Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Is word for word plagiarism common practice in the Labour party these days?
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    QFA
    Can you confirm that the person responsible for the blatant plagiarism will be reprimanded and will be apologising to the Socialist party for shamelessly stealing their work?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    As Toronto says, can we at least expect a telling off? You seem reluctant to confirm that you condemn this...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    Can you confirm that the person responsible for the blatant plagiarism will be reprimanded and will be apologising to the Socialist party for shamelessly stealing their work?
    It depends how you mean reprimanded. I'm not going to be removing anyone from any positions, but I will tell them not to do it again and I'm sure the person who copied it will make sure they don't.

    I have and will continue to apologise to the Socialist party, as you well know.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    It depends how you mean reprimanded. I'm not going to be removing anyone from any positions, but I will tell them not to do it again and I'm sure the person who copied it will make sure they don't.

    I have and will continue to apologise to the Socialist party, as you well know.
    so its a quick telling off then? "Don't do it again and be a good little boy next time?" At least we've got some sort of condemnation out of you...
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    It depends how you mean reprimanded. I'm not going to be removing anyone from any positions, but I will tell them not to do it again and I'm sure the person who copied it will make sure they don't.

    I have and will continue to apologise to the Socialist party, as you well know.
    I didn't mean step down or be removed, but I am glad that you are taking action. I will be reading your Bills even more carefully in future to ensure that the Labour policy of plagiarism doesn't continue.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I find this a much more serious matter (ripping off someone else's work as your own) than JPKC's little interview stunt that was blown into a mountain.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    so its a quick telling off then? "Don't do it again and be a good little boy next time?" At least we've got some sort of condemnation out of you...
    Yep, pretty much. Problem?

    (Original post by toronto353)
    I didn't mean step down or be removed, but I am glad that you are taking action. I will be reading your Bills even more carefully in future to ensure that the Labour policy of plagiarism doesn't continue.
    :lol: you're good at this political stuff, I'll give you that.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Could Labour give us some insight into their bill creation procedure given that it clearly does not involve looking at related bills on Hansard? I can also assure the House that i go through Hansard when creating any bill.

    Can Labour also confirm that Rory was the author?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    "Policy of plagiarism"? Come off it. It was one person, once, and it wasn't even on purpose. The member in question was trying to get permission from the Socialists and was going to make minor edits, but we sent it off accidentally before that stage - so the end result wouldn't have been plagiarism anyway. This is just a bit of a storm in a teacup. We've withdrawn the Bill and I've PM'd Metro asking for it not to be added to the scores for the Motion challenge, and david's apologised for not checking 100% carefully, and I'm apologising now for not noticing either. Can we move on now?
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by TopHat)
    "Policy of plagiarism"? Come off it. It was one person, once, and it wasn't even on purpose. The member in question was trying to get permission from the Socialists and was going to make minor edits, but we sent it off accidentally before that stage - so the end result wouldn't have been plagiarism anyway. This is just a bit of a storm in a teacup. We've withdrawn the Bill and I've PM'd Metro asking for it not to be added to the scores for the Motion challenge, and david's apologised for not checking 100% carefully, and I'm apologising now for not noticing either. Can we move on now?

    So the leadership was that unaware, that inept that it couldn't be bothered to check the Hansard? Did the author of the Bill inform the party of the permission seeking before or after the party was made aware of the plagiarism?


    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    :lol: you're good at this political stuff, I'll give you that.
    Why thank you.


    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    Personally I find this a much more serious matter (ripping off someone else's work as your own) than JPKC's little interview stunt that was blown into a mountain.

    Oh yeah that was small fry. This is extremely distasteful at best really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Could Labour give us some insight into their bill creation procedure given that it clearly does not involve looking at related bills on Hansard? I can also assure the House that i go through Hansard when creating any bill.

    Can Labour also confirm that Rory was the author?
    We give our members a fair amount of free rein in the Labour Party; we think it's healthier if the leadership doesn't essentially call all the shots. As such, there is no "Labour procedure" on bill creation - it's down to the individual members. As you can say, occasionally that produces a bum note, but for the most part I think it creates varied and well-rounded legislation.

    As for the author, it's a Labour party bill, not a PMB. As such, we're all the authors - we take group responsibility. If the fault is anyone's, it's mine. As Deputy Leader, it's my job to double-check legislation before it's ready to go. This was not going to be plagiarism, we were merely using this bill as a template. Now, this piece of legislation was going to receive large edits, and we were attempting to ask the Socialists for the co-operation, but this bill was accidentally sent before either of those things happened, which is why it has resulted as it has. For that, I apologise to the House, and assure them that it will not happen again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    So the leadership was that unaware, that inept that it couldn't be bothered to check the Hansard? Did the author of the Bill inform the party of the permission seeking before or after the party was made aware of the plagiarism?
    I personally knew that it was based on the Socialist's legislation, yes. The person the bill originated with also told us it was based on a Socialist bill, and that negotiations were on-going. However, the bill was reposted later, and was submitted, as we thought changes had been made (as by that stage, we couldn't remember the original bill of the top of our heads'!). At that stage (obviously) they hadn't - it wasn't a purposeful thing. In hindsight, we should have double-checked scrupulously with the author, but these things happen. -shrugs- We've already withdrawn the bill, we admitted what happened as soon as it was brought to our attention, we've asked Nick for that bill not to be included in any statistics and hopefully struck from the books, and we've each given full apologies. I'm not sure what more the House could ask from us.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by TopHat)
    I personally knew that it was based on the Socialist's legislation, yes. The person the bill originated with also told us it was based on a Socialist bill, and that negotiations were on-going. However, the bill was reposted later, and was submitted, as we thought changes had been made (as by that stage, we couldn't remember the original bill of the top of our heads'!). At that stage (obviously) they hadn't - it wasn't a purposeful thing. In hindsight, we should have double-checked scrupulously with the author, but these things happen. -shrugs- We've already withdrawn the bill, we admitted what happened as soon as it was brought to our attention, we've asked Nick for that bill not to be included in any statistics and hopefully struck from the books, and we've each given full apologies. I'm not sure what more the House could ask from us.
    So then the person knew that the Bill was copied, but the party knew that it was also based on Socialist legislation. So what you're saying is that you were so aware that this Bill was based on Socialist legislation that you didn't seek to actually research the previous Bill in the slightest? You're also saying that the copier of this Bill informed the party of the fact that this was a Socialist Bill, but that no-one thought to research the original Bill.

