Champion – another inquiry!

As if we haven’t had enough inquiries, none properly concluded due to time constraints, will this be another?

The other way of looking at this is, for the more cynically minded, that Sarah Champion wants to climb the greasy pole?

Readers may like to read the .pdf of the Terms of Reference for themselves, download using the link below

SCCSE 2013-12-12

8 thoughts on “Champion – another inquiry!

  1. OK, we keep an open mind….but I will have more respect when the Barnardo’s inquiry is released to the public un-redacted & we have chance to assess it.

    My other issue with her is how come she manges to be so strong on misogyny in the House, and yet tolerates rank misogyny verging on woman hatred within her constituency party? The only logical explanation is that the first garners lots of support from Labour Public School glitterati of Islington, while actually saying something about the local thicko’s means upsetting Akhtar,



      • Wil & Upstart may be on to something here?
        Jahangir Akhtars opinion of her has changed, I am informed he now detests her, and is exploring every avenue to get rid of her! My, how times change?


  2. The reality is she doesn’t comment upon the misogyny within Rotherham Labour Party, so I don’t see any pheasants emerging.

    I can’t decide whether she is naive, not very bright or brighter & more cynical than we think; that is prepared to take advantage of the biraderi networks & old Labour vote machine.
    At the moment her description of mysoginist is limited to their being:

    1. Tory
    2. white
    3. Users of hand gestures to demean female mammary and sexual organs.

    She appears oblivious to the misogyny that occurs at almost every meeting of the LP, misogyny that is implicit in the behaviour of her supporters.
    So question for Ms Champion.

    “Where do you stand on the selection of a male trade unionist as the LP 2014 Council candidate for Wath, when the LP rule book and guidance states that the short list for candidates should have been women only?”

    “Where do you stand on the fact as DLP Secretary Darren Hughes, who has a responsibility for ensuring that selection complies with the rules , must have known that the Wath selection process was outside of party rules on women only short lists?”

    Why must he know? Because he had misruled once before on precisely the same matter and had to be corrected by Regional LP. In Wath he repeated the same incorrect guidance that by then he knew was wrong. There is evidence, but nobody in the LP, including Ms Champions want to look.

    Actually I can guess what Ms Champions response will be…”not my problem,” but come 2015 it will be.


    • Odd that William’s comment moved, but as I said earlier, the last time I looked, Wath was in John Healey’s constituency. Isn’t there an unwritten parliamentary rule that MPs don’t get involved in matters in other constituencies?


Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.