Talk:Eric Joyce

Photo
This page needs a photo Matthewfelgate 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * One was recently added. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

- The image looks to have been deleted by a bot. Why is this? (4th June 2009)

POV tag
This article is pretty much a hatchet-job. Lots of criticisms, not much balance. He may be a nasty charecter, but this article makes me suspect that it has been written or heavily edited by his oponents. I have taken a few bits out while copyediting, but do not know enough about him to rectify this article. Anyone else? Ground Zero | t 21:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Ground Zero Furthermore, some of the facts here are simply and unpardonably, inaccurate - casting doubt on both the veracity and integrity of Wikipedia. For example, the mention of Rose Mckenna rejecting EJ is utterly wrong. She in fact rejected someone else. And that is only for starters. On the point made above by Ground Zero, i would also have to agree. I find no place whasoever in any biography with even a shred of integrity for the derisory tone adopted by the writer/s of this article. I have not re-written nor edited the piece, for even where I could, I find the whole article too specious to merit revision. It needs complete re-write - and I do hope that this is acknowledged and recitified by whoever it is who is responsible for such absolutely as soon as possible, for, from my point of view, this calls into question the intergrity of the entire encyclopedia. signed, DSP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.102.104 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 October 2006

Dont be so ridiculous DSP. You are overreacting and being far too dramatic. "brings into question the integrity of the entire encyclopedia" - what an overreaction. I have watched this article evolve over a number of years and it is not greatly different now from what it was when it was first written, perhaps you should read into the history of the article before you make completely spurious and ridiculous comments. The article simply states what a lot of his constituents feel, and know. it seems to me that all allegations made in this article are backed up and referenced. i would suggest that DSP is either Mr Joyce himself or a close friend/supporter. well wake up and smell the coffee my friend, this man is a rotten MP and this well founded, well written and completely truthful article simply highlights the fact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.34.212 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 24 October 2006.


 * I have no political opinions either way, but this article is thoroughly POV in tone. It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article to "highlight" the perceived "feelings" of constituents. --YFB ¿  01:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)\\


 * I have just commented out several mentions of Joyce's expenses claims (one will do), and several unsourced critical paragraphs: see diff]. Whilst those criticisms may be accurate, they don't belong here unless sourced, and even if sourced they shoud be included only as part of a balanced assessment.  Stashing up referenced criticisms without attempting to provide a balanced assessment of his career is just a hatchet job, as others have said. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Interesting point to note in his career, whilst Mr Joyce likes to revel in a 'hard' infantry background and being 'of the men', once commissioned he was a military educator - in other words a teacher.

One interesting aside on Eric is that he is at this moment in time the only Labour MP who has seen adult military service in any capacity. In any event his commissioned soldiering was hardly sharp end and he is a marginal figure. I am not arguing for a millitary junta but perhaps if HM Government contained a few who had seen service they might have been a bit wiser and more sparing in their use of military power.

