Anyone else eager to hear Liam Fox's statement to the House?

[limitedperiodonly]

I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for it all and I look forward to hearing it at 2.30pm today.

What isn't? People on here said as he's gay he has to vote accordingly. That's to do with him being gay.

no, it isn't, as such, but if the "friendship" & all the meetings derive from a gay relationship then it is relevant, no?

Well, no. If LF is gay, that doesn't mean he's done anything wrong and it's no one's business. If he isn't gay but has done something wrong that's as relevant as if he is gay and has done something wrong. At the moment we don't know if he's done anything wrong. It's not against the law to be gay and for all we know, if it is true, his wife is perfectly fine with it.

if Werrity was a young woman he was having a heterosexual affair with & everything else was the same, Fox would still be at fault going by what's been reported so far.

What?

Fox has been taking his partner (or very good friend) on v important business trips for the government and ths partner/friend is calling himself Adviser to Fox.

He done wrong. Nothing to do with being gay.

I haven't seen anything concrete that says he's done anything wrong. If AW knows the same people and has his own contacts, he could well set up meetings with LF. He was an advisor at one point, now he isn't, officially but he'll still know people from when he was.

Whether LF is sleeping with him or if it was a woman, her, has nothing to do with the issue or shouldn't have.

The advisor thing is a bit confusing. His cards said he was an advisor to LF the MP not the Cabinet Minister. From what I've read, LF asked him to remove the portcullis that suggested it was a government card, so was he an unpaid advisor to LF the MP? Would he have to announce himself as such if that was the case? He is a business man and he was in charge of the political charity LF set up, they also have a business together. I don't find it too odd that, both having the same interests, they met up and travelled together and that AW was interested in LF government business. The question of whether LF did anything wrong, still needs to be addressed, but I'm not incredulous at the idea that he hasn't.

From today's notorious red top, The Daily Telegraph:

'It emerged last night that hotel records appear to undermine Dr Fox's assertion that Mr Werritty was in Dubai in a "private capacity" when the pair met there.

'Booking details from Dubai's five-star Shangri-La hotel show that Mr Werrity checked in describing his position as "office of Dr Liam Fox".

'The records cover the period during which Fox and Werritty are understood to have met on two occasions.'

Oh dear.

The political "charity" Atlantic Bridge, set up by Fox in 2006 was censured by the Charity Commission in July 2010 and the Commission demanded that its "current activities must cease immediately" because they did not comply with charitable rules limiting political activity.

The "charity" wound up last month, meaning it is not required to file accounts with the Charity Commission this year.

From 2006 to 2010 it spent £250,000 organising events in Britain and the US which is believed to have have included flights and accommodation for Fox and Werrity.

It was eligible for £50,000 tax relief in that period.

It paid Werritty £90,000 over three years as chief executive.

Mystery surrounds how much was spent in the last year, whether Werritty benefited from free travel at Atlantic Bridge's expense and what has happened to the leftover income.

I think he's gay, thats his boyfriend and I have no doubt he's had his hand in the Tax payers/MODs pocket.

Mr Fox should get his coat and get lost, sack him for dogs sake. no one else in there right mind thinks it's perfectly fine to let a "friend" into the work place on a regular basis, it simply wouldn't be allowed in a normal work place the fact it's the MOD makes it even worse, national security is now an international joke. he should be thrown out and banned from ever standing as an MP again.

I cant get over the Dr Fox thing. It just keeps making me think of the horrible DJ and the fact the other guy has a name that sounds like it comes out of a Dickens short story...... I just keep drifting off when I am listening to the news.

it is well dodgy IMO.

I'm really annoyed as DH is a civil servant and he was offered a free iPAd and iPod on a business trip last year and he refused as it might be seen as a bribe.

If only our rulers were so scrupulous.

Can you imagine if Fox's wife was on Mumsnet?

"Am I being unreasonable to wonder why my husband's "friend" accompanies him all over the world on business trips? He doesn't seem to have visible means of support yet affords hotels and flights to be with my husband. My husband says there's nothing to worry about? Should I believe him?"

How did Liam Fox find time for work with his friend so frequently perched on the edge of the desk?

