Well, the shock revelations about Oaten in the last few hours have been interesting.
I’m surprised he feels that a relationship with a rent-boy is reason enough to quit his spokesmanship.
The investigation reveals Mr Oaten had a lengthy relationship with a rent boy then aged 23.
The carefully worded news-articles don’t seem to imply this was a paid-for relationship. And there’s no indication of when it was (although “*then* aged 23” with no mention of how old he is now) — was it an adulterous[1] relationship, or one that ended before he got married?
Either way, the justification from the Screws about why they are running the story at all is pathetic:
Keith Gladdis, Whitehall editor of the News of the World, justified the paper’s story.
He said: “Mark Oaten is an MP, an MP who has been elected on a platform of being a family man.
“He’s also an MP who’s a front bench spokesman – a front bench spokesman who then went on to stand as a potential leader of the Liberal Democrat party. That is someone who quite clearly has a public life.” (From this BBC story)
Guido points the finger at Oaten making hypocritical remarks about prostitution when the issue was debated this week. But Mark’s press release on the subject is measured.
Guido and the Monkey seem to have set it all off with a salacious podcast last week. I’d be interested in a copy if it’s doing the rounds.
Trouble comes in threes. People have been postulating that we’ve had Kennedy with drink problem, Tom McNally confessing to having been an alcoholic in the 80s and now Oaten’s dalliance.
I don’t think that’s it. Tom McNally’s news (I’ve been an alcoholic but I’m fine now) wasn’t much of a bombshell.
Popbitch carried a Lib Dem quickie this week:
Which Lib Dem wannabe leader used to be a regular visitor to a brothel in Paddington where he used to pay girls to shit in their knickers for him, and would then put the dirty pants in his briefcase and take them home?
Given that those are girls, and the Oaten story is about a boy, maybe these words from Stephen Tall tonight
But I am left scratching my head in utter bewilderment that he could have considered standing for the leadership of the party – to succeed a man who was forced to resign because of personal problems – when this story was lingering in the shadows.
are going to end up sounding prophetic by this time next week.
Check out this on Iain Dale’s blog (hold your nose if you need to):
I can’t believe what the newsreader on Sky […] has just said – “My instant reaction was when I heard about this was that it was someone else, but let’s not go there.”
What a sorry mess. There are skeletons hammering on the inside of closet doors tonight.
[1] In googling to try and work out how you spell adulterous, I came across this charming little website that tells you whether you can get divorced or not, with handy yes/no questions about the state of your relationship. Believe marriage irretrievably broken down, but still living together? Reconsider!
Niles's Blog 
It matters because Oaten as Home Affairs spokesman was meant to be leading the Lib Dem response to the Government prostitution policy, and a lot of vulnerable people were counting on the Lib Dems to raise a common-sense Liberal voice. That’s going to be incredibly hard now even with Oaten gone. If Oaten had stuck there was no way the message would get through. That’s why he had to go.
[…] The issue has been well covered by various bloggers. Stephen Tall makes the very good point of asking ‘why did Oaten stand for the leadership with this hanging over him?‘. Niles’ Blog however is “surprised he feels that a relationship with a rent-boy is reason enough to quit his spokesmanship“. The excellent Will Howells and Jonathan Calder are as usual thoughtful and concise on the issues. Plenty (including Leah Darbyshire who knows the Oatens) are hoping that the journalists give Mark’s family enough privacy and time to work out what must be some pretty horrendous feelings. I agree. The press have their scalp – Mark Oaten didn’t dither over his resignation. Anything else is just salacious gossip, which may shift papers has now ceased to be in the public interest. [link] […]
I suppose if the tabloids and others are looking for dirt to dig up, then it must mean they are starting to worry about the lib dems as credible opponents.
Wouldn’t get uyour hopes up neil
Recess Monkey
I’m surprised he feels that a relationship with a rent-boy is reason enough to quit his spokesmanship.
Probably because he in 2004 – at EXACTLY the same time that he himself was having this affair with a male prostitute – publicly declared that a relationship with a male prostitute made Judge Roger Davies unfit to do his job .. and demanded that the Judge be the subject of a police investigation.
The carefully worded news-articles don’t seem to imply this was a paid-for relationship.
So, the fact that he paid £80 a session (£140 for the threesome) doesn’t indicate that he paid for the company?
Either way, the justification from the Screws about why they are running the story at all is pathetic
But not quite as pathetic as being an untrustworty hypocrite liar and cheat though.
I suppose if the tabloids and others are looking for dirt to dig up, then it must mean they are starting to worry about the lib dems as credible opponents.
Unelectable and 6% down in the polls in one month and we are supposed to believe that anyone is worried about them? LOL
Yeah, the bit about payment is now plainly wrong. When I made the post, I was referring to the news articles I had at the time, which used phrases like “a six month relationship with a rent boy.” The specifics of payment didn’t come out until the Screws article the following day.
Wasn’t the Judge thing was less about him resigning, more about him taking home a large retirement bonus as a reward?
As for unelectable and down in the polls – sorry, which party is that, again?