Get over yourself. Hughes is a lying liberal scumbag, yes. But you are just another one of those homophobic Tories who think Britain is run by "the queers".
That is your real argument. Of course gay men lie about their sexuality. They do it because of people like you and the way that the government you supported attacked them for their "pretended family relationships".
January 26, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous
said...
What's wrong with the word bisexual? Isn't it defined as having both homosexual and heterosexual relationships? And yet Hughes is now 'gay'. Odd.
January 26, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Anonymous
said...
If he'd talked about this 2 weeks ago then fine - would all have blown over. Instead, he was less than truthful and it all gets blown up.
Hughes has displayed a remarkable degree of stupidity. If you wants to stand for higher public office then expect this level of scrutiny. He clearly has struck a deal with Kavanagh at The Sun because someone had something else. This "Man Talk" bit on Sky News website - suppose we just wait for the weekend and the NoTW or the Mirror will up the ante.
January 26, 2006 at 10:33 AM
Anonymous
said...
Another gay facist emerges from the bushes! Rumbled HaHa, time to resign how may times did he call foul when another MP was caught in a sleeze story. Resign, you lying scum bag.
January 26, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Anonymous
said...
The only sleaze is the lie.
January 26, 2006 at 10:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
Does this "Of course gay men lie" defence establish a new precedent?
I bet that Guido thinks that gays should be treated no differently from anyone else. I bet that Guido has no problem with the country being run by "the queers" - though that expression is the product of someone else's paranoia, not his. But Guido and the rest of us have a problem with the country being run by a liar and a hypocrite.
January 26, 2006 at 10:58 AM
Anonymous
said...
Its not often I agree with Guido but the issue here how Simon Hughes ( now admitted ) used a homophobic campaign to launch his political career. Given his own ( again admiited ) sexuality this is just breathtaking hypocrisy and demonstrates his unsuitability for any sort of public office. Seeing as being an openly gay politician is old hat Hughes could have made these statements along time ago. To do so now after only denying it a week ago reeks of moral cowardice.
January 26, 2006 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous
said...
As a paid up Lib Dem myself I am cross that Simon went in to the leadership campaign still keeping his private life private - didn't he know that the Murdoch press would get him? After all, it seems that it is quite permissable for journalists to illegally obtain (steal?) phone records that prove that a man engages in legal behaviour in private.
I do think that it would have been in Simon and the party's own best interests for him to have come out a decade ago.
Regarding the by-election campaign, I am tired of seeing the "straight choice" line being used to condemn Simon. I have seen the same line used in hundreds of other campaigns. Does this mean that they are all homophobic? Is the word now completely off limits? I was not there at the by-election, so I do not know if your other assertions of foul play are true.
I do know that at by-elections I have helped at, I have seen dirty tricks played by all the parties. I have even been thrown to the ground by a "spontaneous" mob of protestors who were trying to spoil a Lib Dem candidate's walkabout. I don't think it's any co-incidence that over half a dozen of the mob were known to either work for Labour MPs or to be active in Labour student politics. I even recognised one chap from my own university days!
January 26, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Anonymous
said...
been thrown to the ground
You might have been in a shoving match (they were all started by Lib Dems who objected to Labour people exercising their right to peacefully protest and heckle. But I never saw anyone thrown to the ground.
Cre to elaborate?
January 26, 2006 at 11:39 AM
Anonymous
said...
It's all very well saying that the 'straight choice' tag has been used in many campaigns; but how many of those campaigns were against openly gay men?
January 26, 2006 at 11:43 AM
Anonymous
said...
"As a paid up Lib Dem myself I am cross that Simon went in to the leadership campaign still keeping his private life private - didn't he know that the Murdoch press would get him"
Why? Hughes stood in the last leadership election and managed to keep his private life private. He had no way of knowing that Mark Oaten would get caught out and set off a Lib Dem witch-hunt.
"But Guido and the rest of us have a problem with the country being run by a liar and a hypocrite."
When you find a politician who isn’t both of those let us know would you? Might be worth voting for.
January 26, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
And it is that common cynicism that undermines the chances of those good MPs (of which there are many) from being taken seriously.
January 26, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Anonymous
said...
Surely someone who wants to lead a party and perhaps the country has to have personal strength (integrity, honesty and respect for others would be nice, but hey, they're politicians). This strikes me as the behaviour of a person who is weak and scared - yes, I know why gay men stay in the closet, even now - to attack and then 'regret lies' only when exposure is imminent.
How on earth would he cope with the intense personal scrutiny that would follow his election?
I tend to agree that Hughes's lies cannot be easily overlooked. At least Kennedy was in the grip of an addiction which makes it very hard for sufferers to admit they are helplessly in its grip. But being gay is not in this category- Hughes could have admitted his sexuality openly as many politicians have subsequent to his shameful 1983 campaign. He quite possibly has ruined his career and badly harmed his party.
January 26, 2006 at 1:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
"When you find a politician who isn’t both of those let us know would you? Might be worth voting for."
