Entertainment For Lively Minds
Look, what possible business is it of anyone's...
...if William Hague were having a gay relationship? And I should say here, for the usual reasons as well as it being the actual truth, that I fully accept his assurances that he's not.
There are probably many, many reasons to have a pop at Hague - and any other politician, for that matter - but what he does with his other baldy head is entirely his own business, and that of his family and/or anyone he chooses to share Little William with. Or not. Because I completely accept his statement. That sounds sarcastic, but I honestly do. Apart from anything else, if he really was sleeping with that bloke, surely they'd get separate rooms and sneak about at midnight like any normal human being.
Have a go at his policies, have a go at his government, have a go at anything to do with his role as an MP and foreign secretary. But I couldn't give a fuck if he bummed his way around Parliament in a huge MP daisy-chain. It's just not relevant to his work. At all. No excuses.
I fucking hate the press sometimes. Or maybe I fucking hate their readers. I don't know. All I know is that this kind of story makes me want to hate someone.
- More from Bob.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Not relevant to his work?
If he was having an extra-marital affair* whilst representing a party strong on marriage and family values, it would be in the public interest**. The fact that it was a homosexual affair wouldn't really matter at all, unless he was representing a party that was anti-gay.
* There's no reason to believe he is.
** Though personally of no interest to me.
Mostly agree, but
I do not have chapter and verse on this yet, but the comments today have claimed that he has been associated with anti-gay policies of the Conservative Party, which, if true, would be of public interest, in the same way as that aide of Dubya coming out the other week was of interest.
However, so far much of this is not in the first distance from the old inky press in the first instance but from internal Tory scrapping, led by the Guido Fawkes blog, who seems to be tellling tales out of school about Hague sharing a room with this other bloke. OK, I wasn't there to see it, but I thought politicians not going mad on the expenses was the done thing these days. With friends like these, etc.
Yeah, point taken...
I did have a read about his gay rights history before posting.
It's true that, under him, the Tories opposed the repeal of Section 28. That was a nasty bit of pandering to a homophobic base, for sure, but I'm not sure it counts as him PERSONALLY espousing homophobic views. It's a tricky line: any leader of a party is to a greater or lesser extent hamstrung by their base. For all we know, Hague might have wished that policy be otherwise, but had no electoral alternative.
I genuinely feel for gay Conservatives. And I should emphasise that I have no reason to believe WH to be among their number. But it must be awful being a dyed-in-the-wool Tory on things like tax, crime, the economy etc. and yet finding your natural political bedfellows (badoom-tish) are often homophobic. What do you do? It's not like you can form the Gay Tory party, unless you want to sacrifice yourself on the altar of never being voted for by anyone ever.
So I'm very much the anti-Tatchell on issues like this. Outing gay Tories might seem like fun to the gay rights movement, but I really sympathise with them. They love their party while disliking its homophobia, and then some bastard outs them. NOBODY should be outed against their will. I cannot think of a single exception to that principle, as tempting as it might be.
Hate Andy Coulson
That sort of balances it out a little.
Is it as simple as that, though?
First, it's only been a mainstream-press story since yesterday's do-we-really-need-to-know-all-this denial. Before that it was just a bit of innuendo on a blog. If he'd just ignored it, instead of applying for gagging orders (SWIDT) and issuing gynaecologically precise rebuttals, I'm sure it would have been containable as just an unsubstantiated rumour and faded away.
Second, the detrousering activities of politicians were already "newsworthy" yesterday, what with the reports of Blair's views on the Prescott-affair affair.
Third, the most tawdry and offensive element - offensive not to one man but to millions - of the whole sorry welcome-to-1963 saga is surely not the reporting of the "smear" itself but the angle taken by Hague's bizarre response - "my wife has had multiple miscarriages, thereby proving beyond any doubt that I have lots of sex with girls. I am a red-blooded Yorkshireman, not some bloody poofter."
Fourth, his case wasn't helped by the top Tory who came out last week, saying he had to "come to terms with" his homosexuality. You only "come to terms with" things that are undesirable, don't you? And it seems clear that even today being gay is anything but a plus point in the profile of the going-places Conservative.
