Talk:Gillian Keegan

Rogate councillor

It is rare for a councillor to stay in office once elected as an MP. Is our information out of date or has there not yet been a by-election? - Sitush (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Sitush - no update here - seems like there has not been a by-election, I think they are only every few years and she will just sit as inactive till the next by-election. Govindaharihari (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Doubt it. Council elections are fixed periods but by-elections are, by definition, as and when needed. She must still be holding both offices at present, which will be stressful to say the least! - Sitush (talk) 17:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Career, etc.

This first paragraph of the "Career" section seems a bit MOS:OPEDish to me. I think it might be a little better to drop the "she went on" and "over 27 years" and simply just list her jobs and the years she was at each position. For example, "She served as Chief Marketing Officer of Travelport from January 2011 until the end of 2012" (source for leaving position found here). Keegan's maiden name seems to have been Gibson. I'm not sure if that info is typically added directly to female politician BLPs, but it might be helpful in tracking down sources about her early career since most press releases. etc. from that time would've referred to her as Gibson. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Michael Keegan - Fujitsu

I think Michael Keegan left Fujitsu in 2018. His LinkedIn entry and The Register are evidence of this, and he also moved roles within the company in 2015. Mdrb55 (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Maiden name

What is her maiden name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8084:255c:f200:5cb7:285b:e8c1:b04f (talk • contribs) 10:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have semi protected this article because of the edit warring over a BLP subject.

• Edit warring is not allowed. See WP:EW
• Only reliable secondary sources should be used. Post office trial.com and the Government records are not reliable secondary sources. See WP:RS, WP:V, WP:PSTS

Please discuss potential edits here and get consensus. I will remove the protection when you have agreed on something. Slp1 (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry if this isn't correct protocol, but I would appreciate help. I've made some amendments which I believe are well enough evidenced to meet wiki requirements. There seems to be an effort to frame the post office scandal as a media controversy but the ipso ruling only related to 1 newspaper (The Times) that misreported one point. Ive avoided that paper and their erroneous detail. Garnett F (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael Keegan

Michael Keegan was never a Board Director of Fujitsu...edit warring is due to politically motivated trolling of Gillian Keegan's Wiki page and is inaccurate and factually wrong. Judge led enquiry https://www.postofficehorizoninquiry.org.uk/ will determine what happened and misleading attempts to edit Keegans wiki page should be reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveSpart1 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

According to public records, Michael Keegan was a director of Fujitsu (FTS) Limited (03808613) 2010-2014, Fujitsu Services Limited (00096056) 2014-2016, Fujitsu Systems (Europe) Limited (02619865) 2015-2018 - is this the same person? There is also coverage at https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/20/fujitsu_exec_exit_and_restructuring/, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/japanese-giant-fujitsu-still-stamping-on-post-office-victims-0m88fmh02 and https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/30/boss-overseeing-post-office-now-whitehall/. The Post Office scandal would probably be worth mentioning in an article about him (if we had one), but not in this article - whether it could be properly sourced or not, it looked out of place. I also agree with removing the other disputed additions. I'm not sure about the register of interests - I think there has been discussion on whether these should be included in articles, but I don't know what the current consensus is. A865 (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

These are subsidiary companies related principally to the hardware business and statutory account filings and not to do with Horizon. Keegan was never a member of the Board of Fujitsu as previously stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveSpart1 (talk • contribs) 11:02, February 13, 2022 (UTC)

The Post Office contract was with International Computers Limited, which became Fujitsu Services Limited in 2002 (https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2021/W14/748290244, https://www.bestpracticegroup.com/post-office-settles-horizon-it-system-court-case-5-lessons/). Companies House lists him as a director, but not in 2013 as was being claimed in the article (and the source cited there didn't support the claim). A865 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I've added some detail which is taken from news reports that weren't subject to the media accuracy complaint. Efforts to frame it as purely a media controversy seem disingenuous. These details seem relevant due to Gillian Keegan's prominent government position and the fact Michael Keegan got a prominent government role a month after leaving Fujitsu. Garnett F (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael Keegan and Fujitsu Scandal

There seems to be an effort to frame this as a media controversy that Keegan won, which would be inaccurate.

I've reinstated my amendments, but I'm happy to discuss further if required. Garnett F (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I had understood that the article which claimed Mr Keegan was at the heart of Fujitsu's dealings with the Post Office during the Horizon scandal was the same that was subsequently withdrawn for inaccuracy, following IPSO's ruling in 2022.

