Talk:Neil Kinnock

Re. Neil Kinnock. Was he already Transport Commissioner when he was first convicted of exceeding the speed limit on a British Motorway? What was the date of his first conviction and what was the fine?

I've cut the section which gives details of the wrongdoings of other members of the Commission, and then says that NK was completely innocent (in which case there's no need to bring it up in the first place). Markalexander100 04:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Inserted headings, but the details around the mid-eighties still seem jumbled. Philip Cross c22:11 (GMT)

Shame there isn't a photo. Could someone who's experienced with the copyright annoyances and setting up a nice image box do this? is reasonable, here is copyright info: http://europa.eu.int/comm/avservices/copyright_en.htm --- don't know if this could be made to work. Perhaps an earlier picture would be more appropriate anyway.

The age Neil Kinnock joined the Labour Party

According to Robert Harris, 'The Making of Neil Kinnock' (Faber and Faber, 1984) at page 32, referring to a family friend called Bill Harry: "Kinnock first met him when he was fifteen .. Kinnock remembers him as the man who first persuaded him to join the Labour Party". Inconceivable then that he could have joined at 14. David | Talk 22:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am starting to think you are doing this on purpose David. Inconceivable? I have a handwritten letter from Neil Kinnock himself confirming that he joined the Labour Party at the age of 14. The letter is dated 1984, it is in Neil Kinnock's handwriting, entirely written and signed by him. Will you accept this as evidence, or must you see something 'in the press'?

If by 'in the press' you mean publicly available, then yes we must. A private letter, which has never been published, contradicts published sources and only ever seen by you (and possibly Neil Kinnock if he did indeed write it) isnt a valid source for a factual encyclopedia. Iain 13:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth I've also checked the more recent Martin Westlake biography which states that Kinnock joined the Labour Party as soon as he was able to. That's "as soon as", not "before". David | Talk 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty

According to Proteus and Dbiv, Neil Kinnock is not Lord of Bedwellty. According to them, the BBC is wrong in referring to mr. Kinnock that way. Are the British Council (http://www.britishcouncil.org/home-about-us-governance-and-funding-board-of-trustees.htm) and Cardiff University (http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/about/whoswho/president.html) wrong as well? In other words: what do they base their certainty, that Neil Kinnock is not Lord of Bedwellty, on? Would they be so kind as to share that with the rest of the Wikipedia community?

Crown Office

House of Lords, London SW1A 0PW

28 January 2005

The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 28 January 2005 to confer the dignity of a Barony of the United Kingdom for life upon the Right Honourable Neil Gordon Kinnock by the name, style and title of BARON KINNOCK, of Bedwellty in the County of Gwent.

There you go. (Yes, the British Council and Cardiff University are also wrong. And he's "Lord Kinnock", not "Mr Kinnock".) Proteus (Talk) 21:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As a Dutchman, I have no experience with the British peerage system.

So I hope you will pardon my ignorance on this. I have two questions:

1. Is there a vital difference between Lord and Mr?
2. According to your (highly relevant) source, Lord Kinnock will become

(or has become, rather) Baron Kinnock, of Bedwellty in the County of

Gwenty. Doesn't that make him Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty, or is that a

too liberal interpretation? Aecis 08:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As to the first question, he's a peer below the rank of duke, so should referred to as "Lord Title" (in this case "Baron Kinnock", so the reference is "Lord Kinnock"). "Mr" is only used for men who have no higher title (or who have very low titles such as "The Honourable" which are not used in speech). As to the second question, this problem comes up a lot here, so I've just created an article which I hope will explain it: territorial designation. In this case the title is "Baron Kinnock" and the territorial designation (a feudal relic which is not part of the actual title) is "of Bedwellty in the County of Gwent". If he were "Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty", the "of Bedwellty" bit would be in capitals and before the comma in the announcment in the London Gazette I quoted above. Proteus (Talk) 09:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me. I stand corrected. Aecis 09:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)