Further to Labour TD Emmett Stagg’s apparent support for lone parents affected by cuts in allowances.
A marked change of tone.
Michael Caul writes:
This is the follow up email to Ruth from Emmett….Ruth is happy to publish.
Previously: You’re Not Alone
Sponsored Link




perhaps it was just the kind of thing you’d tend to say during an election….or something
Lalalalala
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/irish-minister-set-to-survive-scandal-1427878.html
Id love a cheese sandwich now :)
If people didn’t care back in 1994 that he may or may not be gay, why would his sexuality be an issue now?
Being gay wasn’t the issue, being an (alleged) sexual predator was.
According to the article, the man was in his mid twenties.
I said predator, not paedo.
Oh ok, apologies. So anyone that has visited a sex worker is a sexual predator? That’s a pretty loaded term tbf.
It isn’t even clear he was a prostitute.
http://www.nerdsraging.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/female-predator-body-paint-1.jpg
it wasnt. it was just for being gay.
Furry Glen is a cruising spot, there’s a greater chance that guy was just looking for a good time pre-Grindr than out to pay the rent.
Anyways I had a cheese sandwich and it was quite nice
I love the irony in ‘Furry Glen’ being a cruising spot for the guys :)
Besides being a Stagg he was just looking to hello to the other deer…
@fluffy I sincerely hope you get plague style plops from your sandwich for that link.
it’s only fair that she publishes her side of the correspondence too.
He accepts that in his response – he merely notes that it would have been good manners to tell him.
Is he wrong on the substantive points?
Why
Because if he knew people were going to hear what he was going to say, he would have said something different.
I think medieval knievel meant that she should publish the emails she sent him too.
Politician caught speaking out both sides of his mouth.
Hopefully the new media can help stamp down some of this carry on.
did she get his permission to publish this one like he asked for in the first one?
As has been said, it’s pretty off to just send in his side of the conversation without hers.
If it was hers and his?
She doesn’t need his permission though.
Ruth seems to be a bit of a wagon