danieldwilliam: (machievelli)
danieldwilliam ([personal profile] danieldwilliam) wrote2013-06-03 10:09 am
Entry tags:

On Speculating About Speculation

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.
andrewducker: (Default)

[personal profile] andrewducker 2013-06-03 10:48 am (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2013-06-03 10:52 am (UTC)(link)
"combines things nicely" eh?

It would be the most entertaining version.

[identity profile] f4f3.livejournal.com 2013-06-03 11:03 am (UTC)(link)
So they are safe from your, um, long lens then. Very good.