I see uber-hypocrite Andrew Marr hasn't resigned

I see uber-hypocrite Andrew Marr hasn't resigned yet. As far as I'm aware the woman he was involved with hasn't been named - as would have happened without the injunction.

How do you make a complaint to the BBC about such massive hypocrites? Obviously his cronies put pressure on him to come out to weaken the case for these injunctions - they'll all have known about it, and may even have paid him to come out. It's all pretty transparent and pathetic.

I hope everyone's going to join me in complaining. If 84 complaints can ruin Mock the Week, surely it can't be too hard to get rid of him.

Why is he a hypocrite?

Quote: Marc P @ May 8 2011, 10:17 AM BST

Why is he a hypocrite?

View original

Because he used an injunction himself and now he wants them banned, but he still wants to use the injunction to protect the women while affording no such protection to anyone else.

Whos Andrew Marr?

Quote: Griff @ May 8 2011, 10:25 AM BST

Why are you so keen to learn who the woman was? What possible benefit is there to anyone for splashing people's names across the papers?

View original

There is no benefit, just as there's no benefit to him trying to burn injunctions now he's got his use out of them, yet he's still using the original injunction to some degree. If he believe these injunctions shouldn't exist then this woman should be thrown to the wolves, just as he wants all future men and women to be thrown to the wolves.

It just shows what a hypocrite he is, as well as having somewhat questionable morals in the first place.

Quote: Gavin @ May 8 2011, 10:29 AM BST

Whos Andrew Marr?

View original

He's a BBC presenter and (former) journalist who cheated on his wife and used an injunction to stop anyone finding out (except all his cronies in the gutter press). Now he's come out saying they shouldn't be allowed to deliver the most damning indictment of these injunctions that his media cronies could muster.

Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

Quote: Stewart Brand @ May 8 2011, 10:38 AM BST

He's a BBC presenter and (former) journalist who cheated on his wife and used an injunction to stop anyone finding out (except all his cronies in the gutter press). Now he's come out saying they shouldn't be allowed to deliver the most damning indictment of these injunctions that his media cronies could muster.

Apparently what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

View original

I see.

Sounds like a bit of a none story. It'll be in the Sun no doubt, between the latest Jordan scandal and Kate Middleton Expose.

Some of you seem to be missing the point, I'm not bothered about this woman being thown to the wolves, I don't like the way Andrew Marr is such a hypocrite and clearly being manipulated by the gutter press in order that they can get their way in this matter.

He's happy for everyone else to be thrown to the wolves, yet this woman is being protected by the very thing he's trying to do away with, though not retrospectively of course.

I suppose it is the tabloid alternative to simply buying a pair of good, high quality binoculars and peering into other people's bedroom windows at night. There's worse things in the world I guess, but to demand it as a right seems a bit skewed to me.

Meanwhile - has he actually called for them to be banned?

It really is a bit of a tricky one, this, especially as it was an open secret with his colleagues for some time, and yet they were unable to spill it, for fear of being prosecuted. There is no doubt that some of them put pressure on him to 'come out', he didn't do it just to ease his conscience, that is for certain.

Where it leaves his career is not so certain, I'd take a punt and say it's damaged now, he'll be no Robin Day or Dimbleby now, he's lost credibility. And he's not on his own show this morning. As the poster says, there is a lot of hypocrisy in what he's done.

There may be a bit of perceived hypocrisy if you perceive journalists as some kind of saintly figures fighting for truth and justice. Who swear some kind of oath not to shag outside of wedlock. Maybe that's only the tabloids though and Ian Hislop. What has Andrew Marr's love life got to do with his job of asking politicians questions? ANd why on earth should his colleague want to spill it?? Is he on record for tracking down MP love cheats or something?

Quote: Marc P @ May 8 2011, 11:57 AM BST

What has Andrew Marr's love life got to do with his job of asking politicians questions?

View original

Not really the point here, Marc, at least not the most salient in this case. What Marr has done is use a method of diverting the freedom of speech laws and suppress a news story about his own private life coming out by using other laws.

If an MP came on his show following a row over his exposed infidelity, think Curry-Major or Bonking Boris, among others, then Marr has to grill them over their misdemeanours. Well how on earth can he when he himself has supressed a story of similar shenanigans from himself. He has compromised his integrity, it's not about being a saint, it's about owning up to what you have done, and not wanting to simply hide your private waywardness with court injunctions because you don't want to lose your very promissing and very lucrative career.

The main hypocrisy comes in when he has to debate the growing use of these private injunctions by the famous to protect their livlihoods, as is happening now. He has a foot in both camps now, so to speak, actually having used one himself to stop his own colleagues from reporting what actually happened, and having to grill lawyers and politicians about why this loophole is allowed to exist, and if it's really fair to give such protection to famous and wealthy people who simply can't keep it in their trousers.

Do you think he'd want to prevent a flattering story about him saving someone's life or marriage or something similar? No! He's preventing a factual news story that is only unhelpful to his career. He has been a massive hypocrite, considering what his high profile role is. Like Boris, he should have bitten the bullet and accepted he'd been a naughty boy. He didn't, until he eventually realised that he'd have to! But I think the long wait for this change of mind has damaged him.

If everybody went around admitting to shenanigans and had to resign as a result the country would be in even more of a f**king mess than it is now. His job is to ask questions - the MPs job is to answer them. There is a difference between matters of public interest and what the public are interested in. His wanting to keep his private life private - hurts the country how exactly? And surely the 'loophole' is one decided on by the judges. It's not a catch all is it?

Is an affair, whether involving a politician or footballer or journalist, really a news story that should be covered? Or just titilating gossip that's really nobodies business?

Exactly.

That loophole is being successfully used more and more now, becoming a national interest story in itself, as it is both seriously weakening the freedom of speech act's power and giving a free licence to naughty MARRIED boys and girls with high profiles and high earnings to do exactly as they please with absolutely no public criticism of their behaviour, and no change to their status or fantastic earnings. It is morally VERY DUBIOUS at the very very least, I maintain. And so do many politicians, lawyers, teachers and church folk. The message this sends out is horrendous, 'it's okay people, even if you do get rich and famous, you can cheat on your marriage partners as much as you want, and no one will even know, because the law will protect you.

That is INSANITY!