Talk:Paul Golding

Poor article
This article is extremely biased, not to mention confusing. It needs a good clean-up, with the facts presented in neutral language and any relevant criticisms clearly separated from the main content. I will tidy up a bit myself when I get the chance. David L Rattigan (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In what way is it biased? AusLondonder (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Until such time as we are told why he thinks it biased, I will remove the clean up tag he placed on the article. Emeraude (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree the entire article is very heavy filtered towards describing Paul Golding as a criminal. It is a simple fact that many politicians have criminal convictions. But they are not so prominently stated in wikipedia. Nick Clegg was convicted of arson and his entire criminal past was suppressed in wikipedia (I added it and it was all deleted). Many others such as Boris Johnson have a long history of insulting people for example telling one man (on video) to "Fuck off and die" when he was Mayor. That again is completely hidden in wikipedia. There are hundreds more examples. These examples reveal wikipedia to be heavily biased and not presenting facts but a highly filtered opinion. Campaigners such as Stinson Hunter - who was sentenced to 10 years in prison had his entire criminal past suppressed in wikipedia (I added it and it was all deleted; finally it was added) - have their wikipedia pages heavily filtered. Wikipedia ends up being a website which is influenced not by facts but by people who want to push a certain opinion. The founder himself of wikipedia stated that is a weakness of the entire design - that people can just use a majority to filter information.
 * You say the "weakness" of Wikipedia is that "people can just use a majority to filter information" - but here you are arguing for us to filter information about Golding's criminal record which is highly relevant to his notability. One of the key differences with Nick Clegg is that Clegg was given community service as a juvenile for setting fire to a cacti collection as a "drunken prank". That is an incredibly minor detail from the past and completely undue when compared with his career as Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister of the UK. In contrast, Golding continues has a criminal present. He continues to receive prison sentences for serious crimes. AusLondonder (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not about judging the facts of something (which you are doing) but stating the facts for others to judge. You will see no references to Clegg's offence at all in Wikipedia. He damaged rare plants belonging to a professor in an act of vandalism using fire. The fact he held high office simply underlines why this may be important and indeed many journalists and broadcasters have made comments about it (including the BBC). Your standard here, by your own admission, is different to established journalistic standards. Paul Golding has convictions but he has no chance of any high office. What is relevant is that is an extremist politician - not his criminal history. The article should focus on what Paul Golding is about, and not his convictions. The article should be about him not Britain First too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.41.13 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Earlier comments
I'm removing the reference to women's underwear at the cenotaph because it is supported only by a Hope Not Hate webpage. Hope Not Hate cannot be considered a reliable source, it is an activist organization. If you can find a reliable source to footnote it with then that would be ok, but for now, it is effectively unsourced which is unnacceptable in bio of a living person. Hmcst1 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hope Not Hate is a reliable source. Regardless, there is a photo of Golding wearing the said garment. I have reverted your edit, and added the photo link. Emeraude (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, do you not realize that source is Matt Collins, an former member of the neo-Nazi National Front? It just seems bizarre (see below) that someone is quoting Collins as a source Mr. Golding was an NF member (when he wasn't), and in fact Collins was. Someone misread this source:http://www.channel4.com/news/britain-first-far-right-anti-muslim-extremists-mosques it says Collins was a member of the neo-Nazi national front, not Golding. Also, you consider Collins whose a former neo-Nazi a "reliable source"?Hettydetty (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Smear article, with bogus info
Someone has chosen the worst possible photo of Mr. Golding; the reference to underwear on the head is a smear- the third linked source even contains a video explaining the underwear was thrown on Golding's head, not that he "arrived" dressed like that. Also, the source claiming he was a member of the National Front is dubious:


 * Britain First: inside the extremist group targeting mosques", Channel 4 News, 19 June 2014
 * "Far-right leader turned up to Cenotaph with knickers on his head", Political Scrapbook,10 November 2014

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2014/11/paul-golding-cenotaph-knickers-britain-first/ " At this point he was reportedly a member of the, errrr, neo-Nazi linked National Front" which links to this: http://www.channel4.com/news/britain-first-far-right-anti-muslim-extremists-mosques

