Talk:Laura Kuenssberg

Notability

An award winning journalist passes WP:BIOGRAPHY - see here

Citizenship

Which citizenship(s) does she hold? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

She's Chinese Grim23, admit it!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.136.41 (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just changed opening para from Scottish to British. If its important, we should qualify by saying "of Scottish ethnicity", but let's call all Brits British and not Scottish, English, Welsh or Norther Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.228 (talk) 09:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

James who?

'She is married to James' reads oddly. James who? It is unusual to refer to people by just their forename. 86.185.218.173 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Name removed per WP:BLPNAME as it adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that his name is not very relevant, but as he is quite prominent in business,[1][2][3] and was once a Parliamentary Researcher, it would be useful in principle to mention his work. But as only the Daily Mail names him with surname, I do not think we have solid WP:RS to do this, and this would involve too much original research. Rwendland (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laura Kuenssberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925020213/http://www.rts.org.uk/Information_page_+_3_pic_det.asp?id=2790&sec_id=547 to http://www.rts.org.uk/Information_page_+_3_pic_det.asp?id=2790&sec_id=547

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusations of bias in social media

Yesterday I made a change to record the fact that her coverage of local elections in 2016 was widely criticised on social media for anti-Labour bias. This was certainly factually correct. It has been removed. Does anyone know why? Or is Wikipedia anti-Labour too?

No, it was deleted because you did not provide any citations to support this claim, e.g. from newspapers, TV channels etc. Peteinterpol (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The edit war going on over this is getting tedious, with content constantly added and removed. Time perhaps to use Wikipedia's escalation procedures to try to resolve this once and for all? Peteinterpol (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Addition of the Canary to "see also"

Why has the Canary been added to the see also section? It has not been mentioned in the article at all. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Canary is a marginally notable blog which has published a lot of articles critical of Kuessenberg. That's far too tenuous to belong in a BLP. Dtellett (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say in WP guidance that Huffington Post is not a suitable source for a WP:BLP?

According to its WP article, the Huffington Post seems a reliable source that has won a Pulitzer Prize. A recent edit was justified by the editor by saying that it is not a reliable source. What is the justification for that claim? Is there any WP guidance on this or is it that editor's subjective personal view? Peteinterpol (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Huffington Post is pretty mixed: there's some good journalists writing for it but it self describes as a "blog and content aggregator" and doesn't necessarily have the same editorial standards as other news outlets. It's discussed here [4] without drawing any clear conclusion. I'd have said the relevance was more of an issue with this particular quote though. It's a biography of Kuessenberg, not an inquiry into 38degrees' petition policing Dtellett (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the above, it's worth pointing out that the HuffPo journalists' comments are taken out of context: the writer mentions in passing "some speculation about a campaign to discredit the petition" in an article critical of the petition and its signatories. The sources of this speculation appear to be exclusively on WP:FRINGE blogs like the Canary and Craig Murray's blog. Dtellett (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have now raised this entire issue in a request for formal mediation. Slightlymuddy (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure that is necessary, Huff Post is widely regarded as not suitable for a BLP due to its tabloid journalism. In addition, as Dtellett pointed out, the comments from Middleton are taken out of context, and ignore the fact that Babbs said that the abuse was on other sites rather than 38 Degrees itself, which was removed in your edit for some reason. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

38 Degrees Petition: Verifiability of Sources

Since Wikipedia requires "extensive talk page discussion" and an attempt to reach concensus in resolving disputes, this is my attempt to initiate just that. I would like to start with several points.

