TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
I don't know if any of you have been keeping up with the travails of Simon Hughes. No, not the rugby correspondant for Sky Sports (I can hear the "Who?" from here), but the candidate for the vacant leadership of the Liberal Democrats party.
The Lib Dems are screwed at the moment. They weren't that popular to start off with - definitely the third party. Then their leader had to resign over his alcoholism becoming public fact. Four people stood up for the leadership. One of them was the guy who pushed the previous leader off the plank, whilst sticking knives in his back. Another is as dull as a table lamp. No hint of scandal, nor of a personality. The third has just pulled out after playing heavily on his "family man" image and nicely setting himself up for a tabloid to reveal that he's a regular visitor to a catomite.
That leave Simon Hughes, the knight in shining armour. Who, for some reason, was asked if he was gay. He said no. A few days later, he was asked again if he had had any gay experiences. He, again, said no. Then the Sun pointed out that they had evidence of him phoning a gay sex chat line (he's single, and thus not cheating on anyone).
His public statement read that "I have had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships" and that "I apologise if I have given a misleading answer."
Now, whether he's gay, bi or whatever doesn't matter a jot to me. He's single, he can shag whoever he likes. However, when asked whether he has had any gay experiences, the answer of "No" appears to have little latitude for equivocation. "No" can't really be described as misleading, even by the most optimistic spin.
Any thoughts?
The Earl
The Lib Dems are screwed at the moment. They weren't that popular to start off with - definitely the third party. Then their leader had to resign over his alcoholism becoming public fact. Four people stood up for the leadership. One of them was the guy who pushed the previous leader off the plank, whilst sticking knives in his back. Another is as dull as a table lamp. No hint of scandal, nor of a personality. The third has just pulled out after playing heavily on his "family man" image and nicely setting himself up for a tabloid to reveal that he's a regular visitor to a catomite.
That leave Simon Hughes, the knight in shining armour. Who, for some reason, was asked if he was gay. He said no. A few days later, he was asked again if he had had any gay experiences. He, again, said no. Then the Sun pointed out that they had evidence of him phoning a gay sex chat line (he's single, and thus not cheating on anyone).
His public statement read that "I have had both homosexual and heterosexual relationships" and that "I apologise if I have given a misleading answer."
Now, whether he's gay, bi or whatever doesn't matter a jot to me. He's single, he can shag whoever he likes. However, when asked whether he has had any gay experiences, the answer of "No" appears to have little latitude for equivocation. "No" can't really be described as misleading, even by the most optimistic spin.
Any thoughts?
The Earl