Miscarriages
Surely the reference to miscarriages was in relation to the smear that not only was he gay, but the proof lay in his marriage which clearly must be a sham due to the absence of kids....
I agree
but think its about time more people who are attacked by the press do as Hague has done and stand up for themselves. This was seen by that strange speccy bloke on BBC1 last night as extraordinarily courageous as, basically, the press will now be hell-bent on finding something that disproves his statement.
So imho, we need people to stop resigning unless they've done something criminal or personally wrong. We need people to sue for libel/slander from the press. People need to fight back.
Like many, the only time I read the newspapers is when I'm on holiday, and flicked casually through the Daily Hate and the Daily Pornographer last week - not one story of fact in either paper, just hype and specualtion and 2+2=5 journalism. Horrendous......
Good luck to William Hague. Shame his oppo felt the need to resign though.
Incidentally, the CAPTCHA thingy has asked me to type the word "vomit". How apt....
I agree
Sorry - posted twice. Will be more patient next time.....
Simplify and exaggerate
We're well past the point where newspapers reported news. They're for entertainment now and nothing's more interesting than gossip.
So this is worthy of a story. Why would a millionaire with excellent political instincts share a room with another man? Okay, so there's no public interest at this stage, but that comes later, when you ask the Foreign Secretary to explain himself - will he lie, confess, or make an utter tit of himself and embarrass his wife? Perhaps we have a right to test our leaders in this way.
In this case, there was no need for S&E - you could have just put the facts out and handed Hague a shovel
I'm more concerned
that first our Foreign Secretary has shown such naivety, both in sharing a room with a junior member of staff, and then for the car-crash denial.
Secondly, in this open season of cutbacks, he's appointed an unblooded third Special Advisor on a 30k salary.
Finally, we're asked to believe that Cameron hasn't discussed the matter, because he's on paternity leave? Oh purlease.
Naivety?
Not sure I get that point. I've shared a room with a fellow male. I do not expect to have to clarify my sexuality because of that. I don't think that's naive. My wife would be more bothered if I shared a room with a female colleague than a male.
The denial is very clumsy - it's difficult for politicians to complain about intrusion to their private lives when they are very quick to parade family in front of the media to show what wonderful family orientated people they are.
The fact that the story seems to be that he shared a twin room with a man, therefore he is gay, says to me that there is still a way to go to remove some of the more pathetic prejudices that still pervade UK society.
Naivety?
Not sure I get that point. I've shared a room with a fellow male. I do not expect to have to clarify my sexuality because of that. I don't think that's naive. My wife would be more bothered if I shared a room with a female colleague than a male.
The denial is very clumsy - it's difficult for politicians to complain about intrusion to their private lives when they are very quick to parade family in front of the media to show what wonderful family orientated people they are.
The fact that the story seems to be that he shared a twin room with a man, therefore he is gay, says to me that there is still a way to go to remove some of the more pathetic prejudices that still pervade UK society.
I'm not bothered
what went on, or didn't, in the shared room. But to me, for a cabinet-minister -in-waiting to share a room with his - at the time - driver who was relatively unknown to him, shows either incredible naivety or complete unawareness of today's media.
Neither of which fill me with confidence.
Complete unawareness of today's media?
Yea, right enough, you do have to be careful, because for the most part they are a bunch of muckraking, headline hunting bastards. You need to watch them fuckers.
Sorry, but I despise the newspapers.
I really don't care who
I really don't care who people sleep with - as long as they haven't been trumpeting "family values" or messages of a similar ilk.
However, if, and I stress IF, that person secures an advantageous position as a result of the sexual relationship, one that can impact government, however slightly, then yes, I think we do have a right to know.
From driver to SpAD to the Foreign Sec. With no previous experience?
I've never believed a word Hague says since this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/871543.stm
Are you suggesting that a
Are you suggesting that a politician may have a flexible relationship with the truth?
I am shocked.
