Talk:Kathryn Blair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)


Contents

[edit] Note

The stuff about the suicide was removed from the article. I don't even understand what we were voting for anymore. func(talk) 17:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] D Notices

Moved from main:

A British website (public-interest.co.uk) claimed the suicide attempt was confirmed by Alan Johnson, Labour MP for West Hull and Hessle.
The story is now being hushed up by Downing Street with the use of D Notices. Newspaper editors were issued with the first D Notice on or around 24th May 2004, with a second further notice issued on or around 31st August 2004.

The first seems a bit incredible, while we would need a source for the second.

For now, I've tried to NPOV the article, but did we reach a decision above whether we should mention any of this at all? I do feel a bit uneasy about this. There are strong privacy arguments... Evercat 14:46, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest that if it were true, it would be widely reported overseas, D-Notices or otherwise. And it hasn't been. Conclusion... GWO 15:48, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So I've removed it again. Evercat 15:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It was reported in one print run of the Irish Independent until pressure from the CEO, who is a British Knight, had it removed - this was some time in October, and was mentioned in The Phoenix (magazine) as being unusual that an Irish paper upheld a UK ban. Kiand 14:36, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why did this article survive VfD?

I count 16 delete, 10 keep, 5 of those being merges. At the best, it should be merged into Tony Blair, now that the allegations have been removed, there's nothing to merge, as far as I can tell. The article should just be redirected. Why was this article kept? -Vina 02:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Vina. :) Over at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Decision_Policy, they recommend that admins follow a "rough consensus", which is suggested to be about a 2/3 majority, but it seems to be very much at an admin's discretion, (which is another reason why I don't understand what people mean when they say that adminship is "no big deal", but whatever ;-). Now that the unverifiable allegations have been removed, I don't have any problem with the article, (sometime, I still like to pretend that I am an inclusionist). func(talk) 03:30, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
But what is left? A stub that has no relevance or notability outside of the parent article. Again, at the very best it should be a merge. A keep is, IMO, not warranted by the votes. -Vina 18:06, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation

Speculation section is now in the article and may remain as long as it remains in terms of "speculation" and "it has been said that" with reasonable sourcing (as it has) without attempting at fact. The text is here as it is why she is relevent, and she is in that Tony almost resigned over it. Libel is not an issue as long as we remain to state it in terms of sources and not fact. Further, it is important to Wikipedia to not be subject to external or internal censorship, in this case the D-notice (a voluntary subscription by UK media for reasons of "national security"). Before making further radical changes in terms of the attempt please discuss it here. --Oldak Quill 15:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few considerations on the Speculations section

Regarding recent edit by 130.246.132.26, and the response by Kiand (as well as some of the other comments here pro and con):

I agree there could be thorny ethical (if not legal) questions here, and I have myself given considerable thought to the rights or wrongs of this type of thing. though I do not deny that there could be a strong public interest aspect.

Geli Raubal, the niece of Adolph Hitler, who apparently committed suicide in 1931, is mentioned, both in the article on Adolph Hitler, and in an article on her herself. Just as K.B. is not famous in her own right, neither is Geli Raubal. I personally am definitely not a supporter either of Adolph Hitler, nor of Tony and Cherrie Blair. I definitely have no ill feeling towards K.B. personally; and so far as I am aware, she has not (unlike one of her brothers), been involved in criminal or antisocial conduct in the outside world, which might merit reporting.

I have heard the rumours more than once, from various sources. They appear to be spread by word of mouth as well as the www. There is much inconsistancy as to the details (e.g. some say it took place around May 13, but there are copies in existance of an alleged email dated April 2004. There are also differing versions of what led up to it.

In view of the involvment of gov ministers, one wonders if, realising something would come out in due course, Blair and co tried to preempt it by deliberately spreading inconsistant rumours which would be taken with a grain of salt, esp if groups of people (e.g. teenagers at a school visited by A.J.) who might not be balieved, appeared to be involved. Not knowing how many people in the UK have heard of it, one wonders to extent it affected voters in the recent (2005) election.

There have been incidents where because of suspicions circumstances involving one child, parents have lost custody of other children. Maybe in that case, social workers and others should not be allowed a job involving the control of other people's lives and families, if they don't know how to preside over their own (and if there has been such a disastrous incident). Psychiatrists it seems, could have powers to determine whether someone else is "mentally ill", yet they themselves, as a group, apparently have a high suicide rate. Christopher Craig, who murdered PC Miles in 1952 (for which Derek Bentley was hung), was spared death as below 18. His mother? Apparently she gave talks on the wireless on how to bring up children! Jack Straw was appointed senior government positions despite having an underage son try to sell drugs to an undercover reporter. And one of Tony Blair's mantras has been "tough on crime; tough on the causes of crime"!

