UKC

Sex worker admits relationship with Minister but still hasn't a clue what he or his colleagues do.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36031743

In reply to m0unt41n:

Storm in a tea cup, nothing to see here, move along....

In reply to m0unt41n:
When, why, have we started to use the term sex worker, is it more of the PC, lot that puts it tuppence in.
A sex worker sounds like a comfort girl from WW11
what is a sex worker? porn actor actress, prostitute

If we have to redefine lets say sex actor actress sex prostitute, not worker, then we can distinguish they prostitute, there body's for live sex for the moment or for film .. Unlike myself who prostitutes my body for labour 9 to 5 in the office.
It is a profession that has had a lot of names, but I, for one, think its time to stop being so hyper Hippocratic, Regulate, legalese, tax, and bring out into the open what sex and prostitution is, male and female.

so I say keep it up boys girls your doing a good job.

And now I read she was is a Escort, so Quite possible no sex at all !

In reply to m0unt41n:
It's lovely that the press have shown such discretion and compassion when this is the usual story:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/chose-name-list-super-injun...

Oh.. Hang on, what does mr whitingdale do again?

In reply to toad:

That IS pretty serious... I'd missed the connection. So much for a free press and lack of political interference.

In reply to toad:


It does seem unusually caring of the papers not to choose such a juicy story.

In reply to m0unt41n:

It's a total non event.

Single man (who just happens to be a Cabinet Minister) goes onto a dating site looking for a woman.

Nothing wrong there.

Woman responds to him.

Nothing wrong there.

They enter into a relationship.

Nothing wrong there.

He subsequently discovers that she is a sex worker and terminates the relationship.

Nothing wrong there.

It's a non story so far as the press and anyone else is concerned, and calls for his resignation are groundless and crass.

In reply to Trangia:

The story is that the papers were aware of it, but didn't report it. The question is why!

I don't think anyone has asked for his resignation, but have questioned if his press regulation role is compromised.

In reply to The New NickB:



Because, as I say in my previous post it is NOT a story and is a non event.

In reply to Trangia:

This hasn't stopped the press agressively pursuing other figures in the public eye for equally personal "non stories". The question is not about the right and wrongs of his behaviour, That aspect really is inconsequential. The real question is about the odd behaviour of the press, and you cannot ignore the fact that he has a key role in press regulation. Having this story in your armoury when the figure in question is helping to shape the legislative environment you function in is not, cannot be, a "non story".

In reply to toad:

You are jumping to very big conclusions there.

Say they had published, what could they actually have said? "Single Cabinet Minister man meets woman on dating site, and subsequently breaks off relationship when he discovers she is a sex worker" ?

Is that a really story worth reporting!!?

Have you considered that they just decided not to run it because it lacked "meat"?

In reply to Big Ger:


Now you have got me interested ( I thought there was nothing in this)

In reply to Trangia: if it lacked "meat" then we could look at many of the sensational exposés over the years and assess their protein content. Their vegetarianism in this case is ......surprising

In reply to Trangia:



etc >

And he wasn't even a cabinet minister at the time.

In reply to Trangia:

Have you ever read a tabloid newspaper?

In reply to pec:



No, just the chair of the media select committee.

In reply to Trangia:


Couple of problems here.
Firstly you are just repeating his side of the story. Something which the press isnt always known to keep to.
Secondly just look at the latest super injunction story. Zilch interest to anyone and yet the press are on the warpath.
Or indeed the exciting up to date news that got thrown around last year that Corbyn and Abbott had a fling in the seventies.

In reply to Trangia:

He should have disclosed it when he was given responsibility for press regulation you shouldn't regulate newspapers in the knowledge they have something to hold over you.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Do you think her friends are still speaking to her after she had a relationship with a Tory?

In reply to Jim Fraser:

She obviously fell for his good looks , how could she help falling for him, it's not his fault that he is a babe magnet.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Disclosed what? The fact that he had used a dating site!? The fact that he had met an inappropriate person through that site and dumped her?


Have they got something to hold over him? They didn't use the story when they got it because it lacks "meat"/scandal content, call it what you like. He's done nothing morally or legally wrong. Would you or the others care to expand if you know something the rest of us don't? Or are you just speculating? Show me some proof and I might change my view, but on the basis of what we know he is being unfairly hounded by innuendo.