Most of the information about Eric's expenses is out of date. Since Eric's expenses for 2005-06 were publicised, he stated that he was going to endeavour to reduce his travel costs and this was publicised on the BBC. Furthermore as his majority has steadily increased at every General Election since his election at a closely fought byelection in December 2000, it would be fair to say that he has considerable level of support amongst the voters who have repeatedly chosen him as their representative at Westminster. A quick glance at his interventions in debates, and subjects raised in adjournment debates also shows that Eric uses every opportunity to raise the profile of the falkirk Economy and services that are aimed to improved the lives of his constituents as well as being the Chair of the most active all Party Parliamentary group, which serves to throw more light on the areas of Africa that fell victim to genocide in the mid 1990s. All in all a hard working MP who works very long hours to represent his constituency and to contribute to national and international issues to which he can relate his prior work and other experiences.Susanco (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Constant removal of spouse information
According to the history of this article, .Susanco has deleted spouse information at least twice from this article. I'm not a contributor on this article, but I noticed the removal on the recent changes page, and I'm curious as to whether protecting the names of an MP's family is some sort of traditional activity. Here in the U.S. names of elected officials' family members are generally not kept confidential, so it seems pretty odd to me. I think we need an explanation. I've reverted the changes because a cursory look at other MP articles suggest it IS NOT a trend in obscuring their spousal connections. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The UK has different laws on privacy from the US. The name of the MP's spouse is given at the top of the entry but there is no need to provide other information about their place of work or the names of children as was orginally the case in regard to this entry as this damages their privacy and if the MP and his/her family has been subject to threats of physical attack as many are it puts their family at risk.Suecooper (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I recognize that the privacy laws in the UK are different, and I agree that the children's names should be omitted, and normally nothing beyond the spouse's names would be merited. However, the spouse's place of employment has a Wikipedia article mentioning her, so removing that information seems pointless unless that article is modified. Since they are separated it is a moot point, it can stay out. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll also note that while I'm not sure that it is relevant now that they are separated, the spouse's occupation and place of work is noted in at least one newspaper source of reasonable publication. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I should also note, since the material has once again been removed, that spousal names are normally included, and are retained in articles about politicians despite devorces or separations. For example see John McCain (example of divorces), Tony Blair (example of spouse included UK), Gordon Brown (example of spouse included), Malcolm Wicks (example of MP with spousal information), David Watts (politician) (example of MP with spousal information), Alan Whitehead (example of MP with spousal information retained after divorce), etc... Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The material relating to spouse and job must stay. Any attempts to remove it will be met with brute wikipedia force. You have been warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Kincardine Bridge Crossing
Can the fact that the current name of the new kincardine bridge crossing was opposed be referenced? The references that are there do not reflect this and so I have put this part as a hidden comment until it can be properly referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Addtional references have been added to reflect the fact that the choice of name of the new Forth Road Crossing was far from universally popular and that the sentiment expressed by Eric Joyce, though strongly worded, were shared by many in Fife and the Falkirk Council area as the name of the bridge did not recognise the fact that the bridge is a vital addition like to these three key parts of Scotland.Suecooper (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of word majority
In several places in the article the word "majority" is used, but the election numbers in the infobox suggest a plurality, not a majority. Is this a UK terminology thing? Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Very belatedly, "yes" - http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/majority?q=majority British the number by which the votes cast for one party or candidate exceed those for the next: Labour retained the seat with a majority of 9,830 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.175.61 (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 'At each general election, Joyce has increased his majority, although his percentage share of the public vote fell at the 2005 election.'
 * According to the 2010 election figures, his majority was reduced, as well as the number of votes and percentage of the overall vote. Valetude (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of critical material
Jo7hs2 appears to have appointed him/herself as Eric Joyce's Wiki gatekeeper, deleting critical material, often within an hour. I am one of Eric Joyce's constituents, and I don't take kindly to this sort of censorship of opinions that I express about my own MP. All material that is accurately sourced should remain. Full stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.69.255 (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This should have been taken up on my talk page. I disagree with your characterization, I have been attempting to keep the article NPOV.Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I goofed with regards to the edit in question, and that has been commented about on your IP user page. I'll be more careful in the future. I did not know "suck it and see" was an idiom where you live, so the mistake was linguistic. I was NOT trying to censor you. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I can clarify that "suck it and see" is an idiom, it refers to tasting something without really knowing what it is like - you're not sure whether you will like it, but you will "suck it and see" whether you do or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Several of my posts on this site in which I have tried to add a context to entries that would otherwise be from a negative point of view so that they become more neutral keep being deleted as irrelevant. I don't share that view and before the amendments to the entries re the 'Hattersley' and 'capital gains tax' are deleted again with very little explanation, please can this be discussed on this board first. May be 84.68.103.2 could start to sign his/her posts to assist us all.Suecooper (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

- I have no interest in creating an account with Wikipedia, but I always fully explain my changes to this page, both in the section in the "history" of the article and on this discussion page. I find it necessary to make a lot of changes because you seem to have a not-so-hidden agenda on this page; that is you seem to be using this wikipedia page as a mouthpiece to try and portray Eric Joyce in as favourable a light as possible. Well there are two sides to every story, and wikipedia is here to make sure that both sides of the argument are fully explained. For as long as you insist on filling this page with biased diatribe, I will be here to moderate it. By the sounds of it you are a close friend/family member of Joyce, or someone who works for/with him - you refer to him as "eric" and to his wife rosemary as "rose". Well a piece of advice - perhaps you should not let your personal feelings cloud your judgment the next time you add/change something in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Title
Eric Joyce is not entitled to use the honorific title "Major", the use of which is automatically granted to retired British Army officers, as he was dismissed from the Army and thus forfeited this right. I have amended accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy (talk • contribs) 15:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work! Most editors would never have noticed that, I certainly didn't. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Muchos gracios! And thanks also for your gracious reply to my comment above accusing you of being Eric's Wiki gatekeeper (I had forgotten to sign in, hence it was unsigned). I'm afraid that I allowed my indignation at him to run away with me, which I shouldn't have done and for which I apologise unreservedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wessexboy (talk • contribs) 23:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Tax controversy
I've made a few small changes to the Capital Gains Tax controversy entry. I tweaked some of the language, included the amount in question, and removed the middle sentence about what he was quoted as saying in the Daily Mail. I'd like to discuss how to re-add it in a better way below. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The original text read: "According to the Mail on Sunday he is quoted as saying that his London home was his main home to HMRC, even though he carried on claiming expenses for it as a second home." I see several issues with the sentence. First, discussing sources directly in Wikipedia is generally taboo. When was the last time you saw "according to the New York Times" in an encyclopedia? Second, it is directly or indirectly calling into question the veracity of the newspaper report, without a source to suggest that the veracity is questionable. Third, it fails to explain why it is relevant, as in, why that is an issue. Until we can come up with a sentence or sentences that are neutral, discuss the matter of him claiming the expenses on the home while it was his main home, without discussing the sources, without calling into question the sources, and explaining why this would be at issue, I think this should remain out of the article, and that is why I removed it. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what the article currently says.the facts are that eric joyce has not paid capital gains tax on the sale on any of his properties. That fact is indisputable. the amount is also indisputable. To say that "it is alleged" he did not pay the capital gains tax is wrong. Because he did not pay any and he has admitted that. Also indisputable is the fact that he said he would "suck it and see" if asked to pay it back. The 3 sources referenced clearly show this. No other sources exist to show to the contrary,and so the tax section must stay as it is. if it is changed again to try and obfuscate the truth, as has been done, then that should be considered vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussing ALL edits to the recent controversies section
To avoid any future arguments over content in the Recent Controversies section of this article, I'm going to recommend that all major changes to that section, from this point on, be discussed here on the talk page. So... Please add a new section titled in some way to describe what you want to do, and if nobody objects after a reasonable period of time just do it, controversial changes should be discussed here and consensus should be reached. Minor changes should just be made, and if they might be controversial, discuss them here afterwards. This is generally what occurs when controversies arise on WP. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

