Talk:Simon Hughes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

I just have a question about this guy. I have been trying to find out what religion is this Simon and who controls the media in London. Too many questions and not enough answers. I still think Livingstone has balls, for speaking his mind no matter is that cost him the election.

Contents 1 Marital Status 2 Controversy Surrounding Bermondsey By-Election 3 Personal Life 4 Disputed sentence 5 Simon Hughes versus his spokesman?

[edit] Marital Status

I've added a note that Hughes remains a confirmed bachelor. Given the controversy over the Bermondsey by-election, I've inserted this information in that section, as otherwise the irony might be missed. And to forestall misinterpretation, let me just note that it is a matter of public record that Hughes is in his 50s and has never married, and I'm simply noting this point using a commonly used phrase. Nothing more is implied. WMMartin 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

If "nothing more is implied", why do you believe there is irony that people might miss? I will of course assume good faith on your part, so will clarify that I have removed the sentence "He remains a confirmed batchelor" as people who do not read the talk page will not have the opportunity to have their misinterpretation forestalled. It may be appropriate to comment on Hughes' private life - though I personally doubt that it's especially useful to list things he hasn't done (e.g. get married) - but I do not see it is appropriate to include such comments in a paragraph about the Bermondsey by-election. Valiantis 03:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy Surrounding Bermondsey By-Election

I've left the helpful new paragraph on Hughes' achievements contributed by the anonymous editor in place, but have restored the deletion of the sentences on the Bermondsey by-election. It is a matter of clear historical record that this election, and the conduct of the candidates and their teams, was controversial. No comment has been made in the article about Hughes' conduct during the election, nor has any fact been adduced which is not readily verifiable by examination of the primary sources ( e.g. newspapers of the time ). It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to include only lists of "my proudest achievements"; rather, we should try, as far as possible, to include all relevant facts - and the fact that Hughes was first elected in a controversial by-election is a fact.WMMartin 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've adjusted the paragraph on the Bermondsey By-Election to clarify the order of events: (1) Tatchell was attacked; (2) Hughes did not apologise at the time; (3) Hughes apologised in 2006, during the period when he was forced to admit his own homosexual experiences. These are all matters of fact, and should be presented in this paragraph as they clearly exhibit his personal choices. The key point, in view of his current ambitions, is the choices that he made, and the order in which he made them. We have made these points in other articles with similar content, and should certainly do the same here. WMMartin 13:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If we're to be clear about the order of events, then, at least on the basis of what's on the public record, the last two are: 3) apologised, and then 4) was forced to admit his own homosexual experiences; albeit in fairly rapid succession. Alai 16:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Alai, is that the apology and the admission are so close in time that it's very difficult to disentangle whether they are two distinct events or one. It's perfectly possible that Hughes decided to apologise, and then, entirely separately, the threat to "expose" him was made, but it's equally possible that he took the decision to apologise after being informed of the threat of exposure, to try to take some of the sting out of the expected accusations of hypocrisy. Since we don't know the order, I didn't split it out in the way that you suggested. I, and many others, were highly confident at the time of the Bermondsey By-Election that Hughes was acting in a grotesquely hypocritical way in pursuit of electoral success, but since this was personal and private information it was impossible to state it in print, nor to insert it directly into Wikipedia even as late as a few weeks ago - it was one of those things that are common knowledge in some circles, but impossible to use. Now that this information is available, though, it is important to make the event's various protagonists' ( and I here specifically do not wish to exclude certain other of the by-election candidates ) unpleasant words and actions as clear as possible. At present Hughes is a candidate for the leadership of one of the UK's leading political parties, and as far as possible we need to get all the facts out in as full and unbiased a way as possible. As of today, Hughes is claiming that his sexuality is difficult to classify, and that he has had heterosexual relationships which have even made him consider (straight) marriage, as well as homosexual experiences, and that this somehow means that he didn't lie when answering "No" to the direct question "Are you gay ?". What private individuals may believe about the truth or otherwise of this cannot be included in Wikipedia: we cannot include hearsay, but must stick to the documented facts.WMMartin 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The solution is pretty straightforward, and is encapsulated in my point above: we describe what happened in the public record, and in the order it entered the public record. If the article were edited to use your "during the period" formulation, that would be making unwarranted and unverifiable implications. The possibility that off-the-record events were otherwise is pretty clear, but people can figure that out for themselves, or doubtless read it in tomorrow's papers, This isn't the place for currently unverifiable interpretations, even marked as speculative, about verifiable events. Alai 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the tendency of some fairly respectable newspapers, even fairly recently, to print stories on two seemingly unrelated subjects on the front page; the smart reader would work out the link, but it could not be claimed that the newspaper had breached any confidence. ( For example, "Palace Denies Diana Pregnant Again" next to "Prince Charles, pictured here at Badminton with his good friend Camilla Parker-Bowles"... )WMMartin 18:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Life

