New Politics?

[Tangled up in Blue]

Actually, it would appear you're only willing to apologise unreservedly to Bob if he were to be Gay, which he states he isn't. Not quite the same.

I'm quite happy to extend the same apology to you(and others)if the cap fits.:)
Logically,anyone who isn't gay shouldn't have been offended by my (admittedly inappropriate) remark -unless heavens forbid-you're just jumping on the pc bandwagon.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I'm quite happy to extend the same apology to you(and others)if the cap fits.:)
Logically,anyone who isn't gay shouldn't have been offended by my (admittedly inappropriate) remark -unless heavens forbid-you're just jumping on the pc bandwagon.

What about someone whose brother or sister, son or daughter or even friend is gay. Might they have cause to feel offended?

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

I'm quite happy to extend the same apology to you(and others)if the cap fits.:)
Logically,anyone who isn't gay shouldn't have been offended by my (admittedly inappropriate) remark -unless heavens forbid-you're just jumping on the pc bandwagon.

First off, thank you for the rep and comments. I'm not sure they are "unhelpful" though, as I was merely pointing out that what you say, and what you say you say, aren't entirely the same.

As for jumping on the PC bandwagon, may I ask how you came by this rather bizarre conclusion? I never said I was offended, nor did I imply that I was. Maybe this is the same memory lapse that's preventing you knowing what you've said? I will point out though that all my housemates are gay, and I live in Brighton, so does that allow me to be offended if I wish?

As for your use of the word gay, it was in a derogatory context, and therefore would be deemed in most civilised societies to be offensive. Is **** offensive? Technically it's an abbreviation of Pakistani, so no worse than Brit, however I bet if I called someone "that **** [insert name here]" you'd be jumping up and down as if your entire family were from Islamabad.

Hope that's a little more "helpful" for you

 

[canveyshrimper]

An interesting piece on Radio 2 from a Times Journalist today , stating that Law's and his "partner" did actually start off as ... Landlord and tenant , he obviously didn't come out so when the relationship started (still being Landlord and tenant ) to only went wrong as he didn't declare a possible conflict of interest, and oddly the Chancellor of the last government made £22,000 pounds from fliping (second home) yet didnt recieve the same harsh penality (of course teh city is now worried that a man they trusted is not in a key position ) . Im sure the Telegraph didn't want that to happen (much like the FT and the announcement last week of China reviewing their investments in Europe , only to have their story crushed the next day by... China ).

I think some "groups" are playing silly beggars .

Sorry osy but I think you are trying to defend the indefensible. I did say at the time of the leadership debates that Clegg was being holier than thou over the Lib-Dems and their role in the expenses scandal. Well those remarks have really come home to bite him on the backside. The thing I don't understand here is that Laws knew he was bang to rights so why the hell didn't he pay the money back? It doesn't make him any less culpable but at least in line with others he has at least made the effort to pay back money he shouldn't have claimed in the first place. I heard an interview with Andrew Pierce the other day and the reason this didn't come out before is because the Telegraph were mainly interested in Labour & Tory politicians who had broken the rules. At the times the Lib-Dems were not taken too seriously as a potential party of Government.

This isn't about Laws being gay, his sexuality his is own business IMO and maybe he should not have been outed, but the issue is about probity in public life and this Government needs to show it will be as clean as possible.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

First off, thank you for the rep and comments. I'm not sure they are "unhelpful" though, as I was merely pointing out that what you say, and what you say you say, aren't entirely the same.

As for jumping on the PC bandwagon, may I ask how you came by this rather bizarre conclusion? I never said I was offended, nor did I imply that I was. Maybe this is the same memory lapse that's preventing you knowing what you've said? I will point out though that all my housemates are gay, and I live in Brighton, so does that allow me to be offended if I wish?

As for your use of the word gay, it was in a derogatory context, and therefore would be deemed in most civilised societies to be offensive. Is **** offensive? Technically it's an abbreviation of Pakistani, so no worse than Brit, however I bet if I called someone "that **** [insert name here]" you'd be jumping up and down as if your entire family were from Islamabad.

Hope that's a little more "helpful" for you

Thanks for the context.
My remark (as I've already said)was inappropriate and made(though this is not an excuse)on the morning after a heavy night out.(As I've also said)I used the term gay in connection with Laws for information purposes mainly, as since I'd been out on Saturday night with friends, I hadn't heard the UK news.
FWIW my best mate at Uni. was openly gay.As were quite a few of my ex-colleagues at the Business School/University where I used to work here for many years.

