to http://www.beestonexpress.co.uk/images/beestonexpress/Oct15pdfs/Oct15p3.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.anna4broxtowe.com/images/stories/click_here_and_go_to_Mining.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100710062156/http://services.parliament.uk:80/bills/2010-11/anonymityarrestedpersons.html to http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2010-11/anonymityarrestedpersons.html

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) 09:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Houses of Parliament massive removals

Someone in the Houses of Parliament IP range just edited this page and removed vast amounts of information. I think that these changes need to be rolled back and any specific issues can be dealt with as individual, smaller edits. Preferably not by someone with a clear conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlight01 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

This was followed by further biased editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadlight01 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

SDP membership

Whilst there isn't a WP:RS for this, I understand the editors who added it in good faith were relying on this twitter feed JRPG (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

If you're referring to my recent edit, I was going by this quote: "She dismisses claims of once having joined the SDP as “a terrible lie that is put about”." Those tweets are new to me though - that would make her Liberal membership be from 1973 to 1975. SocialDem (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi SocialDem, I suspect there's a bit of post-referendum rebranding going on here. I note that whilst many Tories are extremely keen to link themselves to Churchill, they regard his crime of party-swapping as a most egregious offense! In the absence of a WP:RS we cannot reinstate SDP statements. I suspect Anna, like Nicky Morgan, is much more closely linked to her constituents than most Tories. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed we can't put SDP. I'm not against including Liberal party membership now she has confirmed. SocialDem (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Even though there's no evidence that she was a member of the SDP [1] Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Tabloids, and especially the Daily Mail, are not suitable sources for WP:BLPs. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 02:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

And why pick out the Daily Mail for especial mention? Tabloid though it may be it's surely in a league far above the UK's Sun, Star and Daily Mirror let alone the USA's National Enquirer. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.254.132 (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Mail is unsuitable as a source for almost anything by community consensus. It is equally as bad as all those publications mentioned above. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Summary of recent edits

Since User:JRPG has mentioned my recent edit I thought it only right to summarise the changes I have made on the talk page. These were predominately made to the lengthy constituency issues section. Changes were:

• Deleted individual subheadings and moved to top of Anna_Soubry#Parliamentary_career: private members' bill on anonymity, fracking.
• Added membership of Scottish Affairs Committee to Anna_Soubry#Parliamentary_career.
• Shortened Anna_Soubry#Tram_system section to only sentences pertaining to Soubry.
• Removed section on intern employed in 2008
• Summarised Anna_Soubry#Royal_Mail_privatisation
• Summarised Anna_Soubry#Support_for_Citizens.27_Advice_Bureau
• Shortened Anna_Soubry#HS2_.28High_Speed_Rail.29
• Removed section title "Email expressing concern about the running of Kimberley Town Council"
• Removed what ultimately felt like a lot of original research linked to mention of the private members' bill on anonymity (see edit), rather than it pertaining to Soubry herself.
• Shortened lengthy description of a Daily Politics interview on Soubry's support for NHS reforms.
• Very minor wording edits in other sections.

This was my bold attempt to improve the article, but I am very happy for other editors to make subsequent changes as they feel appropriate. SocialDem (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Residence.

As a leading remainer, Soubry has made it quite clear she feels threatened by extremists. This is a sad state of affairs whatever ones political views and no right minded person wants to increase the threat, particularly since Jo Cox. I very strongly believe that her village should not be publicised. FWIW my MP is a former Westminster councillor still living in Westminster and certainly not in semi-derelict constituency house he owns. I wouldn't dream of citing the Westminster council reference which gives his address as its not needed to meet him. JRPG (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Unusual Free speech

The lede now states "The Independent's Simon Carr has stated that "she has a record of unusually free speech".[2]" Should this be in the lede if she has never claimed it herself? Does it sound pejorative?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk♥} 02:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Section title

The section title -- of the section that mentions here joining the Independent Group -- fails to refer to the Independent Group. The title should. It is of moment sufficent to call for it being reflected in the section title. --2604:2000:E010:1100:CC32:B084:F0BA:1E92 (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral POV on the Nazi incident

@Ralbegen: Please explain why you've reverted my edit. I included reliable sources including the BBC, other media outlets and sources which were enough to support a claim that "x reportedly shows y" (i.e. "a video surfaced online which reportedly shows Soubry claiming that Brexit had unleashed "racists" and "fascists""). The video did surface online and it has been reported to show Soubry claiming racists and fascists have been unleashed because of Brexit. Why do Soubry's critics not get a fair shake? You certainly have no argument to remove the response to Soubry from Spiked. My information was totally verified.

In order for this article to have a Neutral POV, it is imperative that Soubry's critics' views on the incident are included, not just her allies. Furthermore, the fact that both sides of the argument have been throwing around accusations of fascism and nazism will be very much of interest to future academics as well as academics today, as it demonstrates how the political dialogue has changed. Downfall Vision (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The text that you added was After the incident and the later incident in January 2019, Soubry called on the Police to "do their job", claiming that the incident was "a criminal offence". supported by references to the BBC and the Sun. The Sun is heavily discouraged as a source per WP:RSN. The BBC is a reliable source, but I don't think Soubry calling for police action is a useful detail when the article already includes the fact that one of the protesters was charged with harassment.

The next sentence you added is sourced to an opinion piece in Spiked. I don't think this passes WP:DUE, and opinion pieces in magazines aren't reliable sources. The third and final passage you added is sourced to a tweet and a YouTube video, which don't establish due weight. WP:NPOV is about making sure that there is balance between reliable sources. It doesn't mean giving equal prominence to events covered in reliable sources and what someone writes in an opinion piece for an online magazine. Ralbegen (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

"In September 2016, Soubry criticised members of Vote Leave when it became clear that the pledge "at the heart … of their message" of £350,000,000 a week of extra funding for the NHS was being dropped from post-Brexit plans".

This line should be removed. It is misleading and not based upon fact. There is no reference to a pledge of £350,000,000 of extra NHS funding per week. Even the controversial statement on the side of the 'red bus' does not identify an 'extra' amount. The 2017 UK budget increases to the NHS resulted in a budget over £350M per week. The related newspaper reference is an opinion, and does not relate to the organisation that was originally claimed to have made the pledge. The organisation is a different one as identified in the article. CRWPuk (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: From what I'm reading, this sentence does seem like an accurate summary of the Guardian article (at least as it relates to Soubry). There is established consensus that the Guardian is generally considered a reliable source for use on Wikipedia (unless it's tagged as a blog post, which this is not). The article does not read as a work of opinion to me. If the Guardian is reporting factually inaccurate information then you should contact them for a retraction or correction. In the meantime, I see no reason to remove this information from the article here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)