She'd be told to leave the bastard, miggsie.

The Telegraph is just as good at sticking facts together and creating something completely different, just they are slightly more subtle about it, which is worse, really. If AW said he was there under office of LF, he could still have been there with LF the MP not the defense secretary and that could make all the difference. If he's done something wrong, fine, but nothing at all has been proven as of yet.

I couldn't give a fig if Liam Fox is gay. I do , however, give a whole crate of figs of he is enabling his amoral arms dealing friends to profit from his position as defence sec. Which, let's face it, is the situation.

It's all about the money. Isn't it always? and possibly about the sex, too. Isn't it always?

Miggsie if got a strange feeling that LF's wife or one of his 'advisors' might be on Mumsnet just now!

If you mean me, then sorry to disappoint. ;)

It doesn't matter what happens or happens in LF's private life, that's between him and his wife.

It doesn't matter if he's sleeping or has ever slept with a man and the preoccupation with this in the media is disheartening.

What matters is whether he did anything wrong. Illegal. If he did, it will be discovered during the inquiry. If he didn't, then that too will be discovered in the inquiry. Until then, none of us know and that's what it comes down to.

I stand by my point that if he's prepared to make policy (and vote with Mad nad) that restricts women's rights on the stated basis of his religious beliefs, then he should be prepared to have behaviour that contravenes those beliefs examined in public.

I strongly believe that religion, like sexuality, is a private matter. But he is the one who makes policy that affects our lives and who states that his religious beliefs inform his policy making.

And, I'm not going to speculate about whether he is gay or bisexual except to say I know someone who, not being European, was very surprised to see a picture of Fox in a newspaper. He hadn't realise that the man he had had a sexual encounter with was famous in any way.

You do seem to be something of an apologist for LF and you seem determined to turn this into a homophobia issue - which it is not.

It seems very clear to me that he has done something wrong. He has Apologised for "blurring professional and personal relationships" and even if what he has done is not illegal it has certainly shown a cavalier attitude towards national security. I think it is a normal human response to wonder why he has taken such a risk and as donnie says, it is usually about sex or money. Speculation that it may be the former is inevitable in the circumstances.

What does it matter if he's ever had sex with a man? He is perfectly at liberty to have views on abortion (that is what you're talking about, right?) and vote accordingly. Not every gay person or Catholic person feels the same thing about all issues. My points which I also stand by are that there's no proof he's gay from what has been disclosed, it could be a close friendship, I don't know why people are always so quick to dismiss these.

If he is gay, it is no one else's business and he can vote in any way he wishes.

If he did something wrong, that's the only thing that matters. I'm afraid I can't see how me trying to emphatically step away from the idea of homosexuality, is me trying to turn the issue into one of homophobia. Do you think I'm homophobic or against homophobia? I am a bit confused I'm afraid.

If what he did is not illegal that's what matters. He apologised for giving the impression of possible wrong doing, that is what is against the code, but if he didn't actually do it, that's what counts.

I am not apologising for LF particularly. I am unhappy with the way he is being portrayed by the press and when I feel someone is being vilified, I defend them.

Iain Stewart?

I presume this is not the mathematician then....

Whether he's gay or not is an altogether separate matter and I personally find the homophobic tinge to today's reporting vile. What's relevant to me is that he's been associating with someone who seems to have benefited from that association and doesn't seem to have considered beforehand that their association could be seen as dodgy. There's a pattern developing with the current UK government, David Cameron & Andy Coulson, Liam Fox & Andy Werrity, David Laws and his expenses.... Are they naive or do they genuinely think it's ok to behave this way?

Yes, Littleredant, that's what needs to be looked into. Did he do anything wrong, that's what the inquiry will discover and decide.

I think you'll find that it's not particularly this government anymore than the last, though and it's still not been proven that Andy Coulson is guilty either. The inquiry is on going. DC and GO can be accused of poor judgement but little else so far.

DL is complicated as it seems he could have claimed more in expenses had he admitted JL was his partner and because he was his landlord. When does the odd night in bed with your land lord become a partnership?

Maybe I just need to 'calm down' about it all and return to my knitting.