UKC

I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an outcry over this particular news item.

Shahmir Sanni, the whistle-blower from the leave campaign group BeLeave, was outed as gay in a statement by Stephen Parkinson, with whom he had had an 18 month relationship beginning during the campaign, who is now a political secretary to Theresa May.

This is a serious and highly personal attack. The decision of how and when to come out belongs to one person and one person only, and Stephen Parkinson violated that. But what he did is far more serious still. Shahmir Sanni has family living in Pakistan, to whom he was forced to come out, and for whose safety he now fears. Stephen Parkinson knew exactly what he was doing and appears to have been happy to place a young man's family in danger to achieve his political ends.

Naturally there have been calls for Stephen Parkinson to step down. Challenged about it, Theresa May distanced herself from the statement while defending Parkinson by saying he “does a very good job”. When challenged directly by Labour MPs in the Commons, she said the following: 

The hypocrisy of this is absolutely mind-boggling. To claim to champion gay rights, while having tacitly supported to weaponisation of homophobia against an individual in order to keep them quiet.

How can this behaviour from the prime minister be deemed in any way acceptable? Even if you're a supporter of Brexit, how can the ends possibly justify the means?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/26/brexit-whistleblower-shahmi...

It isn't but is par for the course for all things Brexit.

Sadly. you're correct. I'm no longer surprised, but this behaviour coming directly from the prime minister is a new low, following 2 years of new lows being reached. It's just a symptom of the damage Brexit is inflicting upon our society and democracy.

I'd give this a like, but that doesn't really represent the correct feeling.

I think you'll find that Jeremy Corbyn has a monopoly on outrage. 

If you're a supporter of Brexit none of this will matter a toss, you can likely justify anything.

It’s the Tories. This is normal.

But yes, disgusting too, obviously.

jcm

I thought we were now supposed to be supporting the whistle blowers and encouraging them?

She should sack Parker.

Of course she won't because as far as she's concerned, saying a few words is the same as actually doing something. Remember that speech she made outside No 10 when she took office? How she was going to make the lives of ordinary citizens better? Aye right.

I'm a bit confused by the timeline. I can understand why he's been outed, it helps discredit this allegation of connection between the campaigns by framing it as a personal rather than a professional one. Doing it on No.10 stationary seems reckless. Is there any suggestion the threat of outing was used to blackmail Sanni into silence before the story broke or is it 'just' personal retribution mixed up with a factual defence of the connection.

Either way, you have to feel for the guy, he must have known it was coming sooner or later once the press started looking for more connections between the various campaigns.

jk

I guess there's a further motive to dissuade others from various campaign groups who now realise their strings were being pulled from coming forward and dishing more dirt perhaps? I think Christopher Wylie made reference to various other potential whistleblowers who were talking to journalists.

It is truly awful and an abuse of position and personal information.

What I found really awful yesterday is that there was an interview about this on Radio 4 Today on Monday, which you can find on line, at 2hrs 21 minutes into mission for the odious and nasty (Come friendly dislikes ) Nick  Robinson.   Unbelievable behaviour as he made the interviewee raise these facts about the outing by alleging that the interviewee had been influenced by sexual matters into blowing the whistle.   His whole interview seemed to be intent on shutting down the really terrible democratic implications of the electoral fraud and also only used the outing as a means to discredit the whistle blower, among other knockdown tactics.

Nick the prick did not permit a proper discussion of what the whistle blower was saying, what he knew etc, but rather why we should not take him seriously and he completely failed to give a proper emphasis to the outing as a truly appalling political misdeed by the ruling classes.

The BBC these days do appear to be trying rather hard to toe the party line. I've noticed numerous instances of important news items going ignored, debate being shut down, insults from the leave side being tolerated, preference being given to leave politicians.

I know they have a history and reputation of pandering to the government of the day, so I can't tell if it's gotten worse recently or if I'm simply noticing it more. But given how fraught and unpleasant political discourse has become, the BBC is failing in it's duty to be a fair and impartial arbiter, and to challenge dishonesty and misinformation.

