Tuesday, 24 April 2007

Ted Heath Gay Shock!

Tory London Assembly member (and open homosexual) Brian Coleman has astonished the nation by revealing that former Tory Prime Minister (and open EU traitor) Edward Heath regularly went "cottaging" in the 1950s.

In other astonishing news, I can reveal that a young man named Ratzinger may, on occasion, have attended Catholic Mass in the 1950s. I hope soon to be able to bring to you the long-anticipated truth of what, precisely, bears do in woods.

At Conservative Home, a debate is getting underway about the outing of Ted Heath, and also about Mr Coleman's claim that the Tory Party in London is run by homosexuals. Personally, I was more interested in something else that Mr Coleman wrote:
The average voter could not care less if their Member of Parliament visits Hampstead Heath at Midnight as long as they get the holes in the road mended. The Anglican worshipper in the pew cares not that the local Bishop has a taste for black leather under their cassocks as long as keeps his hands away from the choirboys.
Is this true? I could accept it as true if he said that the average voter couldn't care less if their MP was homosexual. But I do not believe that the public are particularly tolerant of homosexuals (or anyone, for that matter, but it seems to be primarily a homosexual problem) having sex in public. By way of anecdotal evidence, in the 2005 election the local Labour Party in the constituency where my mother lives deselected their sitting MP, and selected a local activist with two convictions for cottaging. He said that it didn't matter, because most people didn't see cottaging as wrong. The Tories, by contrast, made an issue of it, and won on the back of one of the biggest Labour to Tory swings in the country.

And, in any event, cottaging is still a crime, and always has been. Is Mr Coleman suggesting that cottaging is, nonetheless, an acceptable form of behaviour, and one that should be embraced as if it were a hoodie? Apparently so.

It says quite a lot about the Tories, I think, that they have a man of such views as one of their senior elected officials. For one thing, it says, once again, that they cannot really be considered a conservative party, but simply another party of the liberal-left.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

So if you have one gay man in the group it is not right wing. Well using that logic only Castro is right wing.

Fulham Reactionary said...

What? Where did I say that?

What I did say is that if you have as the elected leader of the group a man who says that cottaging is not immoral, then that would seem to indicate that the group is not conservative.

It should be quite obvious that I was discussing Coleman as an advocate (or at least, as a tolerator) of cottaging, rather than Coleman as a homosexual. I assume that advocating cottaging is not an intrinsic part of being homosexual?

Maxime said...

Yeah, I agree with you, Fulham, it is not the homosexual who makes Tories left-liberal, but the open libertinism.

It is clear that certain behaviours run rife through the elite classes. The fact that the public school culture encourages homosexual behaviour in those with just the slightest tendencies is nothing new. That there was a fair amount of cocaine use among the rich and powerful in the Thatcher years is unquestionable (it was also a worldwide phenomenon in the 80s).

What is perhaps new is the impossibility of keeping one's personal habits out of the miedia. Eventually, the politicians stopped apologising, shame dissipated, and everyone decided they were better protected by saying "it doesn't matter".

viagra online said...

I think that if is one gay man on the group, really doesn't matter, because is a normal person that shouldn't be discriminated by his sexual preferences.