Just thought I would share a few thoughts.

Polsequ95 15:48, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The reasons for deleting anything apart from the first paragraph are self evident. PatGallacher 23:04, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

OK, that statement may require explanation. I do not have the slightest idea whether the claims made here are true or not. However it does say that "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" it also says that "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors" but this does not preclude the possibility of it being censored for some other reasons e.g. legitimate protection of medical confidentiality. The information contained here could be seriously damaging to somebody's mental health if widely broadcast. Therefore it is not encyclopedic. PatGallacher 23:30, 2005 September 3 (UTC)

I can't see how being on Wikipedia is any more widely broadcast than being in The Age and the Irish Independent, both extremely major newspapers, with far more readership than a website. Also, wheter a persons entry on the Wikipedia, should they have one, affects them or does not change wheter it is encyclopedic or not. Someone has also removed much of the rest of the article, leaving little more than a sub-stub. Without both the removed sections, theres no reason to have an article, so I'm reverting - again. Your reasons do not justify censorship. --Kiand 01:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I have gone to the troube of re-reading the "Wikipedia is not" section. "Wikipedia is not censored to protect somebody's mental health" - I see no such statement hear or anywhere else. The Irish Independent and the Age may have published this already, I tend to take the view that they should not. This has not been published in any important UK news source, nor is it common knowledge in the UK. PatGallacher 18:26, 2005 September 4 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not censored -in general-. Claiming that someones mental health will be affected by a bit of text, which is widely repeated elswhere, doesn't change that. It is not a valid reason to censor -anything-, under any circumstances. --Kiand 19:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
"The Wikipiedia is not censored -in general-". I see no such statement anywhere on Wikipedia. PatGallacher 19:24, 2005 September 4 (UTC)
Firstly, the subject in question is actually a minor, so WP:NOT applies in the title heading, and secondly, its just a community standard that, at worst, content is not inlined (such as the images on Autofellatio. Mass content removal to "protect someones mental health" goes against what the Wikipedia stands for, basically. I really cannot see -why- you're doing this - repeatedly removing content that does not go against the Wikipedia standards, the law in the countries where the Wikipedia is hosted, or even concensus. --Kiand 19:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I had a discussion about this down the pub tonight, with several people, in general terms, without naming the person involved, and EVERYBODY I spoke to said that this is something they would keep quiet about, it is not something they would broadcast. So I think public opinion is on my side. "Mass content removal to protect someones mental health goes against what the Wikipedia stands for, basically." Is that against what Wikipedia stand for? Can you give me chapter and verse on this? If you can't see why I'm doing this then I feel rather sorry for you. PatGallacher 01:17, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

I am basing my case on article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the US Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, which as Wikipedia is subject to Florida law does apply, see privacy. PatGallacher 11:27, 2005 September 5 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be censored, and the information has enough sources and references that it cannot be dismissed as speculation. McPhail 15:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many sources and references it has, that's not the issue here. It was other people used the heading "Speculations", not me. PatGallacher 15:42, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
The "issue" here is that you keep using non-relevant excuses to censor information. Its as simple as that. --Kiand 15:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I use relevant reasons to censor information. PatGallacher 15:53, 2005 September 5 (UTC)
"Protecting someones mental health" isn't a relevant reason. If you have some crusade on that matter, go and screw around with the pages on nearly every living convicted murderer - they all contain information thats about as likely to affect their mental health (e.g. not at all). You're being outnumbered here also with people who can't see any reason to utterly censor information. Also remember that its in the page history, its repeated on hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors, it was in the main national daily papers of Ireland and Australia as well as numerous mainstream and fringe websites. Your attempts to censor it by removing it from the one site you can edit away at will aren't going to prevent people knowing about it --Kiand 15:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm more or less neutral in this debate, but it should be noted that Wikipedia is almost certainly the most mainstream source on the web where you can find this information. The other sites are either fringe sites or, in the case of Indymedia, the page is "hidden". Nor has it been widely reported offline; one run of a paper doesn't really count. Evercat 20:16, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Kathryn Blair is not a public figure. Publishing this story would be wrong regardless of the legal issues. I can't see an obvious greater interest that justifies invading the privacy of a child. Editing a Wikipedia article is not a act devoid of moral consequences. Having said that, I don't think the specualtion should be removed on ethical grounds, but rather the lack of good verification for this piece of tittle-tattle (even if it turns out to be true). Duncan Keith 05:10:36, 2005-09-06 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I have protected the page based on the request at WP:RFPP, this protection is no way an endosement of any version of the page. That being said, both side need to seriously review WP:3RR and realise that if I ever see one of them break that rule again, I will enforce a 24 hour block. Thanks! Sasquatch讲看 00:09, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotected

