Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that Andrew Marr got exactly what he deserved?

40 replies

DrSeuss · 26/04/2011 18:38

Great idea, pet. Get a super injunction so that no one can report on you being an adulterous arsehole then write an article about how dreadful super injunctions are. Yes, it did prevent your wife and kids from being vilified, not to mention the other child you believed to be yours. However, wouldn't the time to think about your family have been beforehand, not afterwards?

OP posts:
hairylights · 26/04/2011 18:42

YABU. What the heck has his private life got to do with any of us, whether he's an arsehole or not is his and his families business, not ours.

MollieO · 26/04/2011 18:46

I recall reading some comments about his private life two or three years ago so the injunction didn't work!

OkeeDoeKee · 26/04/2011 18:47

Not entirely sure I understand your title?? I don't think he 'got' anything.

It seems to me that he sorted out his marital issues and has got everything back on track has now decided to come clean when it is in effect no longer going to to have a detrimental effect on him and his family.

I think he's got what he wanted and it's worked for him. If this had all come out in the press in 2003 it maybe that the pressure on his wife and family would have been too great and the marriage would have crumbled then. As it is his family have remained in tact.

Itsjustafleshwound · 26/04/2011 18:48

Again, I like Ian Hislop and think his take on super-injuctions in spot on.

HecateQueenOfTheNight · 26/04/2011 18:48

Well, I would say that it is the hypocrisy of it.

Someone who makes a living reporting on the lives of others - who actually writes an article slamming injunctions - and yet has one himself to prevent others reporting on his behaviours deserves to have that double standard exposed.

Super injunctions are terrible, according to Andrew Marr. He said that parliament, not judges, should determine privacy law and was very vocal on the whole thing.

While having one himself?

That makes it news.

Original poster
DrSeuss · 26/04/2011 18:49

Do you think he would show the same restraint to an errant politician? Did he show the same restraint concerning Gordon Brown's medical history? If we found out tomorrow that, say, Ed Milliband had a child by someone other than his fiance, Mr Marr would feel that he ought not to discuss it?

OP posts:
Flisspaps · 26/04/2011 18:50

I'm more shocked that TWO people have had sex with Andrew Marr Shock

Vicky2011 · 26/04/2011 18:50

I confess to being a little intrigued to know whether the OW involved has paid back the maintenance that he paid for the child that has turned out not to be his.

But as you say, none of our business.

hairylights · 26/04/2011 18:50

Andrew Marr isn't a tabloid journalist making a living off reporting on the lives of others, he's a serious political journalist (AFAIK)

nightowlmostly · 26/04/2011 18:50

I agree, Hecate! He's a journalist, ffs! How hypocritical.

Gooseberrybushes · 26/04/2011 18:51

Doesn't matter if it's our business or not. if it's true, publish. Freedom of the press. I hate these injunctions.

HecateQueenOfTheNight · 26/04/2011 18:53

yes. I can do no better than to quote the OPs post on that matter.

"Do you think he would show the same restraint to an errant politician? Did he show the same restraint concerning Gordon Brown's medical history? If we found out tomorrow that, say, Ed Milliband had a child by someone other than his fiance, Mr Marr would feel that he ought not to discuss it?"

Yes, he's a serious political journalist.

So the people he reports on are politicians. They're still people (just Wink ) it doesn't matter what group they fall into.

And he's no problem reporting on their behaviours and judging them, has he?

And if they were screwing around, would he say nothing?

Hypocrite. Plain and simple.

Itsjustafleshwound · 26/04/2011 18:54

As per IH:

"As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist,"

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 26/04/2011 18:54

What Flisspapas said. And Gooseberry, and of course Hecate

StewieGriffinsMom · 26/04/2011 18:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Butterbur · 26/04/2011 18:55

YANBU. The time for him to think of his family was before he went off shagging around.

And yes, it is our business. People in the public eye want to present a certain persona to the world, and run to the courts crying for an injunction when something comes out that threatens how they wish to be seen. So the truth should be told.

Itsjustafleshwound · 26/04/2011 18:58

But it was made easier for AM as the basis of the injuction wasn't actually true - he wasn't the dad (which makes it worse as he didn't question it at first, so there was previous/possibility of truthfulness IYSWIM)

Original poster
DrSeuss · 26/04/2011 18:58

Agreed, Fliss, can't get my head around that one either!

Hecate-exactly. What he "got" IMHO, was a public humiliation for being a stinking hypocrite courtesy of Mr Hislop.

OP posts:
LynetteScavo · 26/04/2011 18:59

2 woman wanted to sleep with Andrew Marr? Confused

Pram1nTheHall · 26/04/2011 19:02

Hypocrite nobber, especially after he smeared Brown's personal medical history all over the place. And presented himself as a supporter of press freedom. Feel sorry for Jackie Ashley, she's a better journo than he is and probably deserves a better husband.

Decorhate · 26/04/2011 19:05

Not sure the injunction worked as I read about the affair a while back. Probably on t'internet rather than in newspaper tho (and mire than likely as a result of gossip on MN).

Def made me think less of him...

Gooseberrybushes · 26/04/2011 19:06

"I think these injunctions are deeply misogynistic"

So do I. Everyone in power, everyone in a position of authority, of financial superiority, of public reknown, wants more control over the media. All of them. These injunctions pander to that in a dangerous way.

Fuck 'em.

There should be two restrictions only on publication.

Does it impede justice? And is it true?

If the answers are no, and yes -- publish with impunity.

Gooseberrybushes · 26/04/2011 19:07

I'm still in shock that someone agreed with me earlier btw.

PeachyAndTheArghoNauts · 26/04/2011 19:08

Ha ha Gooseberry

Tis MN; you have a bad thread, you have a good one. is how it goes.

Decorhate · 26/04/2011 19:16

Doing a quick search, I think it was Wikipedia which said he'd had a child with another journo (Wiki has now been updated). Quite amusing that if he'd not had the injunction in place Wiki wouldn't have continued to give out false information on him.

Doesn't mitigate the fact of him having an affair of course..