Aha. A switch to the "Everyone does it" gambit. And where do your draw the line with that? All politicians can lie blatantly all the time and do things they would chide others for, and they should not suffer any consequences whatsoever because everyone else is doing it. I like it - sign me up. Ridiculous.
If, as is rumoured, Nick Soames didn't really buy that Dido album, the public should be told.
January 26, 2006 at 1:29 PM
Anonymous
said...
I think Hughes being defined as 'gay' is rather like the (clearly mixed-race) Colin Powell being 'black'. Someone who doesn't fit into our 'standard model' is automatically labelled according to that part of them which is supposedly inferior.
January 26, 2006 at 1:44 PM
Anonymous
said...
Peter Tatchell was pummelled? Good.
Serves the nasty little snake right. He should have repaetedly and publicly denied his sexuality during the campaign then, should he?
Look on it as payback for all the people the snivelling self-apointed hypocrite has terrosriesded over the years bu outing or threatening to out them.
January 26, 2006 at 2:19 PM
Anonymous
said...
"If, as is rumoured, Nick Soames didn't really buy that Dido album, the public should be told."
I can't imagine Soames spending his income on frivolous things like music when there's food to be bought and consumed
January 26, 2006 at 3:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
candidates often have little control over leaflet content, especially at by-elections... hughes may have not been happy with it at the time
January 26, 2006 at 3:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
Ahhh there's nothing I like more than a nasty little spat between various shades of lefties all trying not to let their true non politically correct views shine through. Handbags at dawn now is it??
January 26, 2006 at 4:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
Just because Hughes has had homosexual relationships in the past doesn't necessarily mean he's gay. There is of course sexual experimentation (a few tories could tell you about that sort of thing) and of course he could be bisexual. Either way does it really matter?
January 26, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
Do you all give a toss about this?
January 26, 2006 at 4:34 PM
Anonymous
said...
There must be millions of men who have had homosexual experiences in the (distant?) past who don't regard themselves as 'gay'. So the honest answer to the question 'are you gay' is 'no' and the honest answer to the question 'have you ever had a homosexual relationship?' is 'yes'. But in practical politics the correct answer to both questions is 'fuck off'.
January 26, 2006 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
look - its pretty clear that the real anti-gay stuff in 1983 came from the independent labour candidate. I was there and saw the stuff for myself. If you look on political betting.com you'll find the link to the archived literature from the campaign. Hughes was a fool to lie about his sexuality last week. He would be a weak leader for the LibDems but his sins in 1983 are far far over exaggerated.
Labour activists exercising "their right to peacefully protest and heckle"? I've seen a senior Labour councillor snatch a placard from a 5 year old child on her father's shoulders and throw it at a Lib Dem candidate, causing a facial injury, and leading to him being spoken to by police.
January 26, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
Never mind all the Tatchell crap, the best bit about that by-election was the guy whose party was 'Systems Designer'. Poor Esmond Bevan filled his form in all muddled.
29 comments:
Get over yourself. Hughes is a lying liberal scumbag, yes. But you are just another one of those homophobic Tories who think Britain is run by "the queers".
That is your real argument. Of course gay men lie about their sexuality. They do it because of people like you and the way that the government you supported attacked them for their "pretended family relationships".
What's wrong with the word bisexual? Isn't it defined as having both homosexual and heterosexual relationships? And yet Hughes is now 'gay'. Odd.
If he'd talked about this 2 weeks ago then fine - would all have blown over. Instead, he was less than truthful and it all gets blown up.
Hughes has displayed a remarkable degree of stupidity. If you wants to stand for higher public office then expect this level of scrutiny. He clearly has struck a deal with Kavanagh at The Sun because someone had something else. This "Man Talk" bit on Sky News website - suppose we just wait for the weekend and the NoTW or the Mirror will up the ante.
Another gay facist emerges from the bushes! Rumbled HaHa, time to resign how may times did he call foul when another MP was caught in a sleeze story. Resign, you lying scum bag.
The only sleaze is the lie.
Does this "Of course gay men lie" defence establish a new precedent?
I bet that Guido thinks that gays should be treated no differently from anyone else. I bet that Guido has no problem with the country being run by "the queers" - though that expression is the product of someone else's paranoia, not his. But Guido and the rest of us have a problem with the country being run by a liar and a hypocrite.
Its not often I agree with Guido but the issue here how Simon Hughes ( now admitted ) used a homophobic campaign to launch his political career. Given his own ( again admiited ) sexuality this is just breathtaking hypocrisy and demonstrates his unsuitability for any sort of public office. Seeing as being an openly gay politician is old hat Hughes could have made these statements along time ago. To do so now after only denying it a week ago reeks of moral cowardice.
As a paid up Lib Dem myself I am cross that Simon went in to the leadership campaign still keeping his private life private - didn't he know that the Murdoch press would get him? After all, it seems that it is quite permissable for journalists to illegally obtain (steal?) phone records that prove that a man engages in legal behaviour in private.