No discussion in over two weeks. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:38, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted for various reasons, not just those I have already stated, but because the most recent contributions, from Duncan Keith and Evercat, have tended to confirm the points I was making. PatGallacher 15:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

That you're unjustly censoring information, for whatever reason I don't know? Wikipedia is not censored, and you spend long periods of time attempting to remove information with little more than flimsy and utterly unprovable arguments.
The fact that the general media has reported on this already, including News Corp and Independent News & Media publications shows that it is general knowledge, and that the Wikipedia is not the sole source of the information.
Duncan Keith's 20 or so edits over a series of months do not show him to be a regular Wikipedian likely to know or understand the policies of the Wikipedia either --Kiand 15:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
If it was general knowledge I would have heard of this somewhere before I read it on Wikipedia. I may change my mind if you show me where it has appeared on several major UK news sources e.g. the websites of the BBC or major UK newspapers. Wikipedia IS censored under some circumstances e.g. we have a guideline that articles about pornographic models should not include nude photos, see the Samantha Fox article history. PatGallacher 16:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the way you try to limit it to UK news sources. Sorry to say that The Age and The Indo are more reputable than 95% of the UK press (even if one of them is also Murdoch). And while its censored to remove -certain- information, such as some pornographic or similar material (the penis photos that can't be inlined due to the software), it isn't censored to remove info at the behest of a few people with flimsy and unprovable excuses based on possible mental health issues, or similar.
You should also look at the other articles which happen to mention suicide of self harm attempts. This isn't a once off, and you're fighting with no policy on your side, and against the body of work in the rest of the encyclopedia.
Few examples: "Jacoby Shaddix after being taken to hospital in Las Vegas with 11 staples in his head in an act of self-mutilation" (Scars (song); the List of self-harmers (which has some utterly spurious entries that I'm sure you'll want to chase after...); " Falling deep into depression, she began cutting herself" (Kelly Holmes), and so on. --Kiand 16:49, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a newbie, but does that mean my opinion is of no value? I've made no attempt to censor anyone, or edit the article in any way, I've just made an appeal to the conscience of editors to consider the consequences of their actions. My point is not whether or not gossip like this is condoned by Wikipedia policy but that WIkipedians are not excused from the moral consequences of their actions just by following policy. What you can do and what you should do are not the same. Duncan Keith 06:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Pat, give it up. Morals don't matter here, only Wikipedia policy, which you keep violating. If you'd made a worthwhile argument on the talk page in the past month, maybe your "rv see talk" revert message would make sense. You haven't. --Kiand 09:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be good practice, if somebody says see talk, to give them a couple of minutes to add their comments to the talk page. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy that I am violating, nor that it is Wikipedia policy that morals don't matter here. The mainstream sources which were given did not contain the specific story which it is being attempted to add here, I recognise it might be different if they did. PatGallacher 09:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To elaborate on this: editing on the basis of morals is disrupting the Wikipedia to make a point, theres also the pretty much unwritten policy that edit wars are harmful (I'm sure its written somewhere, but I can't find it). --Kiand 09:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I refuse to accept that either the Irish Independent or even Indymedia are not mainstream. If you continue to disrupt the article, the section can be toned down to what a number of major British figures (Melvin Bragg, etc) and other mainstream sources (The Age) have said, but removing it completely is tantamount to Censorship, which Wikipedia is not. --Kiand 09:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have re-read the policy on not disrupting the Wikipedia to make a point, and I don't see anything relevant to this issue, I suggest people read this policy. The Irish Independent and The Age may be mainstream in their own countries, but they are outside the UK, so something they may have mentioned briefly would not necessarily be common knowledge in the UK. Melvin Bragg's comments do not contain the specific story here. Edit wars are indeed harmful, but it takes 2 sides to make an edit war. It is worth reading the Wikipedia is not policy. It says "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." It also states "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors", people should give quotes in full. This does not exclude the possibility of it being censored for some other reason e.g. at one point I proposed an article for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was probably libellous, which an admin agreed with. PatGallacher 10:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