I find NR wholly rubbish, in contrast to Eddie Mair on PM.  Respect to him, specifically having a section of PM to allow listeners to answer ReichsMarshal-Mogg's dishonest comments about the Year 2000 problem being a fuss about nothing, including comments from people who (like me) spent years fixing programs to prevent the problems!

And unfortunately it's not just the BBC's Nick Robinson. We shouldn't forget that Theresa May was in favour of remain prior to the referendum but now, as demonstrated here, seems to go to great lengths in order to shut down debate. The leader of the opposition's position is less clear but his sacking of Owen Smith seems to indicate little enthusiasm for challenging what has now become the de facto establishment position either.

And, if we're to believe what comes out the mouths of politicians (a risky strategy), then it's all down to the 17.4 million people who voted for brexit. It's about time someone with some influence in these matters considered the 48 million who did not vote for this before our futures are negotiated away by the likes of David Davis (a person who I wouldn't trust to go to the post office for me let alone decide the future of my country - certainly after 'lunch' anyway).

It's all a grubby mess and we're going to end up paying rather a large price for it.

Has it been proved that Parkinson is responsible for Shahmir Sanni's outing yet?

From the link in the OP:

"Parkinson’s statement made reference to fact that the pair had dated each other for a year and a half, including the period when he was at Vote Leave and Sanni worked as a volunteer and treasurer at another Brexit campaign"

He's hardly denying it, the statement had his name on it and refers to the relationship he had with Sanni.

Or do you mean was his arm twisted? Probably.

jk

I think he's making an attempt at humour based on the failure of some users to take government claims of definitive proof of Russian state responsibility for the Salisbury attack at face value.

Nope, I genuinely didn't know, as I hadn't followed this story.

Thanks for clarifying JK.

Oh, my apologies then. Yeah, there wasn't any doubt over where the story had come from, it was a statement rather than a leak.

Just another offense to add to her long list of offences and crimes committed by people under her responsibility.

Damn, I thought this was going to be about a video of Theresa May partaking in some disgusting behaviour and am more than a bit disappointed that it isn't!   

Only when the blowing of the whistle is in the public interest.

I don't consider revealing someone's sexual tendency to be in the public interest.

Quite agree. I’ve always been a supporter of the BBC, but I think more so under this government than others, they seem to act as government propagandists. 

I don't think that's what I meant, do you?

I think you'll find the whistle blower was the bloke that's been outed. so far he seems to be the only one to suffer.

No it isn't.

No it doesn't. If you have sex with someone they are entitled to tell others about it, you're envisaging a system of control over sexual partners that is entirely unreasonable.

Who is actually in danger and how? 

Sanni named Parkinson, not the other way round, the defence of spurned lover may or may not be true but it is a legitimate defence.

It's arguable whether anyone's sex life is a subject for the media but if you make an allegation against someone in a political position and you have had a sexual relationship with them, then it becomes in the public interest.

Blowing of the whistle is what started all of this mess...

You haven't got a clue.

I can't make an accurate judgement on whether Sanni's family in Pakistan are in physical danger due to the perceived shame brought upon them by having their son outed publicly, but it's fairly obvious that their lives have been pretty much ruined. Unless you propose that in Pakistan it's generally fine for it to be broadcast on global media that your son is homosexual? 

I have no idea why you're choosing to concoct a defence for actions so clearly morally repugnant. It's just repulsive.

I need some mind bleach after reading this!

Yes; that's exactly what I thought you meant, which is why I posted my comment.

I'm happy to accept that isn't what you meant, but your brief comment was ambiguous.

No problems, all sorted. I found my Edwina Currie video and all is now good - big smiles all round at FactorXXX HQ!

My bucket overfloweth.

That bit I can agree with, the rest is just not worth saying.

Wasn't there only one whistle blower?

I'm confused now, but as long as were' both happy, I'm happy.

As was Edwina Currie's... 

Wow. That's a sweepingly broad statement that fails to capture the nuance of how adult relationships work.

Sanni claims that his family is in danger. Given that homophobia is rife in Pakistan, I don't see why you would choose to dismiss his fears.