I do think that it would have been in Simon and the party's own best interests for him to have come out a decade ago.
Regarding the by-election campaign, I am tired of seeing the "straight choice" line being used to condemn Simon. I have seen the same line used in hundreds of other campaigns. Does this mean that they are all homophobic? Is the word now completely off limits? I was not there at the by-election, so I do not know if your other assertions of foul play are true.
I do know that at by-elections I have helped at, I have seen dirty tricks played by all the parties. I have even been thrown to the ground by a "spontaneous" mob of protestors who were trying to spoil a Lib Dem candidate's walkabout. I don't think it's any co-incidence that over half a dozen of the mob were known to either work for Labour MPs or to be active in Labour student politics. I even recognised one chap from my own university days!
been thrown to the ground
You might have been in a shoving match (they were all started by Lib Dems who objected to Labour people exercising their right to peacefully protest and heckle. But I never saw anyone thrown to the ground.
Cre to elaborate?
It's all very well saying that the 'straight choice' tag has been used in many campaigns; but how many of those campaigns were against openly gay men?
"As a paid up Lib Dem myself I am cross that Simon went in to the leadership campaign still keeping his private life private - didn't he know that the Murdoch press would get him"
Why? Hughes stood in the last leadership election and managed to keep his private life private. He had no way of knowing that Mark Oaten would get caught out and set off a Lib Dem witch-hunt.
thrown to the ground...
Hodge Hill 2004 lives on...
"But Guido and the rest of us have a problem with the country being run by a liar and a hypocrite."
When you find a politician who isn’t both of those let us know would you? Might be worth voting for.
And it is that common cynicism that undermines the chances of those good MPs (of which there are many) from being taken seriously.
Surely someone who wants to lead a party and perhaps the country has to have personal strength (integrity, honesty and respect for others would be nice, but hey, they're politicians). This strikes me as the behaviour of a person who is weak and scared - yes, I know why gay men stay in the closet, even now - to attack and then 'regret lies' only when exposure is imminent.
How on earth would he cope with the intense personal scrutiny that would follow his election?
I tend to agree that Hughes's lies cannot be easily overlooked. At least Kennedy was in the grip of an addiction which makes it very hard for sufferers to admit they are helplessly in its grip. But being gay is not in this category- Hughes could have admitted his sexuality openly as many politicians have subsequent to his shameful 1983 campaign. He quite possibly has ruined his career and badly harmed his party.
"When you find a politician who isn’t both of those let us know would you? Might be worth voting for."
Aha. A switch to the "Everyone does it" gambit. And where do your draw the line with that? All politicians can lie blatantly all the time and do things they would chide others for, and they should not suffer any consequences whatsoever because everyone else is doing it. I like it - sign me up. Ridiculous.
If, as is rumoured, Nick Soames didn't really buy that Dido album, the public should be told.
I think Hughes being defined as 'gay' is rather like the (clearly mixed-race) Colin Powell being 'black'. Someone who doesn't fit into our 'standard model' is automatically labelled according to that part of them which is supposedly inferior.
Peter Tatchell was pummelled? Good.
Serves the nasty little snake right. He should have repaetedly and publicly denied his sexuality during the campaign then, should he?
Look on it as payback for all the people the snivelling self-apointed hypocrite has terrosriesded over the years bu outing or threatening to out them.
"If, as is rumoured, Nick Soames didn't really buy that Dido album, the public should be told."
I can't imagine Soames spending his income on frivolous things like music when there's food to be bought and consumed
candidates often have little control over leaflet content, especially at by-elections... hughes may have not been happy with it at the time
Ahhh there's nothing I like more than a nasty little spat between various shades of lefties all trying not to let their true non politically correct views shine through. Handbags at dawn now is it??
Just because Hughes has had homosexual relationships in the past doesn't necessarily mean he's gay. There is of course sexual experimentation (a few tories could tell you about that sort of thing) and of course he could be bisexual. Either way does it really matter?
Do you all give a toss about this?
There must be millions of men who have had homosexual experiences in the (distant?) past who don't regard themselves as 'gay'. So the honest answer to the question 'are you gay' is 'no' and the honest answer to the question 'have you ever had a homosexual relationship?' is 'yes'. But in practical politics the correct answer to both questions is 'fuck off'.
look - its pretty clear that the real anti-gay stuff in 1983 came from the independent labour candidate. I was there and saw the stuff for myself. If you look on political betting.com you'll find the link to the archived literature from the campaign. Hughes was a fool to lie about his sexuality last week. He would be a weak leader for the LibDems but his sins in 1983 are far far over exaggerated.
Labour activists exercising "their right to peacefully protest and heckle"? I've seen a senior Labour councillor snatch a placard from a 5 year old child on her father's shoulders and throw it at a Lib Dem candidate, causing a facial injury, and leading to him being spoken to by police.
Never mind all the Tatchell crap, the best bit about that by-election was the guy whose party was 'Systems Designer'. Poor Esmond Bevan filled his form in all muddled.