Simon Hughes

[HampshireSeagulls]

im just saying I know a broad range of people manual workers , white collar workers even a few that don't work + male and female. Although not completely conclusive I believe it does give an indication of a "general" attitude or opinion to something. This has been backed up when I've used this theory before only to be proved when the issue is then on a national subject. You can say all you like but this is just the way it is. Well done and many of your points are valid , but because you believe something with a passion doesn't mean everyone (other than this board ) is behind you ooh er

Excellent! A reduction to Frankie Howard-esque jokes. Makes your point well.

If your theory is that well proven, you should be making a fortune at the bookmakers!

 

[Napper]

Excellent! A reduction to Frankie Howard-esque jokes. Makes your point well.

If your theory is that well proven, you should be making a fortune at the bookmakers!

well i've won plenty of money against the bookies advive on evictees who this said group have collectively as a majority hated

 

[simonsimon]

Another LIBERAL DEMOCRAT has been outed as a LIAR.

Keep up the pressure to neutralise this odius Political Group of chancers and wasters,BELLOTTI and BAKER included.

 

[Gilliver's Travels]

im just saying I know a broad range of people manual workers , white collar workers even a few that don't work + male and female. Although not completely conclusive I believe it does give an indication of a "general" attitude or opinion to something.

Maybe your own 'range of people' are not actually representative of the country at large. But nor is my 'range of people' either. A proper, national opinion poll would best indicate public attitude. But then, it would also discover majority support for the death penalty, and lower taxes, too.

Sometimes public attitudes are only changed - however slowly - by debate, argument, example and leadership. So no hope under Tony Blair...

 

[clapham_gull]

'm with GT on this on.

Even the Tories have got gay MPs these days I think the general public have moved on.

These so called old aged pensioners who are so obviously homophobic just luuurve Dale Winton.

 

[Gwylan]

Maybe your own 'range of people' are not actually representative of the country at large. But nor is my 'range of people' either. A proper, national opinion poll would best indicate public attitude. But then, it would also discover majority support for the death penalty, and lower taxes, too.

Sometimes public attitudes are only changed - however slowly - by debate, argument, example and leadership. So no hope under Tony Blair...

Attitudes do change. For years there was solid support for the death penalty, a couple of weeks ago, one of the polling organisations revealed that, for the first time since polling began, support for capital punishment fell under 50%.

But the belief that homosexuals should be discriminated against has been the majority belief for at least a couple of decades now.

 

[London Irish]

I remember his campaign againgst Tatchell, it was disgusting, there were lots of anti-gay statements, including how can a gay man represent a working class area. It was known then that Hughes was gay, his denayal at the same time his method used to get elected was hypocritacal beyond belief.

May this man's career rot away.

Agreed - it's been a long time coming, 23 years in fact. I felt sorry for Oaten, who has never benefited from anti-gay hypocrisy, but not Hughes - his entire career was launched by the single worst piece of homophobic witch-hunting of any British election before or since. Just desserts for him today.

 

[Yorkie]

None - but it is the deception and lies that go with it that people worry about.

That is the whole point of the matter. If Simon Hughes had admitted it previously then he would be ok now.

As such he is now shown to be completely untrusty worthy. Exactly the same as David Blunkett with his affairs.
The sexuality issue doesn't come into it.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

Agreed - it's been a long time coming, 23 years in fact. I felt sorry for Oaten, who has never benefited from anti-gay hypocrisy, but not Hughes - his entire career was launched by the single worst piece of homophobic witch-hunting of any British election before or since. Just desserts for him today.

Trouble is that his career will not stall. He is already spinning it that it shows his innate leadership skills, bravery and courage of his convictions!

Oaten was hoist upon his own petard, having campaigned for family values, and wheeled out his family so often for photo shoots that they had runners fitted to the soles of their feet. It's the betrayal by Oaten which gets me - how he has betrayed his family and children, and how they will have to deal with the fallout. Hughes was a single man who will not suffer as much for this unless Tatchell manages to get his side of the story back into the press.

 

[Vlad the Impala]

That is the whole point of the matter. If Simon Hughes had admitted it previously then he would be ok now.

As such he is now shown to be completely untrusty worthy.

What, after a life spent hearing the kind of bigotted hatred often seen in this and most other places? Despite knowing that their are ignorant people out there who would gladly kick his head in for having gay sex? You actually think it is an easy thing to talk about?

Funny, because I've seen a few posts on here from people who say he would lose votes because of his sexuality despite being the effective politician he is.

 

[Beach Hut]

Tatchell will definitely try and get his side of the story.

I actually think Hughes is a very good politician and have no problem with his sexuality.

 

[clapham_gull]

Agreed - it's been a long time coming, 23 years in fact. I felt sorry for Oaten, who has never benefited from anti-gay hypocrisy, but not Hughes - his entire career was launched by the single worst piece of homophobic witch-hunting of any British election before or since. Just desserts for him today.

