Jump to content

Talk:Margaret Hodge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.237.134.69 (talk) at 16:26, 5 August 2019 (→Using Skwawkbox as a source for a BLP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Asylum seeker

What are this person's grounds for remaining in the UK? Surely she is an undesirable alien.

194.46.174.59 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following:

When challenged by journalist and Labour Party member Jon Kendrick at a fringe meeting during the Labour Party Conference it appeared that Ms. Hodge has no more compassion for children in care and no more concern for getting details right that in the past. 15 years after the first allegations of child abuse in Clwyd she was asked why still no truly independent investigatory body had been formally set up, with secure statutory powers, specifically to investigate allegations and complaints against social workers, and in particular children's social workers. Ms. Hodge became irritable and insisted that such a body exists. She insisted that a fully independent body exists to investigate complaints against childcare workers, that it is now in place and that it is avaialble to all.
That is untrue. In every respect.
The Local Government Ombudsman is the nearest thing to an Independent Investigator, but he/she does not have any statutory powers of enforcement, has no 'power' to investigate any alleged misfesance in a Local Authoirty unless the LA will co-operate with the inquiry, and rarely chooses to meet with complainants.
Over 80% of people who complain to the Ombudsman are not satisfied with the outcome. In some areas over 90% of Ombudsman investigations find no fault with the Council.
Because the Ombudsman will only accept complaints in writing, people of low educational attainment or who for whatever reason cannot write down their complaint cannot anyway benefit from his 'help'. Children in care rarely have finely tuned powers of written expression.
Still there is no 'body' that can enter a local authority and 'seize' records without warning and no 'body' that can take the side of a complainant 'against' the corporate system to force out 'truth.
It remains standard practice for LA's to be insured against liability arising from abuse allegations with commercial insurance companies, and for those companies to impose very strong controls to prevent authorities admitting that abuse has occurred and to deter them from carrying out invetsigations that might expose abuse by social workers. Their aim is to avoid financial liabilities, not to ensure the safety of children.
Also, the Risk Policies of Local Authorities coupled with the influence of insurers and LA Lawyers who see their role as to protect the Council from accountability for wrongdoing enable LA Officials to 'silence' elected Councillors who might try to make waves (see reports of events in Clwyd).
They achieve this by warning them that if they help a member of the public to expose wrongdoing and there is a finding against the council, that councillor can be held personally financially liable for all costs and damages and could lose their home and be totally bankrupted. It is blackmail of elected representatives to suppress exposure and to that end even proper investigation of abuse allegations.
This may or may not be how the system SHOULD work, but it is certainly the way it DOES operate.
Local Authority and Government cover-ups of child sex abuse allegations involving public officials are today, after Clwyd, if anything even more draconian in their totality and are more impenetrable than ever in the past.
Margaret Hodge, true to her past record in Islington it seems, regards political expediency as more important than the lives and quality of life of children and especially those in the care system.
Her disdain for the feelings and genuine safety of children is perhaps exceeded only by her determination to succeed in her political career.
For over 10 years Jon Kendrick has been attempting to force a Government investigation into allegations of politically linked child exploitation and abuse against children in care.
He is alleging, taking up the cudgels to press for changes in statutory structures from the late Simon Regan, an investigative reporter, that a cartel exists mainly on the right wing of the Tory party within which teenage boys, many from the care system and allegedly recruited with the co-operation of senior childcare officials and others, have been used for political influence and blackmail for over 20 years, and he is alleging that this, by implied or actual blackmail and awareness of the obsession with scandal avoidance, has influenced senior politicians in all political parties for over two deaces.
It appears to be a specific organisation within which the exploitation of gay teenagers seems to have been throughout a major factor. It appears to have been founded some twenty five years ago by a group of right wing lawyers, aspirant politicians, and lobbyists along with several right wingers and MP's (including members of Thatcher's Government) in the Tory party.
Ms. Hodge should be looking into these matters carefully and objectively.
Yet as fourteen years ago in Islington, her eyes are apparently fixed on here own political advancement while her head remains firmly in the sand.
What I saw and the Fringe Meeting of the Labour Party was a Minister who simply does not know her 'patch' - or who still has not bothered to check out the realities of the responsibility she holds. She does not appear to 'care'. She should.
Jon Kendrick can be contacted via NUJ HQ in the Gray's Inn Road.

It may or may not be true, but it has little relation to Margaret Hodge, and still less place in Wikipedia. --195.11.216.59 08:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Needs checking

I added some "citation needed" tags for the following reasons. Birthplace given as Cairo in text and Alexandria in box. The honorific "Right Honourable" implies Hodge is a Privy Councillor, but I couldn't find proof of Hodge's appointment when I searched for a date nor did government sites refer to it or use the "Rt Hon" prefix. Folks at 137 18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed uncited information

I have removed the following text,

, the opposition and, it is rumoured[by whom?], a number of her parliamentary colleagues[who?].

