Talk:Mark Potter (judge)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Potter (judge) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| 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.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled edit
Potter being investigated by the Board for Judicial Complaints - Replaced reference to Guardian article that had been rather naughtily removed, but we know these are naughty people who need to be kept a close eye on! 147.114.226.193 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The naughty person who keeps removing the piece about the complaint against Potter is using the tactic of generating a new user id for each edit. Each user id seems to be made up of a random character sequence and then used only for a single edit. This obscures the IP address of the user from other users, but not from administrators. If and when a Wikipedia administrator goes and checks the logs and uncovers the source of this vandalism, it will be interesting to see where that leads. It's probable that since the vandal user is taking the trouble to hide his IP address from fellow users then that IP address might belong to someone who is concerned about their reputation, little-realising that they are actually going to damage it more once their deviousness is uncovered. 147.114.226.180 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It looks as though, after more than a few months, Jack Straw and his chums are starting to feel that they have put off for long enough the embarrassing business of either having to whitewash the behaviour reported in the Observer or make some signal that New Labour can't really be seen to endorse overt cronyism within the upper echelons of the judiciary. Interestingly the Board for Judiciary Complaints doesn't have any power to disbar a judge, only to say, for very serious offernes, things like, "You naughty naughty boy." or, for lesser offences, just "You naughty boy." It will be interesting to see which blandishment they'll choose here. Matt Stan (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)