Talk:Ian Blair

Order

Does anyone know the order of which Sir Ian was made a knight? I would assume he's a KBE, but I'd rather be sure. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Knight Bachelor, actually.[1] Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What does "2.2" mean in the clause "...he gained a 2:2 in English Language and English ..."? Avalon 02:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Lower Second Class Honours degree. British bachelors' degrees (in most universities) are divided into First Class Honours (First), Upper Second Class Honours (2:1), Lower Second Class Honours (2:2), Third Class Honours (Third), and Pass (with no Honours). -- Necrothesp 10:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Added a link to page on British Degree Classifications --JRawle 17:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This page is a blatant example of POV.. Nuke it and start again.

Yes Sir. PizzaMargherita 11:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

it's not our fault if this guy is to bad headlines like shit is to flies.

Only bad headlines? http://www.abendblatt.de/daten/2005/08/01/465324.html

Not only POV but also potentially libellous - opening paragraph edited to remove such —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joekiki (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In truth i have read article several times now It is in essance correct The guy is and always has been a BUMBLING GLORY HOUND the truth is in his statments but he fantersises a lot to make storys good But over do's thinks to the point of fairy tales The guy is a coward who closes his eyes to real life and takes the glory from the actual heoros i have seen it before and no doubt will again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.125.8 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article reads like a massive criticism of Blair which is not POV and hence I have tagged the article17:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree! I am new to Wikipedia and I find this Ian Blair page awful. Surely he can't be that bad!I have looked at Wikipedia in general and thought it informative until I happened upon this one. I think this casts doubt about ALL wikipedia pages as this is that bad. I really don't mind that I have not logged-on, I need someone to defend Wikipedia.

Bob

Everything on the page appears factual, meticulously referenced and relevant. I don't think we should remove major scandals from the bio of a public figure simply because he has accumulated so many. You are free to add any relevant information that casts him in a better light. However, NPOV doesn't dictate that a character must be made to look good. -- Jamougha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.56.220 (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm re-adding the tag. This article is way over the top in terms of lack of balance. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

We should try to balance, then. i'll see what i can do, but not right now. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is still ridiculously biased. Whilst it is filled with criticisms of Blair, it fails to mention any of the progress made whilst he was Commissioner, such as the significantly lower crime rates. Also very telling is the fact that there appears to be no mention of the outcome of Sir Ronnie Flanagan's report of the investigation into the IT/PR contracts with Andy Miller - he was cleared of any and all wrongdoing. The fact that this information has not included conclusively shows the bias behind this page.

Catherine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.50.47 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias

Frankly this whole page seems as though it has been written by the Daily Mail on behalf of the Conservative Party. It may wellhave been. It is not in the best traditions of Wikipedia to allow itself to be used in this way. Ponkywatts (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys.

All the material is well referenced. If you have any references from reliable sources that can "rebalance" the article, go ahead. In the meantime, the NPOV tag will be removed.

Unless there are concrete and constructive proposals on what to change and how, while keeping the article referenced, the only bias I see is the above unsubstantiated comments alleging POV of the article. 83.190.216.88 (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Blair seems equally unpopular with the far left as with the Tories. And the LibDems have picked one of his most open critics from within the Met as their candidate for Mayor. So if the critics of the alleged POV here just leap to the assumption that the article must be from a Tory POV and don't come up with specific examples, then they are not going to be taken seriously. --Peter cohen (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This article, whilst (reasonably) well-referenced, is horribly unbalanced. In particular, by seperating out each "controversial" incident under a different sub-heading, it appears to place undue weight on each. Whereas, many of them should probably be grouped together under a less specific sub-heading. Also, many of the points are one-sided and lack a counter-balancing explanation/excuse/justification/whatever from Mr Blair (sorry, Sir Ian). DWaterson (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Stubbed

I have removed most of the material from this article as a quite unacceptable hatchet-job. If these things cannot be discussed in a neutral manner, rather than a calculated portrayal of Blair as a bigot and I don't know what else, then it's better left unsaid. This was one of the most overtly vitriolic articles I can recall, and for a senior public official still in office and under no actual sanction for wrongdoing, that really is not acceptable. Here's what we need in this case: good, reliable, secondary (i.e. not newspaper, especially tabloid) sources which discuss the events in question and how they were received in the various communities and by other stakeholders such as ACPO and the Home Office. Arms-length sources, with an emphasis on analytical coverage. There won't be many books, but there will be heavyweight news magazines, learned journals, that kind of thing. We cannot get into the business of being a tabloid aggregator, because tabloids typically look only to today's sensationalism and do not go back and correct their errors. Links to many newspaper stories does not constitute being well-referenced, in a case like this, because the papers will all have their own political agenda. "Blair is teh murderer" is great newspaper copy, but not a good Wikipedia article, because it lacks intellectual rigour, reflection and context. Please, folks, we can do better than this. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the BLP noticeboard discussion, where several people (including me) mentioned that the Jean Charles de Menezes incident needs to be covered, I am going to start re-adding stuff. I will endeavour to do so in a sensitive manner. Please leave me a note here or on my talk page if there are problems. Carcharoth (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the Jean Charles de Menezes bit