He's got form
Back in 1995, Hague appointed a "special adviser" whose qualifications for the post were not immediately obvious:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199596/cmhansrd/vo951208/text...
Regardless of what he does in his personal life, I think it's pertinent to question the judgement of someone who's been in this situation before; yet appoints another lightly-qualified young male special adviser and shares a hotel room with him.
I'm still coming to terms with
the fact I am a subscriber to The Word magazine. What does that imply about me? *nudge nudge*
A former work colleague Dave used to tell the story of a time when he and a fellow male manager were required to share a double room together on business. It was late when they got to their room and his fellow manager was aghast to discover it was one double bed. Dave was so tired he just wanted to get some kip so suggested "top and tails" to the concerned chap. Dave gave him a peck on the cheek to make sure he got the most of the bed that night. Drink had been taken.
If this was America the press would have found someone who had saved the sheets as evidence. Euugghh!
The reason it is anyone's business is
cos that bald-headed tosser has a say on whether or not I as a gay woman get to share the same rights as the majority of the (straight) public. So far, Hague has shown very little support in the advancement of gay rights - his voting record is appalling:
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40499&dmp=826
So if he's enjoying a bit of the old brown love with one of his aides then it would seem only fair that it's made public.
The hypocritical Tory cnut.
No.
Private is private. See my comments on being a gay Tory above. And there's certainly nothing above innuendo suggesting that he is gay, anyway. I am deeply opposed to Tatchell-esque "outing", regardless of the supposed justification.
But
if he is not enjoying a bit of the brown love with one of his aides, its not fair is it?
Has it come to this?
A man shares a room with another man. Ergo, he is gay.
I expect a series of confessions from footballers across the land, who as we know are notorious for their 'roomie' habits.
Apples & Oranges
No one would bat an eyelid if, say, Jack Rodwell shared a room with Mikel Arteta, but they would if he shared with David Moyes.
Thoughts that occured to me yesterday
1. "Bury bad news" came to mind - either to ruin the Blair story or to think that it wouldn't get much coverage cos of the Blair story.
2. Is the other bloke, the advisor, gay? Do we know? (I may be naive here, I admit)
3. Good on him (Hague) to do the 'what's good for goose is good for gander' and cut back on expenses by sharing rooms. We'd all think worse if he was demanding orange M&Ms removed.
4. Feel sad for him and his missus - I have 2 close friends going through same and it is awful.
5. Overall I give him the benefit of any doubt (anyway, how do we know anything otherwise?). I'm not sure many people above would agree with me, but... hey he might be telling the whole truth. And he might just have reached the end of his tether with comments that have no truth in them.
End of his tether
Imagine how Richard Gere must feel, then - yet as far as I know he's never felt moved to issue a statement revealing that for many years he's been a generous donor to the RSPCG.
it is niaive
He's in the public eye, a government minister. He should know better by now. I'm all for cutting costs but it's not really the wisest thing to do, sharing a room with someone young enough to be his son. Unless of course, this is his secret son. Now that's interesting.
Here's the original source
http://order-order.com/page/2/
I understood that Guido Fawkes is a Tory blogger. With friends like that...complete with rather OTT cartoon.
Has anyone tried to find out whether the hotel in question was full or whether on that particular day there was a unplanned late finish to the schedule? No, they haven't.
With this whole Hague business ....
...... I can't believe no-one's used the headline : William - "it was really nothing"!
BR
FT
Blaming the press is so wrong-headed I could scream
Yes, it’s a matter of public interest that he has appointed as a special advisor a young man who seems woefully under-qualified for the role.
The post in question also appears to be one more than Hague is supposed to have. We should know about this.
We should also know why this particular individual was appointed to this additional post. It’s legitimate to ask if the fact they share hotel rooms had anything to do with him winning the job.
And Hague’s voting record and his party’s previous on gay issues also makes the whole issue a legitimate one for the press the take an interest in.
Not to mention how a ‘secret’ like this would make a family values Tory foreign secretary susceptible to outside pressures.
I've shared a hotel room with a man.
Does that automatically "raise questions"? But anyway, your points in order:
"woefully underqualified for the role". Says you? Say the papers? We have no idea.
