politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whittingdale: Will he survive or not survive?
No doubt we will be getting betting markets in the next day or so on whether the culture secretary is going to remain in his job following the revelations that have just come out.
On principle I hope he remains (but not Remain, of course), though I don't care in political terms if he stays or goes.
I think it's a political point in itself that people shouldn't be driven from office over legal, consensual and harmless activities in their private lives.
Beyond that I dislike Whittingdale's politics. I would be glad to see the back of him but not over this.
More polling from New York - seven in the past four days. Essentially with the same story - Trump crushing rivals by +25 and more with Cruz and Kasich fighting for a far distant second. Clinton ahead of Sanders by 11-18 point. Both beat any GOP candidate by a country mile :
Curse of the new thread I've just been reading one blog that is trying to liken it to Profumo, with a member of the London underworld playing the role of the Soviet naval attache in this case.
It seems pretty straightforward: if he made any use of his position in relation to press regulation, however veiled or implied, to prevent a personally embarrassing story from being reported, he should go. If it's just an embarrassing story he shouldn't.
It does seem as if the lately-loyal right wing press is starting to toy with the financial-and-sex sleaze-ridden divided small-majority Tory party narrative that did for Major from 92 onwards. Will be interesting to see whether that's an EUref-inspired development or something that gathers pace over the next year or two.
I see that the Lib Dems have organised an election with seven candidates and three voters in the House of Lords.
Any thoughts on the most appropriate voting system to use in such a situation?
Hopefully there will be a three-way tie.
Also FPT.. what is the electorate? I thought all hereditary peers registered as Lib Dems could vote, rather than those seated (or is it the other way around, only those with seats can vote, but there are seven registered peers standing)?
I think Hacked Off have also got to answer why the pursuit of a Tory MP was worth trashing the privacy of Whittingdale's partner - where's the 'public interest' in that? Or if you sleep with a Tory do you get what you deserve?
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
I think Hacked Off have also got to answer why the pursuit of a Tory MP was worth trashing the privacy of Whittingdale's partner - where's the 'public interest' in that? Or if you sleep with a Tory do you get what you deserve?
Did you know that if you sleep with a Tory you become one? So fair game
@DavidAllanGreen: Hacked Off finally became what they said they opposed. Intrusions in to private lives of those caught up in news, ends justifying means.
I'd be very surprised if Whittingdale had to resign over this issue. Single man uses online dating isn't exactly a massive story. If there was an affair or some kind of moral grey area involved then I would be on the fence, but on the face of it a man using online dating isn't the world's largest news story.
Maybe it's a generation divide but I really didn't even clock this as a story. The only thing I now read is that he seems like a bit of a bigot for dropping a women because she escourted...
I think Hacked Off have also got to answer why the pursuit of a Tory MP was worth trashing the privacy of Whittingdale's partner - where's the 'public interest' in that? Or if you sleep with a Tory do you get what you deserve?
Did you know that if you sleep with a Tory you become one? So fair game
Maybe it's a generation divide but I really didn't even clock this as a story. The only thing I now read is that he seems like a bit of a bigot for dropping a women because she escourted...
Maybe he thought it was monogamous? I don't see why it would make him a bigot.
I think Hacked Off have also got to answer why the pursuit of a Tory MP was worth trashing the privacy of Whittingdale's partner - where's the 'public interest' in that? Or if you sleep with a Tory do you get what you deserve?
Did you know that if you sleep with a Tory you become one? So fair game
Is being a tory sexually transmitted now?
They've identified TSE as patient zero. Or was it "Typhoid TSE"... I'm never sure which...
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Where the hell are the decent political scandals these days? We are having to make do with third rate "awkwardness" as being the end of democracy. Nothing that is touted as a resignation matter these days would make a maiden aunt faint or cause the vicar to drop his cup of tea.
For the good of decent circulation figures, we need another good Mandelson story or maybe some Ecclestone millions to get us back to the quality we have come to expect.
