Graeme Archer writes a regular Sunday Diary on Conservative Home. His comments today on the Conway saga are arresting, particularly the last sentence:
I don’t know what annoys me more: that Mr Conway’s family funding arrangements have given our opponents some sticky mud to fling at us, or that his No.1 son does his best to live up to every toe-curling stereotype about homosexual men known to the tabloids. The result of all that expensive public school education appears to be a man who throws “F*** Off I’m Rich” parties in B-list London nightclubs. All funded with public money. I dunno. Maybe I was wrong about Section 28 after all.
Update: Graeme has commented beneath the article (as follows) indicating that the Section 28 remark was meant in jest, which I accept (Perhaps he should try a smilie next time ;-)). I have changed the title of this post and deleted an earlier verdict I made when I thought the remark was serious:
Sam, Anthony, Andrew -- I'm a bit allergic to any comment which begins "As a gay man...", and I don't like coming back to comment on my own posts - it feels a wee bit like grabbing two bites of the cherry - but anyway: as a gay man, and, moreover, one who came to his gay consciousness as a direct result of the egregious Section 28 (as did millions of us, in one of those delicious unintended consequences), I did think a couple of times about the Section 28 paragraph. In the end, I thought the joke was obvious -- and since at least some of you (from your comments) clearly read my sentence as meaning that my putative change of mind was from one of opposition, I think you must have got the sense, if not the somewhat unserious intent, of the phrase.