-- I have removed part of the roy hattersley criticism section as it bore no relation to the quotation and had neither relevance nor link to it. The statement was made by roy hattersley, NOT by tony blair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.69 (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Added detail to the capital gains tax controversy section about the state of disrepair of Joyce's second home. The relevance is to show that Joyce did not spend any of the second home allowance on actual second home maintenance costs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because info is quoted in a UK tabloid paper doesn't mean it is right. Eric Joyce has stated publicly that he received no gain from the sale of either of the properties in accordance with a legal agreement with his wife, which has been confirmed by HMRC. This position has been quoted by the local paper for his constitueny but very little info from that paper goes onto the web. The info quoted by the Mail on Sunday about the state of their house in London is likely to be subject to legal challenge. Therefore Wikiepedia should seriously consider removing the references to capital gains taax and the state of the house. In previous legal actions against papers Eric JOyce has received substantial out of course settlelements. It is for this reason that it would be prudent to make judicial use of the 'adverb' allegedly'.Suecooper (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Once a complete and full reference to rebut the story can be found, then the part of the article can be changed to reflect this. However the original "allegations" should be kept in, ad infinitem, to show both sides of the story. That said, at the moment all the sources suggest that Joyce did not pay capital gains tax upon the sale of the property. That he may have found a small loophole to not pay an capital gains tax, by stating his wife owned the property, does not remove him from any guilt in most people's eyes. It may be legally sound, however it certainly is not morally so. If this rebuttal can be proven then the article can be amended. I will, of course, be informing HMRC of the situation and, as a subject of the United Kingdom, requesting that HMRC ensure that his estranged wife paid the necessary capital gains tax. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.103.2 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Change: Okay, based on what both of you have said... I'm going to make a few minor language tweaks to that section, and I'll describe them here afterwards for your review. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed some language to include the words "tabloids", "reported", etc... This should make it clear that the sources are questionable as tabloids, without mentioning the sources directly (since there are more than one), and without removing the material entirely. I also removed the "damp and fleas" section, which was largely irrelevant, unless of course taxpayers will be footing the bill to repair any damage, in which case it would probably be relevant. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Change: I have reworked the expenses and controversies sections to make expenses separate from controversies. Given the massive fallout from the British MP's expenses scandal, the expenses claims deserved a small section of it's own. I have detailed any potential discrepancies in Joyce's expenses, and those highlighted by the BBC website. All have been fully referenced. The relevance of this is that all constituents should be able to easily see any expenses claims made which may have discrepancies or may not have been made "wholly exclusively and necessarily" within the role of being an MP.

Change: I have added a section to the recent controversies part about Joyce being convicted of assault upon two teachers. This was reported by Marina Hyde of the Guardian in November 2004, and having discussed it with Ms Hyde, and Joyce's parliamentary office, it has been confirmed as true. Constituents have a right to know whether their MP has been convicted of any crimes, whether expunged or not.
 * I had to remove the sentence stating his office confirmed it. Unless you can cite who said it in some provable method, that is original research, and isn't permissable on wikipedia. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: Could the individual who made the above two edits sign them, please?.Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Propose removal of "Joyce was called a..." paragraphs in Recent controversies
I personally suggest we remove any entries in the Recent Controversies section of the article that describe what other people have called Joyce, unless it is part of something Joyce himself did/said/etc... This specifically concerns the "embarassing syncophant" and "blairite carpetbagger entries, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. They would be fine on a political blog, website, or other such repository of knowledge, but they are not encyclopedia content, and are entirely opinion. They also have the potential to run afoul of BLP guidelines. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would argue against removing the "embarrassing sycophant" quotation at least.this was,and still is, a somewhat famous (or infamous) quote in political circles.this is for 2 reasons: 1)it was an attack by the ex labour party deputy leader,quite an important person therefore and 2)it was an open criticism of a person in the same political party as the person who made it.such verbal attacks are rare in uk political peacetime and thus the quote was quite big news at the time.indeed many political commentators still reference the quotation when talking about joyce,as though it is almost synonymous with his political persona. I would therefore suggest,nay urge,that it merits a part of this encyclopaedia.