"one more than Hague is supposed to have". Where did you get the idea that there's a quota? Gordon Brown, for example, had bloody millions of them.
"the fact that they share hotel rooms". No. Shared. Once, as far as we know. You're twisting words to imply something.
Re. the voting record, which isn't particularly brilliant but neither is it outright homophobic - see above on the pressures faced by gay conservatives (and I'm not saying Hague is one).
What have "family values" got to do with his enactment of Foreign Policy?
There's a lot of salacious lip-smacking going on, and it's the dressing up of that as "we have a right to know" that makes me want to scream.
From a point of view of someone not exposed to the full fury
of the British press...
In any place of work, if a married, senior manager was known to have a shared a hotel room with a much younger junior member of staff - of any sex - on a work trip, then their judgement would be called into question. At the very least all the gossip hounds of hell would be unleashed within the company. No senior manager, which is effectively what Hague is, that I've ever known would do it for that reason. So, at the very least it's an odd thing to do in that context. Of course, the explanation may be the hotel was booked, it was a last minute reservation, etc. That doesn't seem to have been talked about on either side.
A 25 year old history and law graduate would not generally be seen as the ideal adviser for probably the second most high profile and important role in government. Certainly doesn't fill me with confidence for the future of Tory foreign policy. An odd appointment. Course, it could just be simple nepotism.
Didn't Cameron himself decide that two aides was the maximum? Also, this aide didn't appear to be included on the official list in June, despite already being appointed.
While the 'public interest' aspect of this is still debatable, it does seem to me that here is a, vastly experienced and far from naive senior politician - whether secretly gay or not I couldn't care less - taking questionable decisions which do call into question his judgement.
The man is Foreign Secretary for feck's sake.
Do you seriously think a 'last minute reservation' would necessitate him sharing a room in any hotel in the world with a junior member of his team?
"Sorry, Mr Hague - we're fully booked tonight. But we do have this twin available if you don't mind sharing..."
I don't give a shite about his sexual preferences or the state of his marriage. I do give a shite about someone with a complete lack of judgement or self-awareness (and an apparent tendency to give self-evidently unqualified individuals very important roles) holding the second most important job in Government.
You're right
The fully booked/late booking argument doesn't wash. What was he thinking?
Again, in order
1. He has a law degree from Durham. That's it, while there are young people out with postgrad qualifications in International Relations from Harvard who'd jump at the chance to work as a "special adviser" to the Foreign Secretary on a starting salary of 30K a year as their first proper job.
2. There is a quota. Foreign Office spokeswoman: "It was agreed in May that Cabinet Ministers can have up to two special advisers, but where a Minister has additional responsibility, additional advisers may be allowed." Also, this particular aide wasn't listed on the list of ministers¡ advisers, when he certainly should have been, if he was one.
3. No, not once; more than once. From Hague's own statement: "we occasionally shared twin hotel rooms".
4. I agree with you on the voting record. Criticism here is largely irrelevant and also overlooks the role of whips and party lines and, why not, the importance of keeping both capital- and small-c conservative constituents happy.
5. Nothing. This is more irrelevant noise, I agree.
All good points, but...
1. None of us is qualified to comment on his suitability for that job without access to all the facts.
2. I wasn't aware of the new quota, but in any case Hague does have additional responsibilities: he's First Secretary of State as well as Foreign Secretary. Now, while that title is largely honorific, it suggests a large executive role in the running of other aspects of Tory policy, a la Mandelson.
3. OK, granted. But I still think the original post to which I was responding was trying to imply something habitual.
I couldn't care less ....
if he is gay/bi, cheating on his wife. That's their problem.
But I do care that he is employing his little chum at public expense to "give him a helping hand".
Typical Tory attitudes. Well I didn't vote for them
How do you know
he is his little chum?
I know Hague is a Tory (and I can happily bring myself to despise Tories and Hague in particular for their/his politics) but the idea that employing an advisor is typically tory is just wrong. It's typically cabinet minister behaviour.
Double or quits?