Especially because it seems to refer to a rumour - please do restore it if sources are found and it is not a rumour!

I've also removed a chunk of irrelevant information about the BNP and pro-BNP pov pushing, including this delightful speculation:

Whilst this was far short of the Labour party total, it was clear from their performance that the BNP could have won many more seats had they stood a full slate of candidates.[citation needed]

I'll go down see what else I can find. Hope all is well, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note 20

Posts to the wrong article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.150.238 (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal wealth

The article formerly (until I removed it just now) claimed that the subject's wealth was in the "multiple hundreds of millions of pounds", citing a Sunday Times article. This turns out to be a gossip column entry from the Prufrock column, and refers only to an inheritance which the author thinks will be about £2m. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed the company she has shares in that only pays 0.01% tax. Margaret Hodge is a campaigner against tax avoidance http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9668396/Margaret-Hodges-family-company-pays-just-0.01pc-tax-on-2.1bn-of-business-generated-in-the-UK.html (Coachtripfan (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

She is regularly accused of being a hypocrite in tax affairs as she uses a trust to avoid inheritance tax for her children. On twitter she has attracted the hash tag #HodgeTheDodge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.70.107 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a couple of iterations of references to an article I wrote in Taxation magazine calling Margaret Hodge Tax Prat of the Year. I've removed the last version for NPOV and OR. In my view, since there is no real award of "Tax Prat of the Year", there is no more reason for this being included permanently on her wikipedia entry than any other op-ed piece. Matruman (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Husband?

Reference to her husband's knighthood, but not to him in person. Who is he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.157.135 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the article, I found that it is Henry Hodge. Any help?--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She may be entitled to call herself "Lady Hodge" as the widow of a knight, but as far as I am aware she does not. More significantly, "Lady Margaret Eve Hodge" at the start of the article is wrong as it suggests she is the daughter of a duke, marquess or earl, which she certainly is not. --Rumping (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor phrasing

The last sentence quoted here is poorly phrased: 'In 2003, following Hodge's appointment as Minister for Children, Panton went public with his allegation that he was abused in Islington Council care and had repeatedly raised this issue with no effect. He accused Hodge of being ultimately responsible for the abuse that he suffered. Davies also went public with the issues that she had raised concerns about while working for the council.'. Can someone please improve this, particularly '... concerns about while ...' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.57.245 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PC post nominals

PC is not usually appended to the names of commoners because their status as a Privy Counsellor is implied by the "The Right Honourable". Do we have a citation for this usage for Margaret Hodge? 144.32.240.15 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Pollard comments

An entry I made was reverted by Philip Cross. The revert may be viewed here. My entry went as follows:

On 01 May 2015 Hodge was accused of "blatant hypocrisy" by Stephen Pollard in the Daily Express, citing her connection to the Liechtenstein disclosure facility which "allowed Mrs Hodge's shares to be transferred to the UK on specially favourable terms". In a pull quote Pollard stated that "Her behaviour drags the entire political system into disrepute, and she would now be well advised to withdraw from public life." The article ended with "Truly, you have to wipe your eyes in disbelief at the sheer blatancy of her hypocrisy. It is as if Mrs Hodge is so suffused with her own righteousness that she thinks she is somehow above the standards she would impose on mere mortals."[1]
  1. ^ "Margaret Hodge's foul hypocrisy just beggars belief says STEPHEN POLLARD". Daily Express. 1 May 2015. Archived from the original on 1 May 2015.

I raised the point with Philip on his talk page but he seems quite intransigent. I wander whether anyone else feels the same as he does, or whether there might be a consensus in favour of including the Pollard entry? Jodosma (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Cross' view reflects established Wikipedia policy for biographies which is that tabloid newspapers are not considered appropriate sources. The story itself was also covered by the FT [1] so might warrant a line or two. [edit: and indeed is already covered in the existing article text] Dtellett (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story seems to have originated at The Times. Other newspapers, like the FT and the Mail, then recycled the story, crediting The Times. The Express seems to have come comparatively late to this and their account is more of an opinion piece. The existing entry in the article seems enough. Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Margaret Hodge. 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) 05:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Margaret Hodge. 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) 23:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Interview

I see that all reference to the latest controversy surrounding Hodge has been removed from her article.

diff 1, "UNDUE weight to fringe view published in non-RS" - So Dr Finkelstein is "fringe"? Is that the personal opinion of the editor or has that been agreed somewhere as the consensus of Wikipedia? I would've though the view of a notable political scientist and son of Jewish Holocaust survivors would be pertinent to her highly controversial comments - or is nobody permitted to respond, unless they agree with her? There's a YouTube video & a blog, which of course will be considered "unreliable", however Dr Finkelstein gave an interview on Talk radio too with regard to Hodge's comments - let me guess, that's also unreliable? MOATS

Diff 2 "Random spokeperson". Specifically named or not, it's the official response from the Labour Party, the party she belongs too - effectively her employer. When making her comments she's referencing their internal disciplinary procedure - do they not have a right to respond & to have that noted here for clarity? It was adequately sourced, so why would you remove it?

