View source for Talk:Fixed penalty notice

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 44.201.0.0/16 has been blocked by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~}}. You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 09:30, 23 February 2027. Your current IP address is 44.201.97.244.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
This IP address range has been globally blocked.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

This block affects editing on all Wikimedia wikis.
The IP address or range 44.201.0.0/16 has been globally blocked by ‪AntiCompositeNumber‬ for the following reason(s):

Open proxy/Webhost: Visit the FAQ if you are affected

This block will expire on 13:55, 18 April 2025. Your current IP address is 44.201.97.244.

Even while globally blocked, you will usually still be able to edit pages on Meta-Wiki.

If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

Other useful links: Global blocks · Help:I have been blocked

You can view and copy the source of this page:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Law Enforcement}}
}}
Fixed Penalty Notices were introduced under the...

Under the WHAT?

;Actually under a number of different acts - I've removed this bit, thanks for point it out. Mnbf9rca 22:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Fixed penalty notice]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=803338605 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221075229/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/penalty-notices/ to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/anti-social-behaviour/penalties/penalty-notices/

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

== Requested move 27 December 2021 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''

The result of the move request was: Not moved {{nac}}  ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color: black">buidhe</span>]]''' 01:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
----


[[:Fixed penalty notice]] → {{no redirect|Fixed Penalty Notice}} – Widely appears capitalised on the web and some other wikipedia articles (verifiable by search). PND and PCN appear capitalised in article body.&nbsp;[[User:Bojo Skankins|Bojo Skankins]] ([[User talk:Bojo Skankins|talk]]) 12:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
:<small>This is a contested technical request ([[Special:Permalink/1062272469|permalink]]). [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 12:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)</small>
*Is this a case of a noun being capitalized because the object that it refers to seems to be important or to respected? [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]) 12:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
**See the updated text of my request here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Contested_technical_requests [[User:Bojo Skankins|Bojo Skankins]] ([[User talk:Bojo Skankins|talk]]) 13:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
***The comments from [[WP:RMTR]] are now copied below to centralize the discussion. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 17:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
* My guess is that it's because FPN is often used as an initialism. [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 17:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
* Comments originally posted at [[WP:RMTR#Contested technical requests]]:
**Widely appears capitalised on the web and some other wikipedia articles (verifiable by search). "Penalty Notice for Disorder" and "Penalty Charge Notice" appear capitalised in article body (and did so prior to edit by me, I only changed one instance of "Penalty Notice for Disorder"). I cannot think of a reason why "Fixed Penalty Notice" should be treated differently to those with regards to capitalisation. [[User:Bojo Skankins|Bojo Skankins]] ([[User talk:Bojo Skankins|talk]]) 12:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
**The government website uses the lowercase form ([https://www.gov.uk/parking-tickets]), and—more importantly—so does all the legislation establishing fixed penalty notices (see, e.g., [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1330/made]). [[User:Frenzie23|Frenzie23]] ([[User talk:Frenzie23|talk]]) 13:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
***I suppose this means that instances of "Penalty Charge Notice" and "Penalty Notice for Disorder" in the article also should be printed in lower case then. [https://www.gov.uk/parking-tickets] [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/penalty-notices-for-disorder-guidance-for-police-officers] [[User:Bojo Skankins|Bojo Skankins]] ([[User talk:Bojo Skankins|talk]]) 14:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': [[MOS:CAPS]] says, "capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence." It's not any of those things. Government and specialist documents have their own capitalization guidance. Wikipedia follows its manual of style.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 18:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': [[MOS:CAPS]] states: {{tq|only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.}}  The evidence so far is that it is not even consistently capped in gov sources which are not independent and tend to overcap.  A google search also shows lowercase often enough. This really isn't a proper noun but a descriptive noun phrase that is sometimews capitalised for [[MOS:SIGNIFCAPS]] but we don't do that. [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 23:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== First sentence misleading ==

{{talkquote|A Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) is a notification of what is usually a minor fine that unless settled will become a criminal offence}}. I don't think this is accurate. A fixed penalty is an offer to buy immunity from prosecution for a particular suspected instance of an  offence. Declining this offer has no effect, other than someone might decide to try to prosecute you. You aren't really even opting for a court prosecution, you are just declining the offer [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 13:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
: Irritatingly looking into this the legislation is all talked about "requesting to be prosecuted" - which I highly suspect is garbage. Since the following sentence is "you may be prosecuted after requestig to be prosecuted". It's all just deliberately threatening wording that a balanced source should not be parroting... but it appears to be what shows up in most sources. I want to find some legal theory addressing the topic for a little more balance. It annoys me how everyone seems to want to "shake the sabre" for unseen power. [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 10:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

