William Hague's extraordinary statement

Im not sure what is so extraordinary about it. If the press were hounding you to the point of ruining your marriage and professional relationship with people around you, wouldn't we all release such a statement?

The fact the media feel the need to report it at all is just crazy. Isn't this the 21st century where its well known that people cheat, or are gay, or bi, or whatever? Who cares?

The statement was personal, not political (timing is interesting, but does anyone really think Hague would time this to overshadow Blair?? I don't). So making it a blog entry only goes against Hague's wishes, surely?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I believe Wlliam Hague ,he's nothing like SH! you know who and its great for him to come out of the closet and say "i'm not gay and proud of it" and whilst at it ,he can also confirm "im not a cannabal and proud of it"

That'll stop the rumour mongers

Truly bizarre.

Why does Hague reveal so much about his private life, yet decline to explain why he was sharing a hotel room with an aide?

wow, just shows how ignorant and downright dispicable sections of the media and rumourmongers really are.

Regardless of political persuation (and I am by no means a Conservative), it truely is outrageous that personal lives are dragged through the mud for cheap points and newspaper/advertising profits.

Well, congratulations to them: you have know forced somebody to reveal deeply personal private matters to the wolves. and based on what? Sharing a TWIN (not a double bed!!) room together!!!!! Are you actually serious?!?? How many friends and co-workers share rooms on a regualr basis, particularly when travelling or on a short visit to places? I'd guess quite a lot. Idiots!!!

The statement should close it down - he is saying put up or shut up.

Well truely bizare statement it has to be said.

Firstly I would guess 99% don't give a monkey's if Hague is gay or straight but surely no one could be so naive in politics to "occasionally" share a room with one of your staff of either sex and then say "Neither of us would have done so if we had thought that it in any way meant or implied something else."

JUDGEMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why not simply say the hotel was full (assuming it was) we had no choice, I have started legal proceedings.

Why the life story and the personal facts about miscarriages...err hello, what has this got to do with anything?

maybe the shared a room to save £50 ?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The blogs today are total rubbish.

A book by a prime an ex prime minister from over 3 years ago that pretty much no-one has finished reading yet (and precious few will even bother starting) and a cringeworthy media obsession with potentially gay (even when they are clearly not) politician.

Meanwhile people are getting ready to lose their jobs over the policies of the current government and where is the reporting on this and other infinitely more relevant political stories.

Truly pitiful and demeaning. If there is any way of getting Cole or Marr back please BBC please do it before its too late.

Lest it not be forgotten. The suggestion that sharing the room was a cost-cutting exercise is a non-starter ... William Hague is a Millionaire.

Hague could have bought the hotels let alone the hotel rooms he shared with this young man and the cost to the public would have been zilch.

"maybe the shared a room to save £50 ?"

Occam's razor, sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one...

(...because have you *EVER* heard of an MP trying to save money that they can claim on expenses?)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think this shows a serious lack of judgment by Haige.

In today's tabloid climate, it was always going to be totally naive idea to 'share' a room with anyone but the wife.

Those innocent bygone days of Laurel and Hardy and Morecame and Wise are well and truly over, for ever.

If there is nothing behind the rumours why did Christopher Myers feel the need to resign?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Another "success" for Guido Fawkes.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

12. At 9:55pm on 01 Sep 2010, Jamie Walker wrote:

"maybe the shared a room to save £50 ?"

Occam's razor, sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one...

(...because have you *EVER* heard of an MP trying to save money that they can claim on expenses?)


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


Maybe there was an elephant in the other room ,in which case why has William not said "the big grey area in the middle is not for me"


Why! I ask WHY!

The issue should not be about William Hague’s sexual preferences - it is the fact that THE UK's Foreign Secretary has employed a young and inexperienced friend as his personal driver, salaried at public expense and at tax-payers cost as a Special Assistant that is the problem along with the probable misjudgement of Hague’s admitted sharing of hotel rooms.

If William Hague had shared these same hotel rooms with a 26 year old young female, the General Electorate should be just as demanding of the truth, as the employment of a young, inexperienced friend as personal driver and special assistant, salaried at public expense and tax-payers cost IS questionable not their gender.

William Hague has more Special Assistants than the Prime Minister and is costing the UK Tax-payer more money when money is tight, the government is seeking ways to save money and the Public Sector is bracing itself for job cuts. Why did Hague create this job and employ his young friend as personal driver and special assistant at our expense?