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
I don't see any reason why he should resign over the relationship. But the condemnation of his behaviour appears to have come from one Mr Whittingdale: "I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship."
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
I think Hacked Off have also got to answer why the pursuit of a Tory MP was worth trashing the privacy of Whittingdale's partner - where's the 'public interest' in that? Or if you sleep with a Tory do you get what you deserve?
Did you know that if you sleep with a Tory you become one? So fair game
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
I don't see any reason why he should resign over the relationship. But the condemnation of his behaviour appears to have come from one Mr Whittingdale: "I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship."
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
Why should he resign? For the crime of being a single middle-aged Tory, who's not much of a looker, who's been found out to enjoy sex to his specific tastes?
I see that the Lib Dems have organised an election with seven candidates and three voters in the House of Lords.
Any thoughts on the most appropriate voting system to use in such a situation?
Hopefully there will be a three-way tie.
They're using AV
How can you use AV in a three voter situation?
If in round 1 two votes go to a candidate then they're duly elected, no second round. If in round 1 no candidates get two votes who do you eliminate and transfer the vote of?
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
I don't see any reason why he should resign over the relationship. But the condemnation of his behaviour appears to have come from one Mr Whittingdale: "I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship."
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
There doesn't seem to be the slightest evidence of that. John Whittingdale's views were well-established in advance of him becoming Culture Secretary - he was chair of the Parliamentary Culture Media and Sport Committee beforehand and opined regularly in that position. The Prime Minister would have been fully aware of his views before appointing him - indeed I seem to recall commenting that it was a declaration of war on the BBC by the Prime Minister when he appointed John Whittingdale to this role.
I think Hacked Off have also got to answer why the pursuit of a Tory MP was worth trashing the privacy of Whittingdale's partner - where's the 'public interest' in that? Or if you sleep with a Tory do you get what you deserve?
Did you know that if you sleep with a Tory you become one? So fair game
Ah, that explains all those "I've Never Kissed A Tory" T-shirts. It's like showing the world your all-clear from AIDS....
I seem to recall Vince Cable had to pass newspaper regulation from BIS over to the Culture Secretary because of perceived conflict when he made remarks about Murdoch.
So with the current perceived conflict for Whittingdale, newpaper regulation could be passed back to the BIS Department.
I see that the Lib Dems have organised an election with seven candidates and three voters in the House of Lords.
Any thoughts on the most appropriate voting system to use in such a situation?
Hopefully there will be a three-way tie.
They're using AV
How can you use AV in a three voter situation?
If in round 1 two votes go to a candidate then they're duly elected, no second round. If in round 1 no candidates get two votes who do you eliminate and transfer the vote of?
You have to wonder what the motivation of the BBC is in all this (I understand they broke it on Newsnight?). After all, Whittingdale isn't their biggest fan.
Maybe it's a generation divide but I really didn't even clock this as a story. The only thing I now read is that he seems like a bit of a bigot for dropping a women because she escourted...
She did it while seeing him, maybe he had no intention of being cuckolded?
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
I see that the Lib Dems have organised an election with seven candidates and three voters in the House of Lords.
Any thoughts on the most appropriate voting system to use in such a situation?
Hopefully there will be a three-way tie.
They're using AV
How can you use AV in a three voter situation?
If in round 1 two votes go to a candidate then they're duly elected, no second round. If in round 1 no candidates get two votes who do you eliminate and transfer the vote of?
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
When else has "single man has relationship via online dating" been "news"?
Hacked Off are ghastly people who have no interest in privacy. Their only concerns were to (a) control what newspapers wrote about certain approved celebrities; (b) get at the newspapers when they lost that control; and (c) attack Murdoch.
Since Whittingdale is a Tory they see no problem with his privacy being invaded, even though in fact the papers did not invade his privacy, and he had ceased having the relationship long before he became Culture Secretary.