Sanni named Parkinson in his whistleblowing allegations. Parkinson outed Sanni in turn.

It seems to me that it's only of public interest if Sanni's allegations are false. If the allegations are true, then it's of no interest to me or anyone else whether he went public in revenge against Parkinson or out of a deep sense of guilt about the injustice in which he partook.

How can he explain his side of the story if he doesn't explain the relationship between him and Sanni?  I've not been following this properly and haven't seen his statement (link?  I have looked), but the impression I get is that his explanation relies on him being Sanni's bf.

Any UKC Tories care to comment on TM's answer to Ruth George's question yesterday?

https://evolvepolitics.com/watch-labour-mp-asks-why-tories-cut-subsidised-f...

W

Without you listing those nuances you could mean anything but it sounds very weak. Various people have been outed against their will due to scandals, Jeremy Thorpe, Keith Vaz, that chubby lad from the Co-op. It sounds very worthy to claim that only individuals can out themselves but it simply isn't true. That's identity politics for you, no nuance, no way to deal with competing rights.

Not just me, anyone with any sense. His family lives in the UK, he has extended in Pak but there's no credibility in claiming his 2nd cousins once removed are in danger.

Cadwalladr claimed she'd done due diligence with Sanni and he was aware of the risks involved in blowing. So, if that's true, he knew that the nature of their relationship would come out, the British Press having no record of protecting gays in similar circs. So either she played him or she's playing the rest of us. That's why there has been so little outrage over the outing, it's just a cheap trick to paint Parkinson into a corner.

False dichotomy. It's not a fundamental, unconditional right not be outed - there are circumstances where this might be justified. Nor is a fundamental unconditional right to be able to tell whoever will listen who you've slept with.

Anyone with any kind of reasonably developed moral intuition will be able to weigh up the specific circumstances of a given situation and reason whether or not it's justified to out someone. And it's not going to be the same answer every time.

You have made absolutely no credible argument that outing in this case was justified. You've just stated some stupid blanket rule that you plucked out of nowhere: "If you have sex with someone they are entitled to tell others about it".

Where does this entitlement, which seems to trump all consideration of consequences, stem from? Is it written in a holy book, some cosmic source of morality brought down to earth from the heavens?

This is a meaningless sentence. *What* is identity politics, here?  You're the one who's unable to consider competing rights, the specifics of the situations, and instead you're blurting out blanket-rule garbage that ignores any consideration of the impact on individuals. "Identity politics"  is a vacuous catchphrase trotted out by people who think it's a way of justifying the complete lack of effort and integrity behind their position on something to do with blacks or gays.

If I was Sanni's parents and I was going to face hell on going back home, i.e. I could no longer go home - which seems entirely likely - then that's a pretty awful consequence. Or is the right of everyone to blather to the world about who they've shagged such a deep, fundamental entitlement (as you suggested without any justification) that we don't need to consider what the consequences are?

Thank god I will never be affected by decisions you make through your moral intuitions, because to me they seem barking f*cking mental.

I'm finding it hard to share your outrage.... the dangers of repeating a bit of pillow talk.

Not quite sure what Theresa May has to do with any of it.

Because at some point in her career she promised to protect whistle-blowers, and to make sure they didn't suffer for publishing issues that are in the public interest. IIRC

Would you like me to list every possible nuance of adult relationships that may make it at best, inadvisable and at worst, morally wrong or dangerous to publicly air details of somebody else's sex life. I'm sure you can think of some...

Ok, so other people have been outed in various different circumstances which have nothing to do with this case.

No nuance? You're the one that's resorted to generalisations and refused to attempt to engage with the actual details of the situation.

So that's fine then?

You've confused accepting the risk of something happening with being personally responsible when that something happens.

Parkinson was responsible for the outing, so he's tricked himself?

I'd suggest the lack of widespread outrage is because the media in general is unwilling to engage with the story since it throws Brexit in a bad light.

Sanni’s a big boy. He’s over 21. He’s responsible for his own actions, his own relationships, his own sexuality, his own creed and his own convictions.