Is this true or accurate? "that contrary to his earlier denials, he had been involved in several gay relationships" Has he previously said he hasn't had gay relationships? I know has has said he isn't gay but he still says this. What's the source?

It is accurate, according to the newspapers today, to say he has had gay relationships. It is inaccurate to state, or even to suggest (as, in my opinion, does the current article, and today's piece in The Sun) that he has ever denied this. --BarryNorton 13:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

There are numerous cases where Hughes has denied "being gay", including an interview earlier this month. The standard Portillo-esque spin on this is to admit under duress ( typically, threat of exposure by a London tabloid ) to "homosexual experiences", and this is the strategy Hughes is now adopting. At this point we move into the realm of Clintonian definitions. WMMartin 13:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

If he's had consensual relationships with both men and women, that would mean he was bisexual, and thus not gay. What he said to the Independent was misleading, but not strictly untrue.

Bisexual and gay are different things. Secretlondon 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Everyone seems to agree that he has never denied having "gay relationships" so shouldn't the "contrary to his earlier denials" be deleted from the article as it not factually correct?82.0.234.171 16:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though it should probably note his apologies for the denials/misleading statements he did make (as per my original edit, say). Alai 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well he's never denied having sex with men - he's denied being gay. Whether he should have said "I'm not gay, I'm bi" rather than "I'm not gay" with the presumption that he's straight is another question.Secretlondon 17:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He's being reported as having "apologised for previous denials", and other such characterisations, this is not presumption on my part as to what he "should" have done. Alai 17:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

He has been described as dishonest pretty much everywhere. When I turned on ITV news those were the words they used. I don't see why wikipedia should be different. 87.74.13.42 22:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Because we're an encyclopedia, not a tabloid-style tv news programme. We know what a bisexual is, for example. Secretlondon 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't simply describe him as dishonest, obviously. If he's been verifiably and notably characterised that way, it may be appropriate to report same. As I don't get the ITV terrestrial channels here, I can't help in either reporting or characterising their coverage. Alai 00:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC

I agree with Secretlondon and Alai on this. We can't describe him as dishonest because we don't have clear proof. To take a hypothetical example, imagine a politician who is gay ( not bi ) who is asked about his sexuality "on the record", and denies being gay. He is later discovered using a gay chatline; on questioning about this he says "It's true that I have had sexual experiences with men, but I would not characterise myself as gay as I have also considered marriage to a woman, and I was not, therefore, lying in my earlier comments". Our hypothetical gay politician is, at this stage, still lying ( because he's gay ), but in a way that can't be so easily caught, because he can now simply say "I'm bi, not gay, and so I didn't lie to you earlier". In addition, many gay men have had "girlfriends", either to conceal their sexuality or to try heterosexuality, so the lie is fairly defensible. From Wikipedia's point of view, we have to take the lie at face value, nor can we describe our hypothetical politician as dishonest, because hearsay or private knowledge is not good enough for our article. We may be highly confident on the basis of private sources that having sex with a woman turns him off, but though our hypothetical politician has replaced one lie ( "I'm not gay" ) with another lie ( "I'm difficult to classify" ) the second lie is by its nature very difficult to refute, so we're stuck. Our hypothetical politician may be a liar and may indeed have far more unwholesome instincts and ambitions, but without proof we have to report the words as we receive them. We need a site called WikiAllegedly... ! WMMartin 15:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed sentence

"Some commentators have called him a liar, and believe that he is still homophobic." is being repeatedly added by User:Yassi. He can't give a source (ie which commentators, and what did they actually say) and is just readding. He says in the summary box (not in the article) that it was Andrew Neil on some unstated BBC TV programme presumably on the 26th Jan. As it stands I believe this sentence is just POV. Secretlondon 22:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Many people believe that Simon Hughes is lying, amongst others Alistair Yates of News 24 and Andrew Neil on BBC1" - is this sentence really appropriate/suitable?