It's all rather bizarre.
Why should anything the repulsive order-order blog says cause anyone to resign?(Has anyone ever read it and associated comments? I felt the need to shower afterwards, and not in a good way).
There's no good outcome from this. On the face of it, a politician is so afraid of a blogger 'accusing' him of being gay that his assistant has to resign and the politician has to reveal a huge amount of very personal (and not relevant) information. As I said, bizarre.
As many on here have said
However the press want to spin it, the gayness or otherwise of William Hague (or his aide, for that matter) is totally irrelevant.
What is very relevant is the breathtaking lack of judgment and (as my mam would have put it) nous demonstrated by him.
I've been wondering
just exactly how it was decided to mention the miscarriages? Did Ffion volunteer for the information to be used as a "defence" against allegations about William's sexuality? Or did he just say it anyway? Or was it scripted by a press officer, who persuaded either or both of them it was a good tactic?
In the same way that 'outing' someone makes me very uncomfortable (although less so for a politician who gets to vote on gay issues), the idea of someone's painful experiences of miscarriage being somehow 'expedient' strikes me as distasteful in the least.
But, I can find one good thing that has come out of this story, whatever the motivations and machinations: at least the subject of miscarriage is being discussed.
I had multiple miscarriages and an ectopic pregnancy.* I was amazed by the number of women I knew who said "Yes, that happened to me, too," but hadn't previously shared the information. It's an intensely painful experience, emotionally and physically, and of course, people should have the right to keep it private. But I find that I do want to mention my experiences to people when relevant, because what concerns me is the number of women who are 'planning' their pregnancies for their late 30s, calmly assuming that everything will run smoothly, when in fact the longer they leave it the greater the risk of problems. If more people spoke about miscarriages, maybe people would realise if they can they need to factor in some time just in case things don't work out immediately...
*Tucked my two kids into their beds earlier, thinking about all this. I can't express how lucky I feel to be able to do that.
Miscarriage
My adored, late wife miscarried our first baby. We were devastated, we told family, best friends & a few work colleagues, did a lot of crying, then got on with our lives.
2 sons born over the course of the next 5 years, now 2 grown young men who I am hugely (proper word ? - it is late) proud of.
FWIIW, who to tell, & how to tell them is a personal decision only WH & his wife can decide.
Jack, have you seen the Pixar film Up?
In an astonishing montage at the start, without any dialogue, it says more about the pain of losing a child/not being able to have children than anything I've ever seen. No-one with a heart could fail to be moved. And all this in a kids' film.
Hague is definitely not gay
His cock didn't taste of shite when I sucked it yesterday. fnar.
Perhaps
he just helps them out when they're busy?
Have a click
Almost spat my scone at that one.
With the libel laws being as they are..
..I must tread carefully.
A friend of mine who is incredibly well-connected politically answered the direct question I asked him about this matter with the word "Yes".
Which throws up lots of further questions. Other people can ask them.
Do you mean what I think you mean?
Because that means I think you mean what I think.
Errm...
Aye. Pretty much.
Possibly.
Was the question
about Van Morrison, by any chance?
None of our business
None of our business if he is gay or straight really, but I don't think sexuality is the important thing here - despite it being the hook for newspaper interest.
The important thing is whether a minister is appointing people to quite well-paid special advisor posts because they like them rather than because they are the best person for the job. You could argue that the fact they are sharing hotel rooms, even if only on the grounds of economy, shows they get on well enough that HAgue wouldn't be entirely objective about him.
Feel sorry for the bloke though.
My biggest problem with the whole thing is that SPAD keeps cropping up in news stories. As an ex-railway worker that means signal-passed-at-danger (i.e. a train going through a red signal).
I think, as ever, that Archie
Is more rightety-right than most.
On the face of it, what William Hague or any other politician gets up to in his spare time is none of our business.
But the young chap, who was his driver during the election campaign and presumably paid by the Conservative Party, was until this week being paid £30,000 out of taxpayers money as a third special adviser when the PM has said that two should be the maximum. This is at a time when civil servants have had their pay frozen and when many of them (possibly me included) will face redundancy this autumn.