No mention in these sources, that Mr. Golding was an NF member. Someone either misread it, or worse they have just used it along with the other smears.Hettydetty (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence Golding was with NF or an NF member. The only source saying this is Matt Collins (the two sources above do not provide any info for Golding being an NF member, they just quote Collins), Mr. Collins is a former NF member who runs the Hope not Hate blog, which slanders people. Collins is well known to post lies and inaccurate info on his blog. Why on earth is a blog run by a former neo-Nazi considered an "accurate source"? Hettydetty (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * note above sources do not clarify Mr, Golding was a member of the NF: "At this point he was reportedly a member of the, errrr, neo-Nazi linked National Front" -- he was reportedly a member according to one dubious source, and the person "reporting" this is Matt Collins. As mentioned above by someone, this is not a reliable source at all.Hettydetty (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's what Collins says: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/blog/insider/the-shame-of-paul-golding-3616 "Paul Golding in an unusually unpleasant chap. When he was in the National Front (NF), he turned up to a Remembrance Sunday march at the cenotaph drunk and with a pair of women's knickers on his head as a mark of "respect"." - This is total slander. Golding did "not turn up drunk with a pair of women's knickers on his head", they were thrown on him which was mentioned on one of the other links. And secondly the photo is not of national front but BNP. So Collins doesn't even get anything correct. In the photo is Mark collet, an official of the BNP under Griffin's years. The NF and BNP do not attend the cenotaph together, and never have. So the photo isn't NF at all, even if it was: what evidence is there Golding was an NF member?. The NF parades accept members of public, who are non-members. As I have previously mentioned, it is actually Collins who is ex-NF. Hettydetty (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All of which might be interesting, except the photo shows they are actually being worn on his head! Emeraude (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe the Mirror is a reliable source. So can we reinsert the reference to underpants on his head. It's the only remotely interesting thing about this character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.169 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Don't know how that ever got lost Emeraude (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2016
This article is biased. Its sources are biased, and the picture of this man featured on this page looks like it has been deliberately used to put people off this man and to humiliate him. There are also no justifications on this page that prove what actually happened in events like when he was wearing a pair of knickers on his head on Rememberance Sunday. He was not drunk, and there is video evidence of somebody deliberately placing the underwear on his head.

Ss24771 (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 00:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On another note, its complete crap to say a mysterious "someone" simply "placed" the underwear on his head and he could not remove it. That is utterly fanciful. AusLondonder (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ...unless he was drunk! Emeraude (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2016
Paul Golding is the leader of Britain First, an organisation described as a nationalist group, even though it is described many times as fascists. He is a former British National Party (BNP) Sevenoaks District councillor for Swanley from 2009 to 2011 and was also the BNP's Communications Officer. He will stand as a candidate in the London mayoral election in 2016, with his Deputy Jayda Fransen stating that Britain First wants to hang its opponents.

Golding was a member of the nationalist National Front which was seen as neo-nazi by many people, but this is completly unfounded

In May 2014, Golding was arrested for criminal damage and breach of the peace during a protest outside the Indian Embassy in London. In July 2014, he tried to have himself arrested at Bexleyheath police station over an incident at Crayford Mosque, but failed, an act widely considered to be a fund-raising publicity stunt. In March 2015, he was arrested on suspicion of assault during a Britain First march in Derby, as was an opponent who Golding had claimed assaulted him. In May 2015, Golding threatened to bury a pig at the site of proposed mosque in Dudley, mistakenly believing this would contaminate the site and render it unsuitable.

Also in 2015, Golding was convicted of harassing a woman after mistakenly arriving at her home instead of that of a man allegedly linked to the 2005 London bombings. He was also found guilty of wearing a political uniform, an offence under the Public Order Act 1936. A restraining order was issued against Golding and he was fined for both offences. During a visit to Northern Ireland in 2015, Golding and other supporters of Britain First mistook Newtownards Town Hall for a mosque. At the Britain First Annual Conference in November 2015, Golding and Fransen led the meeting which agreed a number of policies including banning the media from using the word 'racism' and abolishing the BBC.

He stood as British National Party candidate for Sevenoaks in the 2010 United Kingdom general election, receiving 2.8% of the vote. He stood as a Britain First lead candidate in the 2014 European Parliamentary election for Wales; the party received 0.9% of the vote.

Elections contested
UK general elections

European Parliament elections

"Neo-Nazi"
, I did check out the Britain First article and no phrase was found for "naz" let alone Nazi. Britain First are many unpalatable things but it would be cheap to call them Neo-Nazi, which is a particular brand of the far right with open admiration for the Third Reich. As this article says he was once in NF, I don't know what the policy is. All I know is, for example, people who are know longer members of religion-x are categorised as "Former X" or "Converts from X to Y" &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The NF is clearly neo-nazi and a lot of them moved over the Britain First. As a category I think it is OK  Snowded  TALK 17:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Britain First is neither "far right", nor "neo-Nazi". It is a right-wing party like UKIP. (ArnoldRidley (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)) Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
 * Wrong. It is most definitely not a "right-wing party like UKIP" and its history and antecedents clearly show that, as do the sources. Emeraude (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources are meaningless. Any party that questions mass immigration is automatically described as "far right" by the media. (ArnoldRidley (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2018 (UTC)) Block evasion by User:HarveyCarter.
 * Well, there you go then. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It states that Wikipedia policy is: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard."
 * This claim that Paul Golding was in the "National Front" is libellous and completely untrue. Paul Golding was in the BNP and never the National Front. Paul got involved in politics in 1999 and immediately joined the BNP. This claim needs to be removed. PGoldingBF (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a small question around sourcing here. Hope Not Hate should be taken on a case-by-case basis per WP:RSP. The Political Scrapbook link appears to be dead, so I can't verify that. However, the Channel 4 link is alive and well, and does indeed say that Paul (you?) was in the National Front. — Czello 21:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