It is the hypocrisy of the employment of friends as special assistants by Ministers once they have achieved Office of State not Hague’s sexual preferences that is the problem.

For God's sake why can't the BBC and the media leave William Hague be?? I know a little of what William Hague and his wife is going through. I recently shared a room when I was on stag night in Las Vegas with one of my friends but I'm definitely not gay - I'm happily married with children, but my wife has sadly recently suffered two miscarriages as well. At least we have children already - if you want children it is the most awful curse to know you cannot. On Mr Hague's behalf can we, the normal British public who still hold to some standards of decency, appeal to the better instincts of the men and women in the media and ask the BBC and the media to respect his privacy? Hague has shown dignity and incredible forbearance in revealing what is an intensely personal matter and for once, in the ever less illustrious career of the BBC, why can't you show some dignity and leave the man alone.

You know the reason why he probably did this, is unlike hypocratic politicians before him, he booked a twin room because it's cheaper than 2 singles and so saves the taxpayer money. It was also more interesting to have someone to talk to than working alone. Also his aide shouldn't resign for this I think he should personally sue for libel, that would shut the traps of the flesh eating parasites that certain members of the press are. (not all of course, such as the good neutral broadcasting of nick robinson).

Oh and also do you know why this guy's a millionare, it's because he always tries to save money, most of the richest people in the world are skimpy. Warren Buffet has a packed lunch of a ham sandwich and drives a 10 year old 4*4. For people who don't know he is the 2nd richest man in the world and would be 1st had he not given away most of his wealth to charity!

@11 Menedemus wrote:

Lest it not be forgotten. The suggestion that sharing the room was a cost-cutting exercise is a non-starter ... William Hague is a Millionaire.
===============

Maybe he became a millionaire by knowing how to save the odd £50 quid here or there.

Are you simply jealous?

The villification of Hague is an obsecene example of media intrusion into private life.

@7 Eatonrifle
You may well have a point about Judgement, as SherwoodNash points out @13 the days of Morecambe and Wise are long gone, more's the pity.

It is impossible to imagine the distress this disgraceful coverage is having on Fion Hague.

I don't pay my licence fee for the BBC to cover this kind of garbage under the banner of "journalism".

We still don't know why Hague was sharing a room despite the statement.

There does not seem any reason for Hague to reveal details about his wife's miscarriages as a response to questions about him sharing a room (more than once) with his driver.

Also since then he has appointed the person as a special adviser at public expense. Therefore it is a valid to question if Hague has appointed someone inappropriate to the job. Not sure the statement justifies his appointment either.

This kind of idle speculation makes me furious. It has forced Hague to bend over backwards to confirm his heterosexuality, and I believe he may have gone too far in this respect and it's done him no good.

It would have been better to say nothing. Talking about pregnancies as a way of confirming his sexual preferences may not have been what he intended, but some will read it that way and say it smacks of desperation.

There can be no doubt that William Hague is either gay or not. There can be no half measures. Unless, of course he is bisexual, which is sort of a half measure, I suppose.

It's all a disgrace.

I suspect William is hiding the fact that it was an elephant in the other room because the press would then ask "was it Indian or was it African"


Their ears are different you know AND either way the press would ask

"Do you have a preferance for ears".[back to square one again]


With OCCAMS RAZER YOU CAN FIND OUT EVERYTHING about nothing.

The issue is the employment of personal friends as Special Assistants - salaried jobs paid out of public funds when there is a freeze on public spending, government costs are supposed to be being reduced and the Public Sector is expecting to see job losses - that is the problem.

If any Minister of State shared a hotel room with a 26 year old young female, the General Electorate would be just as demanding and vexed as to the rights and wrongs of that room share but, nevertheless, it would still be the employment of a young, inexperienced friend as personal driver and special assistant, salaried at public expense and tax-payers cost that should be the questionable behaviour of the Government Minister.

Hague has previous here
Did he not share a flat with Alan Duncan when a new MP!
Also that Tom guy on ITV (Who told us Gordon Brown would be thrown out of Office every week)thinks it's untrue - DOH!
Remember Jim Hacker's 1st Rule of Politics
Never believe anything until it's been officially denied

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I think that the private lives of those who report on the private lives of others should be equally open to scrutiny and transparency. I wouldn't want to be reading articles authored by hypocrites.

