joG
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 43,839
- Reaction score
- 9,655
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Like I said, all we will gain then is attention seekers and attention whores. Is that really what you think public life should be about?
The Clintons only serve to show how wrong you are then. Clinton had his blowjobs in the whitehouse - a publicly funded building while he was probably on duty. Same could be said for Lewinsky - though unpaid, she was at work while engaged in sexual activity. Hilary Clinton (I'm assuming you're talking about her emails) did what she did while on duty and in the publicly funded buildings.
The two cases I posted in the OP were private life events. The Bishop does not bring his partner to the church, there has been no record of activity while on church grounds and Keith Vaz was at his own flat. He did not bring the male prostitutes to Parliament nor did he do what he did on public time.
Religious partisanship into a thread about outing? Shame on you.
It depends on what you refer to. If it is the person asking for power, then the answer can only be that they must accept being watched day and night. I do not see how the Clintons disprove that.
But in the case of persons that grab the limelight without personal power, I am not as committed, because it is not as important. But I would tend to believe that if they do get out into the light, they know they will be interesting. As far as I am concerned the media have all the right to watch them.