However, the article was not deleted, failed a VfD, and is now being disrupted to prove a point. In this case, theres far more than one person on the side opposing your changes to the article, making you the side responsible for the edit war, causing the disruption, and violating policy. I notice you've not challenged this part of my point, because you can't. --Kiand 10:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if my previous comment was unclear, I was referring to another article which described somebody as a serial killer although they had not been convicted by a court, this was speedy deleted. The fact that an article has survived a VFD does not justify a free-for-all about what can be added to it. I have asked if somebody could point out exactly what part of the Wikipedia policy about not disrupting to make a point I may be violating, this has not happened. PatGallacher 10:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The only semi-believable justification you or anyone else has given for reverting this article is that the content is 'morally wrong'. This isn't covered by any Wikipedia policy, and trying to force a change through on this basis comes under WP:POINT. Wheter an article is legally valid or not is up to the Wikimedia Foundation to decide, not one editor. --Kiand 10:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Morals don't decide article content"? Where does it say this in any Wikipedia policy? This may raise some philosophical questions about the concept of morality. Anyway, to come more down to earth, Wikipedia can be censored for some reasons e.g. there is an established policy that while we can have articles about pornographic models, any photos accompanying the article should show them with their clothes on. There are also legal problems with this article which I have pointed out before. Could you show me any policy about the Wikimedia Foundation? Sometimes these matters can be dealt with by e.g. speedy deletion, I have quoted a precedent. PatGallacher 10:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't because it -shouldn't have to-! The Wikimedia Foundation has always dealt with legal issues, and its policies are likely to be explained on the the Meta wikipedia. And can I remind you that reverting again will get you blocked for 24 hours. --Kiand 10:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody actually show me a relevant policy on the Meta Wikipedia? Looking around, Wikipedia does have a policy "No legal threats" which states: "Similarly, slander, libel, or defamation of character is not to be tolerated on Wikipedia; true instances of such writing, that might legitimately expose Wikipedia to legal sanction, should immediately be called to the attention of an administrator and/or the community at large." Presumably this also applies to any other legal problems with articles which could expose Wikipedia to legal action. As I have pointed out earlier, in my opinion as a lay person, this article appears to be contrary to the US Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is not far-fetched, in Britain Tony and Cherie Blair have already acquired a reputation for litigiousness in defending their childrens' privacy. PatGallacher 11:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would have preferred not to do this, but I feel I ought to. I have now raised this page on request for comments. To summarise: the contents of this article as they now stand appear to be contrary to Wikipedia policy on 2 counts. Firstly WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". I raised this on the village pump, asking if there was a need for a further guideline "Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate tittle-tattle about people's private lives", the general view was that this was already covered by the former point. Secondly, articles should not contain material which could expose Wikipedia to legal action, not quite explicitly stated but implicit in Wikipedia:No legal threats. This article could fall foul of the right to privacy in the US Constitution, enforced by e.g. the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut. PatGallacher 14:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I object STRONGLY to the weasily lying wording of that RfC entry. I am not adding information, YOU are REMOVING it, against a number of users reverting, not one. --Kiand 14:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This latest comment appears to be contrary to 2 well-established Wikipedia policies: "keep your cool" and "assume good faith". I would remind people of comments from Duncan Keith: "Editing a Wikipedia article is not an act devoid of moral consequences" and "WIkipedians are not excused from the moral consequences of their actions just by following policy". PatGallacher 11:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep my cool? Why should I? I've got one person reverting, and indeed, lying, who's been fighting a one-man war for the past weeks over an article. I'm also currently being wiki-stalked by another user who I've just had to file an RfC on, and someone accusing me of being 'one editor adding information' when thats blatantly untrue is going to push me over the edge. In this case, as I know you know the circumstances, AGF didn't apply.
Also, I don't give a damn about morals. Morals don't dictate the content of an encyclopedia, no less does it dictate the content of the Wikipedia. This isn't a religious encyclopedia. If you want to crusade about morals, I advise you go through the articles about sexology, pornography, etc - things that usually matter to those who are moralistic, not fight over the content of one article. I'm reverting, because your reasons are basically non-existant. --Kiand 11:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"I don't give a damn about morals" is a POV which many Wikipedians might disagree with. Morality is a broad concept, there is more to it than concern about e.g. pornography. Anyway, I have identified some points which conflict with Wikipedia policy which have not been replied to. PatGallacher 12:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