Totally uninteresting rubbish. I cannot for the life of me see this as anything other than a spoiler designed to diminish Blair's memoirs.And if it's that, bloody hell the media are ruthless, eh.

12. At 9:55pm on 01 Sep 2010, Jamie Walker wrote:

"maybe the shared a room to save £50 ?"

Occam's razor, sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one...

(...because have you *EVER* heard of an MP trying to save money that they can claim on expenses?)


hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


It may have nothing to do with with saving expences and more to do with putting up elephants at taxpayers expence and sharing the running costs .

William should come clean and tell us if its name is Dumbo , how many airmiles has it done and has it ever stayed at the Ritz at Al fayeds expence.

The story gets more disgraceful by the day !

The press should question the elephant ,they never forget you know ...not even for all the nuts in politics.

29. At 11:14pm on 01 Sep 2010, Ras wrote:

Hague has previous here
Did he not share a flat with Alan Duncan when a new MP!



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

So Alan had first refusal on sharing the running costs of dumbo....on second thoughts maybe i should retract my first statement !


What would William of Ocammp do

Boring .. in moments such as these I feel smug I am not party to the rest of the hamsters in this country running on their little treadmills paying for and then reading the verbiage on the train every morning .. and then having to sit through it all again as it is regurgitated on that box in the corner of the living room.

You want news? surf the net and get the BIGGER picture .. not whats fed to you.

I don't care whether William Hague and his special adviser shared a room or had an affair. That's a private matter. I am concerned that a young man of 25, with limited political experience, is acting as Special Adviser to a seasoned politician like the Foreign Secretary, paid for out of the public purse. If William Hague was helping a young Tory hopeful to get his foot on the parliamentary ladder, then that is our business. Too many young whippersnappers straight from university take up posts as 'Special Advisers' and before long they are standing in safe parliamentary seats. We are creating a political elite, cut off from ordinary people. They need to be told to go out and get a proper job, learn how to do something, make something or manage something, and then think about a parliamentary career. My worry isn't that Hague might be gay; I'm more concerned about what looks like nepotism.

Having said that, I feel deeply sorry for the Hagues' problems in starting a family and understand why he felt it necessary to reveal their personal sadness in order to protect his wife, who must be feeling very distressed by all the innuendo on top of her recent unhappy experience. My sincere sympathy to them both.

The public is giving all politicians the benefit of the doubt ....so it is up to them to prove that they are not gay ,if they dare.

By saying such things as "some of my best friends are gay but im not" to convince .03% of the population.

As they say when you make your own bed you have to lie in it.


rofl

William Hague is a decent man in Westminster and that is what matters above all else. His personal life is his own business.

It's a non-story.

I'm actually far more worried about the Conservatives getting into bed with the Lib-Dems.

Despite reading the papers and online news every day, this is the first I've heard about these rumours. Perhaps that's because I read quality newspapers and websites and not the sort of trash that carries this type of story.

People ask why Hague shared a room. This was during his campaign so has nothing to do with the taxpayer or expenses. He may be a wealthy man, but no doubt, being from up north, he still likes to be frugal. Also, remember that his constituency covers a large rural area, so maybe the small B&Bs he stayed in while campaigning only had a twin room vacant.

It is just a typical example of how the News,yes especially the dumbed down BBC, is a commodity selling other commodities.

It sells the ex-PM's book and now deals in prurient interest in irrelevant speculation about sexuality of another aspirant ex-PM.

We are being sold consumerism in the form of news cars, mobile phones, holidays,etc., in exchange for true democracy.

40. At 00:18am on 02 Sep 2010, DistantTraveller wrote:

It's a non-story.

I'm actually far more worried about the Conservatives getting into bed with the Lib-Dems.



Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Do you seriously think that there would be enough room ?

Oh for goodness sake! I've gone on holiday for three weeks to the states and shared a room with a male friend every night, I've had almost a dozen long weekends away with male friends on walking holidays staying in the same house, I regularly stay at the houses of male friends when I go visit, heck I've even slept in the same bed with one of my male friends and "hold the front pages" even shared a bed with my wife and my best mate (I was in the middle for those interested enough) and you know what... Nothing remotely sexually has ever taken place in any of those instances! Who cares why they shared a room, perhaps they actually like each other as friends and thought it'd be far more fun talking to the wee hours of the night rather than stuck alone in their own rooms. Why does everyone nowadays think that just because two blokes enjoy each others company they must be going at it like rabbits??? And before anyone sticks their oar in, no I'm not a "repressed" homosexual, I merrily dabbled in my youth and I enjoyed it at the time but ah, women, they're just too fantastic not to want.

