I had decided not to write anything further on Simon Hughes. He performed impressively on Question Time last night and I began to get the feeling he might ride this out. Until I read The Times this morning. David Aaronovitch and Alice Miles interviewed Hughes on Wednesday, when he had again denied being gay. Following yesterday's revelations they re-interviewed him. This passage of the interview caught my eye...It is important to Mr Hughes to believe — and have us believe — that it was his decision to tell all and that, far from being the passive victim, he was the main player. “I took the initiative and I talked to my campaign team. And it’s much easier just to go in and deal with the central issue and clearly some of the things that were being alleged were completely untrue and beyond my knowledge. There was all sorts of stuff. Almost everything that was being said was untrue.” So his strategy with The Sun was to refuse to talk about the details, but to own up only to his general orientation, thus, he hoped, ending the speculation. As if . . .
Is this really what happened. Are we really supposed to believe that it was Hughes himself who took the initiative with The Sun? I think not. As I understand it, Trevor Kavanagh requested an interview having told Hughes that they had obtained phone records proving he has phoned the gay chatline ManTalk.
So a Liberal Democrat has lied again. Can they not help themselves?
The whole interview in The Times can be read HERE.
11 comments:
Actually, as Hughes told the BBC, he "gave a reply that wasn't untrue but was clearly misleading". He isn't gay, he is bisexual.
That said, I think that he was lieing when he said that "admitting gay relationships was a mark of his courage". If he was so courageous, why did he not open up to the Independent last week, why did he open up to the Sun this week? Feels like he had no choice, and in that case he merely made a virtue of necessity.
I don't buy that for one second. I've heard (on good authority I might add!) that the Sun forced his hand.
Anonymous, so talking on ManTalk is considered to be a bi-sexual activity? Hmmm.
It's almost like a dream.
During our own leadership contest I discussed with some other Tory bloggers the prospects for setting up a secret squirrels operation with a spoof LibDem blog to sow disinformation and confusion behind enemy lines.
We never got round to it. But even if we had, I doubt we could have come up with anything as gob-smackingly incredible as what's actually happened in the last few weeks.
Kennedy, Oaten, and Hughes all incinerated. And their party already down to 13%.
Pinch me- am I actually awake?
As the Guardian said today - At least no one has shot a dog!
These Lib dems - Man Talk, Seagulling and rent boys - No wonder Charles had a drink problem
He would only be bisexual if he had been with both men and women recently. If the last woman he'd been with or the last woman he had sexual feelings towards was 20 years ago (say) then it's quite obvious that he has been homosexually inclined since.
Calling ManTalk is clearly acting on homosexual desires, but that does not make him gay.
To be gay is to be homosexual, he is not, he is bi-sexual, a state which sadly brings more condemnation that homosexuality.
He was stupid, but considering being bi-sexual gets you attacked by both straight and gay people its understandable.
Trevor Kavanagh requested an interview having told Hughes that they had obtained phone records proving he has phoned the gay chatline ManTalk.
Has this phone company heard of the Data Protection Act?
Exactly. Is it legal to get people's phone records then? Mind you, the result was a good one....
Can you imagine phone sex with Simon Hughes?
"Would you like me to touch myself?"
"Well, I would like to answer that to address some of the broader issues and make two or three points in response... Firstly the thought of you doing so excites me, but let's not forget the reason that we all ring these sorts of chat lines which is that I would particularly like to hear you talk dirtily to me which I think is an attractive and indeed, ultimately fundamental aspect of living in what we profess to be, although sadly doesn't always quite live up to the reality of, a free society. Secondly -"
*dial tone*
Post a Comment