The Hidden Glasgow Forums

I understand both Egg Mans' Lucky Poets' position. The reason I made a point of stating that my perspective wasn't an issue based on either sexuality or party politics is quite simple.

Following the unravelling of the Steven Purcell story I encountered the usual bigoted "well, that's typical of the (insert weight based, homophobic, left wing hatred with a hint of a sectarian guess at his schooling attitude)". That is why I chose to state where my remarks weren't coming from. At the same time though I met an equal amount of people defending Mr Purcell's sad decline who glibly threw in a line about bravely coming out; which although true had nothing to do with his situation. Neither attitude is helpful and neither attitude deals with the issue at hand.

My clumsy tautology concerning a free pass does refer to an underlying hypocrisy. John "Dad of the year" Terry aside how many of those big, bad, horrible, overpaid footballers caught cheating presented themselves as societal role models? Were the people stating that Gordon Mathieson's situation wasn't in the public interest saying the same then?

The gentleman in question in this case is not subject to any further action so maybe I'm the hypocrite. Since this is sounding like a Werther's Original advert I'll STFU.

Shuggy

The Egg Man wrote:

Delmont St Xavier wrote:

yoker brian wrote:I have no problem with Mr Matheson having an affair, nor do I have a problem with his sexuality, these are after all private matters and not for the titillation of the citizens of Glasgow.

But what I do have issues with is that he was caught by the Police engaging in an alleged sexual act in a public place, its hardly behaviour befitting of the Office of Council Leader.

I agree! I don't think his sexuality is an issue or his betrayal of his partner as that's his business but as a the holder of the top office in Glasgow, I personally think a little honour would go a long way.

So, if it's not his sexuality nor his betrayal of his partner, what does his position as Leader of the Council have to do with anything?

Image, reputation to this great city, conduct becoming....that's my point.
I am neither homophobic, sectarian or anything else for that matter but if I had been caught having sex outside (even if it was my wife) I would have to demit from my position. Simples!

Mind you, there are some folks now that conduct, honour, integrity are just mere words without meaning but then again, I'm old fashioned. If you're in the public domain, your conduct and actions have to be set at a higher standard, some might add 'don't get caught' but one thing that I can almost predict, when he faces the general public or his constituents there will be those who will mock him openly, like school kids sitting at the back of the classroom. I think his credibility is tarnished and his authority will be dented because this is the real world of hypocrisy, sadly.

Had he been caught with another politicians wife it would provoke the same feelings. Where the double standards of this stink; had been caught with Nicole Kidman....he would hear taunts of 'lucky wee b*******!'

If Caesar's wife must be above suspicion, then so must Caesar.

He should have the decency to resign immediately.

The people seeking to get rid of Mathieson are the same people who authorised an unnecessary £500,000 golden goodbye to the former head of GERA and also backed up Robert Booth's plan to give Glasgow's glass recycling to Viridor after the Booth's own department ran a successful pilot. Viridor promptly gave the collection part of the deal to a sub contractor who fucked it up in the first week.

One also has to remember that the permanent depute leader of the SNP managed to accuse a 78 year old councillor of assault after he and his team barged into a surgery. I presume that means only Conservative David Meikle can take a moral position on the current situation.

Dexter St. Clair wrote:The people seeking to get rid of Mathieson are the same people who authorised an unnecessary £500,000 golden goodbye to the former head of GERA and also backed up Robert Booth's plan to give Glasgow's glass recycling to Viridor after the Booth's own department ran a successful pilot. Viridor promptly gave the collection part of the deal to a sub contractor who fucked it up in the first week.

One also has to remember that the permanent depute leader of the SNP managed to accuse a 78 year old councillor of assault after he and his team barged into a surgery. I presume that means only Conservative David Meikle can take a moral position on the current situation.

Although there is an HG policy of collective responsibility, me and and one of my colleagues have broken with this to have a habit of taking to task 'black arts' (i.e. smear) political postings (I removed a post yesterday morning speculating on the sex lives of several prominent Scottish Government figures, for example).

We introduced this policy largely because all the smearing was coming from supporters of one specific party, and we were uncomfortable with looking like a party poodle site. And in any case, the 'if you throw enough mud' principle demeans our intelligence. But it'll be applied across the board. No pun intended.

