Talk:Ann Widdecombe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias

Rather biased article imo.

--Newprogressive 02:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are you telling me, I didn't write it!! 67.101.79.194 01:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture, please?

'Nuff said. -- Jalabi99 03:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorganisation

I organized the article into sections. It's not perfect, but I think it's better than before. I didn't remove anything major. I did make some minor edits since it seemed like every sentence started with "She" when "Widdecombe" would work as well. Finally, I added some fact tags for things that sounded strange that I couldn't find a source for. Maximusveritas 04:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Retirement

Actually she did announce her retirement and there are sources for this, but I have heard her since on a tv interview during her criticisms of the A List subsequently saying that she was reconsidering because she didn't want to be replaced by someone she felt had only been put there because they were considered to be part of a minority group or because they were female - however so far I have been unable to find any mention of it on the internet and of course providing sources for things said on tv and radio is a problem if they have not then been reported in the press and if the actual interview is not accessible online, it might well have been an off the cuff remark that she was reconsidering.--Lord of the Isles 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The subject on the article

Link

She cites some minor inaccuracies but overall, well done! :) --Hn 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well done WP! -- Jalabi99 03:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Has the Independent recently started charging people for the dubious privilege of visiting their site? "Click here to buy this article for £1" - yeah, like I'm going to pay a whole pound to read one single web page. Idiots. 217.155.20.163 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

One of the drawbacks of entering British politics seems to be the need to endure interviews as intrusive, impertinent and churlish as that of Louis Theroux cited in the article as [19]. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Edit by Off2riorob

The material below was placed it on my talk page. I have removed it from there and put it here where it belongs. The source is reliable. If Off2riorob thinks the text is inappropriate he should edit it himself rather than delete. He will have the opportunity to explain why private communications do not include expenses claimed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I required to reply? I am unsure what is required here..... well ok... although I have been quite clear.....

I added the snippet as I thought it was a clear cut simple statement and I got it from another article and looked at it and Widdicombe name was there so I added it here... the information was then challenged on another page and removed.. I decided that when the simple statement was not true then it made the link of little or no value and I took it out as false...at that point my responsibility is over, I took it out... If you like it then put it back in , but it has nothing to do with me. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Hi, yes it is a reliable looking source, but the statement does not correspond to the source, the source is a actually saying something like these people voted to keep details of their private communications private.. I found the comment and the cite on another political page and copied it to Widecombe and then I was challenged and removed on the original page...so ..it is actually a false statement. so unless you want to add a correct statement then better to remove it..have a look on the how your mp votes site... regards (Off2riorob (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)) I have come here and commented and you have not even bothered to discuss it with me, why is that? I have told you the statement is a lie, and has been removed from other political bios, you said in the edit summary that you changed the wording and yet you changed nothing? The statement is a lie and please do not put it back unless you can verify the comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC))

References

Personal life and family

The virgin story is unconfirmed gossip and very personal info. I feel it adds nothing to the article and should be removed. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC))

Why not? This is after all a woman who has carved her political career out of poking her nose into other people's sex lives and makes a big play out of her "otherness". Contaldo80 (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaker

If Widdecombe is elected Speaker on Monday 22nd June 2009, should she be styled as Interim Speaker of the House of Commons as she has made it clear herself that she will only serve on an interim basis and not a full time re-elected Speakership. (Repmax 12:19 21 June 2009 (UTC))

No need to worry now in terms of the article. She never made it. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit skirmish

The recent additions appear to me to be a not-so subtle attempt to call Widdecombe a hypocrite for having conservative morals yet writing for a paper owned by a "pornographer". It is not clear that this is an important point to make. What's more, it is not clear that it is hypocritical. Without some justification and marked improvement, the text shouldn't be included. -Rrius (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Would be interested to hear arguments as to why it would not be hypocritical? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As no citation supporting the desired addition was or has been presented I don't see what there is to discuss, If there were notable people citable saying such like then it would be ok to attribute it as someones opinion and report that, but that is not what is being offered, the desired addition is that (one)we all know she is a christian moralist and (two) we all know she writes a column in the express and (three) we all know the owner of the express is also involved in sell pornography. The desired addition is uncited and simply connects these three seperate points and asserts it is hypocritical of her, all of which is totally against policy. Off2riorob (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept this argument, and agree there is a risk of synthesis if we allow. That said, many people won't make the link automatically on Desmond, but I guess we should leave readers to draw their own conclusions about whether she is or is not a hypocrite and avoid leading them. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion above. If one picked one's media outlets according to their ethical connections the only one left would probably be the home published Chicken Fanciers' Gazette. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