Yassi: Re. the sentence "Gay messageboards indicate that Simon Hughes is perceived as a lying hypocrite, and that the Lib Dems are haemorrhaging support". Can you please indicate your sources? "Gay messageboards" could mean anything, and may only represent the opinion of a very small proportion of gay people - is it appropriate to include the opinion of a few Internet posters in an encyclopaedia article? Also, I think the phrasing of this sentence looks rather POV (especially the "lying hypocrite" part, without quotation marks). If you add it back (with appropriate and relevant evidence), please could you re-phrase it? --Dave ~ (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it's basically presenting a POV using weasel words "some people on messageboards say". Mdwh 19:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I also just noticed that the last sentence of the article ("Hughes has been accused of hypocrisy due to his involvement in a homophobic campaign against Peter Tatchell during a by-election in Bermondsey in 1983, ...") already says what Yassi is adding, but without the non-POV phrasing. --Dave ~ (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I can't link to tv programmes which have already been aired, but a comment earler on this page confirms that he is pretty much universally believed to be dishonest by the media. The words "lying hypocrite" precisely characterise the way Simon Hughes is perceived in the lgbt community because of the weasel words that he continues to use after he was outed.

On Question Time he described his original answers to questions about his sexuality as unintentionally misleading - but he also claimed he was trying to build a barrier around his private life (presumably intentionally). Could anyone in all conscience believe that he is a courageous man, as he described himself after these events!

No, it is those who give Hughes benefit of doubt who need to make their case.

These comments are from uk.gay.com the main uk gay message boards. I could find only Diana writing in support of Mr Hughes.

user mike:

He has remained in the closet as far as his professional life is concerned ever since and has constantly denied questions about being gay despite his party motioning many pro-gay votes. Does he now expect to get much sympathy from the gay community or from his local constituents? I think not. I am a LibDem supporter myself but my view of Mr. Hughes has hit rock bottom because he has constantly lied about his sexuality and as a result has mislead people.

user londondave:

He's a dishonourable hypocrite The liberals fought the most outrageous anti-gay campaign against Peter T. So, it really is ironic that Hughes turns out to be gay (Hah, bi-sexual my arse!)

user: Franky Fuk

I don't vote myself, I can never see the salvation in picking evil over sin, but if I did/voted for him, he could not now get my vote, most assuredly.

user Diana:

Is anybody a close personal friend of his? Do you know of his pain? I agree it doesn’t excuse anything but life is shit sometimes, get over it.

user: pirate

With defections to the Tories and the poss of more the Lib Dems are now doomed...

use: jonandave

I have to say that Simon Hughes, behaviour in denying his sexuality-then being forced out by the News of the World-then half coming out as "Bi" has completely put me off voting for Lib Dems if he becomes their leader.

user Marco:

What is his position on gay rights? Is he against the recognition of same-sex couples? Is he in favor of adequate punishment of anti-gay hate crimes in UK? Is he in favor of a bill opening marriage to same-sex couples in UK? etc. etc. What are the positions of his party on these topics?

reply from user jonandave:

i THINK HE,S POSITIVE ON ALL THESE ISSUES BUT HE IS A LIB DEM-SO HE CAN BE. NO-ITS HIS PERSONAL ATTITUDE TO GAYS-AS SHOWN BY HIS OWN BEHAVIOUR-THAT GETS ME. HE HAS MADE OUT THAT IT IS NOT A THING TO BE I DON,T LIKE THAT

This from http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1695869,00.html by gay writer Philip Hensher

And perhaps the Lib Dems should be asking themselves whether they should really be thinking of electing a man as leader who would clearly prefer still to be keeping these apparently shameful secrets, who gives the impression of regarding his affairs with men as "mistakes", who, until last week, was lying in response to a perfectly reasonable question on the subject and who compares his sexuality to "an albatross round [his] neck". Whatever dubious psychological state of mind these peculiar comments reveal, the suspicion cannot be avoided that here is someone who might have been vulnerable to pressure from some very unsavoury quarters. Is someone who has chosen to live most of a life in shame and shrilly defended "privacy" really a safe person to put in charge of a political party?