The previous edits had been intended to reflect that AnoP9 (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've rechecked and the IPSO finding is here - https://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=01951-22. I think you are right - IPSO found that, while "he was UK Chief Executive and Chairman of the company between 2015 and 2018" and "in his position as CEO of Fujitsu UK the complainant was ultimately responsible for the accountability and governance of the company" the Times couldn't point to documentary evidence that he had a “central role”. I'll amend to reflect that. Garnett F (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A couple of things here that I'll propose in an edit soon.

On a general point from looking at the page now, the bulk of Gillian Keegan's personal life section now reads about her husband and his background, which doesn't seem appropriate/proportionate. I can see that there's been a reference made to try to link this to her own role (the point on the timing of her appointment as PPS and his at the MoD) but when I clicked on the Telegraph article cited it didn't seem to support the suggestion that things were related in their timing (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/30/boss-overseeing-post-office-now-whitehall/)

Looking at the same article, it also looks like her husband was Chairman of UK and Ireland, but not Chief Exec after June 2015. His LinkedIn seems to suggest the same (https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelkeegan)? AnoP9 (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

1 - It could probably be shortened - I think it's grown over time in response to the efforts to shut it down or frame it, inaccurately, and a media controversy.

2 - the Ipso ruling I linked to earlier states, at para 15, that "The article reported, accurately, that the complainant had held the roles of UK Chief Executive and Chairman of the company between 2015 and 2018" Garnett F (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

1 - Have updated to condense and keep the personal life section as relevant as possible to this specific page. As I think another user @A865 suggested previously, I can see why there could be merit to discussion on these various specific points as part of a page on her husband directly, but not here.

2 - The IPSO ruling on para 15 indeed states Mr Keegan held the roles of UK Chief Exec and Chairman between 2015 and 2018, but not concurrently. As per earlier in same paragraph, he was Chief Exec from 2014 to 15, and then Chairman from 15 to 18. Both roles obviously have different responsibilities. I've amended to reflect specificity here AnoP9 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I like your abridgement which reads well. I didn't want to make any edits without discussing first, but I do feel you may have swung the pendulum a bit far in terms of how the 2 stories that made the news have been framed.

While the Times retracted (primarily due them wrongly attributing a quote to him that he did not say), other papers, such as the Telegraph did not. cf https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/30/boss-overseeing-post-office-now-whitehall/

Could that section all not be shortened to something like:

"He joined Fujitsu in 2006 and held various senior positions including a 15 month period as CEO during which it is alleged that the company covered up flaws in its computer system, which led to the British Post Master scandal." - This is very close to what the Telegraph article states.

Then, on the government procurement role, there are multiple news reports about his conflict of interests. It seems odd to ignore them, not least because it's not just the fact his company won these MOD contracts and he works in the MOD, but also that his company won them and he's the husband of a minister. Can we not just state the bare facts and leave readers to make up their own minds? Something like:-

"In September 2019 Mr Keegan was given the role of crown representative to the Cabinet Office at the Ministry of Defence. In 2022 Newspapers reported that Centerprise, on whose board Keegan sits, was awarded £24m worth of MOD contracts October 2019 to May 2020. The Civil service issued a statement dismissing the concerns." Garnett F (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the second addition RE the procurement allegations was broadly fair, perhaps just with saying something like "A spokesperson for the Civil Service dismissed these claims, stating Mr Keegan did not have an active role in procurement." or something like that with a relevant citation: https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/michael-keegan-bae-systems-centreprise-mod-supplier-ned-no-conflict-contracts) - it looks like you may have since removed this, though

The issue I think with the Horizon point is two things:

1. It's still not clear to me that these are relevant to Gillian Keegan's personal life. Perhaps for a separate page on Michael, but I'm inclined to agree with @A865's earlier comments
2. If there was a case for its inclusion, the additions to me look like they would tread a fine line on wiki's Biographies of Living Persons policy (see the section on 'Balance'), in the sense that they effectively imply some level of guiltiness by association, rather than from specific 'documentary evidence' (like you say). Obviously this could change (depending on what the official inquiry finds) but as things stand, I think it probably oversteps

AnoP9 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Fudge

Given she is in control of Britain's schools, some idea of where she actually stands on the issues would be great. Is she a conservative or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.85.204.230 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)