Image

What are other editor's view on a section re “image”, “public persona” etc. There currently seems to be very little about this in the article, apart from one of my recent addition, about the marked transformation that took place in Widdecombe’s image while she was still an MP, which was apparently supported by two editors but not by two others. The existing references to her appearance on Celebrity Fat Club are brief and somewhat sterile. Googling “Ann Widdecombe” + "blonde", for example, produces 10,500 hits. Such sources as these: [1], [2] and [3] seem to testify to the significance of this image change and indeed Widdecombe’s own recognition of this significance. I am not trying to emulate some kind of a glossy magazine here, but am just sugesting material that is relevant and a little less dull, and that treats Widdecombe’s public image in an encyclopedic way. Widdecome is no stranger to exposure in the media and I'd suggest her physical image is an important part of this. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinevans123 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 October 2010

I don't see that as notable, a little less dull? wikipedia is dull, notable things in notable persons life, not tabloid twaddle. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, maybe someone ought to trawl through and delete all those Daily Mail refs. Yes, maybe Ann was just trying to just grab those red-ops. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Tabloid partisan crap what it is, we have no remit to report it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best get trawling. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you are proposing. Perhaps you could write something up on the talk page for us to look at. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that the intentions expressed above were quite clear even to "someone of the meanest intelligence" (to quote another editor.) I certainly have no interest, as you can see, in discussing "Ms. Widdecombe's reputation", whatever that might be. I was proposing the addition of even a single mention of the marked change in Ms. Widdecombe's appearance during the time that she was an MP. I am personally interested in why this might have happpened and what it's effect (if any) might have been. But I am aware that this might be straying dangerously close to what might be considered WP:OR. I am also aware that any use of something as mundane as Google Search, as the basis for finding relevant material, or for guaging how "notable" that material was, might lay one open to accusations of being merely "adding fluff" to this article. "Image" and "fashion" seem to form the lingua franca of today's tabloids. So I feel I must demur to more experienced editors who seem to know more about the subject of this article and have made a serious contribution to its content. Let's hear it, folks, for dull and predictable wikipedia. Yay. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Shackles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2000/mar/18/fiction1 March 18, 2000

Ann Widdecombe, 52, has a reputation built on extremes. To some she is Doris Karloff, possibly the most unpopular woman in Britain after being wrongly associated with shackling women prisoners in labour or childbirth when she was prisons minister in 1996; to others she is a national heroine after singlehandedly terminating Michael Howard's political career in a sublime moment of oratorical brilliance.

_ Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This was the original article at The Independent 10 Jan 1996 which included this:

"But yesterday Anne Widdecombe, prisons minister, defended the shackling policy, which has caused a furore since prison inspectors walked out of Holloway prison in disgust at "over-zealous" security and appalling conditions. She said it was better for the women to attend hospital.

Ms Widdecombe told the Commons shackles were necessary to prevent prisoners from escaping. "Some MPs may like to think that a pregnant woman would not or could not escape. Unfortunately this is not true.

"The fact is that hospitals are not secure places in which to keep prisoners, and since 1990, 20 women have escaped from hospitals".

Ms Widdecombe said it was not policy to restrain women during labour and claimed that in Annette's case, once full labour had been established, she had not been shackled.

"The Prison Service has a duty of care to the mother, but this must be balanced against the needs of the service to keep all prisoners, including pregnant women prisoners, in secure custody," she said."