1. Whilst I understand the reservations about Huffington Post as a reliable source, I have consulted the wikipedia page on verifiability. This states the following: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")." I would suggest that my contrubution meets these criteria in that the individual contributor to The Huffington Post, Ian Middleton, is a professional and moreover I have named him in my contribution.
2. In my view the question of verifiability is at the heart of this matter. The source for the given reason for removal of the petition consists of two articles from The Guardian. No doubt it would be argued that this publication has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". However, the argument in this instance is that if The Guardian had checked its facts, it would have found that there is no evidence that the alledged abuse ever took place either on the petition page or elsewhere on social media. Certainly neither The Guardian, nor 38 Degrees, nor indeed (to my knowledge) any other organisation has produced evidence and indeed it is clear that the comments on the petition itself were not abusive (with the exception of three uses of the word "cow" among over 800 comments). It could therefore be argued that in this instance, The Guardian is no more a reliable source than is The Huffington Post.
3. WP:NPOV injuncts us to seek to provide a balanced account. I don't believe we need to believe either account of events surrounding the petition to be obliged to record the fact that the reasons for the removal of the petition are controversial. To provide balance, both sides of the argument should be included. The alternative is simply to remove reference to the 38 Degrees petition on the grounds that none of the sources are verifiable or reliable. But this seems a rather radical step.
4. It seems to me that the onus is on those who reject my contribution to provide sources that actually document the abuse directed at Ms Kuenssberg. If they can do this I will happily withdraw from this issue.--Slightlymuddy (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

1. Indeed, if it was a comment piece from a professional journalist for a non-tabloid newspaper, or a politician (or someone from 38 Degrees itself) then it would be acceptable. From the Huffington Post description of Ian Middleton, however he is a columnist for "Retail Week Magazine".

In which case you are setting yourself up as arbiter of who is and who is not a professional writer?--Slightlymuddy (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

2. If you have any evidence from any reliable sources that this is the case, then feel free to add them.

3. We do not need to provide documentation of the actual abuse, that is not what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia goes on what is published in mainstream news reports and other reputable sources.

4. Same as 3. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law, and the suggestion that it is incumbent upon editors to find primary sources to substantiate a claim of abuse when reporting a very-widely reported claim of abuse fundamentally misunderstands its purpose. We haven't staked out the Heard/Depp household either! The idea we need to insert a reference that "A Huffington Post columnist mentioned that some unnamed people - who appear in practice to be conspiracy theorist bloggers - think there might have been a conspiracy to delete the petition, and it appears that 38degrees filtered out most abusive comments on the actual petition" for "balance" is ludicrous. If that's the best supporting evidence that can be found of a controversy, there is no controversy, period, and no need to manufacture claims of controversy by selectively quoting a blog that clearly thought removal of the petition was the correct decision in the interests of "balance". Above all, establishing whether there was enough sexual abuse to satisfy Slightlymuddy 's personal threshold for evidence that David Babbs' decision was the correct one has no relevance whatsoever to Kuenssberg's actual biography Dtellett (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

