May be he'd say that brave little bloggers, instead of hiding behind their anonymity, should try knocking on doors next time and saying it to the wife's and children's faces instead of getting drunk and saying rude words into tape recorders.
January 23, 2006 at 8:33 AM
Anonymous
said...
It was tough liberalism at work!
January 23, 2006 at 8:43 AM
Anonymous
said...
Keep up the good work, exposing the lies of our elected "representatives"
January 23, 2006 at 9:12 AM
Anonymous
said...
In that case, Oaten said that "It's a whitewash. The system is trying to cover up". If Oaten thought that using male prostitutes should disqualify someone from sitting as a judge, how on earth can he think that it's ok to do so and still be (as he called himself) the shadow home secretary, yet alone leader of his Party. Either this is a personal matter - in which case the judge should have been able to continue - or it is unacceptable behaviour in which case both the judge and Mark Oaten were right to go. It is hard to think of any word other than hypocrisy to describe the criticism of someone for action that you yourself are committing. That is why both Guido and the News of the World were right to run with this story.
Having said all that, I can honestly say that it has not changed my opinion of Mark Oaten at all.
January 23, 2006 at 9:55 AM
Anonymous
said...
I think justin is struggling with a similar problem to Mark Oaten.
Whilst he is clearly appalled at the tittle-tattle gossip available on this blog and makes repeated public comments about how awful it is, he can't help but come back again and again...
Oaten accused the high court of a cover up. While he was unsurprisingly not forthcoming with regard to his own indiscretion, as soon as it was exposed there was no attempt to dissemble.
I think Guido's understanding of the word "hypocrisy" is about as deep as Alanis' understanding of the word "ironic".
January 23, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
James
he proletised from on high about a position that was similar to his own - it does not matter if his attack was on the High Court as opposed to the judge, people will not remember that.
He also played the "Moral" card in the post-Kennedy assasination period - the reason why LO backed him, after all.
He is Home Office Spokesman, whilst engaging and paying for sexual services from a prostitue - his act of soliciting is the illegal part.
Finally he wanted to be leader of the Lib Dems. Now I don't think MPs should be whiter than white, but if you are going for the top job, you at least need to be clean during your period that you have occupied the green benches.
He failed on all accounts. He is a hypocrite, as were the Tory Cabinet Ministers and MPs who proletised on the "Family Values" aspect of Back to Basics, whilst creating third, fourth and fifth families.
I'm not disputing his failure as a politician, but then, I've been saying that for five years while Tory-boys have been going weak at the knees at his invocation of "tough liberalism". But having an opinion on something that you have personal experience of does not make you a hypocrite, period. His attack on Roger Davies was that he had been given special treatment for his indiscretion. I don't see him demanding special treatment for himself; he's fallen on his sword.
Still, it's good to see the Tories show their true colours over, what, six weeks? Nasty party indeed.
January 23, 2006 at 12:27 PM
Anonymous
said...
>> if I was that rent boy I'd shit myself.
Does he do scatalogical deviancy services too then?
January 23, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Anonymous
said...
James,
Surely the only special treatment that Roger Davies was given was that he was allowed to take early retirement and keep his pension.
You seem to be the one suggesting that this is a personal matter and should therefore not be made public - ie covered up.
That was not the approach that Mark Oaten took at the time of the Roger Davies case and I'm sure he would not expect others to take that approach now.
Mike, if you're going to post comments on the internet, you ought at least to take remedial English comprehension:
Oaten accused the high court of a cover up. While he was unsurprisingly not forthcoming with regard to his own indiscretion, as soon as it was exposed there was no attempt to dissemble.
James - That really isn't fair - if he says a person in a public position is wrong to do X and then as a person in a public position himself does X then he is clearly wrong or at the very least a hypocrite. I don't see any room for confusion in that....
January 23, 2006 at 1:56 PM
Anonymous
said...
James,
Rather than engaging in playground-style abuse, perhaps you could explain which you you think I misunderstood.
Perhaps if I respond to your comment one sentence at a time, you can stop me at the point that I have failed to comprehend what you were saying.
But having an opinion on something that you have personal experience of does not make you a hypocrite, period. No. Having an opinion on a matter of which you have personal experience does not make you a hypocrite. However, denouncing one organisation for not procedding with a public investigation into action by someone else would be hypocritical if you were trying to keep secret similar actions involving you.
His attack on Roger Davies was that he had been given special treatment for his indiscretion. His attack on Roger Davies was that there had not been a full-scale investigation into his behaviour. It would therefore be hypocritical if Mr Oaten suggested that people should not be allowed to look at his own behaviour.
I don't see him demanding special treatment for himself; he's fallen on his sword. No. He fell on his sword once his behaviour was publicised. That was the right thing to do and is exactly the same as Mr Davies falling on his own sword to avoid further investigation. In each case, the person involved acted to prevent causing further embarrassment to themselves and to their families.
