The London mayoral contest just got personal. Ken Livingstone has given a TV interview coinciding with the disclosure that he has five children by three different women.

As well as two young children by his current partner, Emma Beale, the mayor has three children from previous relationships: two daughters by one woman and a son by another woman, according to a report by BBC London.

In his interview, Livingstone said he felt "no guilt whatsover". "I don't talk about my private life," he said. "It seems like only yesterday the press was trying to imply I was gay.

"I have never discussed my private life because it is not a relevant factor. I don't think anybody in this city will be shocked by what consenting adults do, as long as you don't include children, animals and vegetables."

The press, Mr Livingstone?

My understanding is that he talked to BBC London because the revelation is expected to feature in a new biography, Ken: The Fall and Rise of Ken Livingstone, by journalist Andrew Hosken, due to be serialised in a newspaper later this month.

And polling day in the election for London mayor, May 1, is now just four weeks away.

Comments

[Bruce Hulmes 8 Apr 2008 10:15:10]

Madnurse.
I do agree with what you say totally, people should have more important things to concern them then gossip and C class celebritites, who show tv cameras around their fine houses and then wonder why they get broken into!!

[carol-ann liverpool 7 Apr 2008 11:33:32]

trevor

that's a new excuse for cammers breaking the highway code: I haven't heard that one before. now, if only cammers and co had said that when the pictures/video wre/was put out to the media - it might have sounded plausible.

[Madnurse 7 Apr 2008 11:27:11]

Bruce you are right, many people manipulate the media to their own ends, the family you mention, in my opinion, are masters at it.

My point is this, whether these people seek publicity or not, the ordinary person in the street still has to buy the magazine/book/DVD/watch the TV special or play the computer game, in order for it to remain attractive or financially viable for the publisher.
If we as a nation stopped buying the rubbish, it would not take long for the publishers to stop paying for it and thus they would stop publishing it.

I think it is all part of a general dumbing down of society, an uneducated society is far easier for a government to control is it not?

When I was a young girl, if you asked people what they wanted to be when they grew up, most boys would say a train driver or engineer and most girls would say a nurse or get married and have children. If you ask the same question now, the answers are very different, they do not want to go into a particular profession, most want to be famous, rich or pop stars.

[Bruce Hulmes 6 Apr 2008 13:29:30]

Madnurse.
People should be allowed privacy within their lives.
The problem is not the man and woman in the street, it is the so called celebrity culture and political egos, that when it suits their purpose insist on parading their lives and families in the public eye, a typical example were the Blairs who could not make their mind up when their children were public or private property. They will even sell their souls to magazines etc if the money and publicity is right.
We also have a government who insist on prying into all our lives at national and local levels.
I read last week that some artists who wished to apply for a grant had to diclose whether, they were hetrosexual,bisexual or homosexual, now in Labour Britain we have Labour politicians demanding privacy whilst a government quango demands to pry.

[Ayse - London 6 Apr 2008 12:11:06]

The ego has landed, stayed beyond his welcome and hopefully come May 1 it will depart

[Trevor 6 Apr 2008 10:30:43]

"Once you start seeing these kinds of stories in the press, you know those involved in this sort of thing really are desperate and have run out of ideas to oppose Ken on his policies so have to attack him personally." Carol-Ann
-----------------------------

You mean a bit like Labour running dogs chasing Cameron with their cameras, and then snapping him running a red light to get away from them ?

[stan_expat 5 Apr 2008 18:23:52]

Red Ken setting a fine example for the single parents in his kingdom.

[Madnurse 4 Apr 2008 16:48:28]

CA: 14:01

I think you are right in what you say and I think it may also apply to adults related to the person in public life as well.

I could not imagine how I would feel if a close relative's private life was plastered all over the front pages of the newspapers.
If a spouse of someone in the public eye does not seek the limelight and yet finds intimate details of their private life all over the front pages of the papers or on TV news, it must be awful for them.
It must also be awful for the parents of the person in the public eye especially if the story is rather seedy.

In my opinion, as long as the private live of the person does not interfere with them carrying out their role, then it should remain private.

Much of the problem is caused by those people that buy such rubbish, if everyone stopped buying publications that intruded into private lives without any real justification for running such a story, they would soon stop publishing such rubbish from the gutter.

Why do people have such a fascination for such stories?

[Jack Cade 4 Apr 2008 15:15:53]

Clearly Ken's private life isn't private enough. Perhaps he ought to keep his privates more private. If he has to drink whiskey (now) to get through the day, think of what the poor women have to drink to put up with that! Poor kids.

[carol-ann liverpool 4 Apr 2008 14:01:00]

Elizabeth,

I know that the politicians or the famous chose their lives and know the ups and downs;
I just think their children don't have a choice.

I don't mean don't publish, just take more care about what is put on the front page - for example pictures or lurid headlines, which children can see as soon as they walk into a supermarket or filling station.