I don't recall The Independent making any retraction or apology over this. And here's the Hansard record of exaclty what was said in the House: [4]. So maybe we ought to report the facts? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah , thanks for finding the exact article, I looked and couldn't find it. Its not a retraction situation, likely the press reported it and blamed her, when the issue was not actually anything to do with her, a partisan attack. She was at the time prisons minister and the law was there when she arrived. Personally It is nothing to do with her and it is nothing in her life apart from a slur. It is a ministers job to defend whatever is put in front of her, unless they want sacked. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not wish to comment on Ms. Widdecombe's sincerity while a Government Minister, but I'd agree it is generally the Minister's job to defend Government policy when told to do so. There was clearly a misunderanding here over pregnancy and labour, but it is quite clearly spelled out by Hansard. In fact, Hansard is the only primary source, rather than any secondary press report, apart from for any additional comments Widdecombe may have made after the event. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no interest in the primary source and have not read it. It is of no assistance here.Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to read it if you want to know exactly what was said, and not just what was later reported (or mis-reported), and why this topic even features in this article. But that's your choice. Maybe the article reader also ought to have that choice? Ah, the awesome power of the popular press. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I know why this content is being inserted, its an attack content, a slur, a partisan slur, it has not value at all, at least not historic or encyclopedic or educationally, which is what the wikipedia is prime mission. I see such additions as this one (yours) as detrimental to the project and its goals. As for reading the primary, that might influence my reporting of what was reported. Off2riorob (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Who's doing the "inserting" here? Wasn't this item here long before I arrived? Who's made it wtice as big by adding a quote? Why is it "a slur"? - it's a set of facts. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor Martinevans123 needs to keep under control his seeming obsession with adding attack material to this article. WP:Undue Weight is one policy of relevance. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC).

and editor Xxanthippe needs to explain how editing an item which was aleady present in the article, so that it more carefully reflects the facts constitues either "an obsession" or "attack material". Now please. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I get the feeling he doesn't like her. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What do my feelings have to do with the facts. And where is your evidence that "he doesn't like her"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I told you this before but if you add content whether it was there before is irrelevant, it is you then that added it and as such are responsible for it. Your additions of negative content like this, you don't like her do you? Its like you inserted this worthless slur partisan attack after I as a neutral removed it, you think it is really valuable in her life story and you warred with me to add it to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why have you enlarged this item, by adding a quote, and then accused me of making a slur? I have the greatest respect for Ms Widdecombe but my personal feelings are irrelevant. I am just concerned that she is reported accurately, which was why I reinstated what you removed (because, apparently, so you told me, you could not find the original article on which the item was based). I found two original sources and corrected the text accordingly to reflect the facts. Why exactly is this "partisan"? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And what's this talk of me "warring with you". You seem to be making mischief over nothing, simply for the sake of it. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to expand it to make it less attacking by explaining it. Also, not only did you add it you warred to keep it in the article, because you like the content so much. I removed it as it was contentious and had no real link to verify, and I put a cite on the talkpage that said it was a false claim Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That link was perfectly real, just not accurate enough to be a web link. Now it is. 00:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You were not "forced" to do anything. If you think it's a slur you should take it out. But it's not, it's a set of facts, whether I like them or not. Facts that were significant enough at the time, in Widdecombe's career, to be the subject of a minor political scandal and "a public outcry" (which you thought no longer worthy of mention in the article). Please explain what was "the false claim" - and who made it? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And can you explain what's wrong with Hansard as a source, and why you refuse to read it in case it "influences [your] reporting of what was reported". That is gobbledegook. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to explain the content and gave it a rebuttal from Widdecombe, without a rebuttal it was a bit unexplained. You added the content, you don't seem to be understanding this .. I completely removed the content from the article..it was no longer in the article .. you came along and added it .. Yes? Public outcry, what nonsense, the public outcry whatever the press say they are outcrying. The false claim is in the citation provided right at the top of this thread. I don't think it notable at all, you do, that is the difference between us, I see it as attack type content that focuses on a issue that actually she had nothing to do with apart from she was minister and had to support it. What about all the other things she has done that don't get a mention, adding this is giving it an undue weight in her career. It was a partisan attack then and it is still a partisan attack now, but enjoy, I care less about it now, I have added a rebuttal and in the future I will likely remove it again perhaps when you have stopped editing wikipedia or someone else agrees, anyways, I feel like that and Xxanthippe seems to agree. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, no-one has been forced to do anything here. But once again, please explain what's wrong with Hansard as a source and why you refuse to read it? Where is the "partisan attack" in Hansard? It seems your feelings, and those of Xxanthippe, are justification enough for you both to remove material that you don't like. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hansard is a primary citation and I don't need to read it, I want reliable secondary reports that assert notability. In BLP articles we are requested to report fairly and neutrally about the major issues in peoples lives. This is not one of them, but enjoy as I said, twice, I have added a rebuttal, you think the content is an informative and educational notable part of this living subjects life. the content and so thats enough for now. Off2riorob (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems fair to me. Although I have some difficulty in reconciling the need for "notability" in the popular press, with your own perfectly reasonable view that "the public outcry whatever the press say they are outcrying." Where there is some dispute over what a politician actually said and supports, as happened in this case, I would have thought that a primaty source, such as Hansard, would be unique and invaluable. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Ann Widdecombe (transferred from my talk page)

