I can't tell how many of the claims in that linked article are justified - much of Rosie Duffield's crime seems to have been not to slavishly agree with Corbyn when the CLP were outspoken Corbyn fans. And that she was chosen for that seat without the CLP having a say.
Just a few things that I do have an opinion on - the bit about Rosie Duffield's terrible time keeping was taken out of context from an interview where she talks about living with dyscalculia, a learning difficulty. To twist her frank account of her issues into a weapon against her is low.
My brother has dyscalculia and it really is a bugger to live with, just as RD describes. (But there are worse things of course.)
She is also criticised for not answering emails immediately and stating a back log of 18,000 emails by September. I emailed my MP after the 2017 GE, too, and received an auto reply from the House of Commons advising me that it would take considerable time for a new MP to catch up. Mine never did on my issue but to be fair by September it was no longer relevant. Hiring staff is not something a new MP can do prior to winning the election, it actually takes some time to put the team in place and yes, emails will back up in that time. I cannot judge whether 18,000 is unusual but let's say that's 90 days and about 200 a day. Most emails will require more than a two minute reply, many a substantial amount of time to deal with. (I contacted my MP on an issue once resulting in a letter sent to the HoC for information etc, easily more than an hour's work for a single, simple query.) So I think the author is aiming to shock with a huge number to imply RD isn't doing her job.
Hilariously much is made of her children attending a grammar school when Corbyn's offspring did too. But I guess the wife got the blame for that...
Anyway, I also don't agree with the grammar school system but if I got the chance to offer my kids that quality of education, I would take it. Hypocritical? Yes. But I don't believe I have the right to stand in the way of my children having a better future because of my personal beliefs.
There is also an insinuation that Rosie Duffield's claim of having been a single mum on tax credits was false. She made that claim in 2017 without specifying a time frame, the author of that hit piece disputes this by pointing out that in 2007 she was still living with the father of her children. From whom she undoubtedly did separate and after which she was indeed a working single mother. Although RD never claimed to be working class, the hit piece takes great pleasure in undermining her "working class credentials", particularly damaging apparently the fact that RD's ex-partners were teachers working at private schools.
The worst part of that piece is the passage where the author insinuates that RD's speech about experiencing domestic violence wasn't justified because a) she robbed her ex-partner of a right of reply due to having parliamentary privilege and b) she was an "able abuser" herself. Because she was a bit rude on social media.
That's the bit where you know the author is engaged in a smear campaign against RD. Parliamentary privilege does not prevent someone to disagree with what you said about them, and it doesn't prevent someone to go to the police either about being abused either. It prevents you from suing a politician for defamation for what they said about you in parliament but you do not lose your right to reply.
And to insinuate that what RD said about being abused isn't true because she was rude on social media is just vile.
There's probably loads more in that very very long piece that you'd need local knowledge to address, but these are the points that jumped out for me.
Of course that piece which got no traction the last two months is now going to be pushed mercilessly. Because RD knows only women have a cervix.