This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/06/andrea-leadsom-faces-questions-over-wikipedia-profile-edits
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
Andrea Leadsom faces questions over Wikipedia profile edits | Andrea Leadsom faces questions over Wikipedia profile edits |
(about 2 months later) | |
Andrea Leadsom faces questions over her Wikipedia entry after it emerged that embarrassing media stories had been removed from the page. The changes appear to have been made from Towcester, where the Conservative leadership contender’s constituency office is located. | Andrea Leadsom faces questions over her Wikipedia entry after it emerged that embarrassing media stories had been removed from the page. The changes appear to have been made from Towcester, where the Conservative leadership contender’s constituency office is located. |
In 2015, references to media reports about the Leadsom family’s use of trusts to own a buy-to-let company and details of financial donations from Leadsom’s brother-in-law, Peter de Putron, were deleted from Leadsom’s profile on the website. | In 2015, references to media reports about the Leadsom family’s use of trusts to own a buy-to-let company and details of financial donations from Leadsom’s brother-in-law, Peter de Putron, were deleted from Leadsom’s profile on the website. |
The changes were made by an unregistered user, with an IP address in Towcester, which is in Leadsom’s constituency of South Northamptonshire. | The changes were made by an unregistered user, with an IP address in Towcester, which is in Leadsom’s constituency of South Northamptonshire. |
The deletion was accompanied by a note stating: “The allegations by Private Eye, the Guardian and the Independent are false and designed to be politically damaging. No laws have been broken and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can confirm that Mrs Leadsom’s tax status is perfectly legal.” | The deletion was accompanied by a note stating: “The allegations by Private Eye, the Guardian and the Independent are false and designed to be politically damaging. No laws have been broken and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can confirm that Mrs Leadsom’s tax status is perfectly legal.” |
The next day the alteration was reverted by a different user on the basis that the correction constituted an “apparent” conflict of interest. | The next day the alteration was reverted by a different user on the basis that the correction constituted an “apparent” conflict of interest. |
Asked to comment on whether or not she or her team had deleted the passage in question, a spokesperson for Leadsom did not respond to requests for comment. | Asked to comment on whether or not she or her team had deleted the passage in question, a spokesperson for Leadsom did not respond to requests for comment. |
Previous version
1
Next version