Could you please explain why editing an item, which is already present in this article, and which has been there long before I started to contribute, so that it more carefully reflects the facts constitues either "an obsession" or "attack material"? If you really do agree with the editor who has, quite ironically, enlarged this item, that it's a slur please explain that also. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It was not there, you added it. I was forced to expand it to make it less attacking by explaining it. Also, not only did you add it you warred to keep it in the article, because you like the content so much. Off2riorob (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This - [5] was my first edit of that item, on October 11. How did I "add it" exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You were not "forced" to do anything. If you think it's a slur you should take it out. But it's not, it's a set of facts, whether I like them or not. Facts that were significant enough at the time, in Widdecombe's career, to be the subject of a minor political scandal and "a public outcry" (which you thought no longer worthy of mention in the article). Please stop telling that I make edits because I "like the content so much". That's offensive. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Editor Xxanthippe, I await your explanations. Martinevans123 (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123. You have already been warned by two editors that your edits to this article show an obsession with denigrating the subject and are thereby inappropriate and inconsistent with WP:BLP, WP:Undue weight and WP:NPOV. I suggest that your undoubted energy and skill could be employed more usefully on the many other articles in the English Wikipedia that are in need of improvement. If you persist in your behavior here you could find people calling for a topic ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC).

Xxanthippe, if you make disparaging comments about another editor, then I think you should defend those commnets on your talk page, if that is where the topic has been raised. But you have not really explained anything. You have previously had a problem with me adding a fully supported description of Widdecombe, from the popular press, as "Doris Karloff" - on both this Talk page and in the article itself. Yet you seem to have no qualms about another editor using that same description in a quote above. I have taken the advice of another editor on that matter and not re-added it, even though it is aruguably a notable description used by many people. You then join in with a third editor who seems to have had a problem with me finding better reference sources to support an actual exchange of views in the House of Commons and recorded in Hansard - a topic that has been here in the article long before I arrived. I do not see how these two sequences of events consistitute "an obsession with denigrating the subject". Yes, "the people" calling for a ban would be you and Off2riorob, wouldn't they? Before you talk of topic bans, would you care to remind what proportion of all my edits in this article could be considered in any way controversial, even by your own apparently slanted standards? If I did not feel even a modicum of respect and admiration for the subject of this article I would hardly want to spend time trying to improve the article about her. Ms Widdecombe herself has had no problem with these two topics - I think they should be reported accurately. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And please don't describe a perfectly fair question by me about an accusation made by you, that I have an obsession, as "a rant", so that you can justify removing it from your ralk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This just seems a bit childish to me, we are all adults here, aren't we? Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is being childish? I have simply re-instated material that I honestly judge should not have been deleted for the reasons given. Then I am accused of liking "attack material" about this person and warned that I could be banned from this page. If we are adults, surely there is no need for accusations of "obsession", nor of "childishness"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You are just not getting the simple things. When you got to the article I had removed it so it was not in the article ...You then added it. Any content you add is an addition even if it had been in the article before. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Now it sounds like I am stupid? Is there no distinction between adding something for the first time and re-adding something that has been there for a long time, presumably by consensus and which someone else has removed for the wrong reasons? When I "got to the article" on 2 October 2010, it was certainly already there. These are also simple things, aren't they? And what's wrong with Hansard, please? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It had been there since this edit by Contaldo80 on 2 Feb 2010. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no distinction at all, if you add something that is not replacing it, that is adding it yourself, when you do that you become the person responsible for the content. I am responsible for my edits, I removed the content twice and it was added by you and then I added a rebuttal. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely "adding" includes both adding brand new material and restoring old matetial, which may have been there for a long time? So there's no distinction between something being there for 10 months and something being there for 10 minutes? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No distinction no, we are individually responsibly (legally also) for content that we add. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly take full responsiblity (legal also) for what I have added. But I am not reassured that you intend to wait until I "have stopped editing wikipedia" before you simply delete it again. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Xxanthippe, could you please withdraw your very offensive accusation that some of my edits constitute "an obsession with adding attack material to this article". Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC). Transferred from talk page. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC).

