Talk:Roger Godsiff

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

"In November 2019, he was barred from standing as the Labour candidate over his opposition to LGBT+ Inclusive Education in Birmingham schools. Godsiff subsequently declared his intention to stand as an independent candidate due what he called a 'vicious group of LGBT activists' in the Labour Party although some suggest he's not standing down to secure the £22,000 golden handshake defeated MPs are given.[1]"

The description of the reason he was barred, "opposition to LGBT+ Inclusive Education in Birmingham schools", is wrong for two reasons.

Firstly, what was behind the "triggering" of Mr Godsiff was his saying that a certain cause was "just". But the decision of the Labour NEC may well have been based upon other considerations.

Secondly, if the reason for the final decision was the same as the reason for the initial triggering that led to the need for that decision, the description of that reason as "opposition to LGBT+ Inclusive Education in Birmingham schools" is, at best, biased rhetoric rather than a neutral description of the factual background. Moreover, there was only ONE Birmingham school involved, out of 258 primary schools and (presumably) a similar number of secondary schools in Birmingham.

Reference 1 is to a Guardian article that I have criticised myself today, for its omission to report that the issue at stake, distorted as "opposition to LGBT+ Inclusive Education in Birmingham schools", which is actually Mr Godsiff's statement that the cause of what I have called the Anderton Park 3 was "just", is still sub judice. In five days, the court will rule as to whether that cause was and is just, implicitly condoning or condemning the de-selection of Mr Godsiff if the reason for that was his statement that the cause was just.

For this and other reasons, this entry falls far short of the required standard of neutrality. It may well be actionable.

John Allman (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There are two schools involved in this and the sentence in question is supported by The Guardian, which we consider a reliable source. If it is actionable, which I very much doubt, it is the editor of The Guardian's concern. Lastly you have a conflict of interest as evidenced by your blog . Graham Beards (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Independent?
"is a British Independent politician"

Is he? This article states that he never lost the Labour whip, and he does not seem to have resigned his party membership. Until he actually puts forward a formal independent candidature (which presumably would incur automatic expulsion from the party) I suggest he is described as "former Labour MP"—"former" because all MPs who sat in the last parliament are now out of office, formally speaking. Harfarhs (talk) 02:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)