In response to Paul T Horgan: Rainbows at the footie – a truly pointless gesture, PierrePendre wrote:
It's interesting to juxtapose this public endorsement of homosexuality and other kinds of alternative sexuality with the BBC's crucifixion of Damian Green for allegedly indulging a well-known and legal male heterosexual taste, whether the allegation is true or not.
I have no objection to footballers wearing rainbow boot laces to make a point about sexual tolerance, provided it's voluntary. It's a harmless idea.
But perhaps the Home Secretary could clarify for us whether the incidental information the police gather about us becomes public property and can be freely trafficked to the media whether it has been tested in court or not, even by former officers who are now private citizens. If every policeman and former policeman has this power over us, the implications are worrying, especially if we have a public profile and are susceptible to political blackmail.
The allegation is that legal pornography was found by chance on Mr Green's computer by police investigating him about another matter in which he was never charged. The claim has been put into the public domain to discredit Mr Green politically even though he would face no charge if it were true.
I doubt whether an official of Stonewall or any other LBTQ organisation would be pursued in this way if police found pornography on his or her computer.
If the former policeman, Lewis, (or indeed any BBC male employee) denies that he has ever looked at porn for his personal gratification, I can say that I categorically do not believe him. There is not a man in the country who has not done so. But that's not the issue. The issue is whether the police are free to publicise every last thing they know about us whether we have committed a crime or not, and Miss Rudd needs urgently to reassure us that this is not the case.