Dear Nick,

it is with some sadness and not a little embarassment that I have to reveal, before it is announced to the assembled public by his priest, that my father spent a number of YEARS sleeping in the same room as ELEVEN other men, finally culminating in some further months IN A TENT WITH A BATMAN.

.

Though he is now over ninety, and the events took place largely in heathen countries at risk of being over-run by EVEN WORSE PEOPLE, he still reminisces about the experience; he even remembers the Batman ADJUSTING HIS MOSQUITO NET!!!

.

And all this after he WENT TO A SCHOOL WITH NO GIRLS.

.

I feel sure that his priest will finally lay him to rest absolved of his life-long FEELINGS OF FRIENDSHIP for his fellow man, following these, HIS TRUE CONFESSIONS.

..... AND WHILE I AM THINKING ABOUT IT, I occasionally shared a twin room with a colleague when away on official business. It saved the company money but the downside was all in the snores and man-farts.

I am quite disgusted with so-called political commentators these days.

Sharing a room with another man is normal for men. If we want to play around with each other we will do so. We are not slaves to bigots who are obsessed with homophobic attitudes. If we just want to share a room that is equally our business.

Men are entitled to share beds, love each other, hold hands and whatever else without necessarily being gay. Private lives are... private and none of anyone else's business. And for those religious nutters who go on about "betraying his wife", well guess what, some married men sleep with other men either with or without sex and their wives are quite happy with this. Get over it.

William Hague is an honourable man who is entitled to a private life, so back off and grow up please!

And as for the young man who shared a room with him, what a disgrace and what a poor example for young people today that he is penalised for no good reason whatsoever. Tiny minds should stick to commenting on Eastenders and leave the adult conversations to the grown-ups. I hope he is given a much better paid job by someone as he didn't deserve this.

Clearly these rumours were started by the Labour Party homophobes trying to start up a "Tory Sleaze" narrative. Don't expect the gay vite next time!

Is'nt the entire tale a little suspect?

Who set it in motion ?

Why has it been widely reported?

It would be difficult to sue the shadowy figures who blight other peoples lives by insinuating all sorts of things about them, but I expect the BBBC and the "quality" press to be above such things.

However it would seem that Auntie has become the Tittla -Tattler extraordinaire.

As for the person who indicated they only read " quality" newspapers , could he/she name them?

I have been on a fruitless search for some time now for a publication which does not offend my intellect nor promote a biased view,
the "quality" press of Scotland having been killed stone dead some time ago.

To be forced into making a statement like that they must have been at the end of their tether, there is no way a woman would normally allow information that personal to be in the public domain unless they were extremely upset. I know this from personal experience

Both the Hague's must have agreed on what was said before it was released, and that decision would not have been taken lightly. Whilst I think that the private lives of MP's should be somewhat held in the public light - this has gone too far and is almost insulting

As may folk on here have pointed out - it is not unusual for two men to share a hotel room !! I shared rooms for years whilst on the road and still do now when on training, the company won't pay for singles as it's an efficiency saving (plus most blokes don't actually mind)

Not to mention that as a Yorkshireman he has a duty to be tight! I know, I grew up there, it's in the blood :)

I don't see anything wrong in what has happened here, two co-workers sharing a room causes this fuss? Ridiculous, petty minded stuff

So Hague and an aide share a hotel room. What's the story? They're saving money, perhaps? Just because two blokes share a hotel room does not instantly make it a homosexual relationship.

I've been on trips where the men in the group share double rooms. Were they all gay? Did we snigger and giggle about it behind their backs? No. It was expedient to save money.

Honestly, this is a complete non-story. Even if Hague turns out to be gay or bi or whatever, who even cares these days?

There are far, far more important stories out there that need coverage. Stop being so tabloid, BBC.

The press may find 'gay sex' allegations the interesting issue - I do not. I do not support digging into peoples private lives, if their public work is unaffected.