On point 2, Babbs in his later piece in The Guardian (currently cited) supports this by acknowledging "[one] man who called the office, said that he had examined the comments left beneath the petition before it had been taken down and had noticed [just] one sexist comment which he said should have been removed" coupled with concluding the petition was just the "launch pad for sexist hate speech towards her on other platforms". So it seems to me the only real area of dispute is the 2nd quote "may have been part of an orchestrated campaign on behalf of those looking to discredit the petition itself", which I agree is an "may have been" speculative comment we could do without. I'd be content to see the HuffPost cite added, but leaving the text broadly as it currently is which states the abuse was "on other social media websites". Or perhaps with a small addition "and not in the 38degree petition itself". Rwendland (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Dtellett I admire your inventiveness; as I am sure you know, there is no evidence that "38degrees filtered out most abusive comments on the actual petition". With respect to Kuenssberg's biography I would submit that this is entirely relevant. All of the media coverage of her involvement in the recent Corbyn press conference refers back to the petition and the reasons it was removed. Albeit we cannot predict the future, this does look like being a significant incident in her history which will be raised again and again. I am happy in principal to accept the suggestion of Rwendland, although I would still maintain that in the absence of actual evidence, the abuse is alledged. I would suggest that as an editor of any work that aims to be authoritative, one should exercise source criticism. My reading of verifiability is that newspapers etc. are ranked below other publications, such as refereed journals, precisely because they do not provide source evidence to justify their assertions. In this instance it seems to me irrelevant how many times the allegation has been repeated in the media if none of those sources has ever produced any actual evidence for their claims. I am quite happy to accept that, as Rwendland suggests, the allegation of a conspiracy is speculative and unsubstantiated. But I wish to reiterate that, by the same token, the allegations of abuse are also unsubstatiated. A revised text then might say something along the lines of "the petition was removed because of alleged abuse on other social media websites, but which was not present in the 38degree petition itself" with the inclusion of a link to the Huffington Post article--Slightlymuddy (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Slightlymuddy I admire your persistence almost as much as I deplore your disingenuous approach to debate, but as I'm sure you well know the owner of 38degrees has stated the reason his website did not display any terms of sexist abuse is because offensive terms were filtered out and offensive comments were flagged [5] (which is pretty standard for comments on political websites). So the fact that few offensive comments appear to be visible on the site is not remotely close to being evidence that they did not exist, and it would be deliberately and wilfully misleading to try to imply otherwise. Wikipedia says the petition was removed for reasons David Babb stated. We do not need to insinuate that he was lying because a HuffPo commentator noted in passing that some tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorists think otherwise, especially not when the rights or wrongs of David Babb's decision is utterly irrelevant to the subject of the article Dtellett (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Leaving aside the ambiguity of what Mr Babbs says in his blog, we are still left with the same situation. He states "in this case the problem was with social media comments which linked to the petition and contained abusive language. It wasn’t possible for these to be moderated because they were on twitter, not the 38 Degrees site." Yet no one has produced these comments. One need not insinuate that Mr Babbs or anyone is lying, but for whatever reason he is unable or unwilling to back up what he claims. Therefore the abuse remains an allegation. I would also reiterate that since this allegation of abuse towards Ms Kuenssberg continues to be reiterated in the media, and may well be for the forseeable future, it is entirely relevant to the article. Dtellett repeatedly asserts that this topic is irrelevant, but I would invite her/him to explain why this is so. Some form of compromise has been offered and if Dtellett and Absolutelypuremilk are willing to compromise, then so am I. Alteratively, if they are able to produce evidence that the claim of abuse is more than an allegation, I will drop the matter. --Slightlymuddy (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You can continue to insist the media is wrong and demand primary sources until you are blue in the face but that's not how Wikipedia works. It is, in fact, the exact reverse of how Wikipedia expects things to be sourced. Contradicting things which continue to be reiterated by mainstream sources is similarly the precise opposite of Wikipedia's purpose. Here's a couple of the tweets you claim the article should be reworded to pretend don't exist:[6][7] Here, for a bit of variation, is some anti-Semitism [8][9] But yeah, if you want to see ones that have been deleted like the one quoted here [10] you'll need Google's cache. Thank you for dropping the matter as promised. Dtellett (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will leave it at that.--Slightlymuddy (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Trivia and neutrality

The incident in which Labour Party members booed Laura Kuenssberg is trivial and non-notable. It should be removed as we already know from other details that Kuenssberg is not liked by some people. As these seem to be entirely Corbyn's supporters, it is a small minority given his very negative approval rating and Labour's current low level of support in the opinion polls. Showing Corbyn's supporters in a bad light by indicating they booed someone is not, I would have thought, a good idea even if Kuenssberg is a hate figure for them.

The heading 'Controversy' is mildly sensationalist, whereas the version I used ("BBC political editor") is a statement of fact. Two of the three "Controversies" are really a matter of opinion. The Doughty incident could be seen as Kuenssberg and her colleagues doing their jobs as journalists in breaking a story, while the petition was itself controversial and had limited support. So there is an issue of non-neutrality here too. Philip Cross (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the booing incident is trivial and the controversy section should be worked into the rest of the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura Kuenssberg. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rts.org.uk/Information_page_%2B_3_pic_det.asp?id=2790&sec_id=547
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110625064345/http://corporate.itn.co.uk/about-itn/media-centre/press-release/Laura_Kuenssberg.aspx to http://corporate.itn.co.uk/about-itn/media-centre/press-release/Laura_Kuenssberg.aspx