 

[osymandus]

Sorry osy but I think you are trying to defend the indefensible. I did say at the time of the leadership debates that Clegg was being holier than thou over the Lib-Dems and their role in the expenses scandal. Well those remarks have really come home to bite him on the backside. The thing I don't understand here is that Laws knew he was bang to rights so why the hell didn't he pay the money back? It doesn't make him any less culpable but at least in line with others he has at least made the effort to pay back money he shouldn't have claimed in the first place. I heard an interview with Andrew Pierce the other day and the reason this didn't come out before is because the Telegraph were mainly interested in Labour & Tory politicians who had broken the rules. At the times the Lib-Dems were not taken too seriously as a potential party of Government.

This isn't about Laws being gay, his sexuality his is own business IMO and maybe he should not have been outed, but the issue is about probity in public life and this Government needs to show it will be as clean as possible.

I think your missing the point , its not about his sexuality , its also not about the specific targeting (the Telegraph had this information when their had the other expenses info as well ) . And yes i agree he should have paid it back . However the £40 k is not an accurate figure . And the mistake was in his own private choices. Some have said did not know (a slip on his part on how the rules work which many of us are guilty of )and others as is rightly ful pointed out that many partners of other couples have been land lord and tennat .

The holier then thou thing is rubbish it always has been , its a straw man argument made up because as you say their we're never taken a s a threat before . The matter could very well have been sorted quickly by asking him to pay it back as soon as.

My other point i posted on another forum is specific media outlets are not as accountable , as at least the small amount influence we do have on parliament . They way a lot of them have been acting over the past few years (NOW and their phone scandal that disappeared very quickly), their own self regulation will be removed and a government lead (grr we've had enough ) legislation could well be put through.

There is a larger game of chess going on , its not prudent to take your eye off the board just because a piece has been removed.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What about someone whose brother or sister, son or daughter or even friend is gay. Might they have cause to feel offended?

Re-read the pc bandwagon bit of my previous post.
BTW there's a question for you to answer(from me)in the Stadium/finances forum.

 

[canveyshrimper]

I think your missing the point , its not about his sexuality , its also not about the specific targeting (the Telegraph had this information when their had the other expenses info as well ) . And yes i agree he should have paid it back . However the £40 k is not an accurate figure . And the mistake was in his own private choices. Some have said did not know (a slip on his part on how the rules work which many of us are guilty of )and others as is rightly ful pointed out that many partners of other couples have been land lord and tennat .

The holier then thou thing is rubbish it always has been , its a straw man argument made up because as you say their we're never taken a s a threat before . The matter could very well have been sorted quickly by asking him to pay it back as soon as.

My other point i posted on another forum is specific media outlets are not as accountable , as at least the small amount influence we do have on parliament . They way a lot of them have been acting over the past few years (NOW and their phone scandal that disappeared very quickly), their own self regulation will be removed and a government lead (grr we've had enough ) legislation could well be put through.

There is a larger game of chess going on , its not prudent to take your eye off the board just because a piece has been removed.

I didn't say it was, his sexual preferences are a private matter. It doesn't matter if 40k is an accurate figure or not, it's the same issue as Jacqui Smith claiming her sisters spare bedroom to be her main residence. And Clegg was holier than thou in the first leadership debate as he clearly stated that the Lib-Dems were less guilty than the Tories and Labour, on the basis of fewer MP's this is true, but they are eually as guilty.

The pity of this in the bigger picture is that the coalition Government have lost a man who seemed to be very able and very much in control of his brief, a loss that may have been avoided with some thought by Laws.

 

[osymandus]

I didn't say it was, his sexual preferences are a private matter. It doesn't matter if 40k is an accurate figure or not, it's the same issue as Jacqui Smith claiming her sisters spare bedroom to be her main residence. And Clegg was holier than thou in the first leadership debate as he clearly stated that the Lib-Dems were less guilty than the Tories and Labour, on the basis of fewer MP's this is true, but they are eually as guilty.

The pity of this in the bigger picture is that the coalition Government have lost a man who seemed to be very able and very much in control of his brief, a loss that may have been avoided with some thought by Laws.

I didnt say you did i was listing the points it's not about and i agree with you that others had done it and in far greater numbers, and you are spot on about what he did , but my points on the accuracy and the response to what he did , in your point i have en-bolded above.

It has been a car crusher to smash a walnut, the people you listed before have done exactly the same thing yet remained in positions . It's nothing to do with Clegg's ideal of what he would like is it, if he is unaware of what happened , Clegg doesn't come into the argument or his views, or teh response to the what has happened .

 

[canveyshrimper]

I didnt say you did i was listing the points it's not about and i agree with you that others had done it and in far greater numbers, and you are spot on about what he did , but my points on the accuracy and the response to what he did , in your point i have en-bolded above.

It has been a car crusher to smash a walnut, the people you listed before have done exactly the same thing yet remained in positions . It's nothing to do with Clegg's ideal of what he would like is it, if he is unaware of what happened , Clegg doesn't come into the argument or his views, or teh response to the what has happened .