As an aside, the fact that he is young and has no particularly appropriate qualification is not that unusual. As someone who worked for a cabinet minister, I know that special advisers are often very young and many of them are paid two or three times this amount (I wasn't a special adviser so I was paid less than £30,000). They are there to do the political policy work that normal civil servants are not allowed to and their key qualification is that they are trusted by the minister. I have no idea whether the young man in question is qualified to do the job but I don't like the sneering "he's only got a 2nd from Durham". But I digress.
William Hague voted against much of the gay rights legislation put through by the last government (http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpid=40499&dmp=826). If he has been having gay relationships this would seem to be hypocritical.
It is certainly a puzzle that a man who is reckoned to have earned between £3 and £4 million from public speaking since he stood down as Tory leader in 2001 would need to share a room, on several occasions, with anyone but his wife. And it is a puzzle that his roommate ends up in a job paid for by the taxpayer. It would be equally a puzzle if he'd shared a room with a female driver who then went on to be a special adviser although I think people would have been even more quick to question what went on in the hotel room.
Yes it is all a bit shoddy. But I do think, on this occasion, that there is a legitimate public interest.
Usual double standard Tory
He should stop taking the piss out of the public and resign
Is William a gay poof? Or was it really nothing?
I don't know and I don't really care. But here in the 21st century what I find extraordinary is the assumption of the need for a defence. Imagine, if you will, Eddie Izzard as a European Minister of Stuff ...
"Zut alors, un homme dans un dress. Etes-vous un poof?" shout the media.
"Bees. Fucking bees," says Eddie. "And surely it must be une poof? N'est ce pas?" he adds.
Press gets very confused. Eddie chuckles like a man punching a monkey. Everything blows over. Then...
"Zut alors, M Hague, vous avez shared une chambre avec un jeune homme avec trente grande chaque annee de salary. Etes-vous une poof? M Izzard a dit que le noun est feminine..."
"Ey oop, mah knob totally works, mah missus has had a googleplex of miscarriages because ah shagged her masses and i used to drink my own displacement volume in bitter every bloody day!!!"
"D'accord Monsieur Hague, mais etes-vous une poof?"
"La la la la la la, my fingers are in my ears, i can't hear you, la la la la la..."
"Il est une poof. Surement. Mais je ne care pas. Sauf que il a given a trente grand chaque annee travail a un jeune homme avec lequel il shares une chambre moins cher de Travelodge. Pffft. Il n'y a pas smoke sans feu, sauf aux gigs de prog rock."
C'est will last cinque minutes ou moins parceque de loi de libel. Poof!
There's no smoke without fire
The Tory party conference hotel, yesterday
Wonderful OP, idiotbear!
Really well put.
However, if he "bummed his way around parliament in a huge MP daisy-chain" - that may well affect his day-to-day work. Cabinet meetings would be a bit cramped for one thing.
I can't say it better than this.
Read the full blog post by Penny Red here, if you like.
etradinglife
ONLINE STORE——————- http://etradinglife.com/
Hello! The burning hot summer arrived, this is the demonstration stature good season,
the retreat winter sincere appearance, lets lithe, the individuality, the fashion,
the sex appeal, mature you start from here! Has a good news to tell everybody: Recently,
every bought full 200 US dollars in this company, then has the present to see off,
Vietnam which buys delivers are more, please do not miss this good opportunity!!!
welcome to :
we accept PAYPAL/credit card payment and all the products are the FREE shipping .
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33
UGG BOOT $50
Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $33
Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $33
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $12
New era cap $9
,
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
http://etradinglife.com/
FREE SHIPPING
I'm assuming..
This is where Hague got the baseball cap from.
"lets lithe, the individuality, the fashion, the sex appeal, mature you start from here!"
Could've been written for WH, really.
I'm reminded
Of a Private Eye piece from years ago when Hague lived with the openly fragrant Alan Duncan. Hague regularly beasted Blair at PMQ's & one day it all got too much for Duncan, who was moved to shout out "Got him there, bitch boy!".