re: "please see note at top of page" - this is not a comment about an article, it's a request about something that you have said about me. Could you please withdraw your very offensive accusation that some of my edits constitute "an obsession with adding attack material to this article"? It seems that you don't like to see anything that is "unecessarily offensive", or does that just apply to celebrities?. Thanks very much. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC). Transferred from talk page. Following WP:BLP material that is unnecessarily offensive is not suitable for a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC).

There seem to be (at least) three questions wrt use of the tabloid journalistic phrase “Doris Karloff”:

• 1. Does its inclusion in the article contravene WP:BLP, even though it’s a direct quote from The Daily Mail (and many other publications since)?
• 2. Is its use as a topic heading in this Talk Page the same as (1)?
• 3. Does my use at (2) justify your accusation that I have “an obsession with adding attack material”?

I’ve not done (1) and I have not reverted your deletion of (2), but I’d like to discuss these questions, as I still believe that the answer to both is “no”. But before we discuss those, I am politely asking you again, now for the third time, to please withdraw your comment about me here wrt (3), which is in, my opinion, both incorrect and rather offensive. I had thought that your talk page was the appropriate place for that, but you keep transferring my requests here. So could you please respond here? I have already made it quite clear that I have every respect for Ms. Widdecombe herself. After that perhaps we could discuss the use of press quotations, in both the article and the talk page? I think there are issues of wider concern to be clarified?. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Political views, hard to understand

"Proposed an amendment opposing repeal of Section which banned the promotion"? Why not just "proposed to continue the ban"?

Because it's a factual statement accurately reflecting the actual parliamentary procedure. 86.171.13.209 (talk) 15:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

New topic

Widdecombe's daunting personal appearance whilst an MP has prompted descriptions of her as "scary" and as "the Doris Karloff of politics". see: "He's just my first bit of fun", interview in The Times, by Margarette Driscoll, 26 September 2010.

Here's the original passage from the interview in The Times, from which I am quoting: "But the point of fairy tales is magic, and in this rewritten version it is Widdicombe, once known as the Doris Karloff of politics, who gets to go to the ball. Not only that, but on the arm of Prince Charming himself, Anto Du Beke."

These are Margarete Driscoll's words, not mine. And I'm sure that Driscoll, just like me, has no wish to be offensive to Ms. Widdecombe in any way, But I am still surprised to see no apparent mention of her radical image makeover which was truely transformational. Perhaps this belongs somewhere in the section on "personal life"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruno was more complimentary about Ann's Salsa: "I don’t know what was more bewildering – his chest rug or your footwork. It was unique and compelling – somewhere between horror and comedy, an out of body experience.” Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

According to British tabloid newspaper the Daily Mirror, she compared herself, on the This Morning television programme, to the cartoon elephant Dumbo: "Dumbo managed to fly so, even though I'm an elephant on the dance floor, I can still fly".[6]. Does this sound like a woman who is easily offended by name-calling? Or like someone well used to political banter and more than willing to make fun of herself in a sporting way? This article ought to get around sometime to mention of Widdecombe's general good humour. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

N.B. April 2012 - [7] "She talks about being known as Doris Karloff". It's quite obvious that she is not averse to self-deprecation and obviously has a healthy sense of humour. This aspect sadly lacking in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Wicked Queen

Re: "too trivial for here" - what does Ms Widdecombe do these days? Open village fetes, perhaps? Occasionally appear on TV game shows? I guess a major part of his public persona derives from her annual appearances in Christmas Panto. I can agree with this deletion, as the event has not yet happened, but I assume it will be restored if and when she takes to the stage in Brid? I don't see why we should have her 2011 and 2012 panto outings listed, but not this one. And, come to think of it, what was she doing in 2013, 2014 and 2015? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)