In reply to Trangia:


IMO no. But it looks exactly like many another story that does get reported by the tabloids. So the question is why not that one?

In reply to Trangia:


Yes, yes, yes, but he's a Tory! Don't you know that all the common decencies are forbidden from being used when talking about a Tory?

In reply to Trangia:


That doesn't usually stop certain papers

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/article1665544.ece?CMP=OTH...

In reply to m0unt41n:


Is that the politically correct word for prostitute?

In reply to Big Ger:


sigh. You need to move beyond your reflexive defence of all things tory and think about it in the abstract.
The point is he wasnt unfairly hounded by innuendo. Which is somewhat odd for the high quality media we have.

In reply to KevinD:

Really? I'd say he's had nothing BUT innuendo thrown at him.

In reply to Big Ger:

You mean when the Chair of the Commons Culture Media and Sport Select Committee inadvertently took a sex worker as a guest to the MTV Music Awards and the Sport Aid Ball in his official capacity, and then didn't mention it to his employer or indeed the PM afterwards?

He has a reputation for favouring self-regulation of the press and avoiding legislation in this difficult area.

The press then decide not to publish the story, as they didn't feel there was any public interest in knowing that the person overseeing freedom of the press legislation having a potential "skeleton in the closet" might even slightly appear to cause a conflict of interest?

Is that being unfairly hounded by innuendo? I'm intrigued. I don't care what he gets up to as long as it is legal; I do care if he has put himself in a position that is clearly *likely to be viewed as* compromised and not told anyone about it or taken steps to mitigate his exposure. I don't see how he can continue his impartial role, when he *appears* to be the beneficiary of unusually restrained (and indeed for many months entirely silent) press behaviour.

b

In reply to Trangia:


You may think this is not a legitimate story and I would agree with you but it clearly is a story according to the normal standards of the UK press. It is getting plenty of attention now they have reported it, they have reported similar things in the past - e.g. Normal Lamont renting out a flat to a dominatrix without knowing she was one and George Osborne getting pictured with one before he became Chancellor. If he hadn't been culture secretary there would have been pro-forma stories with pictures of the woman in her underwear and spanking jokes, and he'd be getting called Wippingdale just like Paddy Ashdown became Paddy Pantsdown. They left him alone either because they thought they could influence him or because he was likely to be a softer touch that whoever replaced him or, if you are really paranoid, as a favour to Cameron who has now thrown him to the wolves as a useful diversion and because he was disloyal over Europe.

In reply to ben b:

Do you see that word there "inadvertently", any idea what it means?


Good for him.



You seem to contradict yourself. You "don't care" what he does as long as it's legal, why mention he "inadvertently took a sex worker as a guest to the MTV Music Awards " then?

In reply to Big Ger:
You miss my point entirely, stroppygob. I am entirely aware what inadvertently means, you patronising git, that's why I put the word in there.

I don't care what he did; I think it was inadvertent. Foolish maybe, but foolishness is a human trait and it were ever thus.

I do care that he has - by his subsequent inaction - compromised the impartiality of his position. He can quite reasonably be viewed to have been treated unusually gently by those he seeks to regulate. Cui bono?

Perhaps the tabloid press have suddenly become terribly mature and will no longer publish any prurient stories about the relationships of those in positions of considerable political power and sex workers. I await this development with interest. Alternatively, the press may have realised that publishing gossip about the person overseeing their regulation would be a very stupid move, and treated him differently as a result of his position. Now, do you think he maybe should have mentioned this to his immediate superiors?

b
(edited for typo)

In reply to Big Ger:


I wouldn't care if he knowingly took a dominatrix to the MTV awards. However the press usually would, and Wittingdale knows that, and he had been contacted by the press about this story. Given his position he should have informed those around him of the press's interest in his personal life.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


When should he have done this?

In reply to ben b:

How?


He's been treated gently, as he's not done anything wrong. Capiche?



Like this you mean?

"The minister took his dominatrix escort girlfriend on a three-day, all-expenses paid jolly to Amsterdam for the bash, featuring stars such as Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry and 1D."

"Culture Secretary John Whittingdale has admitted he was in a relationship with a prostitute he met on an online dating website - but claims he was unaware she was a professional dominatrix."

"MALDON'S MP John Whittingdale has admitted he had a relationship with a prostitute. Mr Whittingdale, who is divorced, said he had been unaware of the woman's occupation and had broken off the relationship when he discovered she was trying to sell the story to the newspapers."