    Now I'm actually a little bit confused about a little matter. In your previous answer to my question you stated the following:

    The member in question was trying to get permission from the Socialists and was going to make minor edits, but we sent it off accidentally before that stage
    Yet here you said that you thought that permission was being sought. So you're telling me that not one member of the party thought to confirm that permission had been sought especially when, according to you, you were aware of this issue? You're telling me that you all sat there rather naively thinking 'yeah we know permission's being sort, but we'll not ask' and that you personally submitted this without asking that assurances had been sought? How very trusting of you all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    So then the person knew that the Bill was copied, but the party knew that it was also based on Socialist legislation. So what you're saying is that you were so aware that this Bill was based on Socialist legislation that you didn't seek to actually research the previous Bill in the slightest? You're also saying that the copier of this Bill informed the party of the fact that this was a Socialist Bill, but that no-one thought to research the original Bill.

    Now I'm actually a little bit confused about a little matter. In your previous answer to my question you stated the following:
    Yeah, there was a misunderstanding. The person the Bill came from said it was from a Socialist Bill. We thought "from" meant "based on", rather than "copied from", so we didn't look at the previous bill. We assumed the person the Bill came from would have done that. In fairness, they had - they were going to make more edits but we accidentally sent it off before that stage. Sure, in hindsight we should have double-checked ourselves, but these things happen.

    Yet here you said that you thought that permission was being sought. So you're telling me that not one member of the party thought to confirm that permission had been sought especially when, according to you, you were aware of this issue? You're telling me that you all sat there rather naively thinking 'yeah we know permission's being sort, but we'll not ask' and that you personally submitted this without asking that assurances had been sought? How very trusting of you all.
    Well, we do like to have a policy of trust in the Labour Party. That said, the person this Bill came from didn't actually do anything wrong - they intended to make substantial edits to the Bill to make it their own, alongside getting permission from the Socialists. However, we misinterpreted "based on", assumed it had been changed by that stage, and sent it off. You're absolutely right; in hindsight that was a silly thing to do. But there was absolutely no malign intent whatsoever; we just made mistake. It's one we won't make again - I can assure you that I personally shall scrutinize bills much more thoroughly in the future, and I'd assume David will do likewise. Once again, I'd like to apologize for not carrying out my duties fully, and I'd like to ask the House if we can now move on, given that matter is sorted.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidmarsh01)
    Yep, pretty much. Problem?



    :lol: you're good at this political stuff, I'll give you that.
    No, in fact I applaud you for condemning the action and giving indication that there will be some form of reprimand.

    Hopefully this won't happen again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Yeah, there was a misunderstanding. The person the Bill came from said it was from a Socialist Bill. We thought "from" meant "based on", rather than "copied from", so we didn't look at the previous bill. We assumed the person the Bill came from would have done that. In fairness, they had - they were going to make more edits but we accidentally sent it off before that stage. Sure, in hindsight we should have double-checked ourselves, but these things happen.



    Well, we do like to have a policy of trust in the Labour Party. That said, the person this Bill came from didn't actually do anything wrong - they intended to make substantial edits to the Bill to make it their own, alongside getting permission from the Socialists. However, we misinterpreted "based on", assumed it had been changed by that stage, and sent it off. You're absolutely right; in hindsight that was a silly thing to do. But there was absolutely no malign intent whatsoever; we just made mistake. It's one we won't make again - I can assure you that I personally shall scrutinize bills much more thoroughly in the future, and I'd assume David will do likewise. Once again, I'd like to apologize for not carrying out my duties fully, and I'd like to ask the House if we can now move on, given that matter is sorted.
    can we expect a revised bill at some point soon then? Or has the idea been dropped
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hope there will be another bill along the same lines. It wouldn't be fair to the person who was going to make changes to have their potential ideas shut down because we were a tad hasty. That said, it is that person's choice whether they continue.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by TopHat)
    I hope there will be another bill along the same lines. It wouldn't be fair to the person who was going to make changes to have their potential ideas shut down because we were a tad hasty. That said, it is that person's choice whether they continue.
    I hope that you now realise why your idea for another GRA and sunset clauses won't work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I hope that you now realise why your idea for another GRA and sunset clauses won't work.
    What, because we accidentally submitted something before it was ready? That's a terrible point. This was going to be a revamped version of the bill that would have sparked actual new discussion. You would have a point if this bill has been deliberately plagiarised, but it was an honest mistake. Now you're just attempting to point score, and I'm rather bored of it.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.