Talk:Chris Davies (Conservative politician)

Need for Rephrasing
While the line "Davies said he made an "honest mistake" in the expenses form he submitted for photographs at his Builth Wells constituency office: the mistake involved deliberate forgery" is rather amusing, I think it is too journalistic and biased for an encyclopedic article. Can we rephrase this? The Levitating Scot (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the strange contrast is appropriate for the strange case....he committed forgery, in order to invoice the taxpayer for money he was entirely entitled to legitimately invoice the taxpayer for, had he used a different form. It seems very weird because it IS very weird, it is accurate to say that he made a mistake and didn't get any money he wasn't supposed to, but it's also accurate to say he intentionally committed forgery. 81.156.177.232 (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * presumably this sentence is the issue:  This is unsatisfactory because it is unclear who said it was deliberate forgery, probably not Davies. It is later established that the judge at his trial indicated this. I think the second half of the sentence is unnecessary and I will delete it. Our report of the judge's remarks is sufficient. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2021 (UTC)