== BLP compliant and due weight? ==

Is it [[WP:SUSPECT]] compliant and [[WP:DUE]] to describe that 50 members of Whitehall staff, or even government ministers or family members, were issued with penalty notices related to Covid gatherings? Remembering that they do not constitute convictions of anything or require an admission of guilt of anything. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

:It matters that ministers and Whitehall staff got penalty notices.  The ministers in question made that specific law and broke it.  Cabinet ministers make law and should uphold the law. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 16:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]], that's my whole point though, we don't know if either of them broke any laws as there were no convictions. FPNs are civil penalties requiring nothing more than an official to say they have a reasonable belief that an offence was committed. And why mention the ~50 staff who do not make any laws? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 17:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:::Cabinet ministers can afford to pay good lawyers.  After getting advice from good lawyers the ministers decided not to contest the penalties. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 17:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]], so? There is no formal process available to recipients for reviewing or appealing FPNs. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 17:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
::::: Yep, FPNs do not constitute an admission of guilt so it is incorrect to assume that they mean guilt: they are just an offer of immunity. Also there is a strong incentive to accept an FPN rather than go to court given FPNs tend to be small adding to the unfairness of assuming guilt. There is no appeal process as discussed in this source.<ref>https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5801/jtselect/jtrights/1364/136408.htm#footnote-041</ref> That said, judicial review might apply as it did in the Everard vigil.
::::: It is unfortunate that the police chose to issues FPNs rather than refer the cases involving prominent politicians to the courts, and I agree that this gave the police too much power over political issues which the courts would be better at dealing with. But then I'm not sure the courts can properly be trusted with political issues so maybe the should have just published the Gray report in a timely manner and had this dealt with politically.
::::: Looking at [[WP:SUSPECT]], Johnson and Sunak are clearly public figures so the logic of alleged offences doesn't apply to them.
::::: The [[WP:BLP]] argument might hold for the 50 unnamed officials. But do we a referenced to unnamed people is specific enough for [[WP:BLP]] to apply. There is perhaps also an argument that civil servants working at a high level should be considered public figures given the [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-code/the-civil-service-code increased responsibility society places upon them]. If we wanted to follow others then it's noticeable in the Grey report that civil servants are blurred out - but there are also photos showing their presence.
::::: Regarding [[WP:DUE]], there is an argument that there was a culture of rule breaking within the Westminster bubble - which these 50 FPNs support. I'm not sure whether it absolves or damns Johnson. On the one hand it suggest he condoned a culture of rule breaking, on the other hand it means he partook in a culture rather than just choosing to break rules himself. The delayed but published [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1078404/2022-05-25_FINAL_FINDINGS_OF_SECOND_PERMANENT_SECRETARY_INTO_ALLEGED_GATHERINGS.pdf gray report] might be relevant here.
::::: Regarding partygate, my only personal opinion is that some mention of partygate in this article is [[WP:DUE]] given the moral outrage expressed publicly and in the press, but I don't think it matters much whether the details themselves are here or in partygate article itself. Too much detail here about partygate might be [[WP:RECENTISM]] and sort of act to smear excessive COVID details all of wikipedia. [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 18:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::: One other point. I wonder if [[Police caution]] provide a good analogy. While these appear to involve accepting guilt, in practice there is a strong incentive to accept guilty even if you are not guilty. [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 18:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
:::::: Oh another point. I wouldn't call an FPN a civil penalty. I would call PCNs civil penalties (and they have lower standards of proof and an appeal process). Personally, I think they are on dodgy ground legally and should not have been created. Its telling that PCNs are only used for a small range of things and Blair, when rolling out FPNs as "summary justice"  while evoking the image of people being taken directly to a cash point, ending up using FPNs with their "offer to buy immunity" [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 19:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Poor people and ethnic minority people were targetted for FPN's, not privileged cabinet ministers. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] ([[User talk:Proxima Centauri|talk]]) 12:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
: I don't disagree. This was demonstrated by the antics that the cabinet ministers seem to have gotten up to. Towards the end I think there was some targetting going on - albeit by the media. [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 12:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

{{talk-reflist}}

== Consensus on partygate ==

I've added a see also on partygate... just to sort of explore the consensus space a little. Obviously, if editors aren't happy with this they can revert ([[WP:CONSENSUS]], [[WP:BOLD]]). Don't have time to flesh out some considerations right now. [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 14:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
:@[[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]], yep, looks like a good idea to me. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 15:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