Jean Charles de Menezes

Main article: Jean Charles de Menezes

Blair's public profile rose considerably when he issued statements during the 7 July 2005 London bombings and the 21 July 2005 London bombings.

Sir Ian was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner at the time of the death of the Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes. After the shooting, he telephoned the Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and wrote a letter to the Home Office stating that "the shooting that has just occurred at Stockwell is not to be referred to the IPCC and that they will be given no access to the scene at the present time". In the UK police shootings are routinely investigated by the IPCC. He also made a false statement claiming that a warning had been issued prior to the shooting. Demands have been made for his resignation especially by Alessandro Pereira, a cousin of Menezes. The IPCC held an investigation into the false statements, and allegations of attempts to delay an inquiry. On 2nd August 2007 the IPCC announced its findings that the allegations against Blair couldn't be substantiated, instead placing the blame for misleading the public on Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, who had failed to report his suspicions that an innocent man had been killed, and had released contradictory statements to the press.

Following the discovery that de Menezes was not in fact a suspected suicide bomber, Blair apparently considered resigning but quickly came to the decision to remain in office, "because the big job is to defend this country against terrorism and that's what I'm here to do". He may however come under further pressure when the IPPC report is published, and he has admitted that his decision would depend "on the level of condemnation".

Blair, or the Metropolitan Police, may face action for libel from one of his Deputy Assistant Commissioners, Brian Paddick. Paddick told the IPCC that a member of Sir Ian's private office team believed the wrong man had been _targeted just six hours after the shooting. When this allegation became public following an unauthorised disclosure, Scotland Yard issued a statement claiming that the officer alleged to have believed this (Paddick) "has categorically denied this in his interview with, and statement to, the IPCC investigators". The statement continued that they "were satisfied that whatever the reasons for this suggestion being made, it is simply not true". Paddick's interpretation of this statement was that it accused him of lying.

On 28 March 2006, Paddick accepted a statement from the Metropolitan Police that it "did not intend to imply" a senior officer had misled the probe into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. In a statement the Metropolitan Police said "any misunderstanding is regretted" and that Paddick had accepted its "clarification" and considered the matter closed.

In June 2006, a leaked copy of the Independent Police Complaints Commission report sparked further criticism and calls to quit.

Verdict

On 1 November 2007, a jury delivered a verdict that found New Scotland Yard guilty under health and safety laws. The presiding judge, Mr Justice Henriques, highlighted 19 "catastrophic errors" in the operation, but said 'this was very much an isolated breach under quite extraordinary circumstances' saying that there had been "fundamental failures to carry out a planned operation in a safe and reasonable way". Ian Blair, immediately after the verdict was delivered, read a statement to the press, saying that there was "no evidence at all of systematic failure" and quoting the judge that "the failures alleged were not sustained or repeated". He said that he intended to continue to lead the Met, despite (among others) many MPs of the minority Conservative and Liberal Democrats parties calling for his resignation. The day after, Shadow Home Secretary David Davis wrote a letter to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith formally calling for his resignation.

On 7 November members of the London Assembly passed a vote of no confidence in Ian Blair by fifteen votes to eight. Blair again insisted that he would not resign, saying "This conversation does not take us any further. I have stated my position. If you have the power to remove me, go on". He was also reported to say that he was being "driven from office by people who do not understand the facts and have a completely different agenda".

Suggested changes

• Title: a better title could be to do this by year, or as an overall section on "terorrism" or the July 2005 bombings?
• Paddick is no longer in the Metropolitan Police, and is in fact the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Mayoral elections, so this bit is out of date.
• Overall, the section appears to present the views of both sides, and uses reliable sources (though whether it correctly represents what the sources say, I haven't checked yet). There are two references from a tabloid newspaper (the Daily Mail), but the rest are not tabloid sources (though they could be engaging in tabloid journalism).
• The first sentence is awkward and unclear - needs rewriting to say what it is trying to say, or to say something more relevant.
• The most important thing is to say upfront that the details of what happened are disputed, rather than trying to present "what happened". Then mention the reports and the verdicts. Then give the responses from the press and Blair and the family.
• The amount of direct quotes could be reduced, or moved to the footnotes. Sometimes they are being used selectively, and at other times they are being used to show the two sides to an issue.
• The real problem is that the balance of what to say is unclear. Those with more BLP-writing experience may know how to handle this, and how to mention news coverage without going into disputed details.

