|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Jan 3, 2020 8:55:40 GMT
Maybe 30 years ago or even 20 years ago when Chris Smith was the first openly gay MP, but really, today... do I need to know that a LibDem MP is a pansexual? Pansexual MPWhy is this even news? I am more impressed by the number of female Tory MPs who are not white... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 9:17:15 GMT
No, it doesn't matter. Several manifestations of this kind of diversity have existed and do exist in my extended families, the example from my Mum's generation was before the national enlightenment in these matters and led to the poor chap's exclusion from his immediate family and ultimately an early death. Imagine growing up gay in a mining village in Northumberland in the 60s.
Did I read somewhere there are more female Labour MPs than male now? Jolly good.
The example above from EIII is news because it's a LibDem MP, and all their characteristics which would seem unacceptable to the core Tory/Brexit vote must be paraded for the bigoted masses to tut at and disapprove of.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hofmeister on Jan 3, 2020 9:34:18 GMT
These days, sexuality doesn't matter, however honesty does and I have issues with her announcing it AFTER she was elected.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 9:42:35 GMT
If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't need "announcing", and it doesn't matter when, or if, it becomes public knowledge. It would not be germane to anyone's electoral decision.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hofmeister on Jan 3, 2020 9:52:40 GMT
It would not be germane to anyone's electoral decision. But clearly she thinks it is*, and that to me means she is at best duplicitous, at worse willing to lie to get elected. In short just another cynical politician. * alas the electorate needs to share some of the blame here, but none the less the main point stands. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 10:03:22 GMT
But she is 'announcing' it before a very important election, the LibDem leadership election.
It is a personal matter, and one which she is entitled to comment on (or not) whenever she sees fit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hofmeister on Jan 3, 2020 10:20:39 GMT
But she is 'announcing' it before a very important election, the LibDem leadership election. It is a personal matter, and one which she is entitled to comment on (or not) whenever she sees fit. Which makes it WORSE. She hides it from the general electorate, where she thinks it will be a disadvantage, then parades it to a more positive sympathetic membership where she thinks A:it won't be a hurdle and B:will sweep up more gender inclusive votes. Not only duplicitous, but manipulative. If I were her partner I would kick her arse out of there for using her relationship in such a cynical exploitative manner. |
|
|
|
Post by Humph on Jan 3, 2020 10:25:06 GMT
Having spent my whole working life in the fashion industry, I wouldn't have got very far if I'd held any such prejudices against those who live what might be described as alternative lifestyles. I expect I've encountered and worked with most of the possible combinations of personal plumbing and life preferences.
Some have become firm friends, and it's at least interesting to me to discover that our industry is remarkably tolerant of diversity by comparison to other walks of life. I guess when you are not regularly exposed to intolerance it comes as a bit of a surprise to learn how common it is in other fields of play.
It's very easy for me as a fairly standard issue straight male, to not fully recognise how tough it can be to be different from the traditional view of "normality" in an environment that can be judgemental.
From my own point of view, if a person is good at their job, and has personal integrity, then I couldn't care less what they like to do in bed so long as it has no detrimental effect on vulnerable people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 10:30:10 GMT
But she is 'announcing' it before a very important election, the LibDem leadership election. It is a personal matter, and one which she is entitled to comment on (or not) whenever she sees fit. Which makes it WORSE. She hides it from the general electorate, where she thinks it will be a disadvantage, then parades it to a more positive sympathetic membership where she thinks A:it won't be a hurdle and B:will sweep up more gender inclusive votes. Not only duplicitous, but manipulative. If I were her partner I would kick her arse out of there for using her relationship in such a cynical exploitative manner. Not sure who is guilty of the cynicism here, but of course I understand the mistrust of politicians. Although we have just elected a government consisting of the foulest, most cynical political generation of all time, so it seems some kinds of political cynicism are acceptable to a great number of people, which hardly discourages the behaviour, if that's what it is in this example. This relationship apparently developed last year. Perhaps there are personal factors pertaining to both parties which influenced the timing of this becoming public knowledge. Who knows. I don't. Either way, I don't care when, or if, it becomes public knowledge. Because it doesn't matter to anything. |
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Jan 3, 2020 10:37:40 GMT
From my own point of view, if a person is good at their job, and has personal integrity, then I couldn't care less what they like to do in bed so long as it has no detrimental effect on vulnerable people. About 17 years ago I sold my house using an estate agent who I knew to be gay. Didn't bother me and we ended up about three years ago buying his business and he still works with us. We share a wedding anniversary date with him and his husband. Not long after we moved into the house we have just sold, I was speaking to my new neighbour, a single man in his 60s with a string of girlfriends, who asked which agent we had used to sell the original house. I told him and he response was "...that shirt lifter!..." First time I had heard that expression and I was more than a little shocked. Even as someone who did have some prejudices in such matters, I felt it was totally unnecessary to consider that in any way relevant to the job he had done for me, and does for me know. It helped that when I did my sandwich year from university, there was a very camp gay man in the factory in Rochdale I was working in. He seemed to be liked by all, so knocked off some of the rough edges of my prejudices I had had until then. |
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Jan 3, 2020 11:05:58 GMT
Which makes it WORSE. She hides it from the general electorate, where she thinks it will be a disadvantage, then parades it to a more positive sympathetic membership where she thinks A:it won't be a hurdle and B:will sweep up more gender inclusive votes. Not only duplicitous, but manipulative. If I were her partner I would kick her arse out of there for using her relationship in such a cynical exploitative manner. What did her electoral prospectus say about her personal life? If she included pictures of her husband/male partner and their children and sold herself as rooted in her family and their home then there's prima facie evidence of duplicity. If however there is no husband/partner, no children and no mention of her girlfriend and she's kept her private life out of the campaign then no offence. I've not researched beyond wikipedia and there may of course be more. However, other than (a) she had weight/self image issues as a younger woman and (b) she and her then boyfriend were arrested and released without charge after a 'domestic' in their hotel room at LibDem conference there's nothing to say about her personal life. Guardian report says she went public about current relationship after she and her friends were approached by journalists, possibly from the Mail. She chose to make a statement rather than be subject of an expose. The only duplicity I'm seeing is that of the press. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2020 14:24:44 GMT
Seems Layla Moran has gone public because journalists approached her saying they were going to expose her.
Shame people feel compelled to discuss their private lives in his manner. Evidently the timing is nothing to do with electoral considerations on her part.
|
|
Avant
Full Member
Posts: 691 
|
Post by Avant on Jan 3, 2020 15:21:02 GMT
"The only duplicity I'm seeing is that of the press."
True, but also of the people who buy the papers, especially the Mail. The Mail prints this stuff in order to sell copies, mainly to Conservative voters. After the election, they must be looking to take readers off the Mirror.
I absolutely agree with people above - Layla Moran's sexuality shouldn't matter. But it does, sadly, to a certain type of newspaper reader.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2020 15:53:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by EspadaIII on Jan 6, 2020 16:11:31 GMT
I think the point I was trying to make is that not only do I not care about her sexuality but neither should The Daily Mail or her grandma. Hofmeister might ask why was she hiding it from her Grandma; because if she felt this was a natural relationship, then introduce her new partner to her Grandma before she tell her friends, some of who have obviously blabbed.
I despise the Mail for doing this - weaponising her relationship is not right but she is somewhat to blame for the Mail being able to do that. She should simply have said - do your worst Mr Dacre, it cannot make any difference to my life...
|
|
