ladyofthemansion

Made his excuses and left.

58 posts in this topic

The daily record has done a story about a girl working in Dundee. What a sad idiot.

If a guy was to come to me and ask lots of questions then go to leave I would make sure I got his hidden camera etc off him before he got away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hate these stories! just an irresponsible and life destroying act for the sake of titilating some readers and appeasing others :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, did I get the correct article? So called "Sleezy services" available for 50 quid an hour? May as well pack up and go home then!

Edited by Cindy4You
missed a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The daily record has done a story about a girl working in Dundee. What a sad idiot.

If a guy was to come to me and ask lots of questions then go to leave I would make sure I got his hidden camera etc off him before he got away.

You're a WG and do things that some might find disagreeable, but ultimately it's your choice and lots of us think you and your fellow WGs do a worthy and important job.

He is a reporter and does things that some might find diagreeable, but ultimately it's his choice and lots of us think that him and his fellow reporters do a worthy and important job.

Is he an idiot because he has a different view to you, or is he an idiot because he did a story that lots want to read even if we don't aggree with the tone? Ultimately he completely reflected how this one particular WG and those that she knows, feels. For a more representative report he could have done the same thing to hundreds of WGs but I don't think you would aggree with that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're a WG and do things that some might find disagreeable, but ultimately it's your choice and lots of us think you and your fellow WGs do a worthy and important job.

He is a reporter and does things that some might find diagreeable, but ultimately it's his choice and lots of us think that him and his fellow reporters do a worthy and important job.

Is he an idiot because he has a different view to you, or is he an idiot because he did a story that lots want to read even if we don't aggree with the tone? Ultimately he completely reflected how this one particular WG and those that she knows, feels. For a more representative report he could have done the same thing to hundreds of WGs but I don't think you would aggree with that

I dont agree with what he did. WGs dont set out to destroy lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont agree with what he did. WGs dont set out to destroy lives.

But did he set out to destroy her life? If so, how has he destroyed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But did he set out to destroy her life? If so, how has he destroyed it?

She pleaded with him not to use her real name for starters because the family would disown her. Did he take note of that? No, he didn't.:eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The daily record has done a story about a girl working in Dundee. What a sad idiot.

If a guy was to come to me and ask lots of questions then go to leave I would make sure I got his hidden camera etc off him before he got away.

It's a completely uncalled article, there is no public interest justification, it's just gratuitous sleeze.

She should sue the paper using the Human Rights Act like Max Mosley did.

The reporter is a hypocrite, hiding behind the Jane Hamilton pseudonym but wouldn't allow her the same dignity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing as well is its really frightening for the ladies. When somebody comes to your address then doesn't stay all sorts of thoughts can occur like "Is he going to come back and rob me?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She pleaded with him not to use her real name for starters because the family would disown her. Did he take note of that? No, he didn't.:eek:

Hold on? After reading the article I was under the impression that she was happy to chat about everything provided he used her working name. The name used in the article is her working name isn't it? Surely? I get the impression that it is

'Last night, after she realised the Record had discovered her seedy secret life, she asked us not to reveal her real name.'

"xxxxx - who appeared in court earlier this year charged with prostitution and brothel-keeping - said she wasn't ashamed of her job"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hold on? After reading the article I was under the impression that she was happy to chat about everything provided he used her working name. The name used in the article is her working name isn't it? Surely? I get the impression that it is

'Last night, after she realised the Record had discovered her seedy secret life, she asked us not to reveal her real name.'

"xxxxx - who appeared in court earlier this year charged with prostitution and brothel-keeping - said she wasn't ashamed of her job"

I think they did use her real name. They used a photo too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She pleaded with him not to use her real name for starters because the family would disown her. Did he take note of that? No, he didn't.:eek:

When a lady decides to enter the murky world of prostitution there is always the risk that she will be outed, she can use a stupid name like Chardonnay and cut her head off web-site pictures ------- there is still the risk of exposure.

That is what newspapers do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they did use her real name. They used a photo too.

Well that would change evrything

If they respected her wishes then it's just a story of a girl who loves her job, doing what she wants and reaping the rewards - that makes it kinda refreshing

If they didn't respect her wishes then she is being exploited and I agree that the reporter/paper is completely out of order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is he an idiot because he has a different view to you, or is he an idiot because he did a story that lots want to read even if we don't aggree with the tone?

He is an idiot because he lacks ethics,:-

He breached her Human right to privacy.

He breached the PCC rules regarding public interest.

He breached the PCC rules regarding subterfuge.

He breached the PCC code regarding privacy.

