Talk:David Mellor

Scandals?
I find the whole article bizarrely negative, as though it was written by a political opponent. I actually came to this site for the simple reason that I suddenly remembered David Mellor from when I lived in the UK as a youth, and at the time he was a respected and altruistic figure. I remember being very impressed with how he managed to dispatch an offensive Scientologist on TV once upon a time, and it was actually this specific moment that made me realise how a few quickly constructed phrases can change perceptions to someone or something's ultimate ruin or repair. I immediately felt respect for someone who was obviously excellent at his job.

What I fail to understand is why the events here are described as scandals. The title could have been "Affair" or "Media attacks" but scandals?? A scandal is when a politician is caught taking bribes, or when he is found to be sleeping with a Russian spy, or some such. Not when some bit on the side decides to turn her part of it into cash at everyone else's expense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.176.34.187 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because his behaviour in certain instances is well regarded as scandalous; certainly his elitist commentary in his own words toward people he considers beneath him is scandalous beyond belief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.91.2 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Addition - in British politics extra marital affairs are considered scandalous once made public, in the politics of France or Japan etc they are often not a scandal at all but those countries are not Britain - so for a British politician the description is correct. With Tories or UKIP etc it is considered more scandalous than with Labour or Lib Dems etc because those parties are typically more moralistic and hectoring over the personal lives of others, so that hypocrisy increases the scandal.

Chelsea shirt story
Does anyone know if it was true about the Chelsea shirt, or did Max Clifford make it up? The text is ambiguously worded. In some ways it's more interesting if it isn't true, but I think the article should say. 83.70.77.142 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It was made up. Antonia de Sancha said so in an interview with Julia Langdon in The Guardian published on 19 February 1994:

The "Chelsea strip" story was sold to The Sun on her return. "I thought, I just don't think I can do this. It was like it wasn't me doing it - I was another woman - my mind was so warped." Clifford had mentioned it to her, she says, and said it was "tongue-in-cheek; no one was going to believe it, anyway".

A woman reporter came from The Sun. "Max stormed into the room and said: 'Antonia, tell her about the Chelsea strip.' I didn't want to get Max into trouble. He then proceeded to tell the journalist: 'Mellor liked to wear the Chelsea strip whilst in bed with Antonia.'

"I had to go on a couple of TV chat shows and Max would say: 'Tell about the Chelsea strip.' It's true! It was horrendous. It was just the worst thing in my whole existence. It was just awful, awful, awful. I'd have to look them in the eye and say: 'Yes, it's true'."


 * Clifford was at that point strongly asserting the truth of the story, but has since ceased to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is this a gaffe?
"...he produced another gaffe by stating that during the second world war Britain and Kazakhstan (then part of the Stalinist Soviet Union and prime location of Soviet gulags/concentration camps) had fought together against fascism."

Why is this a gaffe? In colloquial if not literal terms, when talking about WW2 "Fascism" always refers to Nazi Germany. It is perfectly true that the Soviet Union (of which Kazakhstan was a part) fought on the same side as Britain against Nazi Germany.95.149.107.121 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

When they were not shipping oil to Hitler to bomb London, that is. They switched sides when Hitler double-crossed them. 31.74.207.235 (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it as it was unsourced. January  ( talk ) 20:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Calcutt
It was definitely not David Mellor who set up the Calcutt inquiry, as previously indicated. It was the Home Secretary at the time David Waddington. See Hansard, HoC Debates, 23 November 1989, col.255. Philip Cross (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are Mellor's expletives deleted?
In the fracas with the taxi driver of course.

Why can't we see what he said?

The full transcripts are available.Fletcherbrian (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the transcripts are available as sources, then I think the actual words should be given. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on David Mellor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821045942/http://www.cuca.org.uk/alumni-club/former-chairmen/ to http://www.cuca.org.uk/alumni-club/former-chairmen/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Dunblane response
(Always be aware that Yanks play sinister online games re UK gun laws and that may have happened here). I don't recall any "backbench rebellion against the govt" forcing the ban of handguns. The Tory govt entertained the idea of a ban from day one in the aftermath and Labour concurred - only Prince Philip dissented really. Mellor was a major figure behind the ban but it was hardly a `Backbench rebellion' but rather driven by both Front Benches. Moreover if you click the weblink as the source it doesn't back up the statement either - it says Mellor merely prominently supported the move not that he had forced an unwilling Tory govt to comply - the actual weblink fits what I recall but the Wikipedia article reflects neither accurately.

Courtesy silk
"He was appointed a Queen's Counsel in 1987; this was as a result of a now-abolished convention whereby Members of Parliament who were also barristers could, having attained around 15 years' service as an MP, choose to be so appointed."

This is my own (improved) wording of the article's previous passage on the subject. It will be noted that Mellor's appointment followed approximately eight years' service in the House of Commons. In any case, the wording (as opposed to the notion) is not supported by the citation given – at any rate, by its current text, the relevant passage of which reads:

"One of the privileges of becoming a Member of Parliament (MP) was the award of "Courtesy Silk" to barristers who were elected MPs. The practice ended in the 1990s, as it was felt that automatically granting Silk without considering the recipient's abilities as an advocate devalued the rank."

If someone finds supporting material that mentions the number of years, if any, that were required for 'courtesy silk' to be applied, that would be great. Harfarhs (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)