{{ping|Proxima Centauri}} Hey, let's see what DeFacto thinks about the shorter edit. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] sort of means that if we can't find concensus through [[WP:BOLD]] editing then we roll back to the "accepted" version, stop making changes, and seek consensus through talking here (though there is potentially a little contention over which is the "accepted" version). [[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]] ([[User talk:Talpedia|talk]]) 14:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|Talpedia|DeFacto|Proxima Centauri}} Without wishing to reopen a discussion that others might no longer be interested in, I think this merits further discussion. The only arguments against including this content that seem to have been made are the obvious [[reductio ad absurdum]] "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fixed_penalty_notice&diff=prev&oldid=1126851674 are we to list everyone who has received one?]" and the point that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fixed_penalty_notice&diff=prev&oldid=1131246856 there isn't a current consensus in favour of including it], which is really only meaningful if there are separate good arguments against including it. My own investment extends to having [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fixed_penalty_notice&diff=prev&oldid=1087136903 added a request for discussion of this] in May 2022 and I continue to think it's an odd and noticeable absence. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 16:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
:: I lean in favour of inclusion... mostly because of the political nature of the use of FPNs during the lockdown, and so it feels relevant that the politicians who implemented the fine system themselves violated the rules. 
:: I think the relevant issues at hand are [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:RECENTISM]]. To steelman the argument against inclusion consider this analogy: suppose I went to the murder page and wrote "[[Harold Shipman]] murdered his patients" to the lead. Definitely important material on wikipedia, definitely to do with murder, but not really to do with abstract concept and it feels a but like activism.
:: I don't think this arguments holds in this case due i. the scale and invasiveness of the FPN regime during COVID, ii. the fact many of the people fined were instrumental in the COVID FPN scheme. But it's a reasonable argument. <span style="color:#ff0000;weight:bold; font-weight:700; background-color:lightblue">[[User:Talpedia|Tal]]</span><span style="color:black;background-color:lightgray">pedia</span> 17:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I've restored a revised version of the paragraph. Strong arguments against [[WP:DUE]]/[[WP:RECENTISM]] concerns include (1) that two heads of government were sanctioned; (2) that the Johnson and Sunak FPNs represent respectively the first time a sitting PM was criminally sanctioned and the first time a sitting Chancellor was criminally sanctioned; (3) that the FPN contributed significantly to Johnson's eventual resignation, first as PM and later as an MP; (4) the significant number of FPNs issued and individuals and events involved; and (5) that the text on this topic constitutes 56 words out of just over 2,000 in total. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 14:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]], this wasn't the subject of this discussion though, it was about whether we were happy to add a see also to the Partygate article, which we were. Major changes such as the one you've just made need to gain consensus in an appropriately titled new discussion. For those reasons, I've reverted the change. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 14:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
::::: If I recall correctly the see also was a middle ground between discussing party gate directly and not all, but it was a while ago. {{ping|DeFacto}}, I imagine you might still be against the inclusion of material other than the see also even it we discuss it in a new heading with an appropriate title and suggested change... so maybe it's easier to discuss here whether, why and why not to add material discussing party gate to this article. I'm also happy to create a new section if you think that's clearer. <span style="color:#ff0000;weight:bold; font-weight:700; background-color:lightblue">[[User:Talpedia|Tal]]</span><span style="color:black;background-color:lightgray">pedia</span> 15:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::I've gone ahead and started a new section – talk page neatness is a noble enough aim, after all. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 18:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

== Partygate paragraph ==

{{re|DeFacto}} I continue to be interested in your reasons for opposing this addition, which you've so far mostly kept us in the dark about. You did offer more of an explanation back in December (above), where you cited [[WP:SUSPECT]] and [[WP:DUE]], but didn't respond to subsequent comments. Since then, the only explanation you've given is that there isn't a current consensus in favour of the material. This is both questionable on its own terms (I count three editors on this talk page in favour of inclusion and one against) and, as I mentioned above, is only going to convince anyone when accompanied by substantive arguments ''against'' the material. In case you're not familiar with them, see [[WP:STONEWALLING]] and [[WP:DRNC]]. The latter has the following useful advice: {{tpq|Wikipedia editors resolve a lack of consensus through an exchange of information leading to persuasion and compromise. Reverting an edit shows there is no consensus. Saying "no consensus" in the edit summary adds no new information. Worse, it forces the reverted editor to begin a talk page discussion just to find out the real reason for the revert. This hampers consensus-building by adding an unnecessary step to the process.}} &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 18:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