My concern is that he has appointed someone as a 'special adviser' at tax payer expense. At the same time his party says they will make hundreds of thousands of people unemployed, ruining their lives, in order to save money.

The guy is a history graduate, Hague is foreign secretary. What 'advice' can this guy give that could not be given by an existing civil servant at no extra cost to the tax payer?

This is what Hague should be justifying - or resigning.

People doing these sorts of jobs are not saints and nor would we want them to be. Personally I have no problem with Hague and whether he did / did not have a relationship with his aide. However, I do have a problem with the gutter press hounding people ... ultimately out of office .. for perceived infringement of some unwritten code of conduct. If this continues we will have only the mildest, gentlest, dull and unchallenging people leading the country. Given the dearth of real leaders ... Brown springs to mind ....we cannot be so picky. Free speech is a great idea. Free speech with responsibility is a harder concept, but if it conflicts with newspaper sales what chance would it have anyway?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Attacks on Hague are pure homophobia. Illicit relationships between MPs and their researchers are so commonplace that they wouldn't make it onto the inside pages of a national daily, so to claim that this story is about Hague's integrity or suitability for the role rather than his sexuality is a pathetic attempt to give it credibility. If the story is groundless, Hague is the victim of a malicious smear. If there is some truth to it, so what? Grow up. Or at least stop pretending that the story is anything other than what it is: a lurid interest in what a national figure gets up to in the privacy of the bedroom.

In the last 24 hours I have become even more astonished at the attitudes of politicians.

There is Blair saying that Brown drove him to drink when all he had was the occasional half bottle of wine with his dinner. How prissy is that?

Then there is all this innuendo about William Hague who shared a hotel room with an aide. All this tells me is that Hague doesn't like spending money. He also has a male friend who like Hague is interested in history. So what?

It just amazes me: the country is teetering on the edge of banruptcy and all the political class want to do is to engage in idle gossip.

During the last war a naked Churchill would dictate to his secretaries from the bath quite often after a bottle of champagne and a large brandy. Were there any innuendos about that? No, for the simple reason that people had better things to do.

It is time the political class and their friends in the media got their collective nose out of the gutter and smell the coffee: our country is at peril. Get on with the real job!

Some of my best friends are journalists.

"admits sharing twin hotel rooms" Admits? Hardly a crime is it? Come on!

#55 stanilic

I'm afraid that these day most people seem to have confused the 'recommended daily alcohol intake' with what I like to call lunch !

I reckon if you took a straw poll of bloggers on here and asked how much alcohol they drink per day it would be at least on a par with Tony Blair and in my case above it, but I don't consider it to be a problem

I don't think he was anywhere near a problem with it, it's just that we are constantly brainwashed with 'recommended this that and the other'

Nobody cared years ago

14. At 10:05pm on 01 Sep 2010, SherwoodNash wrote:
In today's tabloid climate, it was always going to be totally naive idea to 'share' a room with anyone but the wife.

Agreed.

Mind, I am still trying to cope with mental images of Mrs. Lord help us Prescott's evident bedroom partner preferences still.

I read a lot of supportive comments.

So lets leave unproven allegations about sexuality out of this - this is the 21st century.

The issue here is MISUSE OF PUBLIC MONEY - that is an issue relevant to Hagues judgement and of clear interest to the taxpayer.

* Is it acceptable to appoint a friend/election helper as a 'special advisor' at public expense?

* What is this guys job?

* What can he 'advise' that could not have been done by existing staff at no extra expense to the tax payer?

* How is this consistent with the dogma of a crisis which demands massive cuts in spending?

Please, tory supporters, tell me the answer?

Is this a story at all?

The BBC have got a problem with the coalition, it appears.

Supported by 60% of those who voted and now having the backing of an ex prime minister I can understand why the BBC, with it's bloated slaries, pensions and costs, micght be feeling a little 'out of the loop'.

But really.. running a story like this for the sake of a few cheap headlines when the man's life and that of his wife have been a misery for the last few years?

If footballers are allowed 'super injunctions' to prevent the latest tabloid disclosures I think the foreign secretary and his wife deserve some sympathy for having admitted up front,to having a problem with some peoples' 'version of events'.

