On Speculating About Speculation

[danieldwilliam]

Speculation rages on twitter about the identities  of the two political figures at the centre of revelations about an affair which has said to have stunned the Prime Minister and rocked Downing Street.

I say rages – a few dozen tweets.

A few brave individuals (1) have even gone as far as to name two potential figures (2).

Generally I’m not that interested in the sexual relationships of politicians (3) – unless they are exposing themselves as hypocrites I fully expect them to behave much like other people and, whilst I don’t exactly approve of adultery it doesn’t particularly affect the ability of the people involved.

But in this case I think it might.

If we ever find out.




(1) utterly stupid in the light of the MacApline – Bercow case

(2) including one wag who suffixed his tweet of “If it were X and Y that would interesting.” with  *innocent face* clearly not having grasped the implications of the Bercow decision or the Attorney General’s recent note on the applicability of the contempt of court for cases sub judice

(3) as distinct from sexually harassing folk. Or sleeping with someone connected with Russian intelligence.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I'm surprised that it's not been made public outside of the UK.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Me too.

It may be that the implications of the affair (if any) are not readily apparant to news organisations in the USA or Australia.

[andrewducker]

I don't actually know what the implications are, because I don't know who the people are, and my minimal googling from work isn't giving me any answers.

(If you _do_ know, feel free to email me.)

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I have emailed a few clues - will be less opaque if necessary.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Indeed, I read somewhere that the different legal situation meant it was surprising it hadn't come out in the Scottish press!

[andrewducker]

I'm going for Samantha Cameron and Kate Middleton.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

When you say "going for"...?

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

There is a movie there that could refloat the British economy.

[andrewducker]

I mean "I thought about what the funniest person to be involved in a relationship scandal was", and came up with a member of the royal family. And then decided that a gay one would be even more scandalous. And that the wife of the future king sleeping with the wife of the PM was combine things nicely.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

"combines things nicely" eh?

It would be the most entertaining version.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

So they are safe from your, um, long lens then. Very good.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

*like*

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

It's remarkable just how thoroughly, and easily, Twitter has been silenced on this by the show of force on MacAlpine.

[andrewducker]

"As if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

(Or realised that *gasp* the law applies to the internet.)

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

If only we lived in the wild west.

Not a bad thing - more people will be exposed to how biased our libel laws actually are.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

Or the law applies when the law is enforceable.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Not sure if that's a good thing or not.

I think UK libel laws are deeply wrong but I'm also not sure that having the internet speculate incorrectly about someone's love life is right either.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

For some reason I mind it less on the internet than in the newspapers.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Do you know why?

[andrewducker]

I vary. Twitter strikes me as being more like people chatting down the pub than something people might mistake for accurate reporting. Whereas newspapers have a stamp of authority. If I say to you "I hear that SamCam and KateMid are having an affair!" then that's clearly gossip. Put it on the front page of the Guardian and it gathers weight and affects people's perceptions.

Of course there are many websites that fall somewhere in-between, where some people will take that seriously, and assume that "They wouldn't report it unless it was true."

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with you on the equivalence of twitter and the pub.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

What he said.
With the addition that I expect organisations to be regulated, and individuals less so. This isn't a minor point - damages seem to be awarded in the same amount against individuals and, say, News Corp, and I don't like that much.

[f4f3.livejournal.com]

It's funny, but after John Major and Edwina Currie all other political sex scandals are going to be an anticlimax. Obviously.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

The peas are randier than usual, dear.

I know, that actually did surprise me.

Not least because I’ve always had a bit of thing for Edwina Curry. For which I am receiving therapy.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Gross. So, so gross.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Several people on Twitter reckoned they knew who it was last night. None came up with the goods. "*innocent face*"

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

Actually, I might just grab the Twitter handle @innocentface... ;)

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

The goods i.e. got it wrong or the goods i.e. not shocking enough?

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

"The goods" would have been any names at all! Lots of "I know something you don't know", no one saying what that was.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

Yeah – I was unsure how much of this was people who did know being reluctant to spread the rumour in case they were MacAplined or folk just bigging themselves up.

I saw someone mention some names - which if true would actually be really difficult.