Hacked Off are an utterly unedifying organisation and the sooner they - rather than Whittingdale - disappear from public life the better.
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
I was pondering that thought too. A proper Domme (as opposed to a hooker who does it a bit) doesn't give their submissive any sexual relief.
Why should he resign? For the crime of being a single middle-aged Tory, who's not much of a looker, who's been found out to enjoy sex to his specific tastes?
I seem to recall Vince Cable had to pass newspaper regulation from BIS over to the Culture Secretary because of perceived conflict when he made remarks about Murdoch.
So with the current perceived conflict for Whittingdale, newpaper regulation could be passed back to the BIS Department.
But Cable actually used the words "war on Murdoch", when he was probably supposed to be impartial. Much more evidence than we have in this case.
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
When else has "single man has relationship via online dating" been "news"?
Any time the tabloid press think it'll flog a few more copies.
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
I was pondering that thought too. A proper Domme (as opposed to a hooker who does it a bit) doesn't give their submissive any sexual relief.
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
I don't see any reason why he should resign over the relationship. But the condemnation of his behaviour appears to have come from one Mr Whittingdale: "I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship."
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
There doesn't seem to be the slightest evidence of that. John Whittingdale's views were well-established in advance of him becoming Culture Secretary - he was chair of the Parliamentary Culture Media and Sport Committee beforehand and opined regularly in that position. The Prime Minister would have been fully aware of his views before appointing him - indeed I seem to recall commenting that it was a declaration of war on the BBC by the Prime Minister when he appointed John Whittingdale to this role.
This just looks like muck-raking to me.
JackW's comment below (9.12) pretty much covers it, I think.
In any case, I'm not saying there is any evidence for or against the concern Labour are advancing, merely that it's a reasonable question to ask in the circumstances, and it's reasonable behaviour for any competent opposition in attempting to hold the executive to account (maybe the biggest surprise here is Labour behaving like a competent opposition).
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
The closest analogue I can think to this story is when Buttler-Sloss stepped down from the Independent inquiry into child abuse due to her brother being attorney general.
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
When else has "single man has relationship via online dating" been "news"?
Any time the tabloid press think it'll flog a few more copies.
Can't think of any examples of this low standard with other MPs, perhaps you'd like to share some?
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
I don't see any reason why he should resign over the relationship. But the condemnation of his behaviour appears to have come from one Mr Whittingdale: "I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship."
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
There doesn't seem to be the slightest evidence of that. John Whittingdale's views were well-established in advance of him becoming Culture Secretary - he was chair of the Parliamentary Culture Media and Sport Committee beforehand and opined regularly in that position. The Prime Minister would have been fully aware of his views before appointing him - indeed I seem to recall commenting that it was a declaration of war on the BBC by the Prime Minister when he appointed John Whittingdale to this role.
This just looks like muck-raking to me.
JackW's comment below (9.12) pretty much covers it, I think.
In any case, I'm not saying there is any evidence for or against the concern Labour are advancing, merely that it's a reasonable question to ask in the circumstances, and it's reasonable behaviour for any competent opposition in attempting to hold the executive to account (maybe the biggest surprise here is Labour behaving like a competent opposition).
Yes, the hypocrisy is the press's, not John Whittingdale's. But I can't see how I'm supposed to get angry about the press not publishing something that its opponents wouldn't want published about anyone else.
It seems pretty straightforward: if he made any use of his position in relation to press regulation, however veiled or implied, to prevent a personally embarrassing story from being reported, he should go. If it's just an embarrassing story he shouldn't.
It does seem as if the lately-loyal right wing press is starting to toy with the financial-and-sex sleaze-ridden divided small-majority Tory party narrative that did for Major from 92 onwards. Will be interesting to see whether that's an EUref-inspired development or something that gathers pace over the next year or two.
