Talk:Joe Gormley (trade unionist)

[Untitled]
"It was revealed in 2002 that Gormley had worked for Secret Branch in passing on information of extremism within his own union. He had always been a moderate leader and his members were, on average, more prepared to resort to militancy."

What is "secret branch"? Is that supposed to be "Special Branch?". What about a reference?


 * Reference supplied.

True spies
This journalistic scoop doesn't seem to be a very reliable source. Is there any other evidence than the alleged Special Branch Officer "Alan"? The BBC website implies that several relevant people accepted the story. Did they? This matter is not included in the ODNB article and it sounds highly improbable! === Vernon White (talk)  22:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a rather sceptical commentary on the evidence, from The Guardian, 24 October 2002, which reminds us of the context of this allegation. (accessed 3 Dec 2006) === Vernon White  (talk)  22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Guardian source is of little use, for it is just an editorial comment. I don't see what a poorly written biography has to do with it neither. The B.B.C. page seems to be enough to me. It fits in with Gormley's actions, which were always against militancy. Scargill said, on hearing the news, that he was not surprised. Perhaps, the biography just tried to be nice to him and not mention that he betrayed the people who he was supposed to be representing. Epa101 13:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ODNB does not "just try to be nice" to its subjects. The Guardian article shows that the accusation arose at a time of renewed Union-bashing by the media. How do you generally rate the veracity of testimony given anonymously by Special Branch Officers to journalists?=== Vernon White (talk)  17:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian article does not show anything. It was an unverified opinion. Testinony given by Special Branch officers counts for more than idle speculating by journalists who can't think of anything to write about in their stupid editorials. Why would Joe Gormley being a spy be more likely to be made up in an era of union-bashing? The complete opposite is true. The accusation would have been more likely at a time when unions were strong and those who betray unions likely to be hammered.
 * Upgraded the special branch bit to a new section, it is surely deserving of that rather than being buried in an otherwise bland and self serving piece. Am surprised to read here that the BBC is not a very reliable source. Possibly not if your aim is to whitewash biographys in Wikipedia but it doesn't leave you many reliable sources left to quote, except your own praise.