The "blairite carpetbagger" is a very famous quotation in local circles,ie central scotland,as it was made by the somewhat popular ex-mp of joyce's constituency.i therefore felt it merited a place in the controversies part of joyce's article (the battle for the falkirk byelection in 2000 being an extremely publicised and important event).however if you feel it is unsuitable then,of course,you must delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the "blairite carpetbagger" reference, per the discussion above. I am going to wait for more opinions on the "embarassing sycophant" quotation. I still feel that quotation merits deletion, although I could be persuaded if some sources were provided that backed up the contention that it is often repeated in the press/media when discussing Joyce. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the current references already do that, given that it is both a commentator from the guardian, and a commentator from the independant, who refer to it. These are both british newspapers with a high sale-rate, and as thus have a wide circulation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.12.248 (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I personally would need to see a continued and systematic usage of the reference before I would buy that it was sufficiently important to override the strong NPOV issue the quote presents, as it is basically serving no purpose in the article other than to repeat the quote, and doesn't really make any point about Joyce. If more background existed, or if it were in constant use, it would make sense, but as it stands it really doesn't belong there. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely the "embarrassing sycophant" quotation should still be there, this is a democracy after all is it not. Another quote that could be used is from George Galloway who stated "you could fit Eric Joyce's supporters into a phone box". Joyce sums up quite perfectly in one little smug package exactly what is wrong with NEWlabour, the fact Falkirk West can go from Dennis Canavan to this pro war expense fiddling Blairite sycophant really does make me despair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.190.89 (talk) 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you see such a quote in a printed encyclopedia? Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest removal of bullet points/return to paragraph format
The bullet points are really not suitable for an encyclopedia, and I really believe we need to ditch this format in favor of the paragraph format. Right now the article reads like a Resume. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no real personal opinion on this matter.when i first began editing this page i simply followed what had already been used,that is bullet points.i sense that suecooper is the same.one argument for keeping the bullet points is that it eases reading and what are,essentially,a number of reasonably disparate points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

YouTube video of Scottish Newsnight interview
Should there be a mention anywhere of Joyce's extraordinary performance on Scottish Newsnight recently? If not, I understand.Tessaroithmost (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason other than he did well that it merits a mention in an encyclopedia? Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The first hurdle is, did a reliable independent source (i.e., not Newsnight itself, a YouTube video showing the Newsnight programme, nor any outlet run by the BBC) discuss the performance?


 * The second hurdle is whether the event is due weight in the article.


 * And yes, I am answering these questions even though they are well over two years old and likely to be overshadowed by the effects of more recent events on his political career. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit revert
I have reverted this edit as it was controversial unsourced material under the biographies of living people policy (BLP). Claims that he was "investigated" for fraud are a very serious accusation and something that is not supported by the sources. The sources for that sentence (link) state that he was sacked for the way he dealt with the media and therefore his lack of trust. I also reverted the section renaming as it is sensationalism, Expenses claims is a more neutral and more accurate way of describing that section. Woody (talk) 13:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, I can't see any fraud investigation in the citation and if it relates to expenses and nothing came of it then we usually don't mention such anyways and the section header is also better as you edited to - expense claims. Ill ask the ip to move to discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of exclusion of name of teenager with whom the affair was/is alleged
I've twice removed the name of the teenager with whom Joyce allegedly had an affair. As far as I can see, adding their name adds nothing to the biography of Joyce, and may be in violation of WP:BLP. I'd welcome views from other editors on this. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. WP:BLPNAME is the section link. Rwendland (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also have to agree that we should protect the privacy of an individual as it is not notable to the event. Keith D (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, perfect, thank you for the feedback! I think the IP may have re-inserted the name semi-unintentionally, but with some feedback and the WP:BLP section link I now feel a lot happier. I should probably put the school name back in, once I've confirmed it's reliably sourced, since it's info of relevance that almost certainly can't fall under WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it best not to name the school (not important in the context of a biography) but saying the school is in his constituency does seem relevant (and can be reliably sourced) Thincat (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair comment. It must be so difficult to write an article about a school :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should exclude the name of this person unless she is given significant further publicity. PatGallacher (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of undue weight
Currently the section about the "alleged relationship" is longer than the section about the Westminster assault(s). I think this is undue weight, especially since the Westminster incident has had massive coverage in reliable sources, while the alleged relationship has only had significant coverage in certain tabloids (although it has been mentioned in reliable sources as well). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agreed. I trimmed out all the tabloid crap and blocked an IP editor who tried to add it back in; they had already been warned. I will be happy to block or protect to prevent material like this from being added again, per WP:BLP. Hope that's ok; we definitely aren't a tabloid, don't want to become one, and mustn't use them as sources for controversial information on living people. --John (talk) 17:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to note that The Sun did not report the same extent of the relationship that the schoolgirl claimed in the Daily Mail, even though The Sun was quoting from the same interview. I think the fact other newspapers were not willing to back up the claims in the Daily Mail, throws some doubts on the claim and means we should not report it. I will remove the recently added, but no longer necessary, Daily Mail cite from the article. Rwendland (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of section
, I had a number of problems with this:

Relationship with schoolgirl

In March 2012 Joyce was accused in a Daily Record article of having a relationship with a seventeen-year-old schoolgirl who had worked for his 2010 general election campaign. Joyce denied the claim. Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont said: "If these reports are true, this sounds like a man who has abused a position of power and authority. I am disgusted. Regardless of other issues, I believe this makes him unfit to stand for Labour."


 * The heading sounds like this relationship is a fact. The use of "schoolgirl" is also problematic.
 * The quote is clearly unacceptable.
 * This story comes from a tabloid, was denied, and received little play in reliable press, eg. the BBC don't seem to have touched it.
 * It doesn't seem to have affected his career.

Your revert also restored a personal life section that was largely referenced. --Hillbillyholiday talk 14:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, my main concern was that you hadn't given reasons. Now I can see where you're coming from. I'm not sure that Daily Record report is per se not worth recording, and if it was in the Telegraph and Herald Scotland too, that is better sourced than you suggest. But it can't be written up in a sensationalist way. Perhaps a rewrite rather than a deletion? --Doric Loon (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eric Joyce. 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 tag to http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2469252.0.Salmond_opens_120m_Clackmannanshire_Bridge_over_Forth.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401230828/http://news.stv.tv/home/85472-scottish-mps-are-top-claimants-for-expenses to http://news.stv.tv/home/85472-scottish-mps-are-top-claimants-for-expenses
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227061805/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24037762-mp-arrested-over-commons-bar-brawl.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24037762-mp-arrested-over-commons-bar-brawl.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eric Joyce. 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/20110707113716/http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/articles/1/18268 to http://www.alloaadvertiser.com/articles/1/18268

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Child Pornography Conviction
Please dont revert, the spurces are fully referenced re the BBC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:201:5F00:35CF:4586:1895:5F1D (talk) 11:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Why am I not surprised that there are people desperatly trying to whitewash the actions of a child sex offender? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.242.107 (talk)


 * Hello. I have edited 'Eric Joyce' to remove the erroneous and highly pejorative reference. As this is a BLP, it is essential that we do not place risk upon Wikipedia by making incorrect and damaging claims. Libels are not defendable on the basis that they are a repetition of an error elsewhere in the media. In my edit I have given the correct reference in law which lays out sex offences. All sex offences are charged and disposed of in the UK under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and are offences against the person. Internet-only offences are laid out and described at the legislation I have referenced. Please do not change this back. In addition, I have removed a number of errors and what appear to be subjective statements without references. For the moment, I have left some benign-looking material (e.g. university degrees) which is unreferenced and will try to find references in the first instance. Looking at the history of this page, and the amount of material removed correctly over time by previous signed-in editors, and indeed (intended without pejorative) the fact that almost all of the now-deleted edits have been made by users not signed in, I conclude that this page has in the past been distorted by opponents of what is obviously a controversial living person. I have messaged your talk page for good measure. I urge you research 'BLP crying' and to enter a comment here if you wish to.
 * SteveCree2 (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have now found and inserted references for the university degrees mentioned above. SteveCree2 (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh fuck right off with your pedo defending. He wasn't someone who accidently opened an email attachment, he was actively searching for child pornography of pre-pubescent children being raped and the clip he was caught with on his macbook air including a 12 month old child being penetrated. There's nothing incorrect about the claims, and if they are damaging it's because he likes to watch children being raped. He pleaded guilty.
 * Why are you, and only you, obsessed with downplaying the actions of someone who wants to watch children being raped? What he found wasn't an accident.
 * 'Mr Procter said there was evidence of searches “for material for five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10-year-old girls”.


 * “There’s reference to titles which the Crown suggest are indicative of category A movies – ‘two men rape girl’,” he said.