Diff 3 Here we have an IP, who's only made one edit prior to this, removing the all reference to the incident, despite noting it as controversial - "seems unbalanced on its own". Which is likely accurate, but maybe that's because no prior effort appears to have been made to look for other sources before wiping out half of the story. So? User:Icewhiz ??? --RebeccaSaid (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including comments of those widely accused of antisemitism on the BLP article of a Jewish person would be a tad distasteful, and in this particular case would require a wider context of how others have labelled those speaking as well as the rather wide support Hodge has received for her comments. We should particularly ignore random opinions by radical elements that have received coverage in non-mainstream media.Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So which is it then? Icewhiz "Fringe" & "non-RS" or "distasteful" ??
As Professor Finkelstein is a notable individual, who lost most of his family in the Holocaust and whose parents survived slave labour & concentration camps, his view on Hodges comparison could be considered important. But '"We should ignore random opinions by radical elements"' - is this your personal opinion on Professor Finkelstein, his opinions & what should, & shouldn't, be ignored? or can you can link me to where each of these assertions were opinion reached by consensus? (If don't like Finkelstein you could always quote David Baddiel whose mother & Grandparents escaped Nazi Germany in 1939 - he called her comments "bollocks")
I see you've put the Labour Party response back in - the same one you initially removed as "random spokesperson". Good that you suddenly see the need for "balance" and reinserted something you had no good reason to delete in the first place.
Side issue - looking forward to hearing from ArbComm because I said things you don't like on Twitter - gatekeeping articles comes with scrutiny. :) --RebeccaSaid (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Finkelstein may have his points, but is distinctly a fringe commentator, and his random rant-to-camera, which betrays no awareness of what Hodge actually said, does not constitute a reliable source in Wikipedia terms. David Baddiel hasn't retracted his 'bollocks' comment, but did apologise for getting a bit 'Four Jewish Men' about it (in reference to the legendary 'Four Yorkshiremen' sketch on At Last The 1948 Show -- Rediffusion 1967 -- in which rich Yorkshire-born businessmen try to one-up one another about their difficult childhoods). https://twitter.com/Baddiel/status/1030209063945228288 That would be because Baddiel's parents quit Europe much later than Hodge's did. If Baddiel feels any shame about the number of Corbynazis who infested his timeline to congratulate him, he has unfortunately not said so. Meanwhile a far-left Labour magazine, The Word, edited by a friend of Corbyn's, Alan Davies, has put Hodge on the cover with the headline, 'The Enemy Within', which was apparently chosen by a poll of the paper's Corbynazi readers. Calling prominent Jews 'the enemy within' comes with a certain obvious history attached. https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1031157927451795457 Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uh huh whatever....... I'm still waiting for links to where a consensus was reached that Wikipedia must ignore his views on the grounds of the assertions of Icewhiz or why he removed sourced & relevant info for no reason...beyond that I have zero interest in the opinion of someone who refers to the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn as "Corbynazis". ugh --RebeccaSaid (talk) 21:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for so many decades of hatred

Is the reason for the vicious hatred and foul mouthed utterances not worthy of mention?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CouqsRGVIAA4Kw1.png:large

"Since 1995 Margaret Hodge has been know by her title “Fuming Maniac”. Her hatred of Jeremy Corbyn is understandable, losing the 1995 vote, she received 2%, he received 98%. Her love of using the Holocaust when lying has not received any better reception this time. But at least, unlike Ken Livingstone, she has no historical facts to back up her insistence Labour members are allowed to compare things with the Nazis. Pity no one recorded her calling him a “fucking Nazi” in 1995. Some used to say that was myth. Now no one does…"

http://www.edlis.org/hodge

Critical Thinking provides good referencing...

131.111.184.102 (talk) 13:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Watson

Article in the Evening Standard 13 February 2004:

"So who didn't sign the BBC staffers' petition for Greg Dyke? Refuseniks included Margaret Hodge's daughter Lizzie Watson, producer for the BBC's political editor Andrew Marr - making for divided loyalties over Hutton.

Now Deputy Editor, BBC News at 6 and 10.