In reply to Trangia:

Press not interested in a "Cabinet Minister and a Call Girl" story, now that is a story.

The story itself is a minor embarrassment for Whittingdale. The fact that the press chose not to embarrass Whittingdale IS the story!

In reply to The New NickB:

in the interests of accuracy, I don't think he was a cabinet minister. That probably says something about how we value culture, though

In reply to The New NickB:

Hmmm..






I have a subscription to Private Eye, should I cancel it?

In reply to Big Ger:


You do realise that really doesnt support your case? Why werent those stories published in the past?

In reply to KevinD:
Because it was a non-story.


See


despite

In reply to Big Ger: As soon as he found out the press had the story, in 2014. He was Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee at the time, it is relevant.

In reply to toad:


I know, but he is now. It's all a variation on a popular theme, from Profumo onwards. I'm not sure she was strictly speaking a call girl, but I was trying to think like a tabloid sub-editor.

In reply to Big Ger:



It seems Private Eye agree with me, so maybe you should.

In reply to Big Ger:
I'm not concerned by his actions per se. I'm concerned about his inactions. A rather Zen concept to be fair, but important.

Disclosure of information is useful. It protects you from accusations of undeclared bias. Not disclosing a fact that is (a) known to you and (b) potentially the subject for much prurient interest while in a position of significant influence is very, very compromising.

Accepting the fact that you and I don't really give a damn about consenting adult behaviour, the question is more do you think if it was, say, Jeremy Corbyn, the press would have sat on it for many months and only published when effectively challenged to do so? Or would the red-tops have been cock-a-hoop (a phrase that seems somehow apt) and fallen over themselves to get the story out first?

b
Edited for another typo

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Ok, " from August 2013 to February 2014, for six months, I was dating a woman who I've found out has worked as a dominatrix, boss. Sorry."

Would that be good enough?

In reply to The New NickB:

That's worth a like

In reply to Big Ger:


Just as is someone having a consensual open relationship. You wouldnt guess that from the excitement in the press at the moment though.
If it was such a nonstory why did they put all the effort into it before spiking it?

I know you feel honour bound to defend the tories but surely you can spot a certain conflict of interest between the job he was doing and the fact the press had a nice embarrassing story about him lined up but not used.

In reply to ben b:




Oh I don't think they would have given him equal treatment. Whittingdale isn't a party leader after all.

In reply to KevinD:


Do you not see the contradiction in your two statements?

Maybe they were waiting with a newspaper with the balls to expose it?


Nope. Not in the slightest. Seeing as it's all out there now, and seeing as they are rubbing his nose in it, what has actually changed?

Only that PE had the guts to run the story.

In reply to Big Ger:

OK, what about, say, Harriet Harman or Diane Abbott and an escort girl?

b

(feeling slightly unwell at the thought)

In reply to Big Ger:


I wouldn't expect him to apologise for having a relationship with a dominatrix, to my mind he has nothing to apologise about regarding his actual personal life. I would expect him to have a discussion with his colleagues once he knew the press had this story, that would normally be published, given his position at the time.

In reply to ben b:

I'm not even going to contemplate that....

In reply to Mike Stretford:


Me too.

In reply to Big Ger:


Principle is the same though. Hideous as the prospect might be.

The story was sat on for months. Now it is out in the open, the poor sod is basically in open season and the red tops will do their worst. That's not surprising. However, the delay is, very much so. He has been treated very unusually by those he means to regulate. Who got benefit from that? Him and the press, for a long time.

b

In reply to Big Ger:
No. Feel free to point it out.
Its fairly simple.
The media put time into researching it.
The media publishes not dissimilar reports on others.
So what made this case so special that they thought he should be left alone? Up until the point that it became a major story anyway. At which point they dived right in.
Could it be his position?

Do you really think he should have remained in that position once he found out about the stories which were lined up?


Why guts? PE attitude to press regulation is rather well known and contrary to the most mainstream media and, oddly enough, Whittingdale.

In reply to Name Changed 34:


Yes, plus other related trades (such as dominatrix) - it's a bit vague, but is less negatively loaded than 'prostitute' (which isn't really the right term for a dominatrix anyway).


You'd be an 'office worker' then, but probably also have a more specific job description.


Probably a good idea, done thoughtfully.

