Talk:Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:25, 5 December 2017

Politics of the United Kingdom Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Who

This doesn't really explain what they are. Are they like employment agencies? Is it UK specific? Is it just for immigrant workers? What title should this be at? Secretlondon 09:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, since "gangmaster" redirects here, a quick explanation of what the term means would be useful. It's more specific than just "someone who supplies workers", and it shouldn't be assumed that (especially non-UK) readers will know. 86.143.52.217 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under current UK legislation a gangmaster is anybody who supplies a worker or uses a worker to provide a service to the regulated sectors to do a specific type of work (both covered on main page) to the UK. This would include employment agencies as well as the less formal supply of labour. The legislation also covers employment agencies and agents who supply to the UK from overseas. The standards that are enforced protect all workers, but migrant workers are often seen to be more vulnerable as they can lack awareness of UK law and are particularly vulnerable when their housing, work and pay is all controlled by a single gangmaster. Crash Carter (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

To the unregistered user, Paulwhitehouse, thanks for the updates to the page! If you want to get in contact, please go to my talk page and leave a message, or click on "email this user" on the left hand bar. Wikidea 22:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the development of page

This section was prompted by the edits made on 23 May 2012, to encourage debate, and consensus on the development of the page, avoiding edit warring [WP: edit war], and breach of 3RR [WP:3RR], as this edit equated to a 10 revert within 24 hours, and is the second breach identified.

In the exercise of free speech it is important that both sides of an argument (advocates and critics)are allowed to ensure NPOV [WP:NPOV]. Equally any references should be to existing articles, and the accompanying narrative in the article should not seek to advance a position, or provide opinion, just report fact/others views and research. Edits, and the explanatory summary of them, should accurately reflect changes, and not seek to hide the full extent of changes made. If it is too complicated to reflect all of the edits within the summary either the editor should post a reference to this page and section, and explain in more detail their changes and justificaiton, or they should make their changes in smaller steps so that there is transparency of the change. In this way further breaches of 3RR should be avoided in attempts to preserve a prefered, yet partial POV (for example the 23 May 2012 edit removed a criticism to replace it with one which presumably the editor felt more compelling, whereas both have relevance). Do active editors interested in this page agree? CGHCronin (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page hasnt changed much since GLAA. Suggest new page for GLAA, leave this as the agency that came before it (GLA)

Debates on specific edits requiring expansion of the explanation/justification

Revert of edit of 23 May 2012: The edit summary of 23/05/12 misleadingly stated it was adding a reference to a new critical report. It actually reverted the criticism section back, closely, to the 06.23 15/5/12 version. Revised text was equivalent to making 10 version reverts, removing versions: 15.06 10/5/12; 15.12 10/05/12; 08.48 14/5/12; 12.05 15/5/12; 12.10 15/5/12; 12.15 15/5/12; 15.39 15/5/12; 16.19 15/5/12; 08.52 16/5/12; 10.53 18/5/12 - significant breach of 3RR (2nd incident). In changing the above edits it removed the text regarding the Oxfam report criticism (and broke the x-ref to the related para in Adovocate), and removed the explanation regarding the Forestry's view of the Forestry task force report, and their press release, which resulted in the referenced press articles. Both of these clarifications are relevant for balance. The edit re-introduced a section on a major prosecution, which had been removed, and used descriptive terms that were inappropriate, mis-represented the Judges comments, and re-introduced a dead link (section added back but corrected as identified in related edit summaries). Other amendments, in the other edits referred to above changed the tone of the narrative without further discussion. The re-introduction of several additional links regarding the Daily Mirror article remain unnecessary as each can be reached within the main article. It is unclear why these are therefore seen as necessary. CGHCronin (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of revisions to para on major investigation (25/5/12). : The references did not report the farmers were "shocked" - this is opinion of the previous editor. The dead link (previously numbered (28) removed (2nd ocassion). The number of individuals reported to be prosecuted in the article referenced is 19. The Judge's commements were reported, in the referenced article, to refer to the individual prosecuted in the est case, not all of the defendants. The sentence: "The GLA’s legal team ultimately admitted that none of the farmers had exploited any workers" was not supported by link (28 - removed)or (29). The last sentence relates to a report on farming regulation, not this prosecution, it is disingenuous to conflate that report with the prosecution, and suggest the two are linked, with the report being a reaction to the GLA's investigation. Therefore as a separate issue it requires a separate para (dates of commission and report to be added to ensure chronology of criticisms is maintained). CGHCronin (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality flag added

This article seems to have been written and edited primarily by staff of the organisation (incl. founding Chairman Paul Whitehouse, CGHCronin and MCA RIP). Their contributions seem to overstate success and support for the organisation whilst deleting or being dismissive and belittling towards critics. This may be a genuinely held personal point of view, it may reflect a vested interest, and it may or may not be legitimate for civil servants to engage in such self promotion. Neutral and unbiased it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.243.253.101 (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. 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. 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) 19:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 [[User:CGHCronin|CGHCronin]] ([[User talk:CGHCronin|talk]]) 23:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
+Page hasnt changed much since GLAA. Suggest new page for GLAA, leave this as the agency that came before it (GLA)
 ==Debates on specific edits requiring expansion of the explanation/justification==