Sunday, March 27, 2011

Random Thoughts On Hughes and Goff

  • This fiasco needs a name. But just putting "gate" at the end of "Hughes" or "Goff" would be pretty lame.
  • Given the barely disguised homophobia in some of the reporting, maybe we could call the fiasco "Homogate".
  • Like this article. Why does it matter who Hughes may have propositioned? Does the fact Hughes might be gay mean he's more likely to be a sex offender? What is this story even for?
  • What business does the media have intruding into the private lives of our politicians? If someone wants to stay "in the closet", then that's their call. Our society is so intolerant of people with different sexual preferences that it's no wonder some people are afraid to reveal what they are.
  • The complainant was 18. Not a child. The only thing that matters is whether there was consent. Would the people now saying that Hughes' judgement is suspect because he took an 18 year old male home be so concerned if the 18 year old had been a woman?
  • I suspect the only reason why Chris Carter is again slagging Goff is because Jonathan Marshall called him. Who cares about the opinion of someone dumped by Labour? Of course he'd be bitter. How is this newsworthy?
  • How long can the 18 year old at the centre of this matter keep his identity secret? The media are not reporting his name, even though they know who he is, but sooner or later some blogger is going to post it. The usual suspects spring to mind.
  • The HOS reports that Goff and Andrew Little have still not spoken about this matter. Are the two no longer on speaking terms? If so, how long can this continue? A party where the leader and president won't talk to each other is going nowhere.
  • How long before we get to talk again about how screwed our economy is?
Posted by at
Labels: ,

4 comments:

  1. There is the faint possibility that Goff's respect for Social and legal responsibility over Political expediency, might be seen as showing integrity and courage.

    ReplyDelete

  2. I cant see where the country or the media are homophobic, surprised you would run the chris carter line. No one ever mentions the sexual preferences of Street, Robertson, Finlayson, Hague, Tizard etc etc.
    The fact a person in a position of power takes advantage of someone a few months out of high school to the point where he comes too and flees in horror naked from the home of the opposition chief whip and the home of the deputy leader of the opposition is a sackable offence. This is not a first offence by all accounts either. Goff/King are fools for thinking it wouldnt blow up and should quit.

    ReplyDelete

  3. I cant see where the country or the media are homophobic, surprised you would run the chris carter line

    I haven't run that line. Carter claimed he was the target of unwanted media attention solely because he was gay. I've never suggested that was the reason why the Hughes matter blew up. But some of the reporting seems to be going too far. Why, for example, would the HOS run a story about the sexual approaches made by Hughes to other men?

    The fact a person in a position of power

    There is a difference between a proven fact and an allegation. Unless you know the alleged victim or have some inside knowledge into what ocurred, I suggest you don't use the word "facts" to describe what allegedly occurred.

    You talk about someone taking advantage, but for all we know the 18 year old may have been well up for whatever was on offer. We just don't know, and I don't intend to speculate or judge.

    ReplyDelete

I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:

1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)