John Whittingdale

No, but I do care about Leveson

I am against kiss and tell stories, but this is a single man dating a prostitute for six months - she kept that a secret for six months ! Who just happens to have been chair of the Culture, Media and Sports committee for 10 years . Four newspapers knew of the relationship but decided it wasn't In the public interest.

They print of affairs of z list celebs but not this man ? Fishy

Conflict of interest I am afraid.

I have Radio 4 on all day and the consensus of opinion from those who have nothing to gain is that the reason it was printed was because it was a non-story/old story/no public interest. It was before he got this job, he is a single man so not really an 'affair' in the way we tend to think of it when someone is married.

He had (past tense) a relationship with someone who was a sex worker, would it be worse if she was a Hedge Fund Manager? What about if she kept her money offshore?

Why shouldn't she have kept it a secret? Surely that's better than 'kissing and telling'...

It isn't about his affair/girlfriend. It's about Leveson, ask what Hacked off thinks about it and the McCanns

No anniebach he has held that position since 2015 and the relationship was long before that.
A non-story , if ever there was one. TBH if the media thought it was not worth publishing, for once they showed rare judgement. Even some prominent Labour MPs today said how irrelevant it is -I wonder if perhaps it is designed to deflect attention from something else? JC's tax return for instance? (Just guessing)

Hacked off don't think it is irrelevant

No Alea, I said chair of not secretary for

Some people will make anything political, sounds pretty desperate, haven't they got anything real to moan about?

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?

Butvthecwuestion is why restraint for this but not for others

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!

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

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?!

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.

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

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.

Did she charge him for her services?

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!!

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

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 ?

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

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