Can Someone Help Please, Light Bulbs.
How it Works0 min ago
How Can The Mirror Get Away With This?
If this story is true, then it makes Bob Blackman a major hypocrite...but leaving that aside - how can the Mirror get away with printing this story without any corroboration?
http://
They've not got the mistress' word!!?!
http://
They've not got the mistress' word!!?!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
bundleone - I think the point the article is attempting to make is that you need to be careful about using the specific term 'sanctity of marriage', when you're having an affair behind your wife's back. You can oppose same sex marriages because you believe in tradition or hold religious convictions, but if you use the term 'sanctity of marriage', you need to be careful not to play away.
This is, of course, assuming that the story is true.
I assume the Mirror's lawyers went over this with a fine toothed comb.
But still...it seems very brave, so soon after Leveson.
This is, of course, assuming that the story is true.
I assume the Mirror's lawyers went over this with a fine toothed comb.
But still...it seems very brave, so soon after Leveson.
they asked him to comment; he could have denied it, but didn't. They probably regard that as enough corroboration to be going on with.
They wouldn't do it with just any MP; these days you're expected to show some sort of public ingterest. The (alleged) fact that he's a bare-faced hypocrite who tells the public what to do while doing the opposite himself, is again probably enough to justify publication.
The public isn't entitled to know every fling their MP has - but they are if he's putting himself forward as a one-man-one-woman guy.
It could all go pear-shaped if the mistress turns out to be a vindictive liar. I expect they've checked out her story as best they can (places and dates etc)... well, I hope they have, for their sake.
That top photo's a bit creepy, isn't it? Those mysterious fingers seizing her by the shoulders.
They wouldn't do it with just any MP; these days you're expected to show some sort of public ingterest. The (alleged) fact that he's a bare-faced hypocrite who tells the public what to do while doing the opposite himself, is again probably enough to justify publication.
The public isn't entitled to know every fling their MP has - but they are if he's putting himself forward as a one-man-one-woman guy.
It could all go pear-shaped if the mistress turns out to be a vindictive liar. I expect they've checked out her story as best they can (places and dates etc)... well, I hope they have, for their sake.
That top photo's a bit creepy, isn't it? Those mysterious fingers seizing her by the shoulders.
-- answer removed --
a woman scorned.....
Very risky on the part of the Mirror and for what point? The man is a back bench no hoper and no one really cares. If the Mirror thought it was a Tory scoop (Just like the BBC did recently) then they shoudl have found a senior tory not this non entity.
The womans story also does not totally read true, assuming the Mirror have not spiced it up.
time will tell ,maybe, or more likely he'll drift back to the shadows.
Very risky on the part of the Mirror and for what point? The man is a back bench no hoper and no one really cares. If the Mirror thought it was a Tory scoop (Just like the BBC did recently) then they shoudl have found a senior tory not this non entity.
The womans story also does not totally read true, assuming the Mirror have not spiced it up.
time will tell ,maybe, or more likely he'll drift back to the shadows.
When I first saw this I automatically presumed it concerned homosexuality in some way, and then reading the Mirror's story, sure enough it did, but not the fact that the MP had perhaps 'come out', but because he opposes Gay Marriages.
So the headlines are a little misleading, it is not really a criticism by the OP regarding the Daily Mirror, but because a MP has been hypocritical (now there's a surprise) and it has been highlighted by the OP not because he has cheated on his wife (yet another surprise) but because he doesn't support the gay lobby.
So the headlines are a little misleading, it is not really a criticism by the OP regarding the Daily Mirror, but because a MP has been hypocritical (now there's a surprise) and it has been highlighted by the OP not because he has cheated on his wife (yet another surprise) but because he doesn't support the gay lobby.
AOG
Nope.
Forget the gay marriage angle. He would've been equally hypocritical if he made a statement supporting the sanctity of traditional marriage in the knowledge that he'd cheated on his wife for ten years.
Let's leave marriage equality completely out of it, if you want...
Don't you think it's dumb for someone to take this kind of stand when they could easily be found out?
Also (and this is a general point), do you think that the Mirror was right to publish the story on one person's say so?
Nope.
Forget the gay marriage angle. He would've been equally hypocritical if he made a statement supporting the sanctity of traditional marriage in the knowledge that he'd cheated on his wife for ten years.
Let's leave marriage equality completely out of it, if you want...
Don't you think it's dumb for someone to take this kind of stand when they could easily be found out?
Also (and this is a general point), do you think that the Mirror was right to publish the story on one person's say so?
@SP - Its a kiss and tell - something the tabloids are not unfamiliar with :)
Given the heightened public sensitivity to stories relating to scandal, and the Leveson enquiry, I would imagine the Mirrors editors and lawyers have made some assessment of the validity of the story. From the story, they gave this guy an opportunity to comment, and he refused - so they cannot be accused of at least attempting to get the other side of the story.
Given his comments about the definition and sanctity of marriage, assuming the story is essentially correct, then yes, he would be considered a hypocrite. Tories always get into trouble over sex - John Majors family values campaign and the subsequent outing of Mellor, Yeo et al?
Given the heightened public sensitivity to stories relating to scandal, and the Leveson enquiry, I would imagine the Mirrors editors and lawyers have made some assessment of the validity of the story. From the story, they gave this guy an opportunity to comment, and he refused - so they cannot be accused of at least attempting to get the other side of the story.
Given his comments about the definition and sanctity of marriage, assuming the story is essentially correct, then yes, he would be considered a hypocrite. Tories always get into trouble over sex - John Majors family values campaign and the subsequent outing of Mellor, Yeo et al?