 * “There’s certainly browser activity which suggests he’s been searching for that material but we have no other information as to whether in fact he viewed that material.


 * “It seems highly likely.”
 * https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2020/08/07/ex-mp-eric-joyce-given-suspended-sentence-for-making-indecent-image-of-a-child/


 * Serioulsy though, should your harddrive be checked too? 86.49.242.107 (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have once again edited to remove the risk of libel. I have reported on the basis of the abuse and, more to the point, the continued risk of reversions to repeat the libel risk indicated by the abuse. SteveCree2 (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Libel by it's very nature is false. Eric Joyce admitted in court that he accessed child pornography, and for this he was given a suspended sentence; this has also been written in the mainstream media including the BBC. You are, by your edits, trying to downplay this as 'oops he accidently clicked on an email!', when the Child Protection Act specifically looks for intent.
 * So tell me, why are you trying to cover up a convicted child abuser and registered sex offender looking at a video that showed a 12 month old child being penetrated?


 * Here is the section of the law that he admitted guilt to. There is no libel and you're trying to downplay the seriousness of his actions.
 * Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978
 * Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 is an either way offence punishable on indictment with a maximum of 10 years imprisonment.


 * There are four sub-paragraphs under section 1(1) describing the conduct that is illegal in respect of indecent images of children.


 * Section 1(1)(a) to take, or permit to be taken or to make.
 * These words are given their natural and ordinary meaning. ‘Make’ is defined as “to cause to exist, to produce by action, to bring about” (R v Bowden [2000] 1 Cr. App. R. 438).


 * This section requires that there must be a deliberate and intentional act, done with the knowledge that the image is, or is likely to be, an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child


 * He didn't accidently click an email link as your edit hints. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.242.107 (talk)


 * I will not argue any further. I have checked the reports you refer to and they all quote the prosecution only. This is a common feature of reportage on UK criminal cases. The relevant conviction was not a sexual offence, and I have previously provided the correct legal reference. We cannot know what was said by the defence in court, but we can be confident that the subject of this page was not convicted of any of the other offences you refer to. You are therefore seriously in breach of BLP rules and your edits risk doing harm to Wikipedia. I am not re-editing at this point but will instead defer to admin. SteveCree2 (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * It may not be a sexual offence in your pedo-defending world, but in the UK it is. Which is why he's a registered sex offender.
 * As for your comment that the news reports only quote the prosecution, maybe you missed the words from the judge himself
 * 'Judge Mr Justice Edis, sentencing the former shadow minister on Friday, said: “You have pleaded guilty to an offence which involves the possession of a category A film of a little less than a minute’s duration.


 * “That film showed the penetrative sexual abuse of very young children.


 * “That these acts of abuse happened is because there are people like you who want to watch these films.


 * “If there was no market, those children wouldn’t be subjected to these very serious offences.”


 * But the judge added: “You have sought help from people well able to provide it and there’s evidence before the court that that has had an effect on helping you reduce, perhaps completely, your impulsive behaviour, and that’s happened over a significant period due to the delay in these proceedings.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.242.107 (talk)

