What’s worse? Huhne’s LSD-associated past, or Clegg’s past encounter with peyote?
Seriously for a minute, is that Times article on Huhne accurate? According to it, Huhne’s name is on the article. But according to the copy which I pilfered from that nice Mr Fawkes (February 2006, by the way), no name appears anywhere on the article, probably because if anyone admitted to writing the article they’d have been kicked out of university.
Can anyone see Huhne’s name on this page? I’ll happily issue a correction if I’ve missed it. But I suspect that Guido would have made rather more of it at the time if that was the case. I notice that the Times chooses its words carefully such as stating that his byline was “attached” and has not published the article on its site as proof. Why would that be?
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
The main problem with the article is it’s over-long, uses too many words and makes an interesting topic a bit dull.
“The Party that Eats Peyote!”
FUCK YEAH!
Andy – Oxford’s student publications generally fit that description!
What a Nasty party.
First Charles Kennedy.
Then Menzies Campbell.
Now Chris Huhne is personally attacking his opponent.
What Nasty people, What a Nasty Party.
I would have thought Huhne’s people would have denied it were it not true. They had plenty of opportunity to…
Actually, it’s the party that burns peyote, but who am I to argue?
John, why waste the effort and give the story legs?