He is a hypocrite for using a pseudonym,

He lacks any kind of empathy for her plight, and seems to take a sadistic glee at her distress over being exposed,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they respected her wishes then it's just a story of a girl who loves her job, doing what she wants and reaping the rewards - that makes it kinda refreshing

Go back and read the article again, he deceived her by booking her as a client, seemingly recorded her. Her working name is Lottie, but he used both that and her real name in the article, along with details of her family and background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a lady decides to enter the murky world of prostitution there is always the risk that she will be outed, she can use a stupid name like Chardonnay and cut her head off web-site pictures ------- there is still the risk of exposure.

That is what newspapers do. :eek:

You are so hard at times!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is an idiot because he lacks ethics,:-

He breached her Human right to privacy.

He breached the PCC rules regarding public interest.

He breached the PCC rules regarding subterfuge.

He breached the PCC code regarding privacy.

He is a hypocrite for using a pseudonym,

He lacks any kind of empathy for her plight, and seems to take a sadistic glee at her distress over being exposed,

Wait a minute that's a whole different arguement. If you don't agree with ANY reporter going undercover then fair enough, however most would say that if it's in the public interest to expose something then subterfuge is acceptable.

So if you accept that some subtefuge is acceptable, and some breach or privacy is acceptable then it's purely subjective as to what is deemed 'in the public interest'. He (and his paper!) deeemed that it is

Personally I don't but there you go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When a lady decides to enter the murky world of prostitution there is always the risk that she will be outed, she can use a stupid name like Chardonnay and cut her head off web-site pictures ------- there is still the risk of exposure.

That is what newspapers do. :eek:

How would you feel if your mug shot appeared alongside a WG in a national newspaper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The other thing as well is its really frightening for the ladies. When somebody comes to your address then doesn't stay all sorts of thoughts can occur like "Is he going to come back and rob me?"

I totally agree and this has happened once when the client said 'got to go now i know where you live' not a nice thing to happen and allsorts does go through your head

ella x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait a minute that's a whole different arguement. If you don't agree with ANY reporter going undercover then fair enough, however most would say that if it's in the public interest to expose something then subterfuge is acceptable.

So if you accept that some subtefuge is acceptable, and some breach or privacy is acceptable then it's purely subjective as to what is deemed 'in the public interest'. He (and his paper!) deeemed that it is

Personally I don't but there you go

If its to expose a paodophile or drug dealer then they are doing a good job, but not to a lady who wants to earn a living and may I add, not doing anything illegal either!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would you feel if your mug shot appeared alongside a WG in a national newspaper?

:eek:

Horrifed of course!

But WGs and us guys who 'enjoy' the company of WGs have to weigh up the many benefits against the risks. One of those risks on both sides is exposure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How would you feel if your mug shot appeared alongside a WG in a national newspaper?

Proud. :) (As long as it was a good looking WG)

I am single and everyone knows I am a punter, friends, neighbours, everyone, I have nothing to hide. :eek:;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If its to expose a paodophile or drug dealer then they are doing a good job, but not to a lady who wants to earn a living and may I add, not doing anything illegal either!!

Yeah but he believes he is doing the right thing, and unfortunately I expect many of his readers and fellow press men do as well

Illegal doesn't come into it - you do something becuase you believe it to be right. I'm more than happy for people on the sex offender register to be exposed even if they are living somewhere quite legally - I want to know that they are there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prostitutes are not sex offenders though, Manny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't agree with ANY reporter going undercover then fair enough, however most would say that if it's in the public interest to expose something then subterfuge is acceptable.

That's pretty much what the code says, but there is no public interest in this case. In the PCC code of conduct Public interest refers something being for the common good, not something that is of a prurient interest to some members of the public. The burden of proof falls on the journalist/editor to prove.

So if you accept that some subtefuge is acceptable, and some breach or privacy is acceptable then it's purely subjective as to what is deemed 'in the public interest'. He (and his paper!) deeemed that it is

The rules are pretty straight forward.

i) The press must not seek to obtain or publish material acquired by using hidden cameras or clandestine listening devices; or by intercepting private or mobile telephone calls, messages or emails; or by the unauthorised removal of documents or photographs; or by accessing digitally-held private information without consent.

To get the photos and comments he did one or the other of those.

ii) Engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge, including by agents or intermediaries, can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means.

He admits do this in the article, both qualifications need to apply and neither do.

So if you accept that some subtefuge is acceptable, and some breach or privacy is acceptable then it's purely subjective as to what is deemed 'in the public interest'. He (and his paper!) deeemed that it is

The code on privacy is pretty clear cut,

i) Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications.

ii) Editors will be expected to justify intrusions into any individual's private life without consent. Account will be taken of the complainant's own public disclosures of information.

iii) It is unacceptable to photograph individuals in private places without their consent.

Clause i) has clearly been breached by publishing her details, and apparently clause ii) because the information was disclosed in private,

It appears to me to be a very clear cut case for a formal complaint. Perhaps if somebody is in contact with her they could feed her this information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now