:@[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]], two things...
:1) Consensus does not mean achieving a majority. [[WP:CONSENSUS]] says, {{tq|q=y|In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view}}.
:2) Cherry-picking our own examples defies the [[WP:DUE]] section of NPOV which says {{tq|q=y|Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources}}. So examples in an article about Fixed Penalty Notices need to be those given in the reliable sources which concentrate on the topic of this article, Fixed Penalty Notices. That is, sources mainly discussing FPNs, not sources mainly discussing Covid or Partygate. If we find that the disputed section fairly represents the viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources majoring on FPNs, then I would concede that we should include it. Currently though, the disputed section is only supported by news media sources related to Covid and Partygate, and thus relies on editor [[WP:SYNTH]] drawing the conclusion that it is a good example of Fixed Penalty Notices. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 21:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
:: I don't agree with [[WP:SYNTH]] really. What conclusion is the reader lead to believe that is not represented in text? I can see the argument from a [[WP:DUE]] perspective - you want an article discussing FPNs in general to talk about partygate, rather than an article about partgate to mention FPNs. I would say that partgate is a *topic* rather viewpont.<span style="color:#ff0000;weight:bold; font-weight:700; background-color:lightblue">[[User:Talpedia|Tal]]</span><span style="color:black;background-color:lightgray">pedia</span> 09:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Talpedia|Talpedia]], that's the crux, that we need {{tq|q=y|an article discussing FPNs in general to talk about partygate, rather than an article about partgate to mention FPNs}}, yes. -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 10:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
::There are plenty of articles on FPNs in reliable sources that not only mention the ones issued to Johnson et al. but also make them their central example. These include numerous (somewhat clickbaity but still reliable) articles of the "explainer" type published after Johnson et al. were fined: ''[https://inews.co.uk/news/fixed-penalty-notice-what-partygate-covid-fines-explained-criminal-record-1545255 i]'', March 2022; ''[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/12/fixed-penalty-notices-covid-explained-what-law-says-criminal/ Telegraph]'', April 2022; ''[https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-much-covid-fixed-penalty-23670680 Manchester Evening News]'', April 2022. We also see mentions of Johnson in more recent coverage of FPNs: ''Guardian'' [https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/31/black-people-england-wales-more-likely-issued-pandemic-fines-police-study May 2023] and [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/01/first-edition-covid-fines-minorities-deprived-areas June 2023], for example. Some scholarly sources also discuss Partygate as part of a broader discussion of FPNs: for example [https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Plural_Policing_Security_and_the_COVID_C/X_arEAAAQBAJ Hufnagel et al. 2023], pp. 182–3.
::This list is based on a fairly cursory search but shows clearly that numerous {{tpq|sources mainly discussing FPNs}} do devote attention to the ones received by Johnson, Sunak and others. (Whether this is a reasonable standard to apply – and what content we'd be left with in this article if it were applied beyond this case – is another matter, but perhaps moot.) Finally, I'm aware of how consensus works, which is why I said the claim no consensus exists was {{tpq|questionable}} rather than, let's say, "plain wrong" – it's always possible that the preponderance of editors are mistaken in their understanding of policy, and sometimes a lone editor does prevail, but I don't think this is going to be one of those cases. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 11:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]], these are written as explainers related to main Partygate articles, so are hardly independent of Partygate. How about getting an uninvolved closure? -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 20:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
::::Your criterion seems to be "sources that mention Partygate but don't mention it ''too'' much". I'm torn between pointing out how arbitrarily restrictive that is and noting that, nonetheless, three of the six sources presented above (the three you ignore) meet it. Happy to request a close, but it might be worth waiting another day or two to see if anyone else wants to weigh in. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 18:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

