Loose Women - An Apology To Ched Evans

[andy-hughes]

Following comments on Loose Women by Gloria Hunniford about Ched Evans, ITV have issued an apology - and Ms. Hunniford is reported to be incandescent with rage, although ITV deny this.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3857342/Gloria-Hunniford-left-humiliated-ITV-says-sorry-Ched-Evans-sex-education-jibe.html


Personally, I think ITV were wrong to apologise - what does anyone else think?

[naomi24]

I agree. ITV were wrong to apologise. Gloria Hunniford should have made her own apologies.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //I agree. ITV were wrong to apologise. Gloria Hunniford should have made her own apologies. //

Do you think Gloria Hunniford was wrong to say what she said - and should she have apologised?

[pixie374]

// Gloria Hunniford said footballer was the 'last person that she would send her grandchildren to for sex education'//

How can her opinion be wrong? I thought they usually do a disclaimer saying something like "the views given on the show aren't necessarily those of ITV..."

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //I don't the AB can take another Ched Evans case thread.//

I think the thread will develop along the lines of the rights and wrongs of media opinion, and who if anyone should apologise for it.

[TheChair]

Do you know what she actually said? Although the article quotes her comment re not sending her grandchildren to him for sex education, that, apparently, was not the actual cause for complaint. The complaint was that she misrepresented the case.

As he was found not guilty unanimously by a jury who had heard all the evidence, and if she did misrepresent the facts of the case, then they were right to apologise. Whatever we may think of Evans as a person, he is still not guilty in the eyes of the law.

[ummmm]

She has nothing to apologise for, imo, so nor do ITV.

[Gromit]

ITV only apologised because they assessed they would lose a court case and have to pay him a substantial fee.

It would be interesting to see if Hunniford receives a writ, and whether she would defend it. I suspect not.

[andy-hughes]

pix - //// Gloria Hunniford said footballer was the 'last person that she would send her grandchildren to for sex education'//

How can her opinion be wrong? I thought they usually do a disclaimer saying something like "the views given on the show aren't necessarily those of ITV..." //

I confess I am confused - the Mail quotes Ms. Hunniford's quote about her perception of Mr Evans' moral code, but the apology confirms that ITV are happy to acknowledge his acquittal from charges.

I see that as two separate issues, and not directly connected.

When I saw the clip, Ms. Hunniford did not say that she either contested the verdict, or disagreed with it - so why are ITV confirming that the programme (not Ms. Hunniford personally) accepts that he was acquitted?

[andy-hughes]

Here's the clip - see what you think -


https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1998924/ched-evans-family-considering-legal-action-against-gloria-hunniford-and-itvs-loose-women-over-biased-comments/

[andy-hughes]

pixie - //// Gloria Hunniford said footballer was the 'last person that she would send her grandchildren to for sex education'//

How can her opinion be wrong? I thought they usually do a disclaimer saying something like "the views given on the show aren't necessarily those of ITV..." //

As the clip shows, Ms. Hunniford prefaced her observations with the statement that this is her personal opinion.

On that basis, I fail to see how the Evans family interpret that as 'misrepresenting' anything. She did not suggest what she said was fact, she expressed a personal viewpoint.

So why do the programme apologise for her?

[ummmm]

She didn't say anything wrong.

[pixie374]

Ah- she did claim she was "so drunk" though- which implies not able to consent.

[andy-hughes]

Gromit - //ITV only apologised because they assessed they would lose a court case and have to pay him a substantial fee. //

I suspect you are right, but as I have said, I fail to see how an expression of an opinion can be seen as libellous.

//It would be interesting to see if Hunniford receives a writ, and whether she would defend it. I suspect not. //

Not receive - or not defend?

We shall have to see.

[andy-hughes]

Pix - //Ah- she did claim she was "so drunk" though- which implies not able to consent. //.

You are right - have just picked that up from the clip, but again, she did say the word 'apparently', so I would suggest she is not claiming to state a fact.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //It's quite simple Andy. The TVs legal team have told them that they would lose a libel case. So a bit of grovelling is called for. //

I understand why ITV have done what they have done - my question is, were they right do it?

[Gromit]

I suspect it is not the quote that the family are objecting to, it is her version of the circumstances of the case. In the Mail report the family says she misrepresented events, and Hunnifords version seems to be based on the first trial, and not the retrial.

[ummmm]

She was too drunk to consent. Doesn't make her a bad person. I suppose, in the eyes of the law, it doesn't make him a rapist, now!

[pixie374]

It would, though, ummm. She misrepresented that- "apparently" or not, it isn't what the jury decided.