In reply to ben b:

Very hideous.


I think you're reading too much into it. The Sunday People who invested in it didn't use it. Other papers were aware of it and didn't use it. PE decided to bring it out in the open. Other paper could always blame PE for it. That's about it really.

In reply to KevinD:





Or could it be a non-story? Only one rag decided to invest time and money in it.


Yes. He did nothing wrong, did he?


But it still takes guts to expose a "story"

In reply to Big Ger:


I thought we covered that. Failure to disclose. In these positions you have to be not just squeaky clean but visibly squeaky clean. Actively preventing the shit from sticking. Not sitting tight and hoping they will let you off in return for not making a fuss - which is what it looks like, and appearance is king in the media and politics...

night all

b

In reply to ben b:


aka the "front page test".
Although on second thoughts that could end up in infinite regression in this case.

In reply to:

Didn't a porn actress get elected to the Italian parliament.
Imagine the trouble if our elected officials refused to deal with any Italian MP's in case they were tainted by such association.

In reply to KevinD:






talking about positions, fner fner, when a friendly journo told him the press had this story he sacked his girlfriend, rather than stepping aside himself.

he;s looking at press regulation, press has juicy story on him. he doesn't mention this and neither does the press. Everyone's happy...

In reply to ben b:


...so he's been very bad and is being punished? Are you certain this isn't intentional on some level?

In reply to Big Ger:


I'm trying to picture the headline:

"Shock Horror!

Sex worker discovers that she has been dating a Tory.

'I thought he was just an ordinary decent guy' said Miss X 'then to my horror I discovered that he was a Tory. I feel used and dirty. He didn't dump me, I dumped him, and like President Zuma of South Africa I felt that I needed to take a shower. I am not certain how this is going to affect my career' "

In reply to ben b:


So he did nothing wrong, but should have disclosed it.

Ok, I must confess I had a cheese scone for tea last night. I'm sorry.

In reply to m0unt41n:

Getting harder to maintain the idea that the press didn't cover this because it wasn't a story (always a fatuous notion) after the Scum's lovingly-detailed four-page splash today featuring screenshots from the lady's website, recommendations from satisfied clients (from TripAdviser, one imagines), lengthy descriptions of her services, and so on. Sounds a most enterprising gal.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I agree - in addition if reporting about Charles Napier and his connection to Whittingdale was deemed to be a public interest story (and it was ) then suggestions that this was a "non-story" are laughable.

I've got no issue that he may well have " done nothing wrong" but the suggestion this wouldn't make a redtop on a variety of public interest "justifications" is bizarre.

In reply to off-duty:

Finally got round to reading the private eye story. If correct its remarkable how many papers invested money in investigating the "non-story" before deciding to shelve it.

In reply to KevinD:

Maybe the Leveson inquiry has them a little gunshy?

In reply to Big Ger:


They don't appear very gunshy at the moment.
Headlines about the original woman and they appear to have found another one, now apparently in the public interest to publish...

In reply to off-duty:
No, not at the moment. They certainly are making hay while the sun shines, (excuse pun.)

As I posited before, maybe they were waiting for someone to grasp the nettle, as PE seems to have done.

(I won't get my copy until Tuesday, unfortunately.)

ETA: He certainly seems to have a taste for the more exotic ends of the sexual activity spectrum, does he not?

In reply to off-duty:


And now there are denials that he showed his call girl girlfriend cabinet papers.
( the papers are printing it, even though it is apparently untrue)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3543701/MP-s-porn-star-lover-shown-...

Edit, does no one else wonder why this overweight middle aged, not particularly attractive man, gets such young and attractive girlfriends?- If I were in the security services, I would.

In reply to Big Ger:



Yep most notably a lady from Belarus, ( that the papers seem to be 'hinting' is a sleeper agent for the Soviot Union, but at the same time are careful to say that it is NOT suggested that these associations are a security risk, a newspaper ploy to suggest exactly that
Another 'exotic' female friend is a lady he said was from Lithuania.

Other than just his female friends , they are pointing out his ( non sexual ) associations with an Ukranian Oligarch allegedly an ally of Putin, and wanted by the FBI.

I wonder where this non story is going next.

In reply to Jim C:

He's the bastard son of Lord Lucan and Shergar?

In reply to Big Ger:


It's a scoop ( you heard it here first folks)