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) 06:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Kuenssberg. 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/20110928152225/http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mfwhoswho/individuals/K_mfwwi/nicholas_kuenssberg.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/mfwhoswho/individuals/K_mfwwi/nicholas_kuenssberg.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) 04:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Place of birth

I removed an addition of Milan as the place of birth, as it was sourced from an ancestry website. I am generally against using these on BLPs as they are primary sources and we necessarily know whether it is her or another person with the same name (and possibly parents with the same name). Thoughts? Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I searched for quite a while for Milan in any other source and drew a blank. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Honorifics

Is there any reason why we should ignore WP:HONORIFIC here? We're stating them for both of her parents, who are not even the subject of the article. - Sitush (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also not sure from where we got the information regarding her husband, whose name and education is not in the cited source. Additionally, the two Robertsons mentioned in the infobox as relatives appear to be unsourced (unless they're in the deadlinked Debretts citation?) - Sitush (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2019

Please replace the following text, "..a Tory apologist and propagandist who should've been killed by Labour activists" with is currently the BBCs political editor 165.225.80.165 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The vandalism has already been removed. Thanks for letting us know! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Protection request

Protect whole article due to repeated vandalism of page. Mgrant78 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mgrant78: This template is for requesting edits to pages that are already protected. If you think that the article should be protected please list it at requests for page protection. I've removed the duplicate request below. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 03:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

It's really odd/sad that Wikipedia continues to allow Scottish nationalists to repeatedly change Kuenssberg's nationality from Scottish to British because they don't like what they belive to be her politics. Pathetic.

2A02:C7F:BAC5:7800:293E:C14:449B:C828 (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary I believe the present lead reflects her identity accurately. Not using this as a negative - I dislike the SNP on a moderate level - but her politics clearly reflect a more pro-'One Nation' view than any regionalism.--SinoDevonian (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

pending changes

Ping me or request unprotection if PC gets in the way.-- Deepfriedokra 13:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

BBC's Laura Kuenssberg criticised for reporting that a Tory aide was 'punched'

Can someone add a bit about the criticism the subject of this page received for reporting that a Conservative Party aide was punched? Here are some sources:

Thanks

83.218.151.178 (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Apparently there were also "several other high profile broadcast journalists" who have been heavily criticized. ITV's Robert Peston and Paul Brand were also named. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Despite the large number of sources provided above, this looks like a simple mistake and also trivia. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Trivia Page at WP:HTRIVIA and I can't see how it fits the criteria of "trivia" and does not fit the criteria of "relevant". Can you list the criteria for "trivia" as you understand them so we can see how you came to your decision? Thanks 83.218.151.178 (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The advice opens with this sentence: "Trivia is broadly defined as information that is not important." I don't think it was important, certainly not in terms of Kuenssberg's career as a whole. Sometimes reporters get things wrong, through no fault of their own. Happy to get the views of other editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

just added a bit about it being factually false about the Punch 80.47.148.59 (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Postal Votes

Can we add something about the subject of this page receiving a warning from the Electoral Commission? Sources:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/laura-kuenssberg-bbc-postal-votes-electoral-commission-a4311261.html

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/laura-kuenssbergs-postal-votes-comments-17403636

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/concerns-raised-as-laura-kuenssberg-reveals-insight-into-how-postal-votes-are-stacking-up-1-6420389

Thanks 80.47.148.59 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Now added, thanks. Many people may be unaware this is even possible. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2019

The following paragraph is INACCURATE, the EC did NOT "respond" to the incident:

In December 2019, in response to Kuenssberg suggesting that parties could "get a hint" of how they are doing when postal voting papers were opened to be verified, and that the Electoral Commission responded, via Twitter, "It may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening sessions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed." Kuenssberg said she had been told that ballot papers already in painted a "grim" picture for Labour.[24][25]

213.205.198.221 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

The Evening Standard source used in the addition said this (my emphasis):

"The elections watchdog has warned that it may be an offence to share information obtained at postal vote opening sessions after the BBC's political editor said she had been told that ballot papers already in painted a "grim" picture for Labour. ...