In short, if it was right for Roger Davies to go then it was also right for Mark Oaten to go, unless you do think that judges should be held to a higher standards than politicians when it comes to matters concerning their private lives.
January 23, 2006 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous
said...
and, yes, the first paragraph of my previous comment should have read "Rather than engaging in playground-style abuse, perhaps you could explain which parts you think I misunderstood"
January 23, 2006 at 2:29 PM
Anonymous
said...
"How would you like to have two rent boys defecate all over you?"
I wouldn't but then I wouldn't like to vote LibDem either so I guess that just makes me a "balanced and normal" individual, whatever that may be.
Just goes to show that contrary to the only Tories are perverts line being taken by the Honourable Fiend et al all parties can manage to have sordid sexual scandals; Ron Brown, David Mellor, Mark Oaten etc etc
I've yet to meet anyone entirely free of hypocrisy - if that is what Mark Oaten is guilty of (and the evidence here is, at best, circumstantial).
And for that reason, I look forward to reading about the exposure and downfall of everyone who had rejoiced in Mr Oaten's troubles this weekend.
The moral of this weekend's story is that anyone who plans to get involved in public life should think twice. It isn't worthwhile, given the number of low-life commentators you have to swim with.
January 23, 2006 at 9:15 PM
Anonymous
said...
Paulie - Oaten has not denied the allegations and when confronted with the evidence went straight to tell his family about what he did.
Seems he knew the evidence was substantial enough even if you doubt it, surely.
I do know that the top echelons of the LibDems are spitting feathers about this though. Why stand for leadership when this is in your background. We all know what the press are like; if Oaten didn't realise this would come out, his judgement is deeply questionable. Or is that already obvious? :-)
January 25, 2006 at 9:32 AM
Anonymous
said...
Roger Davies wasn't forced out of his job .. he committed no crime by he left by mutual consent and was given a golden handshake.
Mark Oaten’s hypocrisy comes from the fact that at the exact same time, he was visiting his own regular male prostitute, but also declaring that Judge Roger Davies was unfit to do his job (because he sought the company of a male prostitute) and demanded that the Judge be the subject of a police investigation.
Interestingly, Oaten also said that the Judge had taken the coward’s way out by resigning .. so I guess that makes Oaten a coward as well as being hypocrite and unfit to do is job .. and a liar and a cheat.
God only knows why Simon Hughes would want to include such a pathetic specimen in his imaginary cabinet.
20 comments:
Is it illegal to consort with prostitutes now? Considering that prostitution itself isn't even illegal, that's a pretty major step...
May be he'd say that brave little bloggers, instead of hiding behind their anonymity, should try knocking on doors next time and saying it to the wife's and children's faces instead of getting drunk and saying rude words into tape recorders.
It was tough liberalism at work!
Keep up the good work, exposing the lies of our elected "representatives"
In that case, Oaten said that "It's a whitewash. The system is trying to cover up".
If Oaten thought that using male prostitutes should disqualify someone from sitting as a judge, how on earth can he think that it's ok to do so and still be (as he called himself) the shadow home secretary, yet alone leader of his Party.
Either this is a personal matter - in which case the judge should have been able to continue - or it is unacceptable behaviour in which case both the judge and Mark Oaten were right to go.
It is hard to think of any word other than hypocrisy to describe the criticism of someone for action that you yourself are committing. That is why both Guido and the News of the World were right to run with this story.
Having said all that, I can honestly say that it has not changed my opinion of Mark Oaten at all.
I think justin is struggling with a similar problem to Mark Oaten.
Whilst he is clearly appalled at the tittle-tattle gossip available on this blog and makes repeated public comments about how awful it is, he can't help but come back again and again...
And if we disbarred High Court judges just because they consort with male prostitutes, would we have any left? And does the same apply to MPs?
Let's have some common sense here.
Oaten accused the high court of a cover up. While he was unsurprisingly not forthcoming with regard to his own indiscretion, as soon as it was exposed there was no attempt to dissemble.
I think Guido's understanding of the word "hypocrisy" is about as deep as Alanis' understanding of the word "ironic".
James
he proletised from on high about a position that was similar to his own - it does not matter if his attack was on the High Court as opposed to the judge, people will not remember that.
He also played the "Moral" card in the post-Kennedy assasination period - the reason why LO backed him, after all.
He is Home Office Spokesman, whilst engaging and paying for sexual services from a prostitue - his act of soliciting is the illegal part.
Finally he wanted to be leader of the Lib Dems. Now I don't think MPs should be whiter than white, but if you are going for the top job, you at least need to be clean during your period that you have occupied the green benches.
