Simon Hughes was today forced to admit to being bisexual. His sexuality is in no way the issue. What is is the way he has consistently lied outright on the matter and profitted from homophobia.
Hughes was first elected in the Bermondsey by-election of 1983, getting elected on the back of a tide of homophobia against Labour candidate Peter Tatchell (yes that Peter Tatchell). Since then he has repeatedly flatly denied his sexuality when challenged. Now he has been exposed as a hypocrite on the matter. Antonia sums it up best.
But one has to wonder why this story came out now, when polls indicated Hughes was the favourite for the leadership, given that it would have been even more devastating for a party leader. Who has benefited from this?
LinkWithin
2 comments:
In 1983 Labour was dominated by the left, that is why it lost the Bermondsey by-election and the general election later that year.
The 'gay' stuff was much less of an issue then.
There was a time when all single young ladies were virgins or were some of them liars?
The Sun and the News of the World were out to get the Lib Dems in whatever way they could. It was an open secret apparently - which begs the question as to why journalists had not reported it in the past. Who are journalists to decide what we should or should not know?
I assume this is you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Timrollpickering?
Post a Comment