"convicted criminal" in lead sentence?
A disruptive IP contributor raised multiple points, and one may be valid. Should he be described in the lead sentence as "a convicted criminal", or is it sufficient to describe his conviction later in the lead section? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It should be in the lead sentence. He was convicted as a direct result of his political activity, carried out in direct contavention of a court order relating to his political activity; that's serious. It's not a speeding conviction or some other minor offence, so should be mentioned upfront. Emeraude (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with here. His criminal activity is directly related to his political roles and relevant to his notability. AusLondonder (talk) 08:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There is absolutely no precident for this on Wikipedia. (SEE: Category:British politicians convicted of crimes). None of those articles lead with "convicted criminal".


 * There does not need to be precedent and the suggestion that just because other articles don't do it this shouldn't is hardly tenable. Besides, Golding has received so much more coverage for his criminal activities than his political career; it might be more accurate to describe him as a criminal who dabbles in politics rather than a politician who has been a criminal. Emeraude (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Months V. Weeks
I could care less about why they were convicted, but why is his sentence described as "18 weeks" while hers is described as "9 months"? It implies, especially if you're not aware of wikipedia's outrageous incompetence and bias, that his crime was somehow worse than hers, when in fact his sentence is significantly shorter (just under half as long). It's patiently misleading... which is wikipedia's norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.197.7.66 (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Not at all. In UK courts sentences below six months are normally expressed in weeks. Your accusations of bias against Wikipedia are duly noted - perhaps you should read The Guardian article which is sourced and gives both sentences in weeks. Emeraude (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Convicted terrorist
In belated response to this edit summary, what, in your view, is the difference between someone convicted under terrorism legislation and a convicted terrorist? (Obviously I agree with the other part of the edit summary.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article cited by the IP for the convicted terrorist claim says “guilty of an offence under the Terrorism Act after refusing to give police access to his mobile phone on his return from a political trip to Russia.“ Refusing to let the police access his phone is not something that fits with the definition of terrorism. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 21:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I am far from agreeing with Golding’s political views, but I do believe that we should state the facts, even about controversial figures. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 22:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, though arguably what you've said is more of a (wholly reasonable) criticism of the legislation than it is a conclusive indication of how we ought or ought not to describe him. In recent years all sorts of unlikely things have been redefined as terrorism (Terrorism Act 2000 has a list) – you or I wouldn't consider denying the police access to one's phone to be terrorism, but it's possible that UK law does. I don't have any particular proposal for how this ought to be addressed in the article but I do think it could be foregrounded more than it is. It's far from ordinary, after all, for a political figure in a functioning democracy (not to mention a fairly prominent supporter of the Prime Minister) to have been convicted under terrorism legislation. What do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think we should state it just as the article has, that he was convicted under the Terrorism Act for refusing to give police access to his mobile phone. It allows the readers to form their own opinion about it. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 05:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

June 13 protest
Do you think the word "violent" isn't supported by the BBC article cited? I was torn on whether or not to include it. Obviously we don't want to seem to be making the unsupported assertion that Golding was himself involved in violence, but violence does seem to be the focus of much of the media coverage of the event. It's made worse by the fact that the BBC article doesn't really explain what the protest was actually against (or in support of). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

It’s certainly debateable. I personally thought it was a bit controversial and should be left out, however I don’t think it would be entirely wrong to say violence did occur. Big ol Ash (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