Incidentally, one of the possible questions in relation to Corbyn's income is this: he has in the past appeared on Press TV. Has he been paid by them? And did he take care to ensure that in receiving payment he was not - inadvertently - in breach of then existing sanctions against Iran? Similarly, if he or his office ever received money (i.e. either for speeches given or donations) from some of his more colourful associates, I hope he checked that he was not in breach of any sanctions. There are quite a wide list of organisations which are covered by sanctions regulations. If you do not pay attention to the detail of where any payments for extra-curricular activities are coming from you can find yourself, inadvertently, in breach.
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
I don't see any reason why he should resign over the relationship. But the condemnation of his behaviour appears to have come from one Mr Whittingdale: "I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship."
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
There doesn't seem to be the slightest evidence of that. John Whittingdale's views were well-established in advance of him becoming Culture Secretary - he was chair of the Parliamentary Culture Media and Sport Committee beforehand and opined regularly in that position. The Prime Minister would have been fully aware of his views before appointing him - indeed I seem to recall commenting that it was a declaration of war on the BBC by the Prime Minister when he appointed John Whittingdale to this role.
This just looks like muck-raking to me.
JackW's comment below (9.12) pretty much covers it, I think.
In any case, I'm not saying there is any evidence for or against the concern Labour are advancing, merely that it's a reasonable question to ask in the circumstances, and it's reasonable behaviour for any competent opposition in attempting to hold the executive to account (maybe the biggest surprise here is Labour behaving like a competent opposition).
Yes, the hypocrisy is the press's, not John Whittingdale's. But I can't see how I'm supposed to get angry about the press not publishing something that its opponents wouldn't want published about anyone else.
The opponents don't want stories published about themselves and their friends. They have no issue with stories being published about people they dislike, as their rather grubby agitation this morning shows.
It seems pretty straightforward: if he made any use of his position in relation to press regulation, however veiled or implied, to prevent a personally embarrassing story from being reported, he should go. If it's just an embarrassing story he shouldn't.
It does seem as if the lately-loyal right wing press is starting to toy with the financial-and-sex sleaze-ridden divided small-majority Tory party narrative that did for Major from 92 onwards. Will be interesting to see whether that's an EUref-inspired development or something that gathers pace over the next year or two.
McBride is back, what did you expect?
I think if McBride had the power to direct the narrative of the press at will then he'd have been the subject of a bidding war that makes the IPL auctions look like Poundstretcher.
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
When else has "single man has relationship via online dating" been "news"?
Any time the tabloid press think it'll flog a few more copies.
Can't think of any examples of this low standard with other MPs, perhaps you'd like to share some?
Chris Bryant got the front page for a dating website picture !
A vote for Remain is to uphold the moral hygiene of the U.K.
I take it you've finally decided to vote Leave.
Yup. Been reading a piece saying the French really want us to stay.
Of course they do. From where else do you imagine are they going to find all those billions of Euros to subsidise their hopelessly inefficient farmers?
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
The closest analogue I can think to this story is when Buttler-Sloss stepped down from the Independent inquiry into child abuse due to her brother being attorney general.
Her brother, Sir Michael Havers, himself got into trouble with prostitutes.
Not like that.
During the Yorkshire ripper trial he said something that upset every prostitute in the country.
Havers drew controversy at the outset of the trial, when he said of Sutcliffe's victims in his introductory speech: "Some were prostitutes, but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
In response to this remark, the English Collective of Prostitutes accused Havers of "condoning the murder of prostitutes", and women demonstrated outside the Old Bailey with placards in protest.[9]
Just in case anyone was considering the tabloids' delicacy over Mr Whittingdale's inclinations represents the sunny uplands of a newly responsible press, think again.
I do have to chortle a tad that some think the likes of the the "Sun" and "People" have exercised some form of wonderful restraint .. titter ....
