Revelations about William Hague causes resignation

[soloman]

Was William Hague wise in his public statement? I believe so. These days the subject will keep rumbling on in the media if any statement is less than categoric. It will probably do so temporarily by any disenchanted Labour supporting newspapers, but read for yourself what led to this:-

William Hague's special advisor resigns over 'untrue' allegations - Telegraph

How glad I am not in the public eye, as allegations like this can be cruel.

[ryoden]

It's something you have to get used to in public life though, when you want power / prestige / wealth or all three then you have to be prepared to suffer under the public/media glare and rightly so in my view. That said any allegations should be substantiated and if not true then he was right to deny them, although if I was in his shoes and I was completely innocent then i would take legal action for slander.

Personally I don't care who or what politicians diddle in their spare time / private life as long as it doesnt affect their job worthiness, in this case the only issue I can see is that if true it involved possible favouritism to a possible lover.

[Midas]

It's something you have to get used to in public life though, when you want power / prestige / wealth or all three then you have to be prepared to suffer under the public/media glare and rightly so in my view. That said any allegations should be substantiated and if not true then he was right to deny them, although if I was in his shoes and I was completely innocent then i would take legal action for slander.

Why "rightly so"? Surely anyone, regardless of their position or wealth, should have a right to privacy if they so wish. Having said that, I quite agree with your last sentence, but of course many people don't take this course because of the additional publicity it always brings, and inevitably there's someone else around who'll start slinging mud, often gratuitously.

Personally I don't care who or what politicians diddle in their spare time / private life as long as it doesnt affect their job worthiness, in this case the only issue I can see is that if true it involved possible favouritism to a possible lover.

I quite agree with you, what people do in their private lives is no-one else's business as long as it's legal and honest and doesn't adversely affect others.

[Yeti]

Why "rightly so"? Surely anyone, regardless of their position or wealth, should have a right to privacy if they so wish. Having said that, I quite agree with your last sentence, but of course many people don't take this course because of the additional publicity it always brings, and inevitably there's someone else around who'll start slinging mud, often gratuitously.



I quite agree with you, what people do in their private lives is no-one else's business as long as it's legal and honest and doesn't adversely affect others.

This is just a case of the Pro labour elements of the Press looking for rocks to toss at the Government, I feel sorry for advisor forced to resign.

Although I expect he will not be out of work for long, lets hope he sues the press for damages.

[ryoden]

Why "rightly so"? Surely anyone, regardless of their position or wealth, should have a right to privacy if they so wish. Having said that, I quite agree with your last sentence, but of course many people don't take this course because of the additional publicity it always brings, and inevitably there's someone else around who'll start slinging mud, often gratuitously.

What I meant was that those who seek power / position of authority / trust etc (if they are just rich via their own hard work then I dont include them) end in positions to make decisions that affect me and millions of others potentially thus we have a right to know if they are doing something that might be considered "dodgy". By dodgy I dont mean their sexual nature (unless illegal) but with regards; for instance hiring people not purely on the basis of suitability for the job, or into a post that was unnecessary.

I realise that it's a fine line to tread and the press generally only pick on items that will sell newspapers (I have no delusions that the media actually publish with no agenda but the truth), but sadly it's the only media we have and they do sometimes bring useful things to light. In this particular case I don't see any great justification and it appears to be primarily a smear piece but my views on "those in power" and their "right to privacy" stands.

[Midas]

What I meant was that those who seek power / position of authority / trust etc (if they are just rich via their own hard work then I dont include them) end in positions to make decisions that affect me and millions of others potentially thus we have a right to know if they are doing something that might be considered "dodgy". By dodgy I dont mean their sexual nature (unless illegal) but with regards; for instance hiring people not purely on the basis of suitability for the job, or into a post that was unnecessary.

I realise that it's a fine line to tread and the press generally only pick on items that will sell newspapers (I have no delusions that the media actually publish with no agenda but the truth), but sadly it's the only media we have and they do sometimes bring useful things to light. In this particular case I don't see any great justification and it appears to be primarily a smear piece but my views on "those in power" and their "right to privacy" stands.

I quite see your point, certainly concerning any 'dodgy dealings', however I do still think that the law on privacy should be changed so that the publishing of details concerning people's private lives by any newspaper or other media should be prohibited unless those concerned give an explicit waiver to the press. I'm pretty sure that many so-called 'celebrities' would do so since hordes of them seem feed off the free publicity so generated regardless of whether it's good, bad or indifferent, so those members of the public who appear to live for salacious gossip wouldn't be starved of their daily tittle-tattle. However people who just wanted to get on with their lives could do so without fear of the paparazzi watching their every move and turning every minor error of judgement, which we all make from time to time, into a career-threatening issue for all the world to see, as it has done for Christopher Myers and many before him.

[silentmist]

OK, I'm a little confused here. Why are we reading about this? Is this the latest episode in the soap 'Downing St'?

[soloman]

I quite see your point, certainly concerning any 'dodgy dealings', however I do still think that the law on privacy should be changed so that the publishing of details concerning people's private lives by any newspaper or other media should be prohibited unless those concerned give an explicit waiver to the press. I'm pretty sure that many so-called 'celebrities' would do so since hordes of them seem feed off the free publicity so generated regardless of whether it's good, bad or indifferent, so those members of the public who appear to live for salacious gossip wouldn't be starved of their daily tittle-tattle. However people who just wanted to get on with their lives could do so without fear of the paparazzi watching their every move and turning every minor error of judgement, which we all make from time to time, into a career-threatening issue for all the world to see, as it has done for Christopher Myers and many before him.

Good post there Midas! Since laws take time to implement, is there a short term solution?

[ryoden]

I quite see your point, certainly concerning any 'dodgy dealings', however I do still think that the law on privacy should be changed so that the publishing of details concerning people's private lives by any newspaper or other media should be prohibited unless those concerned give an explicit waiver to the press. I'm pretty sure that many so-called 'celebrities' would do so since hordes of them seem feed off the free publicity so generated regardless of whether it's good, bad or indifferent, so those members of the public who appear to live for salacious gossip wouldn't be starved of their daily tittle-tattle. However people who just wanted to get on with their lives could do so without fear of the paparazzi watching their every move and turning every minor error of judgement, which we all make from time to time, into a career-threatening issue for all the world to see, as it has done for Christopher Myers and many before him.

*nods* I agree that our media laws are not perfect but I would rather they err on the side of freedom of the press than towards censorship, that said if the law was to be modified then it should be to deny freedom to print details of peoples "private" lives unless it's deemed by some independant authority to be in the public interest, for instance you might like to know that your MP was a secret member of some race hate group or underground religious cult (yes I know these are unlikely extremes, they are for examples).

As for celebrities giving their permission, sure they would give permission for anything that casts them in a good light such as going out with hot chick A, B and C or seen with X etc but lets say they are married and have an image of happy families with lots of sponsership that rely on that image and an accurate story breaks revealing that image to be a lie then I suspect they would recind their permission for that story to run.