[Bruce Hulmes 4 Apr 2008 13:39:47]

Kens plays the privacy card, well lets see who is covering the cost of his lack of sex educational knowledge him or the tax payer.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 4 Apr 2008 12:32:49]

Carol Ann
The private lives of public figures such as politians is open season as we all know.
Being under the microscope of the press is part and parcel of being "famous". People who pursue public life have to deal with it, good and bad, it is the life they have chosen, it's a case of getting what you wished for unfortunately.

[Khalid 4 Apr 2008 12:30:40]

[Hai Margay] when didnt politics get personal [K S Mackhan]?

[carol-ann liverpool 4 Apr 2008 12:03:48]

I understand that Boris's personal life is not exactly 'conventional' and I think, given the various permutations of families in the modern day - whether you agree with that or not - Ken's lifestyle is hardly exceptional.
What I do care about is the welfare of children and I think perhaps it is time to bring in a privacy clause to protect child from having to see this stuff on the front pages.

Children seeing highly exagerated accounts of their parent's supposed personal lives made seedier sounding for the sake of the voyeristic, should be protected.

Seeing your parent on the front pages of the gutter press must be an awful trauma and, as the media obviously don't give a damn, maybe childrens organisations should look at this.

Once you start seeing these kinds of stories in the press, you know those involved in this sort of thing really are desperate and have run out of ideas to oppose Ken on his policies so have to attack him personally.

I would say the same if it was about Boris or Brian Paddick. Children should be protected from the potential bullying that can come about as the result of these stories splashed on the front pages.

[Stephen Williams 4 Apr 2008 10:26:11]

I find myself for the first time ever agreeing with Red Ken, people are human beings & I can’t see anyone giving a monkeys about how many kids he has had with different women, ultimately though it hasn't affected his London Mayor job performance as he is a useless Mayor & always has been with his anti-business, anti-motorist, poisoness politics of envy policies which is so typical of Labour.

One of Red Ken's recent additional stealth tax proposals being the £25 congestion charge for the so called 'Chelsea tractors', so obviously if you can afford a motor classified as a 'Chelsea tractor' you will have to pay £25 for the privilege to drive it into the congestion charge zone, fortunately he will be out of office before it kicks in as he said the charge would start in October.

Red Ken can kiss goodbye to thousands of votes in the effected areas in west London after his extension of the congestion charge there also.

[Fluffy, London, England 4 Apr 2008 10:07:21]

I agree that Ken's private life is his own business. I doubt the press will agree.

If he has supported his children, all well and good. No doubt journalists are talking to their contacts within the DSS and CSA as we speak.

Why cannot we have a clean election? Why can we not have clean politicians...?

[Mentor - Northumberland 4 Apr 2008 09:46:50]

Little wonder he has such an affinity for the cultures of the ethnic minorities breeding habits!

If as a Private person one enters public life, the your private life should be known to the public!

[E. Greenacre, Grimsby 4 Apr 2008 08:36:36]

Strange that Ken Livingstone has kept three children hidden or "private", whilst openly acknowledging the other two. Was he ashamed of them? Are they second-class children to him? What must the children themselves think about receiving different treatment from their famous father compared with their siblings.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 4 Apr 2008 08:04:22]

Jon,
Well at least it should knock the gay rumour on the head!

[Patricia 3 Apr 2008 21:13:00]

It seems like only yesterday that Labour luvvies were declaring that Boris' couple of short flings would sound the death knell on his Mayoral aspirations. I wonder what the electorate will make of Kens' revelations?.

[Bruce Hulmes 3 Apr 2008 20:19:58]

In case this obnoxous piece of flesh is not aware the world is more in danger from over population than car fumes. How many of this mans children are or have been brought up on benefits, though that could actually be a vote winner in the land of the single parent family.

[Elizabeth Davies Cape Town 3 Apr 2008 19:39:18]

I believe someone's private life should be...private.
Provided that it has no force or effect on the public personna.
It is up to Ken how many Mothers, wives and children he wishes to have, he must just do his job properly.
Same rules apply to the other candidates for London Mayor, at the end of the day these people are human.

[carol-ann liverpool 3 Apr 2008 19:34:49]

Oh, so now it is getting down and dirty, like American politics.

What you have related about Mr Livingstone's family matters, would be seen as fairly unremarkable, given the complex diverse family structures in quite a few households these days!

The thing that matters to me, is that children are safe and happy and well looked after.

What on earth has the number of children/previous partners that Mayor Livingstone has, got to do with his election?

I am sure Boris Johnson has had what some might see as a less than conventional private life and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he had a dozen kids to 10 different maids or whatever... and some might see, given the Tory emphasis on marriage and family, as him being a bit hypocrital; especially if the Nucons dirty tricks department been stirring the pot re Ken.

Personally, I think two parents is enough for any one child to cope with, but we can't all have what we want, can we? The nuclear family was always a myth anyway.

Let's face it there is many a home, put under a microscope, that would not escape censure of some kind by some people, it is called : 'being human'!