I have to move on to other edits and am quite early in the editing game. I'm not going to engage on this page any longer but I will say that there is no ambiguity in the UK at all on what a sexual offence is. Here is the law (paras 9-15a). Your references above are relevant only insofar as they guide the prosecution of offences which are not sexual offences under the 2003 Act. 'Child Pornography conviction' is accurate; 'child sex offence' is manifestly incorrect. It's really as simple as that. I'd encourage you to be less abusive with other editors, but it's your judgement. Thanks for the exchange, anyway. It's all useful learning experience. SteveCree2 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Revert of last change
My changes have been reverted on the basis that the present wording was insufficiently neutral. This is nonsense. Everything I put in is true and sited in the article. The guy is very well-known as a violent criminal. The introduction plays this down. It is a simple as that. There is nothing which alters the neutrality of the article in my changes and there is new information there which is pertinent to the article as a whole. The present state of the article plays down Joyce's violence. I have not reverted the reversion on the basis of WP:BRD at this point but do expect discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.206.100 (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I am now reverting re: above, having left time for discussion. Please do not revert again unless there has been prior discussion here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.122.184.253 (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert it again per WP:BLP. The claim he served two prison sentences is unsourced - they were suspended sentences. His notability stems from being a politician, so that should come first. Please add ~ to sign your posts. TwoTwoHello (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Contentious guy and page all right. The most recent reversion is, however, incorrect for the following reasons. First, it took place without discussion unlike the previous change. Second, it its factually wrong: Both prison sentences are referenced (citations 51 and 56 respectively, 53 and 58 after my edit) and a suspended prison sentence is just that - a prison sentence. I'm reverting but then altering to make this to remove the ambiguity which might be the reason the incorrect reversion was made. The guy who is the subject of this article is best known across the world for assaulting people while a UK MP actually at the UK's parliament. This is laid out in the article in considerable detail. However, I will include the references in the introduction since, again, the reversion may have taken place because this is not clear enough. Final point; I myself usually edit without signing in. While it's probably better that people do sign in, it's a fundamental Wikipedia principle that unsigned-in editors are free to edit. The insistence by TwoTwoHello that the previous editor should sign in is therefore not in order. Traleelad (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * These changes have been reverted by three editors, so there is clearly consensus against them at this time. Please establish consensus, or accept consensus, rather than edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. The subject of this article is infamous across the world for beating people up actually in the UK's parliament. There was media attention from literally most countries in the world. He committed a serious of violent acts on many people on different occasions. This unique in the modern world and you think there should be no mention of this in the opening paragraph? I see you have a Scottish handle, but Wikipedia is not just about a local view. I will ask an admin to take a look. I will not revert in the meantime and will accept the view of an admin. Traleelad (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators do not hold any additional sway in content matters. Perhaps review WP:RFC if you'd like to look at a way to attract more editors. You could also start a thread on WP:BLPN to get more opinions.
 * My username also mentions being Finnish and being a delicious root vegetable that reaches maturity in a mere 28 days. You shouldn't read too much into it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Possible improvements
I came to this article from other stuff which mentioned things about armed services and LGBT issues. It is clearly about a very contentious individual and I do not really want to get too involved. But it does seem to be a bit weak. There is quite a lot of evidence of vandalism and politics and I don't think it seems quite right that it says such a lot in a negative way about how Joyce got thrown out of the British Army but not so much about the fact that it was because he made a public stand against racism and homophobia in the army. Some things which seem 'notable' are not included at all. And there seems to be some things which are wrong and checkable quite easily at Google. I don't know why it refers to child sex for example, when it was obviously a child porn conviction. That seems designed to make the conviction unpleasant as it is seem even worse. It seems a failure to observe WP:NPOV to me. Some of the other references seem odd, too. Is he really the judo champion? I do not really want to edit here but I thought I would put in a comment to see if anyone has thought about it anyway. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I tried to edit this page ages ago and got nothing but abuse from some unhinged people. I would not really recommend it as you will just get abuse from the same people. At the moment it is basically a charge sheet. You would think the idea is to abuse Wikipedia by trying to get around the UK law on laying out the worst in people including all their old convictions. I am not defending the guys offences but this page is a hate fest. I cannot see why laying out all the stuff this article does about old offences is even legal in the UK I suppose American law might apply but the article could be a lot better. 217.158.34.210 (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I work in criminal justice (not a lawyer or police officer). I get alerts here to edits on well known offenders but I cannot edit this article for professional reasons (e.g. my normal Wikipedia handle is my actual name). I hope the following is useful. It is a civil tort in the UK to publish details of 'spent' (time-expired) convictions without good reason. A good reason would be, for example, that a person is appearing in court on charges where they have 'spent' convictions. There is no good reason in this article. In my experience, Wikipedia works to US law but is generally respectful of local law in democracies like the UK. From a commonsense point of view (again, I am not a lawyer), it might be felt that a well-known offender cannot entirely escape the public knowledge of their offence. This article does seem to go way too far, however, by actually placing its stress upon a long list of charges, offences and other details so that it does not simply inadvertently/accidentally commit a tort (minor and easy to correct if challenged). Its purpose seems to be to harm by evading the spirit and letter of the law. It could (and probably would, in my opinion) be felt by the authorities to be motivated by malice. The reference in the first sentence to 'child sex offender' is beyond any defence. Looking at the references, the relevant convictions are assault, breach of the peace and possessing/making (that is, opening and therefore reproducing) a child abuse image - none of these, if it needs saying, constitute a 'child sex' offence and the term seems to be used to harm. These are very bad, and even terrible, actions but they are not as described in the opening sentence. They are also all 'spent' as far as I can see (it is possible I have missed some dates as there are many of them). It is generally best to find a middle way