John Whittingdale

So an actor had to take out a court injunction to stop the press printing the story of his sexual antics , but the press decided the Secretary of State for culture - who can wield the axe on the press - and his affair with a dominatrix was not in the public interest. I am not interested if they were into kinky sex or just holding hands , if the press decides his relationship was not in the public interest they must apply the same to all relationships , I assume there will no longer be kiss and tell stories in the British press ?

Did he not noticed that she was extraordinarily accomplished in the bedroom? I think he would have done and enjoyed it but I don't care.

Whittingdale as Media and culture secretary is sympathetic to the media and is not keen on Leveson. The press were/are keen therefore to keep him in post

Whittingdale had an affair with a sex worker.

Press decided that it wasn't in their interest to publish what they knew as they were keen to keep him in post

Private Eye published this information.

Whittingdale is toast but not before the referendum.

Whittingdale had given Max Mosley a moral lecture in 2009 during a Commons hearing of his select committee. He told Mosley: “You are a public figure and you know the British press. You know the appetite of the British press for stories of this kind. Had you not always felt this was a time bomb that sooner or later was going to go off?”

www.byline.com/project/48/article/966

I couldn't care less what Whittingdale (or Mosley) get up to in private, but there's a definite whiff of double standards. Given his role in regulating the press, there's definitely a conflict of interest and Whittingdale needs shunting off to something else.

POGS exactly.

For goodness sake does nobody else see the pure b----y irony of mentioning of ' Hacked Off' and ' Leveson'.

I am thinking of two prominent Hacked Off devotees Hugh Grant and Max Mosely. The reason behind their wanting the press to be ' stifled ' was because of sex scandals and subsequent press releases.

Mosely said "The British Press has repeatedly gone beyond the bounds of civilised behaviour"

It would appear for some it depends as to whether or not they can get some squalid political point scoring out of it. What's that old saying about " those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", it can come back and bite you on the ass.

Non story, non story non story, however much some on the forum would like it to be more.

whitewave Exactly.

Why would a sex worker advertise on a dating website?
To get more business?
Cynical? Moi?

Abs point

Or did they sit on it because it is a bit of a non-story. But I see your point.

It makes you wonder how many other people who join dating web sites may be involved with sex workers and know nothing about it?!

Niggly,

1. The girl tried to sell her story

2. Four newspapers were involved

3. At the time of the relationship he was chair of Culture, Sport and MEDIA committee

4. He is now Secretary of State for Culture

5. Why did the press sit on this story ?

Blimey oh Riley nig do you do it on purpose? I will not repeat myself, I have more respect for my blood pressure.

Why is it a conflict of interest, as has been said, would anyone who has suffered from abuse be denied a chance to work on that. Or is it the fact of her being a sex worker, and therefore an 'immoral', probably wicked person that John Whittingdale got involved with the problem, (tut! tut!) OR the fact that he is an 'evil' Tory? or both!!

Did she charge him for her services?

Once again nig you totally miss the point. None of us give a toss what or who he shagged, what we do care about is the fact that the press new about if for the past 4 years. Whittingdale knew that and yet he failed to advise his boss leaving himself wide open to the charge of conflict of interest.

Niggly, you are missing the point, why did the press sit on it is the question

Only those who grab every opportunity they can to slag off a Tory MP - if he'd been Labour it would have been shrugged off as non-news.

Why does it matter that this woman was a sex worker or any other sort of worker? Does this automatically make her a bad person? I don't think so! If she'd done any other sort of profession, no one would have batted an eyelid! John Whittingdale is a single man whose private life is no one else's business. His relationship with this person was over before he became a minister. FGS who cares?!

Nothing to do with the relationship, he can shag who he likes, but the implication is that he knew the press new etc etc.

Just heard on the radio that he met her on Match.com and didn't know what she did for a living. He only found out when he was told someone was trying to get a story about him. He then broke off the relationship. What did he do wrong?

As someone who is qualified to do personality tests I can tell you that we are all affected by what happens in our lives and therefore it would not make sense to stop anyone who has had an 'experience' dealing with the subject as an MP. Would someone who had suffered abuse be denied a chance to work on that? No, they would be called as an expert!

Butvthecwuestion is why restraint for this but not for others

I agree that the story of the MP and the Dominatrix is not in the public interest and I'm glad that the printed media are showing such restraint. Well, I would be if they treated all stories/people equally, but I know first hand that they do not. So, why was this man treated exceptionally?

Someone I know, a single person who is very close to me and has no 'public persona', was hounded almost to suicide by media intrusion into her private life. The media published a story that was factually incorrect and invited the person to 'give her side of the story' or asserted they would continue to keep the story in the public eye (which, as she declined to comment, they did). If this kind of pressure can be applied to someone who is not in the public eye, how much more pressure may there be on am MP from the media?