It’s all about editorial decisions. Confronted with the breaking news that the entire Eurozone Bail-Out has been thrown into chaos thanks to Slovakia rejecting the deal even as the US accuses Iran of planning acts of terrorism on US soil using Mexican killers, it’s only natural that the BBC focuses on the searing issue of the day; Is Liam Fox gay? Pathetic. The BBC’s continued baiting of Fox comes down to nasty little rumours and wink-wink say no more innuendos over his sexuality. I thought the BBC considered being gay to be the highest calling of human behavior so their rank hypocrisy on this matter is stunning. I suggest that most people couldn’t care less about Fox’s sexuality but the Westminster village, and the BBC, is obsessed with it to the exclusion of FAR more important issues.
ALL ABOUT PRIORITIES…
Bookmark the permalink.
I thought the BBC didn’t do unsubstantiated rumours.
Cue ‘watertight oversight’.
Oh, not this time?
As a media outfit they are so leaky from every orifice, at least when it suits, maybe TENA can help?
Left-wing gays good, “right-wing” gays bad.
Contrast the way that the BBC are actively hinting about Dr Fox’s sexuality with thye way they connived to hide the truth about Peter Mandelson’s homosexuality. Can there be any explanation, other than bias, for this discrepancy in treatment?
Amazing, isn’t it – Foxy’s clearly as bent as a nine-bob note, and all this shilly-shallying will do is serve to enforce the rumours. If ‘Gaydom’ isn’t such a bad thing, why the fuss? Why protest? He’ll go, eventually, despite all the “support” from his colleagues and buddies. It only goes to prove that to be in government, or public office, or are a celebrity, it pays to be squeaky clean with no skeletons lurking in the cupboards, apartments, or hotel rooms, and no dubious mates who will eventually squeal if it suits them. Because if you have a murky secret, sooner or later all will be revealed. Just look at him cringe…
It’s all so sordid.
Dirty boy….
Where has the Beeboid Corporation mentioned this rumour? (I haven’t been watching, listening to or reading Beeboid drivel.)
From what I have read about this Werritty business, my feeling is that David Cameron is doing a John Major – hanging on too long to a colleague who has misbehaved, brought the government into disrepute and will have to go in the end, anyway. Unfortunately, if there is some question of homosexuality involved, David Cameron will hesitate even more than he ordinarily would, to do what needs to be done. I am disappointed that he didn’t act quickly and decisively. There is more than enough damage done already.
It was mentioned this morning on Today.
As Martin has pointed out for at least a week now, it sure took the BBC long enough to get around to that…um….angle with Fox. Why so shy, I wonder? I thought there was no stigma about being homosexual, so why would it be any more of a slander to say he’s gay rather than just cheating on his wife and using his position and privilege to subsidize his side-bit’s lifestyle?
If the BBC is worried that – contrary to what Mardell told the BBC College of Journalism last month – the British public’s attitude towards homosexuality isn’t all that enlightened and is closer to the ugliness of the US, well, then that brings up a whole lot of questions about the way they treat the issue in general. David Laws, for example.
Actually, the issue is simpler than that – it is separating Brave Dave from his best performers. If Fox is gay the BBC would probably applaud that – but if he is hiding it then they will prove he is economical with the truth and try to get him fired.
Ironically, if/when Fox comes out, then the BBC will be forced to defend him, as homosexuals are so discriminated against, you know! Dave can say ‘some of my best friends are gay’ and the whole thing will blow over.
And Gordon Brown’s marriage is not remotely cosmetic?
I’m not suggesting that Broon is gay, but his mariage has always struck me as..err..very well-timed, particularly after Prescott seemed to mock Broon at the party conference by calling on Broon, from the podium, to “….Come on Gordon! Name the day!…”
“I don’t care about a minister’s sexuality, but I do object to the gay card being played in his defence”
By Stephen Glover
[Excerpt]:
“On Radio 4’s Today programme… the BBC’s admirable political editor Nick Robinson offered an insight into Dr Fox’s thinking that can have only come from the man himself. He reportedly feels himself the ‘victim of a hate campaign’ and of ‘whispering in the weeds’, and was ‘categorically not in any form of relationship with Adam Werritty’.
Mr Robinson appeared to join forces with Dr Fox in suggesting that The Sun was guilty of homophobia for reporting that Tory bosses had lied when they claimed Dr Fox was alone in his flat when it was burgled shortly before the last election. “
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2048484/I-dont-care-jot-ministers-sexuality-I-object-gay-card-played-defence.html#ixzz1ac08rUvX
It’s David Laws all over again. IIRC, he didn’t want his parents to find out, as if he were living in an 80s sitcom. Evan Davis and Iain Dale, call your respective offices.
It is not whether he is gay or not that is the issue with the BBC. It is whether he is gay and is in denial or is decietfully pretending to not be gay. The BBC cannot prove that he is, as yet, so they are sticking to innuendos and dropping less than subtle hints.
If he is gay, then he should simply come out and get it over with. If he is not, then natural justice demands that the Cabinet Secretary be given the time to perform due dilligence in the investigation of the other claims of breach of Ministerial codes and conflict of interest.
So far there have only been alegations of wrongdoing without anything being proven.
If Sir Gus O Donnel finds clear breaches, then Dr Fox should be sacked. IF Sir Gus O Donnel finds that no wrongdoing has been committed, then Dr Fox should carry on doing the sterling job he has been doing.
Cameron is quite right to give Sir Gus the time to complete his inquiry.