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick Now Cabinet Minister .. tick Spicy Sex .. tick Former Prostitute .. tick Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
But he wasn't a cabinet minister at the time, there haven't been suggestions of spicy sex, nor that he knew she was an escort (they matched on a dating site apparently). Definitely a non-story, unless it was a very slow news day.
Dah ...
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
The closest analogue I can think to this story is when Buttler-Sloss stepped down from the Independent inquiry into child abuse due to her brother being attorney general.
Her brother, Sir Michael Havers, himself got into trouble with prostitutes.
Not like that.
During the Yorkshire ripper trial he said something that upset every prostitute in the country
You have even less control over who your brother is than who you date !
I don't see any reason why he should resign over the relationship. But the condemnation of his behaviour appears to have come from one Mr Whittingdale: "I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me. At no time did she give me any indication of of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship."
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
There doesn't seem to be the slightest evidence of that. John Whittingdale's views were well-established in advance of him becoming Culture Secretary - he was chair of the Parliamentary Culture Media and Sport Committee beforehand and opined regularly in that position. The Prime Minister would have been fully aware of his views before appointing him - indeed I seem to recall commenting that it was a declaration of war on the BBC by the Prime Minister when he appointed John Whittingdale to this role.
This just looks like muck-raking to me.
JackW's comment below (9.12) pretty much covers it, I think.
In any case, I'm not saying there is any evidence for or against the concern Labour are advancing, merely that it's a reasonable question to ask in the circumstances, and it's reasonable behaviour for any competent opposition in attempting to hold the executive to account (maybe the biggest surprise here is Labour behaving like a competent opposition).
Yes, the hypocrisy is the press's, not John Whittingdale's. But I can't see how I'm supposed to get angry about the press not publishing something that its opponents wouldn't want published about anyone else.
It's almost like you have a legal background with meta-arguments like that.
The press shouldn't (IMO) publish this stuff about anyone. In the real world, it does. Whittingdale is responsible for relevant regulation, and has not seen fit to address the issue. If - and I have no idea whether this is the case - he used his position of power to afford himself greater protection than he feels that the population at large deserves, that's an abuse of his power and pretty hypocritical.
The relevant question is how he deals with the world as it exists, not the counterfactual that states he would not have had to deal with the problem were the world to be as "the opponents [of the press]" would like it to be.
Comments
Right.
I think he'll probably take something of a beating over this but i doubt there'll be too much blood on the carpet ....
But clearly the press have had the whip hand over him for some time.
I see that the Lib Dems have organised an election with seven candidates and three voters in the House of Lords.
Any thoughts on the most appropriate voting system to use in such a situation?
Hopefully there will be a three-way tie.
Or is it, 'no smoke without fire'....'nudge nudge, wink wink'
Exactly the sort of thing Hacked Off complained about when it involved a Tory MP celeb actor......
Beyond that I dislike Whittingdale's politics. I would be glad to see the back of him but not over this.
New York - Liberty Research Polling :
Trump 52 .. Kasich 23 .. Cruz 19 - Sample 6,041
http://libertyopinionresearch.com/results-gop-presidential-primary-nys/
New York - PPP
Trump 51 .. Kasich 25 .. Cruz 20
Clinton 51 .. Sanders 40
Clinton 55 .. Trump 25
Clinton 56 .. Cruz 30
Clinton 50 .. Kasich 36
Sanders 58 .. Trump 33
Sanders 59 .. Cruz 27
Sanders 54 .. Kasich 35
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_NY_41216.pdf
If he wasn't paying he should be asked to review general public procurement.
I've just been reading one blog that is trying to liken it to Profumo, with a member of the London underworld playing the role of the Soviet naval attache in this case.
It does seem as if the lately-loyal right wing press is starting to toy with the financial-and-sex sleaze-ridden divided small-majority Tory party narrative that did for Major from 92 onwards. Will be interesting to see whether that's an EUref-inspired development or something that gathers pace over the next year or two.
One of the biggest shocks about this story was that a Tory actually uses the Tube...
