When is a lie not a lie?
Among the many things said about Charles Kennedy over
the last 24 hours is that he lied repeatedly about
his drinking. He said it wasn't the case that he
overindulged, he said he didn't have a problem. And
yesterday he conceded that he did indeed have a
problem and added that it was sufficiently serious
for him to have sought professional help.
So yes, he lied, there's no doubt about it. I do wonder, though, whether the commentators leaping on this untruth are being entirely fair.
I've had some advice about drinking lately. I was taking in around 19-20 units of alcohol per week, a couple of glasses of wine with an evening meal on most days, and if you check with the British Medical Association they'll tell you that's fine - which in most cases it is. But I've had high blood pressure so the doctor informs me that 5-6 units per week would be a much better idea for me, along with avoidance of salty foods (and boy, could I write a lot about hidden salt...)
I've made the change with no difficulty so I gather that I didn't and don't have a drink problem. Even so, I'm aware of feeling slightly awkward while writing about it. So, if someone who has no addiction and no responsibility outside his own house feels odd writing about drinking, how's a party leader who is as far as we can tell a recovering alcoholic supposed to feel about coming out in front of the media?
It must have been a nightmare. Of course he had to be pushed into it. Of course he tried to deal with it in private before admitting it in front of everyone, and of course it was right that he was somewhat outed because a party leader's fitness is genuinely in the public interest.
Nevertheless, I think we can allow him a few fibs about it while he tried to deal with it himself. Whatever the implications for his career and his party, this is one area of his personal life over which I suggest a politician or anyone has every right to draw the shutters.
So yes, he lied, there's no doubt about it. I do wonder, though, whether the commentators leaping on this untruth are being entirely fair.
I've had some advice about drinking lately. I was taking in around 19-20 units of alcohol per week, a couple of glasses of wine with an evening meal on most days, and if you check with the British Medical Association they'll tell you that's fine - which in most cases it is. But I've had high blood pressure so the doctor informs me that 5-6 units per week would be a much better idea for me, along with avoidance of salty foods (and boy, could I write a lot about hidden salt...)
I've made the change with no difficulty so I gather that I didn't and don't have a drink problem. Even so, I'm aware of feeling slightly awkward while writing about it. So, if someone who has no addiction and no responsibility outside his own house feels odd writing about drinking, how's a party leader who is as far as we can tell a recovering alcoholic supposed to feel about coming out in front of the media?
It must have been a nightmare. Of course he had to be pushed into it. Of course he tried to deal with it in private before admitting it in front of everyone, and of course it was right that he was somewhat outed because a party leader's fitness is genuinely in the public interest.
Nevertheless, I think we can allow him a few fibs about it while he tried to deal with it himself. Whatever the implications for his career and his party, this is one area of his personal life over which I suggest a politician or anyone has every right to draw the shutters.
|