Since when has it become a shameful act for two male colleagues to share a room? Why was it naive if needs must? I don’t feel William Hague was compromised, except by the smutty minds of those who enjoy spreading salacious rumours about an innocent act.
I think William Hague is terrific; he is a decent man through and through and won (I believe) the largest vote share in the country at this year’s general election winning an astonishing 62.8% of votes in his Richmond constituency.
I was moved by the touching personal statement he made denying any wrong doing, and the declaration of love for his stunning wife Ffion, especially learning about their personal tragedy and how she has been unable to conceive. Only those who have tried unsuccessfully for years to have a baby will know how it rips out part of your heart each time another miscarriage happens, and the true depth of despair that couples feel. Life deals bitter blows and nature can be cruel at times like this, yet they have kept their personal agony out of the public gaze. Only now the whole world knows and will empathise with their grief. It’s so desperately sad, and they would make such terrific parents too.
I feel sorry for his special adviser Christopher Myers, but wished he hadn’t quit, and feel they should have ridden the storm and and shrugged off the ludicrous nature of these ghastly rumours.
*Incidentally, neither do I think that Crispin Blunt should have made a public statement about leaving his traumatised wife for a male lover, failing to consider the humiliation she would feel after he told the world he had been living a lie during their 20 year marriage. It was a very selfish act and I hope one day she finds a new partner who will not put his own professional interests above her feelings.
I agree with you, Ellee. I admire Hague although I am not a Tory. People who are innocent are often naive because if you are not doing anything wrong, why would it occur to you that people would think you were? [I don’t mesan to imply that it would have been “wrong” if he had had a homosexual relationship – only that the infidelity would have been.]
My allegation relates to whether William Hague has breached s.3(2) of the Ministerial Code on Special Advisers? According to Number Ten his choice of appointing Chris Myers as a Special Adviser lacked judgement. But according to the Code the Prime Minister has to authorise the appointment of Special Advisers. Did Cameron authorise Myers? This conflict needs to be clarified.
The issue is nepotism and not specifically Hague’s sexuality. That Hague promoted Myers over a more qualified and experienced person invites scrutiny. When the promoted person was a chauffer who had spent the night in a hotel with said promoter and any other distinction is absent then comment is inevitable. As an experienced politician, Hague should have been less naive. And as a married man, Hague shouldn’t have been spending the night with anyone, man or woman, even if they were ‘only talking’. He really isn’t that poor! I don’t think he should have used his wife’s private grief to fight a pulic slur of this kind. That kind of information wasn’t his to use – another was involved. Whatever the truth of the matter I don’t think he handled the controversy particularly well – it was a mistake to try to trade on sympathy. Not in todays world!
I think Crispin Blunt headed off an expose at the pass. His decision was made and he and his wife have nothing to fear. It is no longer so publically dreadful a thing to be homosexual, although I do agree with you, Ellee, that men should not lie about such things, especially in a marriage. That is reprehensible.
Dont be so naive Ellee .
William is a multi millionaire he doesnt need to save money by sharing hotel bedrooms with a young single bloke who was originally a driver for him .Was he lonely or what ?
You dont go around sharing bedrooms with members of your staff.
The question that he has monumentally failed to
address is why he then gave the same chap ,though seemingly without qualifications for such a role , a public paid job as advisor to him in his role of Foreign Secretary.
No instead he trys to take everyone away from these facts by going down the route of trying out the
old one of ” getting public sympathy ”
I think his actions were pretty appalling in bringing his wife into something that was nothing to do with her and the act of I think a desperate man .
I think his claim of ” never having a relationship with another man were also very carefully contrived .
Reminded me of Clinton ” I did not have sexual relations with that woman Monica Lewinski ” seemed his idea of relations was somewhat different to the publics.
I dont think we have heard the last of this and more will have to come out .
His chances of holding onto office must be pretty shakey.
All I9 can say is good old Guido .