at Wikipedia with articles like this one. The many offences of the person at this article are well known but everyone deserves a chance to construct a useful life once they have been punished and their conviction is spent. I suggest (I accept no liability) that a general reference is made to convictions in the lead and that there is a more general paragraph in the main body which contains a short summary of all/each of the convictions (it is arguable which). This is not my normal account. I do not wish to engage further on this subject but thought this comment might be useful. FrankiegoestoRedruth (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks for all this. Sorry for the delay I have been away. I want to add something to why he had to leave the army becasue he was trying to help LGBTQI+ people and other disadvantaged groups. I am not totally sure how to deal with all the detail about his criminal convictions. Rather than deleting a lot, which might be the best thing but I am not totally sure about, I will reorganise it so that it looks less like that is what the article is all about. It will be better on WP:NPOV that way. It is easy to change the wording of the first sentence just a little bit for accuracy, so I will do that. I will put it all here before I put it into the article. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Here are my suggested edits to start with. In the introduction, change tense of politician as that old, show more clearly that he was a member of the parliament at the UK and not Scotland, tidy the reference to convictions ([|WP:NPOV and WP:BLP]) but leave it in for now. I am not sure about whether spent convictions should be taken out but that will depend on the way it works elsewhere at Wikipedia, for now that section is not proportionate so put it into one section and reduce (the detail is available at the references). Put in a bit more detail about Joyces army campaign on behalf of LGBTQIA+ and other minorities, since that is why he had to leave the army. I think the judo champion detail at the bottom is interesting and relevant enough to be in the introduction? I've googled the guy and there's a lot not here in this article. I might put a thing or two in but just a sentence or so. For example, he seems to write articles for the newspapers and also write academic articles? There is also a lot about a big business story about mining. Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts I would really like to hear them and then I will make the edits.Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As I said, I am not going to edit here and I do not think think spent offences should be mentioned at all. However, these seem like sensible edits. There are places you can go to for advice as you proceed. Take a look at 'Teahouse' and other ways of requesting comment. FrankiegoestoRedruth (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you @FrankiegoestoRedruth. I will try to make these edits over the next few days. I will then look at teashop and other things you suggest. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have made all the edits following the discussion above. For more info, I have also improved a couple of sources, took out excessive detail for ease of reading and taken out one or two bits of content which did not conform to WP:NPOV. I have also ensured that the article is consistent with no references in the lead and all references in the main body. In respect of the 'spent' offences issue, I will request an opinion on wider Wikipedia policy and come back to this article once I have had advice (my question is here at the Helpdesk (scroll down). The article is better now, but there is a little bit of scope to improve it further and I will try to do that in the coming weeks. Happy to discuss edits here, where it is best to best specfic I think. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverted, quite the POV push. Sources that don't mention the subject but are about exhausted criminal charges in general have no place in this article per WP:SYNTH, and simultaneously removing sources like BBC is quite the red flag. I have linked this page from WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to try to get some fresh eyes and ensure our coverage of the subject is balanced. VQuakr (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see you're a very experienced editor and I am not. But is it in order to revert without discussion in that way? Your reasons for revert mentions blog material. That, and other aspects of your argument, are highly arguable and surely that's the point of this discussion page? It's been going for three months - your claim of POV seems particularly out of order since it implies bad faith on my part. it's obviously not a Bold edit, having discussed it in advance then explained it in retrospect. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These are some massive proposed changes, yes your bold edit has been contested which is indeed normal editing practice. this string of edits removed important context and were not minor edits. As near as I can tell the vast majority of RS coverage of this person has been related to their fight in parliament and otherwise their criminal history, so our article should reflect that per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Following WP:BLOG and WP:SYNTH aren't contentious observations; a source that doesn't mention the subject of this article shouldn't be cited (the edit also added scare quotes). I think there's some room for trimming newslike events such is mid-trial proceedings and arrests, but it's going to be much better to take them on piecemeal rather than in one big cut. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks for this @VQuakr. I really appreciate your effort in telling me so precisely. I think I bit off more than I could chew, to be honest. It's not exactly my favourite subject, this guy, but I can see looking at the history of the article that it's a long way from what seems fair. He did a good thing in standing up for minorities in the Army and it's written to make him look like he just got booted out for being a bad guy. The violence stuff went across the world (admittedly as a bi of a silly story in some ways). He obviously developed a massive drink problem. There's a massive meme in the UK about him bering personally responsible for changes of government and tons of other stuff not in the article. I found it all just by googling. He's written articles in the major media about stuff like Africa and other things. The worst thing in the lead and further down is that the article says he is a child sex offender, which literally means he had contact with a child, when he was obviously convicted of looking at a child abuse image. Actual child sex offenders obviously go to jail for a long time. His actions disgusts me but it is not the same thing at all either in law or reality. The BBC report is funnily enough a total outlier and completely wrong. That part should obviously read 'child abuse images conviction'. And that's if convictions should even be lined up like this is a Wikipedia article at all. As it stands, the article just looks like a charge sheet designed to evade the UK and elsewhere laws about expunged convictions and giving people a second chance. I have an expunged conviction - lots of people do and might not be able to ever get jobs if Wikipedia just published them all. And if you read the history here at Talk page you can see it's dominated by local political opponents. Anyway, I really do take your points seriously and I will learn from that in my other editing. I'm not sure what to do about this article, which is a total mess and so unfair, so I might just leave it now. I might make a better effort on a more basic scale when I have thought about it. And thank you again, @VQuakr. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, @VQuakr, @FrankiegoestoRedruth for your comments. I've followed through with a WP:RFC. Charlie Campbell 28 (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)