January 2021: "Convicted criminal" in the lead? Discussion to follow
In my view, he is a far-right political leader who misbehaves in rather minor ways on the criminality scale. I wouldn't say his career has been one of criminality, but rather of far-right activism. I hold this view based on the article's text. The purpose of the lead is to recap the article. That's why I don't believe that "convicted criminal" belongs in the lead. Other opinions? --Quisqualis (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * He has received much more coverage for his criminal career than for his political activities, and most of his criminal activity is carried out in furtherance of his political aims. Which of these crimes are you classifying as "misbehaves in rather minor ways": criminal damage: breach of the peace; assault; harassment; wearing a political uniform; religious harassment; breaching a court order; assault by beating; publishing written material intended to stir up hatred; using threatening, abusive, insulting words or behaviour; breach of Terrorism Act? But, be honest, what you really want to do is to remove the description "far right", isn't it, without mentioning it in your edit summaries? Emeraude (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Convicted criminal" IMO isn't very informative, the second sentence details precisely what his crimes were and what his punishment - opening with "is a convicted etc.." simply implies that he is a career criminal, which is not the case. His criminal activity relates directly to extreme/intimidatory manifestations of his far-right beliefs. The fact that it might be justified since he is notable for having been tried and sentenced, doesn't alter the fact that it misleads rather than informs. WP can be very censorious at times! Pincrete (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a source check please?
I have reverted this change. It changes the narrative significantly without bringing any new sources which is definitely suspicious enough for a revert. The problem is that I don't have a Times subscription so please can somebody check the existing sources? Do they fail to say "underage" (or any synonym)? Do they say that the case was dropped and, if so, why? If so, then we should change the article to match. If not, are there any other sources to support the case being dropped? (I had a quick look in Google News and didn't find anything but it's not easy to search as he has had so many different cases for so many different things and some go forward and some don't.) --DanielRigal (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For example, in the Daily Mail, it says: "UPDATE:  In July 2018, police confirm that Golding will face no further action"
 * The link to the article is here:
 * https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5135669/British-leader-faces-sexual-assault-investigation.html
 * It says it in the Times article also: "This article was updated on July 19 2018. On July 11 2018 the Greater Manchester Police decided to take no further action in the allegations against Mr Golding." TruthSeekerEngland (talk) 12:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the Times article in its entirety:
 * The leader of Britain First faces an allegation that he sexually assaulted a young woman who attended one of the group’s rallies, The Times can reveal.
 * The alleged victim has reported Paul Golding to police, claiming he sexually assaulted her at a hotel after a demonstration decrying child sex abuse in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.
 * The allegation has come to light as the leadership of the small but vocal far-right group bragged that Donald Trump had gifted them global exposure and a boost to their membership.
 * A former member also said yesterday that Golding, 35, had fallen out with Jayda Fransen, his deputy leader and former girlfriend, whose tweets were reposted by the US president on Wednesday morning.
 * The alleged victim of the sexual assault, who cannot be named for legal reasons, claims that she was incentivised to stay quiet over the claim and was later subjected to harassment and online abuse.
 * The woman said that the alleged assault happened after she had kissed Golding following the rally in Rochdale in July but had not wanted to go further. She claimed that later that night Golding “forced himself on me” in a hotel room. “I had to scream; I had to struggle. It took me several attempts to get him to stop,” she said, admitting that she had had consensual relations with her alleged attacker at a later date.
 * After the alleged assault, she said she immediately complained to others in the leadership who dismissed the behaviour as drunken and out of character. “I was promised things in order that I didn’t say anything,” she said.
 * The group, which is estimated to have no more than 1,000 members, has struggled to keep in order while Golding and Fransen face trial for religiously aggravated harassment in Kent. Fransen, 31, is also awaiting trial for hate speech at a rally in Belfast.
 * The group’s figurehead, she is said to have ambitions of leading the party and was also fined last year for religiously aggravated harassment after shouting abuse at a woman in a hijab in Luton during a “Christian patrol” in which a dozen or so members walked the streets carrying crucifixes.
 * Graham Morris, a former Britain First member, said that the group had been beset by infighting after Golding began dating Fransen. During the fallout he apparently cut off Fransen’s access to her Britain First Facebook and Twitter accounts and confiscated the car she had been given to use.
 * Mr Morris also said that much of the money used to found the group had come from a campaign of burglaries and car thefts carried out by a family member of Golding.
 * Golding — who was jailed last year for breaching an order not to enter any mosque — was interviewed voluntarily after the alleged assault at a hotel in Oldham. He declined to comment on the allegation last night but called rumours of a rift with Fransen “bullshit”.
 * Greater Manchester Police said: “A woman in her 20s was allegedly assaulted at a hotel in Grains Bar, Oldham on Saturday 22 July 2017. A 35-year-old man was voluntarily interviewed and has been released under investigation.”
 * This article was updated on July 19 2018.
 * On July 11 2018 the Greater Manchester Police decided to take no further action in the allegations against Mr Golding. TruthSeekerEngland (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note in the article it says: "Greater Manchester Police said: “A woman in her 20s was allegedly assaulted at a hotel in Grains Bar, Oldham on Saturday 22 July 2017. A 35-year-old man was voluntarily interviewed and has been released under investigation.”" TruthSeekerEngland (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)