The video of her remarks, made during an interview on the BBC's Politics Live programme, was widely shared on social media and appeared to provoke a response from the Electoral Commission.

I've removed the addition made, as it's not to your liking. Please suggest suitable wording here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It is unwise to make reference to the EC in respect of this controversy unless and until they make a formal statement, not a pointed comment on Twitter.

I propose:

On 11th December 2019, one day before the 2019 UK general election, Kuenssberg drew controversy while live on air by claiming submitted postal votes apparently viewed before polling day by both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, were "looking pretty grim for Labour in a lot of parts of the country". Viewing postal votes prior to polling day is in breach of guidelines set by the Electoral Commission and predicting electoral outcomes based on votes cast prior to polls closing is a criminal offence. The footage was subsequently withdrawn from BBC iPlayer, with the episode of BBC Politics Live withdrawn from availability. A BBC spokesperson said: “The BBC does not believe it, or its political editor, has breached electoral law.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.221 (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

So the Evening Standard just made up all of that EC reaction? Your proposal looks coherent and well-sourced, although it comes across a bit like a newspaper report, i.e. slightly bit of WP:OR. I'm willing to add it, with a few tweaks, but other editors might feel the need to trim it down a bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Unsure how you can say my proposal looks like OR when literally every single sentence has its own reference/source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.221 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Have a look at the EC tweet. It is in a thread responding to itself. I would say it is a pointed comment, not a "response" per se. They don't mention Kuenssberg nor the BBC, they simply ask the public to report possible offences to the police not to the EC. Mentioning a development that "appears to have been provoked" by the primary development is gossip, nor encyclopaedic. This is a developing story anyway and no doubt either more will emerge or it will fizzle out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.221 (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I've done more than enough here, thanks. If you want to add more, just get an account and makes some edits. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You are going to make the edit or not? FYI a brand new account would not pass as "established contributor" so you or another contributor needs to do it. If anyone could simply open an account and make edits to this page it would have been vandalised long ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.221 (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Not quite sure what further edit you are suggesting. It won't take you long to get established. Kind regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Bias Allegations Section

Some of the bias allegations levelled against Kuenssberg seem to be based on social media reaction to her tweets - which are often negative, due to issues that many hold with her reporting. Kuenssberg is regularly demonised on social media with a large amount of sexist commentary. Minor things which have caused a stir -such as sharing a link to the blog of the PM's senior adviser or directing people to a statement that Omar Salem had made himself on social media- are examples of things which caused a storm online but seem to have little relevance to assessing Kuenssberg's skills as a journalist. It is entirely fair for her to direct followers to a statement by Salem when he had been the centre of that day's news as well as to link to a blog by Cummings - who was central to the Conservative campaign. It would have been different if she had read this unadulterated on air, many journalists regularly share links with their followers without offering substantial rebuttal or analysis online. Social media allows people to read things and form their own opinions. Whilst some more notable controversies -such as the 2015 Jeremy Corbyn report- have a right to be in this section, others are frivolous and paint an overly negative picture of her journalism and present her as fundamentally biased which is not the case from someone who regularly watches her reporting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:13B:B900:EDAE:9FBC:ECBD:473C (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Can the Liz Truss find a way to get back the Gove Billions that he wrote off?

In business if you are owed money you employ experts on a commission to recover it. There must have been a debt collection agency or fraud team somewhere that would have tried. Or was there something more sinister going on? That is our money that he wrote off in a causal fashion and no one challenged it.

This money would pay for the NHS to get back on track. It would help individual in these hard times. It could pay the women who are owed so much on the pension scandal - Waspi Campaign

Why are the conservative so happy to let this money be written off. It is a disgrace.

Perhaps this could be put to the New Prime Minister.

Jacqui Martin. 2A00:23C8:4E20:7101:B5B3:C9E4:DAC1:AE30 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)