Hughes is right: the fact of someone being homosexual should not debar them from holding high political office. But it ought to be someone who regards their homosexuality just as a heterosexual regards their sexuality: unremarkable, uninteresting to strangers, not worth talking about and, for many reasons, not worth thinking about concealing or lying about.

Yassi 20:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your sources, but I still don't see the relevance of these posts from an Internet message board in this encyclopaedia article. And do we really want to cite posts which are suffixed with remarks such as "(Hah, bi-sexual my arse!)"? It's already stated in the article that he has been criticised as being hypocritical. I just don't think we need a further sentence saying what a few message board posters think. I am not giving Hughes the benefit of doubt, and this is not the place to decide whether he's a "courageous man" or not. We just need to state the facts - he covered up his sexuality, some consider him a hypocrit. The article already says both these things. --Dave ~ (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Not only the messageboards. I also posted the opinion of a respected author; I can quote others if you wish.

Although the messageboard sample size is small, it seems representative of a broad strand of opinion, whilst I recognise that Peter Tatchell has not withdrawn his recent support. And the word liar or lying has not yet found its way into the article. Weasel words?

How would you reconcile Hughes's comments on Question Time? Yassi 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the media have been giving him a lot of criticism over this, and it's fine to note that. That's got nothing to do with message boards however, and an informal survey where you look over a few messageboards is no way of knowing what people (gay, bisexual or otherwise) think on this! (And in fact, in my experience of bi people, few are calling him a liar, because they understand that being bisexual is not the same as being gay.) If there was, say, a properly done poll on how attitudes towards him have changed, then that would be something worth noting.

"Could anyone in all conscience believe that he is a courageous man, as he described himself after these events!" - POV, and not up for debate here. (I for one would say coming out as the first bi MP, I believe, is pretty courageous.)

"These comments are from uk.gay.com the main uk gay message boards." - And I could post plenty of examples in support on LiveJournal and elsewhere. But Wikipedia is not the place to write about what user Franky Fuk et al on some messageboard think.

"But it ought to be someone who regards their homosexuality just as a heterosexual regards their sexuality: unremarkable, uninteresting to strangers, not worth talking about and, for many reasons, not worth thinking about concealing or lying about." - And by the way, he's come out as bisexual, not homosexual, and it's POV to say that he lied. Furthermore, just because *he* thinks that sexuality shouldn't be an issue, doesn't mean that no one else does. He realises that other people treat sexuality (especially bisexuality, which is pretty much unheard of in mainstream media) as an issue. If it wasn't an issue, then we wouldn't be having all this fuss! If something is really unremarkable and uninteresting to strangers, then there should be no need to come out about it!

But again, this isn't up for debate here anyway. Wikipedia is not a place to push your personal POV. Mdwh 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Also a note for others reading this - the same issue is coming up on Liberal Democrats (where the some-people-on-message-boards-said statement is still up); I guess we should discuss it in the same place, here. Mdwh 23:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mdwh - Thank you for your comments and I will give a more detailed reply later. For the moment I have asked for evidence about Hughes's long rumoured bisexuality. I presume that you are satisfied that such evidence (predating his Sun interview) exists and can point me to sources, as you seem to be assiduous in these matters and bisexuality is clearly an important part of Mr Hughes's case.

Yassi 08:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't got time right now to look at length for articles confirming this. But this article [1] from the BBC contains: "The first reaction in Westminster to Simon Hughes' confession of past gay relationships was an overwhelming "surprise, surprise". Most people in the Commons village believed they had known of Mr Hughes' sexuality for decades - he wasn't "out", but it wasn't something anyone particularly bothered about." Also, the fact that newspapers kept on asking him about his sexuality as soon as he announced his candidacy indicates that there were rumours. --Dave ~ (talk) 10:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-356.html reports that Peter Tatchell believed Hughes to have a gay past, over 20 years ago. However I would like to reiterate that "gay past" does not equal gay, if Simon is bisexual (and there are bisexuals out there, it is not just gay guys who are afraid to come out of the closet as some people suggest) and I can see no reason to disbelieve him, then his denials of being gay are wholy accurate. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 13:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses to my query. Pink News quotes Tatchell as follows: "Based on information (my campaign) received we had a very strong suspicion that Simon was gay despite the homophobic campaign against me. The Labour campaign team took a decision not to retaliate. We decided it was important to pursue a clean, principled campaign based on policies not people's private lives." I take this to be evidence that there have long been rumours that Mr Hughes is gay.

