And so the next phase of post-mortem hackery arrives, picking over what is left on the bones of Liam Fox’s ministerial career. This time the accusations are flying over suggestions that Fox is gay. This has particularly tested Peter Hitchens, who has decreed that such behaviour is coming exclusively from “the left”, and he has therefore called out “the left” for their alleged hypocrisy.
Who Hitch is trying to call out, though, is unclear. Kevin Maguire in the Mirror did refer to Fox’s former best man and pal Adam Werritty as an “oddball”, but then, a mere friend pretending to be a ministerial advisor when they weren’t, while jetting around the world bankrolled by a number of very well-off people with potential vested interests, should not object to that characterisation.
And Maguire’s talk of a “Cabinet of weirdos”, given that he was also talking about Oliver Letwin and his correspondence dumping antics in St James’s Park in the same piece, hardly qualifies as the “innuendo” that has so upset Hitchens. Moreover, the thought does not seem to have entered that much of the nudge-nudgery is coming from his own side.
Indeed, the Mail’s gay-basher in chief Peter McKay (aka Peter McLie, the World’s Worst Columnist), addressed the issue last week, and with a minimum of subtlety: “Although Fox has denied rumours that he is gay, his friendship with Werritty seems to go beyond what many might consider is normal in male friendships. But the more-inclusive-than-thou Cameron would instinctively steer clear of querying it”.
“Querying” – geddit?!? You want innuendo, Hitch, McHackey’s your man. And, as the saying goes, there’s more: the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his tame gofer Henry Cole at the Guido Fawkes blog couldn’t resist publishing a photo of Fox laden with innuendo, as the usual comments sewer underlined. The Fawkes blog also quoted Peter McKay’s “querying” comment.
And it was the right leaning Sun that reported on a burglary at Fox’s London flat and then told that a “younger man” had been staying there at the time (although a Tory party spokeswoman said he was alone). “He told cops his pal was sleeping downstairs in the pad – and there was nothing untoward about the arrangement” say Rupe’s troops. More of that innuendo.
So Peter Hitchens might do better looking behind him at the right leaning hackery of his own paper and their pals, if he wants to locate the source of all the innuendo aimed at Liam Fox, rather than pointing over at “the left”, wherever that is.
Bit early for panto season, mind.
2 comments:
....and the comments on your order-order reference don't let you down.
The innuendo seems to have been a deliberate attempt to divert the Fox story into one about a Fox/Werritty personal relationship, as the Conservative Party began to panic about where this story was going. There also seem to have been deliberate attempts to drag "the Left" into that blind-alley: quite a few comments appeared on relevant CiF threads saying "hey, they're talking about sex on the Daily Telegraph blog, why aren't you guys talking about it?" If "the Left" had gone down that blind alley then it would probably have been criticised for hypocrisy by the same people who started the sniggering and innuendo.
As it happens, the Guardian and a number of bloggers carried on following the money trail across the Atlantic Bridge to ALEC and BICOM etc etc and to their individual donors. The latter did not like being exposed and Fox had to go (in a desperate attempt to shut down the story).
Possibly Peter Hitchens story was written in advance, hoping that this would happen, then got published by mistake.
Guano
Post a Comment