Talk:Grant Shapps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Grant Shapps. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grant Shapps. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greater transparency

It was reported on the news tonight (5 January 2018) that Shapps had called for greater transparency on Conservative Party membership rates, and that this could reveal Tory Party membership rates to be below Labour, Liberal Democrates and S.N.P.. This could go in the article. Vorbee (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptocurrency ICO news coverage

The Financial Times ran an article on Shapps' involvement in an initial coin offering, OpenBrix. He was getting tokens with a notional value of £170k to £700k for his services as an advisor, but he put it in the register of MPs' interests as "unpaid": "Grant Shapps resigns from blockchain positions after FTAV discovers secret pay deal". It's all over the news in the last couple of days, and now a Labour MP is calling for him to be investigated "Labour calls for inquiry into ex-Tory chairman Grant Shapps". Is this worth mentioning? (I won't add it myself as I was one of Jemima Kelly's sources for the original FT story, looking into the OpenBrix ICO.)

It's not absolutely clear from the press coverage, but he didn't get £170k-£700k in cash, or even a reasonably convertible cryptocurrency - he would be getting a quantity of ICO tokens, presently worth 0 (hence his register entry as "unpaid"), but which might be worth a bundle later. The quantitiy he would have received would have been an amount they were selling for £170k-£700k. But of course converting those tokens back into cash, or a reasonably cash-equivalent crypto, would be rather more difficult - hence present value of 0 - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Unless and until some "actual specie value" exists, paying taxes on such items is silly. Or else I could give a person my own masterpiece painting "for services rendered", value it as $200,000 and make them pay taxes on it? Better yet, ask for an appraisal of your stack of "pseudo-currency". Collect (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not trying to discuss the hypotheticals here, per
WP:NOTFORUM - mostly whether and how to cover it in the article - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

Heading

The heading Professional and writing career sounds missing leading after reading, sounds like he has written books, but nothing like that is noted. The few paragraphs are just Business ventures so would that not be a better sub-heading? Govvy (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good - David Gerard (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
k, changed it over, cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shapps's web marketing business

'Shapps's web marketing business's 20/20 Challenge publication also drew criticism. It cost $497 and promised customers earnings of $20,000 in 20 days. Upon purchase, the "toolkit" was revealed to be an ebook, advising the user to create their own toolkit and recruit 100 "Joint Venture Partners" to resell it for a share of the profits.'

That sentence is well-sourced. The source doesn't call it a Ponzi scheme, but for the life of me I can't see what else it was. As much as I would like to, I cannot say that in Wikipedia's voice unless a source uses that (largely US) term or an equivalent. Narky Blert (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can't really say Ponzi scheme unless a source says it! Other than that, I am not sure what else you're asking. Govvy (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations that Shapps has edited Wikipedia do they need to be mentioned?

I know this has been discussed previously a few years back but this matter should be re-investigated.

It seems that the article breaches

WP:Undue as it places undue weight on these allegations. Their validity is irrelevant. Shapps is not even remotely known for these controversies. DukeLondon (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

There have been quite a few "Who is Grant Shapps?" media articles recently, and that incident is one of the things several of them mention. As a couple of examples, the PA discussed it in the 10th & 11th paragraphs,[1] whereas the Evening Standard first refers to it in the article subheading.[2] I'm not an expert of Wikipedia policies, but it seems to me like a reasonable thing to include in Wikipedia's own biography. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Grant Shapps, spreadsheet schemer, takes Home Office reins". Stirling News. High Wycombe, UK. PA. 19 October 2022. Retrieved 28 October 2022.
  2. ^ Loffhagen, Emma (20 October 2022). "Meet Grant Shapps, the UK's third home secretary in three months". Evening Standard. London. Retrieved 28 October 2022.

Fake testimonials

Under "Business Ventures" the article states: "The existence of at least three people who allegedly provided testimonials for the company has been questioned."

The wording - 'has been questioned' - suggests that there is some doubt. In fact there is no doubt that the testimonials were fake, exposed by the Channel 4 investigation. One of them is from "Corinne Stockheath". Although the surname looks English, nobody of that name existed, as can be proved by a search of the Civil Registration index of births, marriages and deaths for England and Wales, the data from which are online at freebmd.org.uk. A search for the birth records of people surnamed Stockheath born between 1880 and 1997 (the last date publicly available) finds that there aren't any. The name was clearly invented for the purpose of deception.Insulation2 (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grant_Shapps&oldid=1214178228"