Those are my suggestions, anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 10:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• I completely agree with every word you say and you'll get no objection from me if you proceed along these lines. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that it is the POlice authority (who gave Blair a vote of confidence) not the GLA whoa ctually control his fate.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but if people could help out and start editing the article, that would be good... I don't really want to do the whole rewrite myself. Carcharoth (talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And looking at it, a lot of it is blow-by-blow reporting from November; there should by now be analytical sources which cover the events of last November in a more dispassionate way. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Though it is disappointing that no-one else has done anything since I made an initial attempt to start expanding what is effectively a new article. Most of our articles on the Met Police Commissioners are pretty poor, actually, but as I was going back through them, I suddenly came across Hugh Trenchard, 1st Viscount Trenchard. Now that is an article. Almost as good is Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy. Both, admittedly, were famous for things other than their brief police roles. Here is another nice one, Sir Edward Bradford, 1st Baronet, this time someone who served for 13 years in the role, and finally we get back to Richard Mayne - 39 years in the job! Maybe we should all come back to this article in 100 years time? Or (as I think) would that be abrogating our duty to write the best article we can, now? Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material about controversies

While it's refreshing to see that the editor who originally did the stubbing has explained his motives in a civil manner and doesn't seem to be driven by a political agenda, I find his explanation on this page insufficient.

I understand there has been a separate discussion on BLP noticeboard. It would have been nice to add a link to it. People who are watching this page may not be watching that one.

If other people are to improve the article and learn lessons from past mistakes, they will need specific references to policies to accompany the criticism, especially if their violation justifies instant mass removal of a lot of hard work.

I also cannot fail to notice that virtually all of the material that has been left is not referenced at all, so I call for an explanation as to why that was left intact (and more material added) without even a call for references.

In short, what has been done may have a justification, but the way it has been done can be seen as (probably unintentionally, though the edit comment "Disgusting" was not chosen very carefully) inflammatory. What I mainly dispute is the asymmetry between the amount of work that has gone in to write and source the controversies section and the effortless instantaneous mass-removal. I think a fairer and more constructive way of doing that would have been removing (or improving) one by one the parts that were not considered acceptable, with an explanation for each and references to WP policies, leading to a more pleasant atmosphere from which we can all learn from. 210.131.167.98 (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is that more could be added back in from the Jean Charles de Menezes bit above. Not everything, and not in the way it was said before, but still more than we have at the moment. Would you be able to add your views above? Carcharoth (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now my goal is to understand whether the mass-removal was done according to WP policy, because I'm not very convinced. Since the only way to get a response seems to be to revert this change, I've just done that. 210.131.216.139 (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Further removals

Lately there have been further removals of properly sourced information, with little or no explanation of the removals. Part of the problem may be the format which highlighted every "controversy", so I've endeavoured to integrate the issues more closely into the description of his career, and put them in sequence. I also found that the first source I checked included praise for Blair as well as criticism, so I've expanded the paragraph about black muggers to mention that point. A similar exercise on the other issues would be useful. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Subsequent reinclusion

