Sarah Champion

The problem I have with Thornberry and her views on schooling - she gave a speech against grammar schools, same week was asked in a tv interview about her choice of schooling for her children, she said " I want the best schooling for my children and for all children"

So she knows better than the parents who want their children to be educated in grammer schools.

At least Dianne Abbott gave the 'excuse' that she didn't want her son to join a gang

Yet another thread that has descended into the repetition of opinions as facts and assertions that 'we know' things we cannot possibly know. It's a shame we can't have some proper debate with well argued points from different perspectives.

For anyone with an interest in Jeremy Corbyn's second marriage and subsequent divorce, this is quite an interesting article from the time, long before he became party leader. It doesn't have anything to do with Sarah Champion but as the subject seems to have taken over this thread I thought it might be of some relevance.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/16/theobserver.uknews

Diane Abbott's son apparently chose to go to the Grammar School, so how could she refuse?!!!

That's an excellent article, nightowl, written when he wasn't expected to get where he is now.

Most interesting nightowl, he wanted to send his son to a school even thought the mother knew her child would be unhappy if he was forced to go there.

True niggly, and thornberry chose her children's school because she wanted the best for her children

When the MP for Bradford, Naz Shar made anti Semitic remarks earlier this year she was given a slap on the wrist and then welcomed back into the fold. But that was ok, it was anti Semitic and we all know where Corbyn stands on this issue.

Don't we all ab? difference is E.T. can afford it and shamelessly does so while shrugging at the rest of us!
Yes petra, I was pondering on the Naz Shar episode!! but as you say, we all know where J.C. stands on anti sematism, so there's the answer!!!!!

Semitism -sorry!

The post was actually made before she became MP. She resigned as PPS and was suspended, later re-instated. So hardly a 'slap on the wrist'.

Why does it matter whether she was an MP or not?!! Sarah Champion inadvertently said one word out of place, this woman was suggesting that Israel was moved to America! even showing a venue!!!! A well thought out comment, and you're right, hardly the same, infinitely worse.

She didn't say one word out of place. She didn't say the word at all, implying it was all Pakistanis.
Sarah Champion resigned because SHE did not want to be the story. Obviously some of you didn't get that bit.

Apologies and yes you're right, she inadvertently omitted one word. Luckily I'm able to correct myself, no harm done, but for this lady the guillotine fell, no apology or correction allowed for her! But for N.S there was! How curious is that?!!!

Naz Shah wasn't an MP. She retweeted someone else's tweet; she did not write it herself.
I am amazed you cannot see the difference. On second thoughts....

Sorry, but could you explain why it's acceptable to retweet an offensive tweet, knowing the offense it will cause, but that's fine because they weren't the originators of it? Isn't is just as bad to propel that tweet onwards, as it was to originate it? Or is there some kind of immunity if "he thought of it, I just repeated it"?

It was more than a retweet dj. Her Facebook posts were anti-Semitic. She wrote them herself.

I can see all kinds of differences. I like Naz Shah, she's not had an easy life, I admire her and I'm pleased she's in the Labour Party and an MP. Her re-tweeting was dreadful, whether she was an MP or not. She apologised, she resigned I'm happy to accept her apology because let's face it, we need women like Naz in politics. She was a younger, less experienced woman when she re-tweeted something I still find offensive.
I like Sarah Champion, I admire her and the stance she has taken in defending and supporting socially excluded, neglected and for years ignored young white girls who were the victims of horrific abuse. She omitted a key word. I'm amazed that comparisons between what Naz Shah did and what Sarah Champion omitted can be seriously suggested as one Good, one Bad.
Life isn't bliddy perfect, non of us are perfect. SC did brilliant work - can't that be accepted and admired without somehow her being blamed and criticised for having the temerity to try and reach outside the comfort zone by writing for the wicked Sun. Yes, I think it's a wicked paper but I can understand why SC hoped writing something may mean she reached an otherwise unreachable audience.

The anti-Labour lot are out in full force again I see.

Iam64 your posts are eminently sensible and not at all partisan.
I agree with all you have posted.

I agree with much of what you say Iam and I am glad to see that Corbyn say he will be working with her in the future "because she is totally committed to protecting vulnerable women in our society." Sarah Champion: Jeremy Corbyn reacts to resignation

Well, I think the Sun is a thoroughly disreputable newspaper which has consistently trivialised important matters, sensationalised trivial matters and regurgitated without question the lies of those in authority (as happened with Hillsborough).

If Sarah Champion wished to write a serious article regarding under-age grooming she would not have written it for the Sun whose performance regarding gender and race equality is pretty awful. Having offered her services to the Sun, she should have made absolutely sure that her words were not in any way changed in order that her views might be misrepresented.

I expect she did reach her audience and, in so doing, reinforced the view that all Asian men are paedophiles who hate women.

It is a paper I have refused to accept even when it was offered free in the newsagent's so I am quite surprised that she chose this to air her views - which imo needed to be aired.

Perhaps other newspapers were unwilling to accept her article? When Anne Cryer first found out about the abuse in Keighley she approached the Guardian with the story but they wouldn't touch it. So Andrew Norfolk wrote a piece for the Times & likewise they didn't want to publish - cultural sensitivities and all that - it was only a number of years later when a whistleblower from Rotherham approached Andrew Norfolk - and he realised that the problem was widespread - that he investigated & the Times finally published what was happening.
Petra mentioned Islington - and it made me wonder whether if all this abuse had happened in London there would have been more coverage and more empathy for the victims and their community. The plight of these children - hundreds, possibly thousands of them - has been forgotten in a petty little discussion about whether Sarah Champion forgot one word.