What points? Legal issues are the job of the foundations; morals don't count. Thats been your two arguments, nothing more. --Kiand 13:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"What points?" Kiand seems not to have read my previous comments, I refer to my message of 14:34 10 October in particular. "Legal issues are the job of the foundations" is not a Wikipedia policy I can find anywhere, "morals don't count" is placing oneself outside society. PatGallacher 15:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to be a member of a society where others decide what is right and wrong for me to do - thats my decision. I have to live in a society where I'm bound by concensus as to whats right and wrong, and in this case, with 3 against 1 in recent edits, I'm not on the 'wrong' side. --Kiand 15:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Searching for "Kathryn Blair" on the internet, Wikipedia was the first article that came up, no other article mentioning the story came up on the first page, suggesting that, as someone said earlier, we are at present the highest profile or most mainstream source repeating this story. Searching for "Kathyrn Blair" plus an obvious word, this came up third: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/09/322591.html . This could be the most open discussion yet of this issue, the majority view is that this matter should not be publicised. You will also see a report where the Press Complaints Commission upheld a complaint from the Blairs against the Daily Mail over a seperate violation of Kathryn's privacy, an example of their litigiousness in relation to this issue, so it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that they could take action. (The PCC and Daily Mail are both high profile sources, so this matter can be treated as already common knowledge, unlike the other story.)

Daily Mail is in England. The Wikipedia is in the USA. Chasmatic difference. --Kiand 17:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] (Attempted) compromise edit

Considering PatGallacher doesn't look to be ceasing censoring this article any time soon, the version that I last edited just before I posted this is an attempted compromise edit that shouldn't irritate their morals, or make them assume the law is being broken... --Kiand 16:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Dropped by after seeing this page's listing on RfC. Above compromise looks OK to me after light editing.FRS 17:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks... I don't know if PatGallacher has gone away or something... --Kiand 17:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm against including references to KB's alleged S-attempt in this article, at least without links to legitimate media accounts. The two external links provided do not mention KB by name or use the S-word. An Indymedia article (not linked in the WP page but available here: http://publish.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/854763.shtml) does make the claim, and on the same page connects the attempt to Blair's "warmongering" and refers to him as the "most disasterous Prime Minister this country has ever seen." IOW, it's not an example of legitimate news reporting. I've been unable to find the reported "Irish Independent" article.FRS 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Has nobody noticed the irony that this page, out of nearly all on the internet, is one of the only ones to mention what happened explicitly? People who want to find out will go to the main page, then to this Talk page, where many details are clear. If the VFD is to be taken seriously, then this talk page should be deleted too. Nach0king 13:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A true compromise

I suggest this article be reverted to this on the condition that all mentions of articles (Daily Mail, &c.) are correctly sourced and linked. The text consistantly maintained that this may not be true and that it is all alleged. As long as these allegations are sourced to various media outlets (mainstream or otherwise), we have no problems on our hands. To continue this censorship of legitimate text is to allow this article to remain POV. --Oldak Quill 11:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

First, thank you for bringing this up on the Talk page instead of simply reverting. Second, I oppose this change on the grounds that the information is (a) unverified, and (b) an invasion of privacy. As I wrote above about a month ago the only online source for the alleged attempt seems to be an "Indymedia" article that connects the attempt to Blair's "warmongering" and refers to him as the "most disasterous Prime Minister this country has ever seen." IOW, it's not an example of legitimate news reporting. (for reinforcement of the view that the article is not legitimate, look at the website belonging to Tony Gosling, the Indymedia article's author [1])
If I knew more about the reported "Irish Independent" article (e.g, exactly what it said, and why the article was pulled, how many papers were actually distributed with the article, etc) it's conceivable I'd change my mind (but not very likely)FRS 15:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be worth looking at a lengthy quote from Daniel Brandt which appears in his article. I am certainly not defending all his comments, but it is interesting to note that Florida does have a privacy law, which Wikipedia is subject to. PatGallacher 12:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The actual event

Personally I believe the entry should be based on fact not censorship. A simple statement to the effect that she attempted suicide, was found and treated would suffice. Covering it up serves no legitimate purpose.

There is no reliable source for that fact. It fails WP:V. David | Talk 14:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Other then statements from Alan Johnson, Labour MP for West Hull and Hessle of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.21.53.210 (talk • contribs).

Statements which no-one has ever produced. David | Talk 23:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the event was well-reported by a number of foreign media sources? It was just that the British media, in a rare show of sympathy, decided not to mention it directly - instead, we just got stories about how Blair had considered resigning due to "family strain". [2] Modernway 11:44, 1 September 2006

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/t/Talk%7EKathryn_Blair_fcac.html"