Talk:Robert Jenrick

Is this part necessary?

Robert Jenrick had no previous connection with Newark.

I cannot envisage that this sentence is added to the tonnes of MPs who serve constituencies where they have no connection. Seems like this was added for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.5.114.248 (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It is important because readers might wonder what connections, if any, he has with Newark. As the OP states, it is not so unusual for MPs to serve constituencies where they have no connection, so I can't see why they are reading anything sinister into providing this basic piece of information - it is just there for clarity. In fact wanting to hide this information smacks of ulterior political motivation.94.139.28.40 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Corona virus - travelling to second home

There's something at the beginning of the article about travelling to a second home.

By the time you get to the second paragraph under 'Coronavirus', you've probably forgotten about this journey, and the paragraph doesn't make much sense without a reminder of this. Mdrb55 (talk) 22:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Are paperboy.com and alamy.com appropriate and reliable sources to support the paragraph? Aren't they essentially just reprints of the banned Daily Mail? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Sky News and the Daily Mirror both asserted that he made the journeys, and Jenrick himself is reported in in Politics Home as having defended making them. However, the sentence says that the Daily Mail claimed something, not that it is actually true, so the references are surely needed to support the assertion that the Daily Mail claimed something. An online Daily Mail story making the claim on the date in question is here but that would probably be verboten since it is a primary source for the newspaper making the claim, not a secondary one? What's left? Pictures of the Daily Mail claiming something, and the BBC reporting that the paper has claimed it. 81.157.210.47 (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

No problem with the BBC or Sky News. Not sure that tabloid The Mirror is as good. His own admissions are probably "the best" source that these visits took place. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent comments on immigration - inclusion?

Jenrick made some comments on immigration that were deemed controversial by some: "Excessive uncontrolled migration threatens to cannibalise the compassion that marks out the British people... And those crossing tend to have completely different lifestyles and values to those in the UK and tend to settle in already hyper-diverse areas" It was criticised by the Refugee Council and Lib Dems. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants called it "dog-whistling to the far-right". I've not seen a great deal of coverage on it, but would this merit inclusion under his Ministerial Career section or would it be undue weight Michaeldble (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Troll edit

Recently edited to show accusations based on a news story. Opinion of a person is irrelevant in Wikipedia, a page should show fact 2.223.204.171 (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Gone?

Has he gone, or is it just Westminster chit-chat? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Blimey, and he was all over "Karry on Kigali" on Radio 4's "Today" this morning, like him and Cleverclogs were bezzies. But yes, he's gone. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Deport them to Stockton, I say, and they'll soon go back to whence they came Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Lol. Or even to Zimbabwe.... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Template: Excessive intricate details

RE: 'This section may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy. (July 2023)'.

I doubt I am 'a particular audience' and wasn't looking for some of this information, but I enjoyed it. It's very thorough, and I wish some other articles were so informative. I'd be sad to see it go. Montezuma69 (talk) 05:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

David Attenborough

I am not sure the photograph of him with David Attenborough under political views is entirely appropriate. Wihh no context, it makes it appear as though Attenborough endorses his views when actually they have radically different politics. 92.233.66.163 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think the picture with Attenborough is all more out of place given that, at the time of writing, none of sub-sections that appear in the “Political Views” section relate to environmental issues that Attenborough is commonly associated with Jono1011 (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Towns Fund Allegations

I am surprised to see that this article does not contain any mention of Jenrick's involvement with the distribution of the UK Government's "Towns Fund" back in 2020.

There are numerous news stories from credible sources that state that Jenrick was part of a less-than-transparent process that allocated his Newark constituency the maximum £25m despite it being the 270th most deprived town out of 541 in the country.

By his own admission he had signed off on allocation of funds to Jake Berry's consituency, and that Jake Berry had signed off on allocation of funds to his constituency.

Is there a good reason why this is not mentioned?

Sources:

- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/11/robert-jenrick-admits-approving-funds-for-town-in-jake-berrys-constituency

- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54498357

- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/nov/11/inquiry-raises-concerns-over-how-36bn-towns-fund-was-distributed

- https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/21/some-of-englands-most-deprived-towns-left-out-of-36bn-funding-scheme

- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54894221 AnemicDiamond (talk) 20:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)