This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Emma Lewell-Buck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
A dynamic-IP has been trying to blank the "Controversy" section and the page as been protected. I have fixed the two refs used in this section (they were to urls), but it is not clear to me that there was real "controversy" here. In this ref, which is not a strong source, she claimed that she was being targeted [1], and ultimately, her husband was not fined, and ended up winning £400 in compensation.? While The Times ref is a very strong RS, I am not sure this went anywhere and no other material UK RS mentions the "controversy"? My question is whether this "controversy" section is unfair to her? Britishfinance (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
However an independent social worker found no evidence to substantiate the claims made by South Tyneside Council and the Local Government Ombudsman investigated South Tyneside Council four times and on each occasion "found fault with the council".
There was no police investigation and the Disclosure and Barring Service have stated that there is no restrictions on Mr Buck working with vulnerable children or adults. Harlow Harry (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The only more recent source is [2], but story is the same there - allegations made, Simon disputed, Simon lost, Simon appealed, ombudsman said investigation was flawed but did not dispute verdict, investigators reaffirmed verdict, fin. If something else has happened since then, it does not appear to be in the news. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
