|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Margaret Hodge article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
What are this person's grounds for remaining in the UK? Surely she is an undesirable alien.
220.127.116.11 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
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. --18.104.22.168 08:56, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
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)
Removed uncited information
I have removed the following text,
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.
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)
- 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))
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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
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)
- Reading the article, I found that it is Henry Hodge. Any help?--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
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? 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
Stephen Pollard comments
- 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."
- "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)
- 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  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)
- 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)