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/720161197639745536
And every time before a Labour MP has a consensual sex relationship, I look forward to them getting out a standard Labour Party-approved questionnaire:
"Are you now, or have you ever been, a sex worker, been paid for sex, been a mistress, engaged in dubious moral activity, failed to declare some or all income to HMRC, been the beneficiary of an offshore trust...."
Helpful headline by Aunty, - makes it look like he hired hookers.
Hacked Off finally became what they said they opposed. Intrusions in to private lives of those caught up in news, ends justifying means.
Remainers = Sweet and Innocent people
Leavers = Colossal perverts
A vote for Remain is to uphold the moral hygiene of the U.K.
... I'll get my coat
Let's think ...
Senior MP .. tick
Now Cabinet Minister .. tick
Spicy Sex .. tick
Former Prostitute .. tick
Ex wife of "Gladiator Celeb" .. tick
An editor's dream.
But ..
MP at time was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee and now SoS for same and known critic of Leveson.
Oh Bugger !!
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/apr/13/dear-america-this-donald-trump-thing-its-not-all-about-you-video
For the good of decent circulation figures, we need another good Mandelson story or maybe some Ecclestone millions to get us back to the quality we have come to expect.
And totter towards the tomb
I find that I care less and less
Who goes to bed with whom.
Dorothy L. Sayers
Labour are correctly going on the angle of whether his personal life led him to abuse his power in relation to press regulation, not the nature of his relationship.
Dolly Parton sleeps on her back.
If in round 1 two votes go to a candidate then they're duly elected, no second round.
If in round 1 no candidates get two votes who do you eliminate and transfer the vote of?
AV doesn't apply here.
This just looks like muck-raking to me.
So with the current perceived conflict for Whittingdale, newpaper regulation could be passed back to the BIS Department.
It really is an AV election
What position did he hold prior to being in the Cabinet ?!? and what issue dominated his tenure ?!?
The tabloid press don't care about the finer details but the association of kinky sex and an MP.
Since Whittingdale is a Tory they see no problem with his privacy being invaded, even though in fact the papers did not invade his privacy, and he had ceased having the relationship long before he became Culture Secretary.
Hacked Off are an utterly unedifying organisation and the sooner they - rather than Whittingdale - disappear from public life the better.
A proper Domme (as opposed to a hooker who does it a bit) doesn't give their submissive any sexual relief.
If he'd been pro, I could half see a case but not here
In any case, I'm not saying there is any evidence for or against the concern Labour are advancing, merely that it's a reasonable question to ask in the circumstances, and it's reasonable behaviour for any competent opposition in attempting to hold the executive to account (maybe the biggest surprise here is Labour behaving like a competent opposition).
I mean, I had improper thoughts just by betting heavily against Jeb on the Republican Nomination market.
Not like that.
During the Yorkshire ripper trial he said something that upset every prostitute in the country.
Havers drew controversy at the outset of the trial, when he said of Sutcliffe's victims in his introductory speech: "Some were prostitutes, but perhaps the saddest part of the case is that some were not. The last six attacks were on totally respectable women."
In response to this remark, the English Collective of Prostitutes accused Havers of "condoning the murder of prostitutes", and women demonstrated outside the Old Bailey with placards in protest.[9]
https://twitter.com/ms_shepherd/status/719938342339657732
The press shouldn't (IMO) publish this stuff about anyone. In the real world, it does. Whittingdale is responsible for relevant regulation, and has not seen fit to address the issue. If - and I have no idea whether this is the case - he used his position of power to afford himself greater protection than he feels that the population at large deserves, that's an abuse of his power and pretty hypocritical.
The relevant question is how he deals with the world as it exists, not the counterfactual that states he would not have had to deal with the problem were the world to be as "the opponents [of the press]" would like it to be.
http://knowledgenuts.com/2013/07/21/the-victorians-didnt-cover-their-table-legs/