See also this excellent link http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=144282006

Last week, 23 years after successfully riding home on the tide of anti-gay feeling that crippled Tatchell's campaign, the candidate who pursued Tatchell all those years ago finally publicly admitted the private truth. Simon Hughes confessed that he too was gay. For those who took part in the events in Bermondsey all those years ago, the revelation came as no surprise. One former Social Democratic Party (SDP) volunteer who worked at the heart of the Bermondsey by-election campaign in 1983 said: "We were all happy to see the kicking [Peter] Tatchell took over his sexuality, when every one of us knew very well that Simon was gay, too."

Tatchell himself knew, according to Innes: "It was Tatchell who was the guy who said at the time that it shouldn't be raised. The Liberals just kept quiet. I heard last week a Liberal MP saying that people's private life was their own business. Maybe the Liberals did say that in 1983. But if they did, I missed it."

For Hughes last week, his embarrassment was excruciating. His admission had been wrung out after he had first denied being gay, only to be then confronted with evidence that a newspaper could prove he had called a gay phone line. He offered an ashen-faced apology to Tatchell, rather disingenuously, for the misdeeds committed in his name all those years ago, rather than anything he had done himself.

Both quotes from people who knew of rumours at the time of the Bermondsey election use the word 'gay' - not 'bi' or the more generic 'queer' (meaning any non-straight sexuality.) Of course I am still waiting for Mdwh to reply to my query, or alternatively summarily remove the assertion of long rumoured bisexuality as lacking sources (as he did to my assertions about Andrew Neil's views on Simon Hughes's veracity)

I am also still waiting to see how Hughes's statements on Question Time can be reconciled.

See also Andreas Whittam Smith in yesterdays Independent. The following is extracted from the article:

He did not, he says, have a carefully crafted sentence in his mind about his private life when he met The Independent. He blurted something out on the spur of the moment. I find this surprising. Mr Hughes is embarking on the biggest adventure of his life, to seek the leadership of his party, with good prospects of success, and he asks us to believe that he hasn't worked out how to answer the question he knows he is bound to be asked. Frankly I would have preferred a carefully crafted sentence. Try this one - "There is nothing in my past that would disqualify me from leading the Liberal Democrat party."

As well as putting forward his excuse of not being prepared, Mr Hughes attempts to place his confirmation of what he had previously denied into a setting designed to show him in a good light. He has devised a series of narratives. One is the sacrifice scenario. In this tale, Mr Hughes gave false answers for the sake of others who find themselves in the same position. Thus he told The Sun that he was not the only MP at Westminster who is secretly gay. "It's not just me. There are lots of people who have tried to keep their lives private. I wasn't just doing it for me but for the many others who are in the same boat... I was trying to make sure that even in the circumstances of potentially standing as leader of the party - or for high office - that private life was private."

From this account, Mr Hughes slips easily into a second riff. In this, he is fighting prejudice and discrimination against gays. "It would be very sad," he remarked in the Sun interview, "if people who have always been single or who are homosexual felt that their sexuality prevented them from holding high office." Or, as Mr Hughes wrote on Saturday, "We have really got to have a society where people don't presume things or label us as this sort of MP or that, whether it's gay or bisexual."

If these explanations don't quite work - after all Chris Smith MP was open about his homosexuality and became a cabinet minister - then there is another to hand. This plot line is that Mr Hughes is defending everyone's right to privacy. Thus he wrote on Saturday that it is "absolutely proper for people to protect their private life, not just for themselves but for their families, friends and colleagues. People need the space to live their lives." From this principle, Mr Hughes drew the remarkable conclusion that "it is not dishonest to protect your privacy".

Finally, in his search for exoneration, Mr Hughes hit on the desperate ploy of comparing himself with Churchill and Lloyd George. On Friday, he said he doubted whether Churchill or Lloyd George would have survived in modern times with their private predilections, namely Churchill's drinking and Lloyd George's womanizing. "Whether either one would have Withstood the 2006 sort of news coverage that it's been my lot to face over the past 48 hours, I shudder to think."