I don't think we are in disagreement, the point is in lieu of what happened in the last Parliament this Government has to be seen to be whiter than white and also doing the right thing. Hence the necessity for Laws to fall on his sword. If he had repaid, or was in the process of repaying the money then like as not he could have ridden it out as a storm in a teacup. However he must have been aware of the situation and is therefore naive if he didn't think it would come to light.

Where I disagree is about Clegg, he is both Deputy PM and leader of the Lib-Dems, therefore he has to be aware of the situation and also be part of the decision making process which saw Laws resign. As I've said it's a shame that the coalition have lost a person of his ability, however he may rise as a latter day Mandelson from the Ashes in a year or so.

 

[osymandus]

I don't think we are in disagreement, the point is in lieu of what happened in the last Parliament this Government has to be seen to be whiter than white and also doing the right thing. Hence the necessity for Laws to fall on his sword. If he had repaid, or was in the process of repaying the money then like as not he could have ridden it out as a storm in a teacup. However he must have been aware of the situation and is therefore naive if he didn't think it would come to light.

Where I disagree is about Clegg, he is both Deputy PM and leader of the Lib-Dems, therefore he has to be aware of the situation and also be part of the decision making process which saw Laws resign. As I've said it's a shame that the coalition have lost a person of his ability, however he may rise as a latter day Mandelson from the Ashes in a year or so.

I think we are , and here is the interesting thing , Law's both gave himself to the parliamentary inquiry and payed thw money back (being a multi millionaire does help ).

Lots have people have already said that ;) yet i prefer him to be a more Balder like figure then Mandelsons Dracula ;)

 

[canveyshrimper]

I think we are , and here is the interesting thing , Law's both gave himself to the parliamentary inquiry and payed thw money back (being a multi millionaire does help ).

Lots have people have already said that ;) yet i prefer him to be a more Balder like figure then Mandelsons Dracula ;)

I've not seen that anywhere, if that is the case he probably could have ridden out the storm. There's plenty in the Government from Cameron & Clegg down who've had to repay expenses "wrongly" claimed.

 

[osymandus]

I've not seen that anywhere, if that is the case he probably could have ridden out the storm. There's plenty in the Government from Cameron & Clegg down who've had to repay expenses "wrongly" claimed.

Nope its probably a small by line like when Nick Clegg was asked to provide his bank details to dismiss the rumors about the payments he received ... like a swine he did it and killed the story the next day ;).

 

[Reg Martin]

I'm gay and so is my wife. Should either or both of us be offended? Advice appreciated.

 

[osymandus]

I'm gay and so is my wife. Should either or both of us be offended? Advice appreciated.

Im sending the entire literay collection of Sarah Waters to you for educational purposes .

 

[Rob Noxious]

Right on, brother!

Thanks for the context.
My remark (as I've already said)was inappropriate and made(though this is not an excuse)on the morning after a heavy night out.(As I've also said)I used the term gay in connection with Laws for information purposes mainly, as since I'd been out on Saturday night with friends, I hadn't heard the UK news.
FWIW my best mate at Uni. was openly gay.As were quite a few of my ex-colleagues at the Business School/University where I used to work here for many years.

... and you bought the 'Rising Free' EP (with the track 'Glad To Be Gay') when it came out. I know 'cause I've got it here for safekeeping. :)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

... and you bought the 'Rising Free' EP (with the track 'Glad To Be Gay') when it came out. I know 'cause I've got it here for safekeeping. :)

Ha! I'll want that back one of these fine days even though I've now re-bought most of my TRB stuff on cd.(Don't you just love consumer capitalism)? ;)
Thanks for your moral support, BTW.Most welcome.:)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm gay and so is my wife. Should either or both of us be offended? Advice appreciated.

Both of you probably.Sorry.;)

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Thanks for the context.
My remark (as I've already said)was inappropriate and made(though this is not an excuse)on the morning after a heavy night out.(As I've also said)I used the term gay in connection with Laws for information purposes mainly, as since I'd been out on Saturday night with friends, I hadn't heard the UK news.
FWIW my best mate at Uni. was openly gay.As were quite a few of my ex-colleagues at the Business School/University where I used to work here for many years.

You sound like Cameron during the debates when he boasted of having met a black man;)

Re-read the pc bandwagon bit of my previous post.
BTW there's a question for you to answer(from me)in the Stadium/finances forum.

Cheers, will take a look.

I'm gay and so is my wife. Should either or both of us be offended? Advice appreciated.

I'm offended that you even had to ask.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

You sound like Cameron during the debates when he boasted of having met a black man;)

First time anyone's compared me to DC.
Should I be offended I wonder? :)