As 2008 was turbulent with the Heathrow evasion(Tvi Lipniz and Doronthy Almog) revelations, the warrantless searching of Damian Green`s office at Parliament by acclaimed antiterror chief, the phonehacking (see Amdocs) and phonetapping reporters and their agents in the MPS (News of the World phone hacking scandal/ underage schoolgirl Milly Dowler), and perhaps most importantly the PNC (Police National Computer) tendering and contracting to Israeli agents, "controversy" seems to have been whittled down somewhat, but may be included. Care should be taken to avoid overlaps between so-called controversial resignation reasons of his successor operandi-ad-interim (phonehacking/lousy reporting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.47.215 (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I've tagged the article as it strikes me that there are a number of small sections which make the article an indsicriminate collection of facts and rumours about IB without any clear rhyme and reason to why they are put together in the way they are. Why is some investigation involving Kate Moss important? Why isn't the name of a senior officer explained in that section? Why is mention given to Brian Haw's placards? If there was a significant narrative that IB was profligate with money, then that should be explained in a structured and well-referenced manner. If IB was no more subject to this sort of complaint than other police chiefs, then this material shouldn't be here.--Peter cohen (talk) 05:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason for those sections is that they support the vast amount of controversy that surrounded this person in his position as Met chief. They are definitely not trivia. They used to be grouped under "Controversies", but that attracted page blanking of well sourced and decently presented material. I will remove the cleanup tag if there are no objections. Thanks. 122.16.210.25 (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I do object. My issue with the article as consisting of lots of factlets with no argument binding them together has not be addressed by an improvement in the article.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe because your suggested solution of blowing away well sourced and relevant material was not the most constructive. In any case I do not really see the issue, and maybe the fact that I'm not alone explains why nobody did anything about it. 118.6.208.133 (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter cohen, the only proponent of a cleanup tag for this article, is kindly invited to continue this conversation instead of reverting removals of the cleanup tag. Constructive proposals for a way forward other than slapping a random cleanup tag and removing referenced material would be appreciated. 114.146.96.19 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite the use of multiple IP addresses, there appears to be just a lone person objecting to my tag and yet they announce on things as if there were many of them against whom I was the one holdout. This article has previously been pruned to a stub because of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP issues. A whole horde of factlets, previously listed as controversies, have been reintroduced. There is no evidence that this section of factlets constitutes a balanced assessment of this man's service or that, for example, he was any more profligate than his predecessors or successor. To justify the includion of these facts, there has to be evidence that these are a representative selection of material. Yet if we look just to the next thread up, we find another editor remarking how a source was plundered for juicy negative material while other material in the same source was ignored.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are free to introduce and harmonise any sourced material that puts his service in a better light, I for one could not find any. I think you will have a pretty hard time denying (or censoring) the exceptional amount of controversy that dogged Ian Blair as a Commissioner. I'm not going to edit-war your tag, but other editors might choose to. For an issue to be addressed, the issue has first of all to exist and be recognised as such. Finally, your accusation that a "lone person" is objecting to the tag is unfounded and actually false. 114.146.137.72 (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I got here via Wikipedia:Third opinion. It appears to me that the various controversies cited in this article are well-referenced and stated fairly neutrally, so I don't think there's exactly an issue of verifiability. However, it seems to me that the listing of controversies and scandals in Ian Blair's career isn't an optimal way to describe things. I believe that it would be strongly preferable to rewrite these in terms of a more complete narrative of his career. This would hopefully help to alleviate some of the NPOV issues raised by Peter cohen, as well. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Moxfyre. If someone finds reliable sources which state e.g. that Blair's tenure was unusually prone to controversy, or that he was exceptionally unpopular either with the public or his own officers, or that there were far more spending issues raised under him than his predecessors, then the inclusions of these factlets will have been justified. A biography of IB, a history of the Met since the war, an review in an academic journal of the literature on policing under New Labour, etc. might all provide the sort of information to put the factlets in context and to clarify whether they constitute a representative narrative. Some of these things should be findable. ISTR reports on Stephenson's appointment referring to him as a "copper's copper" and contrasting him with Blair. But, for example, the coverage of the cost of operations could either be taken on face value as evidence of financial profligacy or could be read as evidence of his being _targetting by opponents, or might simply be the result of the intoduction of a police authority in London instead of Home Office control leading to more spending figures entering the public domain. Without including analysis from reliable sources, we cannot give readers the tools to interpret the factlets. (It's about the difference between data and information.)--Peter cohen (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

From a random 1-second Google search ("Ian Blair" controversial):

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

I think this should be enough to reinstate a "Controversies" section that hopefully will provide enough binding for the perceived factletism with no risk of further vandalism.

In reply to Moxfyre, I don't believe Peter Cohen has raised an issue of NPOV, simply one of fragmentation and relevance. Actually, it was Peter Cohen who a year ago commented that "if the critics of the alleged POV here just leap to the assumption that the article must be from a Tory POV and don't come up with specific examples, then they are not going to be taken seriously".

Lastly, please take a look at Gordon Brown's article, arguably showing a similar layout. The "Gordon_brown#Prime_Minister" section after the first 3 subsections, starts a series of what Peter may see as "factlets", with no apparent glue other than "criticism" or "controversy". The difference with Ian Blair is that we can't seem to find any references that would allow us to write the equivalent of those first 3 subsections. Indeed, the few neutral statements in the article are lacking sources. In short, I believe that writing a "more complete narrative of his career" would be either impossible or would risk putting undue weight on less controversial, but also more minor fact(let)s. As Jamougha succintly put it in this very page some time ago, "NPOV doesn't dictate that a character must be made to look good". I couldn't agree more. 114.148.210.42 (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What NPOV requires is that information is well sourced to reflect the reliable literature. Given the sources you now link, it will be justified to describe IB's tenure as controversial citing a mixture of centre-left sources (the Guardian) and ones from the "Tory right" (David Davis's article). Also you can note which incidents they pick out as important (In my skimming, it is not the costs of various operations that are picked out.) You can also see from these sources that the alleged political element in critiques of him is discussed with Blair reported as blaming the right wing press and in references to his being "New Labour's copper" and not a "copper's copper" in which context his publicly speaking out in the run up to an election in support of proposed terrorist legislation supported by the government and opposed by other parties. I'm pretty sure that Ken Livingstone (not a New Labour figure) condemned the situation which led to IB's dismissal. Indeed, I can't recall another commissioner who was so much identified with one party, but that needs to be sourced.