Leave them in peace.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Robin @ 61
Odd that you should criticize the BBC for reporting this story, but not those responsible for making it a story in the first place: right-wing bloggers like Paul Staines and right-wing newspapers like the Mail on Sunday. When Hague talked of the intense media pressure that forced him to issue a statement, he was certainly not thinking of the BBC. I'm not sure why Staines et al should be out to get Hague. Do you know? You share some of the same wavelengths, so perhaps you can throw some light. I do agree with your revulsion at the media coverage.

60#

Although not a tory supporter:

* Is it acceptable to appoint a friend/election helper as a 'special advisor' at public expense?

IMVHO, no. Hardly new though, and I dont recall hearing you calling for their dismissals under the previous administration. I hardly recall you baulking at a SpAd under the previous administration being parachuted into a very safe Labour seat which he couldnt lose if he tried, becoming a cabinet minister and a party leadership contender in pretty much record time. It might not be morally right or acceptable, but its hardly news.

* What is this guys job?
Who knows? See also D McBride, D. Draper, etc. See answer to question 1.

* What can he 'advise' that could not have been done by existing staff at no extra expense to the tax payer?

Very good question. Cant answer it. See answer to question 1.

* How is this consistent with the dogma of a crisis which demands massive cuts in spending?

You mean theres a crisis? After we were told we were the best placed to weather an economic downturn? Gosh.... Seriously... how is this consistent? It isnt. Never has been, never will be. See answer to question 1.

Your hobby horse would appear to be riddled with woodworm, old chap.

#10 think the job losses are actually a result of the previous 13 years of incompetance , so I agree lets have a bit more insight into why they created this mess and how the UK is now going to pay the price of that incometance for the next 20 years

If they had two rooms, they would be accused of wasteful expenses; if they share a room, they are accused of illicit affairs; if they mention their family difficulties, they are seeking sob-stories...
Sometimes I wish that we could just let them do their jobs rather than scratching for scandal in their private lives...

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#60 Jon

Whilst not a Tory supporter I think you can ask those questions of just about every single administration we ever had!

Every Gov't has always had a 'jobs for the boys' policy, Tories, Labour, LibDems, they have all had 'advisers' who are close mates with no qualifications for the job in hand, and whilst I don' think this is right it has always gone on - regardless of political colour

You make some good points and I don't think that employing mates with no qualifications should be allowed, I think they should if they are eminently qualified for the position; but this is never the case!

This does need redressing, rules should be made clear and I think that Hague showed bad judgment in hiring this guy as his assistant - he must have know what he was letting himself in for!!

They shared a room because they WANTED to share a room. In my extensive experience it would be extremely unusual (unheard of) for anyone who travels and sees people alot to give up the rare privacy, solitude and rest afforded by a private hotel room. I would have thought it was even more precious to a government minister.
But so long as Mr Hague has not taken a public stand against any of the alleged behaviours then that's fine by me.
However if it IS true ... now its been denied ... then thats another matter.

With all due respect to the youth of today, but what on earth can a 25yr old advise an experienced politician on?

#60 The issue of the miss use of public money can we have a look at
the 1997-2010 abuse of the taxpayers monies. One of interest would be that of the ROVER administration of 2004/5 where the HMG paid the redundancy that would do nicely.

Or the massive increase in the liecense fee ?

How about the bailout of NR,RBS,BOS and what would have been job losses in labour heartlands

65. At 11:13am on 02 Sep 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
60#
Is it acceptable to appoint a friend/election helper as a 'special advisor' at public expense?

IMVHO, no. Hardly new though, and I dont recall hearing you calling for their dismissals under the previous administration ..... It might not be morally right or acceptable, but its hardly news.
=======================================

The difference from the previous administration is clear.

The tories are promising to make 1/2 million people unemployed to save money. Enormous suffering and distress to ordinary families. They say there is a crisis and this 'pain' is needed.

Yet here is one of their main people appointing a third 'special adviser' when his own rules say no more than two. By your own admission, you can not begin to justify the appointment.

The investigation of this should focus on Hague's conduct at work - misuse of public funds - not spurious issues of sexuality. If he has no justification for this appointment he should resign.

A book by an ex PM and rumours about the sex habits of a minister.
Thank goodness the silly season is over and we can get back to serious business of rumours and lies. It's been too quiet for too long!
Who cares about the economy anyway.

70. At 11:28am on 02 Sep 2010, mightychewster

Yes, I have no objection to advisers if they can provide specialist advice - if this guy was some professor of international relations or a businessman with years of experience in China etc I would have no objection.

