Martha Hancock

I don't go on Twitter either

I saw it on twitter, so difficult to avoid.

'Well no matter how you explain it, Kali2, you are guilty of reading this stuff. You're a reader. You are part of it. Even if you just want to be horrified. '

how do you call this 'not finding fault'?

There, I have said what I wanted to say- and will leave it at that.

Talullah

I'm not finding fault with Kali! I have no idea who Kali is. How kind of you to jump to her defence. I just wanted to know what newspaper she read where there was no mention of Hancock and his wife. I was interested.

Of course I don't understand anything, Alegrias1. I am totally clueless and ridiculous and my opinion counts for nothing in your superior eyes.

Oh good, there's something we agree on then

(too much?)

Kali2

Yes Alegrias, more than ...

I'd never ever buy those papers, as I'd be contributing. But it is important to know what is said and about whom - once in a blue moon, only to know that your opinion is not just prejudiced. And to see why some people believe what they do, and vote how they do- on many subjects.

Now that really is ridiculous.

vegansrock

Hancock is the one who is humiliated surely.

Exactly.

I'm not finding fault with Kali! I have no idea who Kali is. How kind of you to jump to her defence. I just wanted to know what newspaper she read where there was no mention of Hancock and his wife. I was interested.

Of course I don't understand anything, Alegrias1. I am totally clueless and ridiculous and my opinion counts for nothing in your superior eyes.

Hancock is the one who is humiliated surely.

Well done Martha Hancock. Quietly going about her business and not allowing the world to witness how she must really be feeling. The devastation her husband has brought upon her and his children is unforgivable. I hope she has family and friends to offer her support in getting through this.

Talullah

Alegrias1

Well no matter how you explain it, Kali2, you are guilty of reading this stuff. You're a reader. You are part of it.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

Don't apologise when you don't mean it, Alegrias1

Kali has been criticising, rightly, some press outlets for sensationalism etc etc. Then she caused anyone of reading it of being the problem. Then we find out that she reads it so she can see how dreadful it is.

Maybe you just haven't read the thread properly

OK, I won't apologise this time, you're right.

You are also either being disingenuous as a way of finding fault with Kali, or you don't really understand the purpose and business model of the gutter press.

Yes Alegrias, more than ...

I'd never ever buy those papers, as I'd be contributing. But it is important to know what is said and about whom - once in a blue moon, only to know that your opinion is not just prejudiced. And to see why some people believe what they do, and vote how they do- on many subjects.

Callistemon

^just been right through today's paper- not a mention of Martha, no photo, nothing.^
Which one please, Kali2?

I don't normally buy a paper, the first I heard about the press hounding Mrs Hancock was on GN.
Perhaps I should cancel my membership.

Same here, Callistemon

Alegrias1

^Well no matter how you explain it, Kali2, you are guilty of reading this stuff. You're a reader. You are part of it.^

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

Don't apologise when you don't mean it, Alegrias1

Kali has been criticising, rightly, some press outlets for sensationalism etc etc. Then she caused anyone of reading it of being the problem. Then we find out that she reads it so she can see how dreadful it is.

Maybe you just haven't read the thread properly

Well no matter how you explain it, Kali2, you are guilty of reading this stuff. You're a reader. You are part of it.

Sorry, but that's just ridiculous.

I do have sympathy for Hancock's wife, Martha. Bad enough to be going through this without the media following her and asking how she feels. Despicable man to leave his family in this mess he has made.

You're possibly right - perhaps I shouldn't comment and say
Yes, leave her alone! We do not want to see pictures of her or any press hound asking her "how she feels". if I haven't actually scoured the papers myself.

Well no matter how you explain it, Kali2, you are guilty of reading this stuff. You're a reader. You are part of it. Even if you just want to be horrified.

Personally I think it's awful how the press appear to be camping outside to get photos of Hancock's wife. However she is heading out, walking her dog, going about her business. So no weeping and wailing, or even worse, that dreadful photocall we see when a couple try to put on a united front.

I haven't seen any newspapers, only what I read on here.

Because it is important to know what some people are reading and where they get their 'information' from... And each time I do, I am still shocked- and my fears confirmed.

You can call 'pearl clutching' all day long- gutter fishing is a lot worse. How can anyone complain about the way Martha H and her children are treated- and read the papers that are prepared to drag her into this mess. Just as so many before her- and a whole array of others, and whole groups of people.

Are we getting confused about commenting on the Hancock affair, and pursuing a woman through the streets trying to get her to comment, and trying to photograph her without permission?

Kali2

Talullah

Kali2

Well it is not The Sun, or any of its cousins!

Because when you buy the same paper for 10 years or so, you know that this is the kind of story they specialise in... again and again- so if you continue buying, it must be because you 'approve', otherwise you wouldn't buy, would you?

What paper do you read, Kali2?

I've not bought a newspaper for years.

I don't subscribe to any in particular- and I buy a selection, and not every day. But I choose carefully. Sometimes if I stop at a Cafe, I pick some of the tabloid Press and each time I just can't believe my eyes- and can't believe anyone would choose to read this - stuff, and in doing this, condone and approve it.

I'm just interested in which paper you've read today that has no comment about Hancock and his wife. that's all!

Not a trick question.

And why on earth would you pick a paper up in a cafe and read it then be unable to believe that people would choose to read it! Isn't that what you've just done?

Sometimes if I stop at a Cafe, I pick some of the tabloid Press and each time I just can't believe my eyes- and can't believe anyone would choose to read this - stuff, and in doing this, condone and approve it
Why pick it up in a cafe?
Someone might see you and judge you!

But there's nothing like a bit of pearl-clutching to cheer up the day
???.

Talullah

Kali2

Well it is not The Sun, or any of its cousins!

Because when you buy the same paper for 10 years or so, you know that this is the kind of story they specialise in... again and again- so if you continue buying, it must be because you 'approve', otherwise you wouldn't buy, would you?

What paper do you read, Kali2?

I've not bought a newspaper for years.

I don't subscribe to any in particular- and I buy a selection, and not every day. But I choose carefully. Sometimes if I stop at a Cafe, I pick some of the tabloid Press and each time I just can't believe my eyes- and can't believe anyone would choose to read this - stuff, and in doing this, condone and approve it.

I paraphrased "judgy pants" as "responsibility".

Who's being silly?

GillT57

I think the affair is now a private matter for both families to work through in privacy. The concern for the rest of us was the hypocrisy, and now that he has resigned, finally, over that, the affair is not public concern. I do admit though, that I have a secret delight in thinking about other philandering ministers having a dreadful weekend wondering if they too have been filmed. There is rumoured to be another high profile individual whose sexual shenanigans are well known amongst political journalists. I hope he/she, and others are suffering agonies of worry.

Couldn't agree more GillT57.