Of Course, none of this will do. Mr Hughes was caught out in a lie direct. The nearest he has come to admitting his fault was to remark that perhaps he had been "overly defensive over questions about my sexuality".

Unfortunately, the proximity of politics to the power of the state makes plausible the dangerous notion that the end justifies the means. Mr Hughes evidently believes this. Hence his idea that it isn't morally wrong to lie to protect one's privacy. What else, if he attained power, would he think justified deceit? Experience suggests the list would be long. But now that we have learnt just in time that Mr Hughes is a shameless liar, I profoundly hope that he will fail in his attempt to lead the Liberal Democrats.

Any further leads on Hughes's long rumoured bisexuality will be appreciated.

Yassi 08:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There's the BBC link already given [2] which says "Most people in the Commons village believed they had known of Mr Hughes' sexuality for decades" - yes, it doesn't explicitly say bisexuality, but it doesn't have to. It states that his sexuality (which is bisexuality) was already believed by such people.

Also see [3] which says "Simon Hughes' bisexuality was an open secret at Westminster".

On another note, you still have the statement about what some messageboards say up at Liberal Democrats. What is the justification for this? What messageboards say is not notable, and there is no proof that the overall opinion is what you claim. Mdwh 01:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll amend my contribution to Liberal Democrats. But please note that I specifically made no claims as to proof of 'overall opinion.' Also note that your views as to what is notable and what is not notable represent only one person's views; others may not agree with you. They may also be upset that you seem to dismiss people's opinions without even bothering to read them.

On the matter of Mr Hughes's sexuality your objectivity is similarly open to question. The second link you provided is simply to an ex post facto formulation, just as is the claim on Simon Hughes. It gives no evidence whatsoever, whereas I provided reported quotations from 2 people who were around that the time of the Bermondsey Hughes/Tatchell election, including someone who 'worked at the heart of the Bermondsey by-election' on Mr Hughes's campaign - both of whome state that Mr Hughes was gay.

What is the basis for your bald assertion that Mr Hughes is bisexual, save simply blind faith in Mr Hughes's claim in The Sun that he has had relationships with both men and women, a claim that may easily be considered 'carefully crafted' to use Mr Hughes's own terminology?

Yassi 17:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you really think that a few people posting on messageboards in notable, then I've got plenty of comments on other messageboards I could add. But anyway, notable or not - this simply does not count as any evidence to suggest that support for the Lib Dems has declined. If you can find some polls, then go ahead, but even then we don't know whether this is due to "perceived hypocrisy", or many other reasons.

Regarding his bisexuality being known beforehand, I have no problem if we change from "bisexuality" to "sexuality". Certainly there were rumours, even if it wasn't known for certain that he was bisexual.

As for his bisexuality now, my "bald assertion" is from Mr Hughes himself [4]. Yes, I guess he could be lying and that he actually identifies as gay. But that someone could lie is not evidence that they have lied. You might as well say he could be straight - if you're not willing to believe his claim about relationships with women, why should we believe his claim about relationships with men? Mdwh 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hughes has asserted that he is bisexual, not gay, and _as an encyclopedia_ we must accept this. As I have tried to indicate elsewhere in this document, at present this is all we can say. Hypothetically speaking, a Wikipedia editor may have significant levels of contact with all levels of a political party, and be fully aware through informal channels and personal contacts that a politician is lying when he characterises himself as straight or bisexual, and be aware that in informal circumstances that politician has never previously characterised himself as "bi", and has raised no objection when described in private conversation as "gay", but such a Wikipedia editor, lacking evidence in the public domain, would be forced to put up with, and indeed collaborate in, the sham description of "bisexual", however much it might irritate him. Such an editor, and his colleagues, would have to collaborate in the lie. Rumours by definition can't be cited in Wikipedia: we need facts. WMMartin 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And for this last reason, I'm deleting "citation needed" from the sentence in the main article about Hughes' "long rumoured bisexuality", and deleting the "bi-" prefix. What was actually rumoured ( though "rumour" is a very mild word, entirely failing to do justice to the strength of sentiment ) was a specific description of Hughes' sexuality that was not "bisexual". WMMartin 17:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

WMMartin, Surely our aim in an encyclopedia is to be honest and truthful, and not to use weasel words if possible. But, from what you say, in certain circumstances hard judgement calls are inevitable.