Tatchel interviewed tonight, doesn't seem to blame Hughes directly.

I feel very very sorry for Hughes.

Irrespective of how he came into the job he is apparently one of the hardest working MPs for his constituency in the country.

He holds very strong religious beliefs and I guess that may have some reason in him feeling it difficult to admit to himself and his constituents.

All said, I have also read that he is a very, very ambitious individual who has desperately wanted leadership of the party for a very long time.

Tatchell said tonight that he never had any intention of outing Hughes since he was a very sincere, good MP with very inclusive views.

However, its also been suggested that it was Tatchell who put the spotlight deliberately back on Hughes by releasing information recently that he had been told by liberals that they were responsible for the leaflets but he didn't blame Hughes, and that Hughes was the best man for the job.

Well if that's true - he's got his own back and he's waited 23 years to do it.

It could be rubbish - just what I've been reading on the web.

( I've just seen video of Hughes on the campaign trail at the by-election saying that the "we are running a very straight campaign.." )

 

[DJ Leon]

What, after a life spent hearing the kind of bigotted hatred often seen in this and most other places? Despite knowing that their are ignorant people out there who would gladly kick his head in for having gay sex? You actually think it is an easy thing to talk about?

Funny, because I've seen a few posts on here from people who say he would lose votes because of his sexuality despite being the effective politician he is.

I agree it can't be easy to talk about it, but the first step in stopping the homophobia of the media is by not lying about being gay in the first place. If you don't cover it up, people won't assume that it's shameful. It's all too easy for the media to be homophobic about liars and frauds, but, I would suggest not about someone who is open and honest about it.

 

[clapham_gull]

I agree it can't be easy to talk about it, but the first step in stopping the homophobia of the media is by not lying about being gay in the first place. If you don't cover it up, people won't assume that it's shameful. It's all too easy for the media to be homophobic about liars and frauds, but, I would suggest not about someone who is open and honest about it.

It seems to me that the media have a problem with people who "out" themselves (probably because they didn't get there first), rather than people who are openly gay in the first place.

By the way - the News of The World were running a big Hughes story on Sunday and he was forced to come out.

What the f*ck are they up to recently ?

 

[Beach Hut]

By the way - the News of The World were running a big Hughes story on Sunday and he was forced to come out.

I agree with freedom of speech etc but this paper should be shut down for being anal.

 

[DJ Leon]

It seems to me that the media have a problem with people who "out" themselves (probably because they didn't get there first), rather than people who are openly gay in the first place.

That's exactly why they don't like it! Look at Scott Mills, the Radio 1 DJ. He came out quite a while ago and made a point of telling the papers. No story there then. It's the same for other openly gay celebrities who don't lie about it.

 

[Vlad the Impala]

I agree it can't be easy to talk about it, but the first step in stopping the homophobia of the media is by not lying about being gay in the first place. If you don't cover it up, people won't assume that it's shameful. It's all too easy for the media to be homophobic about liars and frauds, but, I would suggest not about someone who is open and honest about it.

Now, yes, but this started years ago. I've no doubt that he simply got into the habit.

Anyway, I thought he was bisexual, not gay.

 

[Jim in the West]

By the way, it's illegal to discriminate in the work place on the grounds of sexual orientation. But some people on this board seem to think it's quite OK to exclude a gay man from a leadership campaign, on some spurious grounds that the electorate may not like it. I bet there's loads of employers out there who have "justified" their decision not to recruit a gay candidate for (say) a sales job on the grounds that their clients might not like it. You can criticise Hughes for his hypocrisy, but it really is quite depressing to realise that my belief that Brighton fans were the most open-minded and tolerant in the country may be misplaced.....

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Read my posting, I said PARTY LEADER, i.e. a man who stands to be PRIME MINISTER.

I think it's fine for a backbencher or cabinet minister to be gay, but the Top Man - I'm not so sure.

Did it ever cross the electorate's minds to worry about "confirmed bachelor" Edward Heath, when he was Prime Minister.

Or serial adulterer, Lloyd George?

It's only in the last twenty years that the sex lives of politicians have become relevant to their electability.

Ask anyone over 60 if it's OK to have a gay P.M and a majority would say no, ask those under 25 and most would probably say yes.

I'm not convinced that you fully understand the indifference of the older generation to these matters, or the prurience of media intoxicated youngsters.

 

[Yorkie]

Did it ever cross the electorate's minds to worry about "confirmed bachelor" Edward Heath, when he was Prime Minister.

Or serial adulterer, Lloyd George?

It's only in the last twenty years that the sex lives of politicians have become relevant to their electability.



I'm not convinced that you fully understand the indifference of the older generation to these matters, or the prurience of media intoxicated youngsters.

Keeler and Profumo? Or was that more to do with national security than sex?