Talk:Michael Levy, Baron Levy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
Contents |
[edit] Conspiracy to commit Perjury
I have removed this and replaced with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and referenced. I have not seen any articles to back up his conspiracy relating to perjure.
The Perjury Act 1911 states If any person lawfully sworn as a witness or as an interpreter in a judicial proceeding wilfully makes a statement material in that proceeding which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of perjury, and shall, on conviction thereof on indictment, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years, or to a fine or to both such imprisonment and fine.
As far as I'm aware you can not be arrested for perjury in the UK before a court case. If there is evidence the suspected conspiracy related to statements to be given in court, please cite them. If the charge is indeed conspiracy to perjure, please cite this or it is possible this could come under libel. The18thDoctor 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jewish Leadership Council
a joke's a joke, jay, but yr and slim's behaviour is starting to border on hysteria:
- The Jewish Leadership Council, which late last year announced its first director by appointing Jeremy Newmark former PR for the Chief Rabbi, has elected its first executive. The Jewish Chronicle reports that Board of Deputies president Henry Grunwald is heading it up as chair with six other members: Labour Party stalwart Lord Levy, motoring industry mogul Sir Trevor Chinn, Community Security Trust chairman Gerald Ronson, United Jewish Israel Appeal chairman Michael Davis, World Jewish Relief chairman Nigel Layton and Reform movement chairman Michael Grabiner.[1]
is that enough, or do u want a brith certificate again? Jamaissur
Ref 2 and Link 3 point to the same article. This should be resolved to 1 reference (or link). Also, is it okay from a copyright POV to link to this source?
--leaky_caldron 17:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO INCLUDE ALL THE CHARITY WORK HE HAS DONE FOR NON-JEWISH CHARITIES - OTHERWISE HE LOOKS LIKE A BIT OF A BIGOT AND RATHER RACIALLY-BIASED.
[edit] Right Hon?
I wondered about this and almost deleted the entry. But...apparantly because his title is a Baronet he's entitled to use the Right Honourable as a prefix - or so it appears! Have a look at [Right Honourable] - it's a bit ambiguous --leaky_caldron 15:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- He's a life peer (=baron) not a baronet. I agree the page on forms of address suggests that the term is used for barons; however, I am fairly sure it should not be for barons unless they are also Privy Counsellors. It is not in other cases in Wikipedia.--farsee50 19:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Correct: he's not a Privy Counsellor, therefore he's not a Rt. Hon. However, he does prefer to be referred to as "The Lord Levy". Alan Davidson 13:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Quite wrong. All barons, viscounts and earls are 'Rt Hon' irrespective of whether they are members of the PC. They can be, though rarely are informally, distinguished by adding PC as post noms. However wiki policy (the MoS) doesn't allow honorific styles so the matter is moot. Alci12 23:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
- Correct: he's not a Privy Counsellor, therefore he's not a Rt. Hon. However, he does prefer to be referred to as "The Lord Levy". Alan Davidson 13:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Burglary
1. The use of bleach is questionable. There is only one news source that has this: the Guardian/Observer. 2. Levy hasn't confirmed the exact items stolen. The police statement said a safe was stolen with an unknown amount of cash and jewelery. Alan Davidson 15:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- The Guardian/Observer is reputable- I don't see any reason/evidence to suggest that the author would lie about it. Arniep 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- This confirms it [2]. Arniep 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well done: I hadn't seen that. As for the reputable nature of the Grauniad, I wouldn't bank on that. That's why they have a Corrections and Clarification section. [3]
- Maybe the others just don't bother to correct :) Arniep 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Well done: I hadn't seen that. As for the reputable nature of the Grauniad, I wouldn't bank on that. That's why they have a Corrections and Clarification section. [3]
- This confirms it [2]. Arniep 16:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