He failed on all accounts. He is a hypocrite, as were the Tory Cabinet Ministers and MPs who proletised on the "Family Values" aspect of Back to Basics, whilst creating third, fourth and fifth families.
I'm not disputing his failure as a politician, but then, I've been saying that for five years while Tory-boys have been going weak at the knees at his invocation of "tough liberalism". But having an opinion on something that you have personal experience of does not make you a hypocrite, period. His attack on Roger Davies was that he had been given special treatment for his indiscretion. I don't see him demanding special treatment for himself; he's fallen on his sword.
Still, it's good to see the Tories show their true colours over, what, six weeks? Nasty party indeed.
>> if I was that rent boy I'd shit myself.
Does he do scatalogical deviancy services too then?
James,
Surely the only special treatment that Roger Davies was given was that he was allowed to take early retirement and keep his pension.
You seem to be the one suggesting that this is a personal matter and should therefore not be made public - ie covered up.
That was not the approach that Mark Oaten took at the time of the Roger Davies case and I'm sure he would not expect others to take that approach now.
Mike, if you're going to post comments on the internet, you ought at least to take remedial English comprehension:
Oaten accused the high court of a cover up. While he was unsurprisingly not forthcoming with regard to his own indiscretion, as soon as it was exposed there was no attempt to dissemble.
Back to Basics for you, I think.
James - That really isn't fair - if he says a person in a public position is wrong to do X and then as a person in a public position himself does X then he is clearly wrong or at the very least a hypocrite. I don't see any room for confusion in that....
James,
Rather than engaging in playground-style abuse, perhaps you could explain which you you think I misunderstood.
Perhaps if I respond to your comment one sentence at a time, you can stop me at the point that I have failed to comprehend what you were saying.
But having an opinion on something that you have personal experience of does not make you a hypocrite, period.
No. Having an opinion on a matter of which you have personal experience does not make you a hypocrite. However, denouncing one organisation for not procedding with a public investigation into action by someone else would be hypocritical if you were trying to keep secret similar actions involving you.
His attack on Roger Davies was that he had been given special treatment for his indiscretion.
His attack on Roger Davies was that there had not been a full-scale investigation into his behaviour. It would therefore be hypocritical if Mr Oaten suggested that people should not be allowed to look at his own behaviour.
I don't see him demanding special treatment for himself; he's fallen on his sword.
No. He fell on his sword once his behaviour was publicised. That was the right thing to do and is exactly the same as Mr Davies falling on his own sword to avoid further investigation. In each case, the person involved acted to prevent causing further embarrassment to themselves and to their families.
In short, if it was right for Roger Davies to go then it was also right for Mark Oaten to go, unless you do think that judges should be held to a higher standards than politicians when it comes to matters concerning their private lives.
and, yes, the first paragraph of my previous comment should have read "Rather than engaging in playground-style abuse, perhaps you could explain which parts you think I misunderstood"
"How would you like to have two rent boys defecate all over you?"
I wouldn't but then I wouldn't like to vote LibDem either so I guess that just makes me a "balanced and normal" individual, whatever that may be.
Just goes to show that contrary to the only Tories are perverts line being taken by the Honourable Fiend et al all parties can manage to have sordid sexual scandals; Ron Brown, David Mellor, Mark Oaten etc etc
I've yet to meet anyone entirely free of hypocrisy - if that is what Mark Oaten is guilty of (and the evidence here is, at best, circumstantial).
And for that reason, I look forward to reading about the exposure and downfall of everyone who had rejoiced in Mr Oaten's troubles this weekend.
The moral of this weekend's story is that anyone who plans to get involved in public life should think twice. It isn't worthwhile, given the number of low-life commentators you have to swim with.
Paulie - Oaten has not denied the allegations and when confronted with the evidence went straight to tell his family about what he did.
Seems he knew the evidence was substantial enough even if you doubt it, surely.
I do know that the top echelons of the LibDems are spitting feathers about this though. Why stand for leadership when this is in your background. We all know what the press are like; if Oaten didn't realise this would come out, his judgement is deeply questionable. Or is that already obvious? :-)
Roger Davies wasn't forced out of his job .. he committed no crime by he left by mutual consent and was given a golden handshake.
Mark Oaten’s hypocrisy comes from the fact that at the exact same time, he was visiting his own regular male prostitute, but also declaring that Judge Roger Davies was unfit to do his job (because he sought the company of a male prostitute) and demanded that the Judge be the subject of a police investigation.
Interestingly, Oaten also said that the Judge had taken the coward’s way out by resigning .. so I guess that makes Oaten a coward as well as being hypocrite and unfit to do is job .. and a liar and a cheat.
God only knows why Simon Hughes would want to include such a pathetic specimen in his imaginary cabinet.