If there is substance to what some of you believe, the chances are it will come out and be proven. I liked Guido’s work on Smeargate, but felt there were too many unsubstantiated innuendos regarding this. I don’t blame William for mentioning his wife’s miscarriages, he was trying to prove that he was a happily married man. I believe him.
I don’t think he was trying to prove he was a happily married man, I think he was specifically citing evidence of sex with his wife to prove he was heterosexual. And, as Disaffected points out, having sex with your wife in an even happy marriage doesn’t mean you can’t also roger the chauffer. So he presented a poor protest. Suzanne Moore thinks Cameron will sacrifice Hague to keep Coulson.
This story has not received any play in the U.S. and a couple of comments put matters in a different light than your original post.
BUT — as a general matter — without expressing an (uninformed) opinion on this story — our society now seemingly assumes sex is going on anytime two people of any gender are behind closed doors overnight. This is an extraordinarily unfair assumption and probably says more about our sex-obsessed society than it does about anything else. (It is the same attitude that assumes that Historical Personage A must have been gay because of overwrought language used in letters — even though most people simply wrote that way at the time….)
No Ellee he wasnt trying to prove he was a happily married man what he was trying to prove was that ” a married man couldnt possibly be gay ”
Well we know thats a nonsense , there are plenty of people who are bisexual or homosexual and who marry .
I dont know what William is other than someone who in this situation has shown huge amounts of inability to be politically on the ball and is now being downright out of order .
Let him answer the question of why did he employ this young man in a position that he seemingly was not qualified for .
The Sunday papers should be interesting ( they have had days to do some legwork ! )
disaffected, yes, let’s see what the papers say.
It looks that the people who are putting fuel on the fire haven’t done their diversity training…
To Ed, This isnt about “diversity ” Hes a married man who has therefore made certain committments .
Please note that William Hague states hes not had a relationship with this employee.
Its about what made this young bloke the right sort to be a public paid political advisor at the highest level of government .
So lets not go down the homophobic route .
By the way , Mr Hagues wife deserves the respect of all and should not to be expected to agree to ” anything goes for gays “
The idea of naiivety is a fair point, as you definitely wouldn’t consider that what is occurring is wong in any sense. The problem seems to that it is a homosexual relationship rather than just a married man in a relationship, which shows how sad this society has become
No Barry you’re wrong – the problem is nepotism, not a homosexual relationship. There are homosexual MP’s that no-one objects to. People would object to any MP that rewarded a clandestine heterosexual relationship with the public purse.
If any errors of judgement have been made, I hope it doesn’t lead to William losing his job, which Pip hints at. I can’t believe it would come to that. He is an excellent political statesman.
Yes I’d rather Hague than the revolting Coulson: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05hacking-t.html?_r=4&hp=&pagewanted=all
get with it
he’s as gay as a window and it’s been common knowledge for years among those who bother to take an interest. This is the second under-qualified young gay man he’s employed. Quite why a millionaire needed to share a room with a young gay man is perplexing. He’s hooning the taxpayer, lying to his wife and taking everyone for a fool.
He’s pining for Seb obviously.
Norfolk Boy, I have no doubt that William is a man of complete integrity and an outstanding politician, and that we are lucky to have him.
Define “integrity” please?
Other blogs are hinting that the Sundays have paid lots of money for photographs.
Pip, I think you know what the word means.
disaffected, pictures of what? Walking with another man and having a laugh and making up lies? I disagree with papers paying for pics and stories, it’s too corruptible. Why not give them for free if there is a story of public interest in it?
I wouldn’t be too sure, Ellee, I made a mistake by using the word ‘nepotism’ when Hague and Myers aren’t related and I actually meant… what is the word for giving favours for ‘special friends’ from the public purse, corrupt? Well, whatever it is I’m not sure it’s ‘integrity’. Of course I could be wrong… ?
I felt like a twit when my error was pointed out to me. But I do often make mistakes with words, ellee. And you should see some of the nasty reactions I get in restaurants if I ask for help to understand a bill!
please publish my future post when I refer you back to your comments about his integrity…