Talk:Richard Keen, Baron Keen of Elie

NPOV
This seems to be a rather long advert for Mr. Keen Lucifer(sc) 15:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The first of your four tentative edits clearly demonstrates that this is most definitely not a "rather long advert for Mr Keen". I have therefore removed your seemingly unnecessary tag.Phase4 22:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. You may find it hard to believe but I hadn't thought to check the edit history before I edited so didn't realise you had contributed to this. Much as the Sheridan comment arguably adds some balance, this article is still rather effusive.

How do we know he is known as the rottweiler? How do we know he is one of the advocates most others fear appearing against. How do we know that the address he lives at is the "most prestigous" (not just prestigous or affluent) and indeed why should we care?

Is this man even notable? --Lucifer(sc) 11:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Lucifer. Have a look at the "References" section and I think you will find the Scotsman's Rich List piece is the source for the apparent lionising of Richard Keen. He's number 61 on the list.Phase4 16:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well at least I have learnt a new word (lionising). Yes, I see your point here. Don't think that I necessarily concur with the Scotsman's editorial judgment but I suppose that is by-the-by. --Lucifer(sc) 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite
I've given this a long overdue rewrite. It was previously a copyvio of one of the provided sources (everything in that source about this person had been copied here, without any rewording), and it was so unambiguously promotional it was unreal. I'm hardly an expert on Law, and some updates are doubtless required; but this should be a major improvement. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 15:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Keen, Baron Keen of Elie. 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/20121020081327/http://www.advocates.org.uk/stables/advocates/00000249.html to http://www.advocates.org.uk/stables/advocates/00000249.html

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) 23:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Resignation
There are news reports that Keen today offered his resignation as Advocate General. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Criminal Conviction
It seems absurd to me to suggest that one of the government's senior law officers receiving a criminal conviction while in office is non-notable, but if you want to make the case that it is please do so here.Brattice (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I support the wording by Brattice. It is significant that an Advocate General was convicted of a criminal offence, and a breach of gun control legislation is a serious matter. The wording used is appropriate. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You guys need to start focusing on what's actually being said instead of reflexively reverting. What part of "convicted of a criminal offense, and a breach of gun control legislation" isn't in my wording? Why is it important to tell readers the guy was fined "the sum of" 1000 pounds instead of just plain saying he was fined 1000 pounds? What is the point of pretending to link to "section two" of a specific piece of legislation, when if the reader follows the link, there's nothing there about section two? (And even if there were, what it would say is that -- DUH! -- you're required to keep firearms secured, which the reader can infer for himself anyway.) Instead of flowery language, give some thought to respecting the reader's time and intelligence. EEng 15:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The actual offence is relevant information. The article linked to has an external link to the actual legislation, for anyone who’s interested. I would be agreeable to deleting ‘the sum of’. But I don’t think that would save readers much time. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh huh. So your idea is that, after a bit of clicking, this "anyone who's interested" will learn that the relevant statutory text is ...
 * 2. Requirement of certificate for possession of shot guns.
 * (1) Subject to any exemption under this Act, it is an offence for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, a shot gun without holding a certificate under this Act authorising him to possess shot guns.
 * (2) It is an offence for a person to fail to comply with a condition subject to which a shot gun certificate is held by him.
 * ... and thereby be enlightened as to "the actual offense". Right.But no matter. I'll leave it to you to remove the sum of, since you've been so gracious about that, but it looks like this article's stuck with the other surplusage. EEng 23:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The firearms charge is not trivial, and neither of the references are deadlinks. The material is significant, relevant, and well sourced, to the BBC and Scottish Legal News. What is your rationale for deleting relevant and well sourced material? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Member of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe – citation
I can’t find Richard Keen mentioned in the citation you added. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Scroll down, 10th on the list.Brattice (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see it now (I hadn't scrolled down). Sorry. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)