Talk:Jonathan Fisher (barrister)

Untitled

The page is unbiased, informative and verifiable. Hannah.rachel0801 (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The page is about a professional and an academic who has been the subject of secondary source material that is intellectually independent for example see, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/staff/jonathan-fisher.htm Hannah.rachel0801 (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The nomination for deletion isn not on the grounds that it's an advert although I see that the topic has previously been deleted for that reason, and by your statement (on the article page not her, incidentally) I can only assume you know that also. The ground for deletion is that Jonathan Fisher isn't notable enough to merit inclusion, see WP:BIO. NtheP (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page 'Jonathan Fisher (lawyer)' and having researched the internet sources listed on the page, it is clear to me that all the information is correct and well substantiated. Consequently, the tags that were applied to the page are no longer applicable and I have removed them. Natural born singer (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Natural Born Singer

No one has disputed whether the information is correct or not; the main issues are conflict of interest and promotion. There is still some promotional language, and this is still largely a resume style entry. Usually maintenance tags are removed after a rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

COI

There are persistent COI and single-purpose accounts editing this page, introducing dubious language throughout. I'm not convinced that cleanup is anywhere near complete. Hairhorn (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the conflict of interest? And what is objected to about the content. This has all been discussed before, and the information is all verifiable and correct. That falls a long way short of a conflict of interest. And neither is there anything wrong with a single purpose account. Not everyone needs to spend all his time on WP. Ironman1104 (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The conflict of interest issues are discussed at length at User talk:Hannah.rachel0801, User talk:Fisherjon1 and elsewhere. Hairhorn (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of that old discussion. The info is verifiable and correct. What's the problem? Ironman1104 (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you've read the discussions you already know where the conflict of interest is, so there's little point asking where it lies. Hairhorn (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Further Improvements

Having read into various legal publications involving Jonathan Fisher QC recently, particularly regarding legal developments with financial crime, the following additions are suggested to improve this page:-

In March 2010 Fisher authored a report for Policy Exchange entitled “Fighting Fraud and Financial Crime”, arguing that the present arrangements for fighting serious fraud, corruption and financial market crimes were deficient. . In particular, Fisher highlighted the haphazard development of Government agencies tasked with tackling these crimes which had created a system of overlapping responsibilities for investigation and prosecution and caused unnecessary duplication of manpower and specialist resources. . Fisher called for the establishment of a unified agency as the best way forward.

Fisher’s proposals for reform were adopted by the Conservative Party in their Policy Document, “Change for the Better in Financial Services”, published in April 2010. The document noted that Fisher endorsed the Conservative Party’s recommendations for change. . The following month, in the aftermath of the General Election, the Coalition Government declared its intention “to create a single agency to take on the work of tackling serious economic crime that is currently done by, among others, the Serious Fraud Office, Financial Services Authority and Office of Fair Trading.” . Subsequently, the commitment was dropped amidst internal differences in government circles over the remit of the newly formed National Crime Agency and the establishment of an Economic Crime Command.

More recently, in its Policy Review entitled “Tackling Serious Fraud and White Collar Crime” the Labour Party adopted another of Fisher’s suggestions for reform involving the extension of criminal law liability for companies.

In July 2012 the House of Commons Treasury Committee appointed Fisher as a specialist legal adviser to assist the Committee on its report, “Fixing LIBOR: some preliminary findings”. The report, HC 481–I, was published on 18 August 2012.

Fisher peer reviewed the main findings of a Report to the Attorney General on the inspection of the Serious Fraud Office carried out by HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate in November 2012.

On 14th March 2013 Fisher gave a Distinguished Professorial Address at the University of West of England, arguing that the difficulties in policing the financial markets reflected a broader ambivalence in society’s attitude towards acts of dishonesty and financial crime.

Fisher has also been involved in the debate over a UK Bill of Rights. In May 2011 Fisher was appointed a Commissioner on the Bill of Rights Commission established by the Coalition Government to investigate the case for a UK Bill of Rights. When the Commission reported, Fisher co-authored with Lord Faulks QC a paper entitled “Unfinished Business” which criticized the work of the European Court of Human Rights and called for a reconsideration of the UK’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights.

--Any comments welcome, including best proposed structure for this information. Gavin Ward, Legal Blogger (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonathan Fisher (barrister). 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/20121001040511/http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/cbr/members to http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/cbr/members
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.conservativelawyers.com/assets/uploads/publications/pdf/Intercept-evidence.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614014831/http://www.conservativelawyers.com/assets/uploads/publications/pdf/Bill-of-Rights-and-Obligations.pdf to http://www.conservativelawyers.com/assets/uploads/publications/pdf/Bill-of-Rights-and-Obligations.pdf

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) 21:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)