You seem to confirm the quote, given earlier, from an unnamed Hughes volunteer on the Bermondsey by-election campaign in 1983: "We were all happy to see the kicking [Peter] Tatchell took over his sexuality, when every one of us knew very well that Simon was gay, too."

Andreas Whittam Smith's characterization of Hughes as a "shameless liar" seems very apposite. I invite comments.

Yassi 13:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Hughes versus his spokesman?

The following was added to one of the references: "It's not clear from Benjamin Cohen's cited article whether in fact Simon Hughes or his unnamed spokesman (or perhaps both) declared for bisexuality".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but isn't it reasonable to suggest that someone's spokesman is speaking accurately on behalf on that person? I can't believe this distinction would ever be noted any other time that someone lets someone read or announce something on behalf of them, as is commonplace when addressing the media. Is there any evidence that Simon Hughes' spokesman likes to lie or misrepresent?

Given that this edit is from Yassi, I suspect that this is a poor attempt to yet again doubt his bisexuality.

Another source for his bisexuality is the BBC: "Mr Hughes apologised, saying he had not lied because he considers himself bisexual." [5] Whether that information is transmitted via the spokesman or not is neither here nor there. Mdwh 00:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mdwh, Let me make this clear. Compare: [6]

On the 28th January, Mr Hughes writing in the Independent used the word "bisexual" to describe himself. As a result, the majority of coverage since has used this term as a direct quote.

with this (quoting Simon writing in The Independent) [7]

I do not want to be pigeon-holed in a way that is irrelevant. Society has changed since I first stood for election in 1980, when it was a completely different climate. But today, single people, particularly men, are still much more likely to be asked about their sexuality. There is an unfair presumption, even though 40 per cent of households are people living alone.

We really have got to have a society where people don't presume things or label us as this sort of MP or that, whether it's gay or bisexual. I want to be labelled a human rights activist, a campaigner for justice, a fighter for the poor.

See the difference? - I hope you do. Sloppy journalist or sloppy politician?

Also, you may be interested to read this (here it's an extract) from someone who is not unsympathetic to Simon [8]

Simon’s decision to obscure the issue with a technically truthful but misleading remark that he wasn’t gay was astounding in a politics after “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”; that he told The Sun rather than just going public to everyone else when The Sun tried to fling mud at him was breathtakingly naïve. Did he really expect careful handling from arguably the most viciously homophobic and viciously anti-Lib Dem paper in the country? And days later, he was still refusing to use the label ‘bisexual’ to explain why he hadn’t lied, with every news outlet reporting the ‘fact’ that he was a liar, because (in his own words) he didn’t want to be labelled. Sorry, Simon; once you’re public about something that can be labelled, either you choose a label or someone else will choose it for you. He wasn’t mendacious – just clueless and woefully lacking in judgement.

Yassi 02:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how any of that has anything to do with what I asked - namely, the "he didn't say it his spokesman did" comment.

I can't comment on "On the 28th January, Mr Hughes writing in the Independent used the word "bisexual" to describe himself." as I don't have the full text of that article in the Independent. But that PinkNews article isn't the one being linked to so I'm not sure what your point is - PinkNews claim the bisexuality admission comes from his spokesman, and not the Independent article anyway.

And I'm not really interested in one person's POV on a random blog. I'm well aware that even amongst bisexual people there are those who think he didn't handle it well, but Wikipedia is not the place to debate whether he did or didn't handle it well. Mdwh 03:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, My point is this - and it's also the answer to my question. That we are dealing with sloppy journalism in this matter, both from Pink News and also, by the way, from the BBC. From what I can see Alex Wilcock was perfectly accurate in his view that Simon doesn't wish to use the label 'bisexual' to explain why he hadn’t lied, because it would pigeonhole his sexuality. A direct quote from Simon is, of course, in The Independent on 2006-01-28.

But if you know differently, or if you can provide a direct quote where Simon Hughes characterizes his sexuality as 'bisexual' then please let us know and I will be pleased to correct reference 2 accordingly to reflect the true position.

(edited to better wikify) Yassi 24 February 2006 07:08 (UTC)

Yassi 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)