You're right that fragmentation and relevance are the key part of what I see as a problem. This fragmentation can then generate POV bias, or at least accusations of bias. Blair is certainly one of the most controversial chiefs of police I can recall. Anderton up in Manchester would be another and, of course, virtually anyone connected with the RUC. But instead of simply having a "controversies" section, we need to link sources which describe him as controversial. And then look at what incidents are especially described as controversial. Quickly skimming the articles you've linked, I've not noticed the cost of the operation against Kate Moss, for example, being picked out and I remain unconvinced that cost of operations is particularly an issue for which IB stood out. Indeed IB's successor has been criticised for the costs of the G20 policing operation. The De Menezes shooting, speaking out in support of Labour proposals during an election campaign, some of the other financial are what I think have particularly got mentions. A section entitled "A controversial commissioner" which referenced items that these articles pick out as part of a properly argued thread will be better than something simply entitled "controversies". And some of these articles mention how he thought the right wing press was ginning for him which can be used, as can quotes from Livingstone that support that thesis.

Similarly, I think there is potential for another section that looks at who he was seen as not a "copper's copper" for pushing a "politically correct" anti-discrimination agenda and yet by the end his most senior Asian officer and his most senior out gay officer both left criticising him. Surely there are reliable cources which discuss that?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away. I don't think we reached a complete agreement, but I'm glad we clarified a couple of issues. If in the reorg any sourced material is removed, I would like full discussion of each item here. Incidents like the one about Brian Haw is important not just because of the amount of money involved (which is anyway notable and relevant) but because he misled some members of the Metropolitan police authority. Also some could argue that selectively omitting any sourced material would be bordering original research. Also interested to hear what others have to say. 122.25.228.160 (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think people should distinguish Crime and Terrorism too easily, "

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2005/02/sir-ian-blair-commissioner-of.html

Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, GMTV interview transcript on Identity Cards:

"I don't think people should distinguish Crime and Terrorism too easily, " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.43.102 (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism and WWII comparison

"In a BBC Radio 4 interview Blair stated that Islamic terrorism "is a far graver threat in terms of civilians than either the Cold War or the Second World War".[18] Civilians killed in World War II totaled around 47 million."

Is the second part of the above extract strictly necessary? I understand the bizarre comparison he tried to make, but surely Wikipedia can only quote other "notable" sources when it comes to cricitism? --86.184.91.84 (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad you commented on it already.

Blair's statement must be seen in context of his position. He was head of the Met at the time he made that statement, so he might have been talking about threats to Londoners and not to ones to the whole world. In that context Sir Ian was correct. The Lufwaffe bombed London from the air in WWII but it did not use covered bombs on trains etc.. The same during the cold war, no Soviet agent or Soviet ally would have blown a bomb in London. The PIRA is another game.

So why this foolish comparison with the world-wide civilian casualties of WWII? Sorry, this is working with sources 1st trimester.--109.91.72.35 (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Lessons never learned

I recall hearing that it was Sir Ian Blair who said that "Lessons are always identified, but never learned". A wonderfully quotable phrase. I'd love to know if it can be verified that he's a source for it.

--peter_english (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Blair. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090510125404/http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy_organisational_news_and_general_information/commissioner/commissioner_s_letter_to_the_home_office to http://cms.met.police.uk/news/policy_organisational_news_and_general_information/commissioner/commissioner_s_letter_to_the_home_office

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ian Blair. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061109071453/http://www.lslo.gov.uk/pressreleases/Final_Fraud_Review_release_24_07_06.doc to http://www.lslo.gov.uk/pressreleases/Final_Fraud_Review_release_24_07_06.doc

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ian Blair. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071102215202/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article3121159.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article3121159.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001032929/http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2097766.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article2097766.ece
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.alg.gov.uk/doc.asp?doc=15674&cat=1959
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315232149/http://www.makejusticework.org.uk/our-projects/previous-projects/ to http://www.makejusticework.org.uk/our-projects/previous-projects

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)