Halibut Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Sorry don't agree with that. He's spoken out because he knew the cat's-outta-of-bag. Spoken out now to save face, nothing else. SACK HIM On what grounds? And why are you so angry about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
best sheff Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 He's a highly competent and well regarded journalist and broadcaster - why should the details of his private life be fair game? I agree with your above quote, but his job his exposing people for such activities, you cannot have one rule for him and other rules for everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcrust Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 On what grounds? And why are you so angry about it? Quite. I'm sure he'd be laughing all the way to the employment tribunal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I agree with your above quote, but his job his exposing people for such activities, you cannot have one rule for him and other rules for everyone else. No it wasn't - his job was exposing newsworthy events not what is essentially a bit of tabloid gossip. He was pretty dim to take out a super-injunction but you can't sack people for lack of 20:20 foresight or no-one would be employed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I agree with your above quote, but his job his exposing people for such activities. No it isn't. He's a political journalist, not a gossipmonger. People's private lives are no more business of his than they are of mine, and his private life is no business of anybody's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
best sheff Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 On what grounds? And why are you so angry about it? I'm not angry. I liked this man and valued and trusted his judgement. He seemed right and up-standing. Now just another lier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Sorry don't agree with that. He's spoken out because he knew the cat's-outta-of-bag. Spoken out now to save face, nothing else. SACK HIM He is not in breach of contract so cannot be sacked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Sorry don't agree with that. He's spoken out because he knew the cat's-outta-of-bag. Spoken out now to save face, nothing else. SACK HIM he had no need to speak out since he was protected by an injunction and he's hardly upper class. i really can't see what the problem is PROMOTE HIM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 Andrew Marr, man made of sticks. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the super injunctions, I find it hard to believe that he found a woman to marry him, let alone another to have an affair with ... Call me shallow if you must ... but some women are so not picky at all Well if you would care to post an image of yourself and partner we will be able to evaluate the weight of your words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
best sheff Posted April 26, 2011 Author Share Posted April 26, 2011 Look i'm not saying I'm whiter than white, but I don't appear on TV. Nothing against the man at all, just another case of the rich having different laws to us mere-mortals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.