I would call on anyone here to justify this appointment. Anyone?

I note that Hague has chosen to fight the issue on the matter of his private life - neatly diverting attention by using irrelevant and frankly apaling disclosures about his family. Dreadful.

He should not be allowed to cynically divert attention. The question is simple - why did he appoint this person using public funds?

May I ask what is the point of a twin room, other than to allow 2 people who are not in a sexual relationship to sleep in it?

47. At 05:42am on 02 Sep 2010, paganpaul wrote:
"Clearly these rumours were started by the Labour Party homophobes trying to start up a "Tory Sleaze" narrative. Don't expect the gay vite next time!"

Yes, I'm sure that the party that has extolled gay rights is bursting with homophobes.

To be honest, I knew nothing about such rumours until Hague released this statement. I'm sure everyone is far more concerned with how the man he shared a room with gained such power.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#71 Phil

I'm guessing your extensive experience didn't include ever playing in a sports team then?

All sports teams share rooms - the England football and rugby squads all share rooms when away (at all levels and ages) and all lower leagues do the same - it's about team spirit and bonding, it's good for the team to do this

I'm not saying that applies here but you can't say that adults (professional ones mind) don't ever share rooms

It would be frowned upon to ask for privacy if you were on tour with a team....and rightly so - it works

Agree fully with your last statement though.......if the rumours are true after the denial then this would put them both in a very precarious situation !

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

73. At 12:16pm on 02 Sep 2010, IR35_SURVIVOR wrote:
#60 The issue of the miss use of public money can we have a look at.....

==========================

I notice that you do not deny that Hague's conduct was a misuse of public funds.

Hague has tried to divert attention with cynical revelations about his family. You try to divert attention with information about previous governments.

Straight question: will any of you defend this appointment as a proper use of public funds?

pdavies...

why odd? The BBC should not be lowering themselves to the dismal standards of certain elements of the right wing press.

if this approach had not been taken over the yearts by successive governments and sections of the press 'innuendo with an intent to smear' as Lord Mandleson so ably stated it, we wouldn't need the ludicrous 'super injunctions' that we have today.

The public confuse 'we have a right to know' with 'we have nothing better to do than poke our noses in other peoples' business'.

Even TB admitted last night that the freedom of information act was on his long list of failures in government.

Leave them in peace.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Moderators getting touchy. Got to think of the TV licence.

78
The interesting aspect of all this (perhaps the only one) is that the story was either invented or unearthed by right-wingers and all the aspersions on Hague's judgemnt are being cast anonymously by his Tory colleagues, not his political opponents. I don't know why the right-wingers are out to get him, but they are.

"tales told by Tony Blair."

Finally you come out as anti-blair, hardly a surprise.

Do you have any idea that the normal reading of that sentance means

"lies told by Tony Blair"

I'm pretty sure that even the biggest Blair hater doesn't think everything in his book is a lie, yet you seem to.

Let's be clear. There are two angles to this story. One is a perfectly legitimate story for the media to cover and is of great public interest, and the other is William Hague's private life, in which we have no right to intrude.

Whether Hague is gay is a matter purely for him and his wife. It is none of our business.

However, it is absolutely our business if he offers a SpAd job, at the taxpayer's expense, to someone who is unqualified for the job but just happens to be his lover.

The two things are separate, although it is of course very difficult to come to judgement about the important issue without first coming to a judgement about Hague's private life, which is unfortunate.

I don't know whether they were lovers or not. But I do think it's a bit odd for two grown men to share a hotel room. Can't MPs claim for the cost of 2 rooms on expenses?

Several points:

1) Who cares if he is gay or bisexual? I thought we don't believe in discrimination any more. Am I wrong?

2) Why is this statement extraordinary? If you'd had to face, for example, losing a pregnancy and then having Sunday papers splashing stories about the pregnancy, and about your marriage, would you not want to shut them up?

3) Why do the media think that the marriages of public figures is ANY of our business? It isn't. Grow up. Please.

4) The real issue here is the allegation that Myers was employed not because of his skills, but because of his relationship with Hague (whatever that relationship is). This is a serious allegation. Why are our media focussing on someone's sexuality instead of on whether he's abused his position?

74#

Oh, right. Hague should resign his position as Foreign Secretary because of a barely justifiable SpAd appointment?

Get real mate.