This non-issue looks pretty much like an attempt to make political capital out of a personal issue, which in turn looks pretty much like the above.

Thread locked. Complaints via PM, please.

I Have unlocked this topic. Stay on topic.
I also want to point out I am not The HG Police and as long as it dont turn into a massive slagging match hopefully the thread will run its course

Fossil

As a GCC employee, I can potentially lose my job through my behaviour - even on the internet & even if I'm not talking about GCC at the time.

I would expect that our councillors would be subject to the same expectations of behaviour as the rest of us. In that position I'd at the very least expect to be subject to a disciplinary.

SomeRandomBint wrote:As a GCC employee, I can potentially lose my job through my behaviour - even on the internet & even if I'm not talking about GCC at the time.

I would expect that our councillors would be subject to the same expectations of behaviour as the rest of us. In that position I'd at the very least expect to be subject to a disciplinary.

No doubt you'd expect an accusation of misbehavior against you to be supported by evidence(?)

In Cllr Matheson's case the fiscal concluded there was 'insufficient evidence' of a crime.

Aye, insufficient evidence of a crime. Not insufficient evidence of the act taking place.

It's not just criminal acts which get you into trouble now.

I'm not saying I want to see the guy out on his ear, because I don't think it's that big a deal really. It's more the feeling I get that it's one rule for them, another for the rest of us.

SomeRandomBint wrote:Aye, insufficient evidence of a crime. Not insufficient evidence of the act taking place.

I hear scyrrilous rumours that one of the participants swallowed the evidence

It's not just criminal acts which get you into trouble now.

I'm not saying I want to see the guy out on his ear, because I don't think it's that big a deal really. It's more the feeling I get that it's one rule for them, another for the rest of us.

You're probably right. Most people don't put their job on the line every 4 years or so.

The Egg Man wrote:[quote=
I'm not saying I want to see the guy out on his ear, because I don't think it's that big a deal really. It's more the feeling I get that it's one rule for them, another for the rest of us.

You're probably right. Most people don't put their job on the line every 4 years or so.[/quote]

Correct, most people have a normal job that is put on the line everyday with no 4 year guarantee.

Pleased to see this thread reopened but hope our MODS will keep an eye on it. As Fossil says,"stay on topic." Interested to hear Dexter's comment as it chimes with my post on Mathieson being done in by his own side.
For whatever it's worth, I met Cllr. Mathieson while working for the Council and thought he was clever, friendly and unlike many councillors, not at all condescending towards staff.

Durachdan,

Eddy

The Egg Man wrote:
So, if it's not his sexuality nor his betrayal of his partner, what does his position as Leader of the Council have to do with anything?

Maybe some people consider that engaging in a criminal act is not very appropriate behaviour for the Leader of the Council ? And he has admitted it, which is why I'm a bit confused about the "lack of evidence" for being able to prosecute.

I'm also not convinced of the argument that the private life is always irrelevant to the public life. In this particular instance, Mathieson has shown a distinct lack of judgment and I think that's a very relevant consideration for the Leader of Scotland's largest council. It may well be that it was his enemies within his party that leaked this story at this particular time for their own reasons. Be that as it may, this revelation coming on top of the way he has behaved over George Square (of far greater interest and importance to me personally), does say something about his suitability for his post.

Just read the other night his comments about the statues as being "lifeless relics of a bygone age" - and that's the guy responsible for running one of the greatest Victorian cities in the world

hound dog wrote: .........................
Just read the other night his comments about the statues as being "lifeless relics of a bygone age" - and that's the guy responsible for running one of the greatest Victorian cities in the world

I'm not convinced Cllr Matheson actually said this.

The only place I can find it reported is in NewsNetScotland, the Gordon Lamb House version of Pravda.

hound dog wrote:

The Egg Man wrote:
So, if it's not his sexuality nor his betrayal of his partner, what does his position as Leader of the Council have to do with anything?

Maybe some people consider that engaging in a criminal act is not very appropriate behaviour for the Leader of the Council

Evidence please for the criminal act and his admission.