===Request for comment===
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 17:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1694797271}}
Should this article include a summary of the issuing of fixed penalty notices in relation to the [[Partygate]] scandal, as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fixed_penalty_notice&diff=prev&oldid=1159622824 this edit]? &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 16:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''oppose''' This is probably class 101 of how to not do an RFC, "Should my version be allowed?" I have to go back and dig thru all the old arguments to actually find out what the conflict is all about and its boring. I'm going to go with oppose and endorse the arguments in the topic above. [[User:Serialjoepsycho|-Serialjoepsycho-]] ([[User talk:Serialjoepsycho|talk]]) 23:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
*:{{re|Serialjoepsycho}} There doesn't seem to be much consensus regarding how RfC statements should be written (except perhaps that it's easier to criticise them and try to get the whole thing thrown out than to make a substantive argument one way or the other!) – when I've tried to include a summary of arguments, relevant policy etc. in the past it's been characterised as editorialising too. It's probably too late to revise now but if you'd like to suggest alternative wording I'll certainly bear it in mind for the future. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Arms & Hearts|Arms & Hearts]] ([[User talk:Arms & Hearts|talk]]) 11:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''No''' – The existing general examples are more than enough to give a clear understanding of FPNs in the pandemic context. There is very little, if anything, to be gained by mentioning a single case. I don't understand why anyone would have tried to add this content and I don't understand why we're here discussing it. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 07:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
**I suppose my main argument would be a historical one where it is all part of the same sorry affair. Dictatorial government, arbitrary rules, loosening of the rule of law and hypocrisy. Also this single case does involve the people who enacted the regulation.<p>This is not really a policy based arguments, and perhaps these aims might be better achieved by writing about human rights in [[British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic]] and linking to this. If someone was going to give a historical account of FPNs I would expected partygate to be mentioned in a single sentence, in a similar way to if someone were to give a historical account of mental health laws they might mention cases of homicide that influenced public opinion - that said we should probably find a source doing so - when the covid inquiry or bingham report get published perhaps we will have something to cite... <span style="color:#ff0000;weight:bold; font-weight:700; background-color:lightblue">[[User:Talpedia|Tal]]</span><span style="color:black;background-color:lightgray">pedia</span> 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
***The two situations are disanalogous as the FPNs given to officials in this case are not significant for the history of FPNs or understanding them as a subject. Supporters of inserting this example seem to be equivocating between "this was significant case when FPNs were used" and "this was a significant moment in the history of FPNs". The former is true, the latter is not. '''[[User:5225C|5225<sub>C</sub>]]'''&nbsp;([[User_talk:5225C|talk]]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/5225C|contributions]]) 15:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
**** I guess I'd say the equivocation is "the must be a significant moment in the history, surely?" and "this is a significant moment in the history", the latter being determined by the attention of commentors and what people remember. I guess this is the definition of WP:RECENTISM... I wonder if it possible to tell if you have paid enough attention to a cognitive bias or if only can be rectified by the passage of time. <span style="color:#ff0000;weight:bold; font-weight:700; background-color:lightblue">[[User:Talpedia|Tal]]</span><span style="color:black;background-color:lightgray">pedia</span> 08:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' as I can't see any sound policy-based argument to emphasise that specific case, and see plenty against it based on [[WP:Core content policies]] like [[WP:No original research]] (in particular [[WP:Synthesis]]) and [[WP:Neutral point of view]] (in particular [[WP:Due weight]]) . -- [[User:DeFacto|DeFacto]] ([[User Talk:DeFacto|talk]]). 10:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I was initially in favour of including this but am now a bit more on the fence, per Defacto arguments, though I don't really buy WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (the fines happened), but I do potentially buy the WP:DUE argument. How are we to decide what is WP:DUE when there is disagreement other than by relying on literature? That said it would be difficult to arguing that mentioning the tens of thousand of covid fines some misissued was not WP:DUE even in the absence of general literature discussing the topic, so I do think there is some sort of "no brainer" WP:DUE that can apply.<span style="color:#ff0000;weight:bold; font-weight:700; background-color:lightblue">[[User:Talpedia|Tal]]</span><span style="color:black;background-color:lightgray">pedia</span> 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
*'''Weak no'''. On the one hand, it doesn't seem to me that this is all that problematic (it is a ''very'' high profile example, and examples can be helpful to the reader), and this is isn't the kind of question that is going to have a clear-cut policy-based answer. But on the whole, I find the proposed paragraph a bit out of place, and more importantly it doesn't seem to me that it really sheds much light on the rest of the article. -- [[User:Visviva|Visviva]] ([[User talk:Visviva|talk]]) 20:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Fixed penalty notice (edit)
User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:- (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Abot (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Archive bottom (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Clear (view source) (protected)
Template:Encodefirst (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Nac (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:No redirect (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Non-admin closure (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Ping (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Re (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist-talk (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist-talk/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Source check (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Sourcecheck (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talk-reflist (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Talk quote block (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talk quote block/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talk quote inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talk quote inline/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Talkquote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Template link expanded (view source) (protected)
Template:Tlx (view source) (protected)
Template:Tpq (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Tq (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Trim (view source) (protected)
Template:WikiProject Law Enforcement (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:WikiProject banner shell (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Banner shell (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Banner shell/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Banner shell/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/tmbox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:MultiReplace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/rfd (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/l (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Redirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Reply to (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Template link general (view source) (protected)
Module:Template parameter value (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:WikiProject banner (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:WikiProject banner/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:WikiProject banner/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Talk:Fixed penalty notice.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fixed_penalty_notice"