82#

Any attempt from the left to try and tar any other party with "inappropriate use of public funds" considering the amount they micturated up the wall is completely and utterly laughable.

Let me see a twin bed room costs £100 per night. The alternative is 2 single rooms (assuming the hotel has them) costing £200 + single room supplement.

Of course a Labour minister would never be so stupid as to have an adviser and share a hotel room - one adviser only, no way, at least 3 or 4 and then they would hire the entire wing of the hotel citing security reasons.


This is a non story, showing yet again that the British media have no intention of ever letting private lives stay private. Stories like this will inevitably result in a privacy law which will not only stop the silly stories but also stop journalist investigating matters that should be news stories (MPs expenses for example)

What upsets me is that at a time when the Coalition government has attacked pay in the public as too high, announced swinging public expenditure cuts, criticized what they regard as the very high salaries of a few very highly-rewarded individuals, we now have the allegation that our Foreign Secretary has employed a young man, formerly his personal driver, as an addition Special Adviser to the Foreign Secretary. The person in question does not seem to me to be the most well qualified for what must be an extremely competitive and sought after position with a very respectable salary. At the same time, Mr Hague has admitted that he shared hotel rooms overnight with this young man on more than one occasion. I have no interest in the Foreign Secretary's sexual orientation nor do I think it a relevant issue, though Mr Hague has now indicated very clearly and authoritatively that he has never had a sexual relationship with another man. Surely, the process by which the young man was appointed to a well-paid government position given the details which have now been released is a clear matter of public interest. At the very least, this whole affair demonstrates the Foreign Secretary's very poor judgment. I think his position is really untenable.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"He should not be allowed to cynically divert attention. The question is simple - why did he appoint this person using public funds?"

Another utterly risible "thou should not have done what I had done in the past" selective button-push. Theres no point asking any of us why he or any other minister or shadow minister appoints SpAds, none of us are going to know - why dont you ask them instead?

I again note that you raised absolutely no objections to SpAds and the such like (such as Ed Balls, Jack Dromey et al) under the previous administration being parachuted into safe Labour seats or being elevated to the Lords, where they can become Lords, MP's, ministers of state and party leadership contenders.

Alright for Labour but not for anyone else? Phooey.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of SpAds (personally, I dont think they can be justified, thats the civil services job to provide that function), either way, the man has resigned, you're not going to get Hague's scalp as well, why waste your breath asking the same questions over and over again? It doesnt matter, its a storm in a teacup, tomorrow it'll be chip wrappers. Its just unseemly chest-beating.

It is so obvious that there are people lurking in the shadows, doing everything they can to find ways of bringing down important people in this government. They don't care who it is, what line they step over and whether they are actually good at their job or not.

If Hague was doing a bad job or made a serious mistake, then SURE, go for it.

But all this nonsense about TWIN BEDS, it doesn't even DESERVE a response. I shared a twin bedded room with my Dad, many men do the same. I bed Hague thought he was doing us a favour by saving on money. I feel so sorry for the Hague's. I think 90% of the public are behind him and I hope he knows it.

They are just trying to repeat what they did with David Laws, and it is making a mockery of British politics and journalism.

"The difference from the previous administration is clear."

"The tories are promising to make 1/2 million people unemployed to save money. Enormous suffering and distress to ordinary families. They say there is a crisis and this 'pain' is needed."

Oh, right. So, the half million plus who have been chucked on the scrapheap, or forced to take lower hours or wage cuts from the private sector over the last few years and we dont hear a whimper from you - and because of speculative public sector cuts that havent even been announced yet, when government spending over the next five years is actually going to go UP rather than down and suddenly an additional SpAd is the straw that breaks the camels back??

Risible. Utterly risible.

Sharing a room doesn't need an explanation, it was a twin room with two beds, you can't berate people for wasting tax payers money in expenses then do a "wink-wink nudge-nudge" when they are economical and share a room designed for two to sleep in!

This kind of stupid ad hominem attacks on politicians remove focus from policy and actions. The taking on of an extra aid and implication it was to give him a leg up are fair game to criticise and discuss, but sleazy innuendos should be left out of serious discussions and this statement should have been unnecessary.

#82 was not suggesting one way or the other and if it were the amount involved would be chicken feed compared to NL (brown,blair etc) distruction of the economy over the last 13 years, bit like sunday league footie compared to the premiership,