Talk:Borough of Fareham

Make up of Council

The graphic showing the structure of the council is not consistent with the legend below it. The number of seats and the colours used do not match. 87.112.74.175 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

history

Is "Whiteley Matters" wrong to try and rewrite Fareham Bouncil's history? Tell us what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TStanton (talk • contribs) 09:54, 16 September 2008

This is ridiculous. The newspaper is wrong to claim that "the claim is not related to Cllr Woodward's council work". The Local Authorities Model Code of Conduct applies to county and district councils. Sean Woodward would have agreed to adhere to the Code with both FBC and HCC. A critical and quite crucial part of the FBC code states: “You must not conduct yourself in a manner which could reasonably be regarded as bringing your office or authority into disrepute.” Therefore, it is quite obvious that there is a relation between the report and the articles.

It is well known that a case like this has large implications for both Whiteley and Fareham Borough Council. "Whiteley Matters" would rather hope that the subject is buried and out of public view. If you look at some of his other edits, you'll notice that he makes a habit of this type of behaviour.TStanton (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

TStanton, the issue is not Whiteley Matters, the issue is the article. Numerous disinterested editors have now taken that material out of the article, there is clearly no consensus that it be included, rather there is rough consensus that it be removed. You are free to argue here for its inclusion, but be careful. Remember to assume good faith. What Whiteley Matters wants, who is obviously, from the name alone, an SPA, as are you from your contributions history, isn't the issue. The issue is the article in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia guidelines and policy about that. So keep your discussion on that point. I'll assume that you are the IP editor who was edit warring with Whiteley Matters. If that isn't the case, please say so.

Meanwhile, as to the issue itself. What we have here is a legal case, a civil case, apparently, a claim of discrimination filed against a member of the borough Council, not for any official action, but for unrelated action, allegedly, in the conduct of his private business. Such charges can arise with no wrong-doing whatsoever, and the case has not been decided. But even if it were decided against the defendant, it would not necessarily rise to the level of a violation of the FBC code, which clearly is about the "office or authority," not the non-governmental conduct of the defendant. What you apparently consider obvious is far from obvious to this totally disinterested observer, me. Now, suppose that the councillor is found responsible for damages to the plaintiff. Such damages can arise from conduct, sometimes, that involves no moral terpitude whatever, but simply a failure to observe some regulation or standard, a business mistake. So even a finding for the plaintiff wouldn't raise this matter to encyclopedic notability.

However, if charges were credibly filed against the councillor for violation of the FBC code, and this were reported in the media, then *maybe* it would have become sufficiently notable. However, there remains the matter of undue weight. There is nothing in the article about this particular councillor. If he's not notable enough for mention, it would seem to be undue weight for him to be mentioned because he's done something wrong, unless the wrong were so drastic that it got, say, national coverage. In other words, it would then be a situation which draws attention to Whiteley, as the place where this terrible wrongdoing took place, and it then becomes -- arguably -- worth of mention in the article on the place (or, in this case, the borough in which Whiteley sits).

But it isn't there, now, and I rather doubt it's going to get there. --Abd (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, over here!

Content disputes are discussed here, not on edit summaries :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Borough of Fareham. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fareham.gov.uk/council/councillors/wardmap.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001031954/http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10108240&c_id=10001043 to http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/relationships.jsp?u_id=10108240&c_id=10001043

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) 18:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)