Is it relevant that the most anti-Corbyn news on the BBC is done by the daughter of the most anti-Corbyn MP in the UK?

86.137.43.26 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relatives killed in the Shoah.

    ←   ZScarpia   12:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Using Skwawkbox as a source for a BLP

Should Skwawkbox & Vox Political be used as a source for a BLP? Given that the accusation of antisemitism hasn't been covered by other sources, I think we should wait until other (better) sources appear before adding this to the article. Bellowhead678 (talk) (note for other editors that I have recently changed my username from AbsolutelyPureMilk) 14:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly also given the person behind these allegations. But yes - Skwawkbox - a blog - is entirely unacceptable for a BLP. Icewhiz (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add the paragraph on either occasion. Trying to solve this, I have sourced Hodge's actions and comments from the JN and JC, which I know you are happy with. That leaves the complaint, which is only available from Skwawkbox. As to Skawkbox's reliability, it is regulated by Impress and approved by Newsguard, so that does indicate a certain reliability. It is an online blog but some of these online news sources are now more professional than typical 'one man' blogs, as its regulation and accreditation indicate. Things are changing. The site is not prohibited on the perennial list:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Even were Skwawkbox is not always reliable, and no publication is, in this instance it provides images of the complaint correspondence. For it to be false would require either Stern to produce a complaint and share it with Skwawkbox but not submit it to the party, or for Skwawkbox to falsify the correspondence without reference to Stern. Neither of these seem at all likely as there is little motive for either action and some PR downside. I have added an in text attribution as Wikipedia recommends where there is any doubt. I hope that this is sufficient on this occasion, given the nature of the assertion i.e. not Hodge's actions or comments, which are reported elsewhere, but the fact of a complaint being made by a third party. I think that makes some difference as to BLP. Jontel (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Neither Newsguard nor Impress are indications of reliability. Not being on the perennial list is merely an indication it is too obscure to be discussed often. This is an entirely unacceptable blog source - and if it is the only source for Stern - then Stern is UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, remember that for a WP:BLP, a higher standard applies than for other articles - tabloid sources are not allowed. See WP:BLPSOURCES for more information. Bellowhead678 (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm still not quite sure how to judge which sources are acceptable and which are not, when they are not on the list. On this occasion, I've removed the reference to the complaint sourced to Skwawkbox. It will very likely disappear without trace; if not, it will be more widely covered. Thanks, Jontel (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think it's better to err on the side of caution in these cases. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bellowhead678 Icewhiz Yes, I see. there is now a second and third source stating that a complaint has been submitted: Morning Star [2] and Middle East Monitor [3]. Would that be sufficient for the complaint to be mentioned? Thanks, Jontel (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Memo is not a reliable source. Morning Star is marginal. Considering our subject is covered quite extensively by mainstream media - this would be UNDUE - and would require use to discuss Shraga Stern's background in these matters at length. Icewhiz (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Morning Star is a reliable source as per this RfC. RevertBob (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, since Morning Star is a reliable source, why does the inclusion of the complaint still keep getting reverted? Is there more going on here? Skwawkbox is also registered to the UK's only Leveson-compliant regulator and Dame Hodge would be entitled to make a complaint if she wished to dispute the accuracy of the article. Since it shows copies of the documents involved, that seems unlikely. I note above JC and JN are considered reliable, although hyper-partisan and only regulated by 'sham' IPSO.82.153.161.118 (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hodge's actions are reported by JC and/ or JN, so it is only the complaint for which a source is sought. Labour and Hodge won't discuss it, and Stern has no leverage over the MSM. so it is not surprising that there is no other coverage. We do not have to discuss Stern's background as we do not have to judge the complaint, only report it. I think it is due as Hodge has a track record of making both allegedly intemperate accusations and surreptitious recordings of colleagues which she then releases to the media. Can you imagine if a cabinet minister did that to Boris? Jontel (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think the Morning Star is a good enough reference to source contentious content on a WP:BLP, but I have included the fuller context while we discuss. Bellowhead678 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If "Stern has no leverage over the MSM" - it is UNDUE. One should note that the actual controversy here wasn't the complaint by Stern - but Corbyn meeting with Stern who RSes treat as quite controversial regarding his views on LGBT and other issues. Icewhiz (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the place of Wikipedia to police what it thinks 'the actual controversy' is? The complaint is real and well-sourced and should not be removed.
User Icewhiz's comment at the top of this discussion "Particularly also given the person behind these allegations." suggests a serious conflict of interest/vested interest in this topic that makes for poor reliability as an editor. His/her goalposts seem to shift each time an objection is overcome. Is there a mechanism for overturning/preventing bad edits?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Margaret_Hodge&oldid=909465003"