Forum menu
For anyone who wishes to put their view directly to the programme while it's on air.
Texts are 25p, they say on their website that all texts are read.
Keep it clean and reasonable folks! Abusive/defamatory/poor taste messages will be deleted.
Personally it would leave a bad taste in the mouth to pay money to a program giving air time to her. Is there an email address?
If you do, remember to question their decision to put her on tv in first place...
Rachel
We're only one step away from a witch hunt, here....
STW, earlier this morning:
[img] 
[/img]
If you do, remember to question their decision to put her on tv in first place...
And paying her.
Has it already been on?
Rather than re-interviewing her, they should be giving the cyclist some air time and paying him for the appearance.
On in 10 min.
Exactly as I expected unfortunately
utterly pointless, however the VT clip of the cyclist showed him to be a lot calmer than Id have been
sorry I missed it (at work) what was said?
A couple of yes/no answers to poor questions. Lorraine called her a poor wee thing when she said she'd had a tough few months, then said she wasn't showing remorse. Then we had a sound bite from her lawyer. Pretty awful even for a breakfast TV interviewsorry I missed it (at work) what was said?
Emma's really sorry - although she didnt particularly look it
She said the cyclist had made her angry
She didnt actually knock him off
"Im only 22" etc etc
Lawyer did most of talking
Rubbish
I refuse to watch daybreak on the principal that one day the guests on the couch combined density will cause a black hole to form, flinging us all into the abyss
[i]Emma's really sorry[/i]
Only about the Tweet. Don't forget it was the cyclist's fault she (allegedly) knocked him off.
Not sure we're going to see much more of her after today - she's clearly quite thick and has nothing new to add to the discussion after the court case. Makes for pretty dull TV.
They did confirm that she hasn't been paid for her appearance. She also reiterated her position that she was on the right side of the road and it was the cyclist that was on her side. This is a bit odd as it then suggests that after the collision, which was light enough for her to claim she didn't think there was any damage or a need to stop, the cyclist then swerved back across the entire width of his side of the road and continued on that path until he ended up off the side of the road (on his side) and in a hedge.
Just like after it happened, they are just trying anything to make [i]her[/i] seem like the victim. I bet if you could be arsed to gather everything she has said about the accident (oh sorry, the "collision with a cyclist"), you'd find she says something different every time.
Thick as pig shit is the only information I gained from her appearances.
"I'm only 23.." well boohoo.
Dez - actually "crash" is preferable, certainly to "accident"
http://www.roadpeace.org/campaigns/crash/
Oh, I know - it was just to many letters to say "everything she has said about knocking off the cyclist" (that time) 🙂
Out of interest anyone know why she lost her job over this? Not condoning for one minute what she did but I do not quite understand why she could be sacked for a minor RTA. AFAIK she was not on work time or anything.
If everybody who was stupid behind a wheel got sacked the dole queue's would be a lot longer.
The cyclist in question should have been invited on as well for balance.
She was most likely sacked for the negative publicity that she brought to her employers front door
She was mostly sacked for the imprisonable criminal offence she committed.
She was mostly sacked for the [i]potentially[/i] imprisonable criminal offence she [s]committed.[/s] [i]admitted to in a tweet[/i]
She was mostly sacked for the imprisonable criminal offence she committed.
Which one ??
Out of interest anyone know why she lost her job over this? Not condoning for one minute what she did but I do not quite understand why she could be sacked for a minor RTA. AFAIK she was not on work time or anything.
Presumably it was actually for her ****tering, rather than her being one behind the wheel. For right or for wrong, lots of employers have pretty strict social media policies
Which one ??
Failure to stop after an accident.
She was probably sacked more for the dumb ass tweet she did after the accident, rather than the accident itself..
[i]Failure to stop after an accident.[/i]
Huh? She's only just been convicted. She lost her job months ago.
IIRC she was sacked because the journalists followed a link from her Twitter account to her Facebook account which listed her employer details. The company's name was then plastered all over the media in the many articles written about the incident and she was sacked for bringing the firm into disrepute.
I'm not sure employers would typically wait for a criminal conviction when they have a pretty decent bit of prima face evidence in the form of a tweet saying "I dun it!"
Which one ??
Failure to stop after an accident.
It can't have been that as she wasn't found guilty till yesterday.
And they sacked her months ago.
Try again 😉
It was the PR she brought down on the company. Bringing the company into disrepute is a sackable 'offence' in most companies
Companies can and often do sack people when they're arrested for something criminal. There's no "beyond reasonable doubt" clause in employment law, which leaves the employee having to fight it out in a tribunal, at best, if it happens. In the case of a trainee accountant, given the expectations of trustworthiness and the severe impact of any criminal record, it's a slam dunk when the employee has basically admitted it in public (The statement from her employer at the time talked about not condoning her actions)
I assumed she was sacked for being a moron.
She did come across as a bit dim I wouldn't be surprised if her employer was keen to get rid of her .I wouldn't trust her as an accountant
The lawyer was irritating he seemed mighty pleased with himself to be involved in such a unique case , Lorraine even scolded him a it for being so jolly about it all
The focus was definitely on the tweet rather than the accident
i'd expected her to be in her element, breakfast tv for the unemployable.
nealgloverTry again
Repeating a post 3 above yours.
Try again 😉
Bringing the company into disrepute is a sackable 'offence' in most companies
you have seen the way chipps dresses and those hats haven't you...just saying like 😉
Post-Daybreak BBC update -
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-25013820 ]Click here[/url]
On the contrary Junky, I see that everyday!
Every... sodding..... day!
🙂
"I was quite angry about his mannerism and... that he was on my side of the road and it seemed somehow disrespectful."
I'm Confused...
Repeating a post 3 above yours.
Try again
Posted at the same time as mine otherwise you may have had a point
Erm.. Wot's Daybreak?? 😕
What people without jobs watch instead of pretending to be busy whilst posting on STW.
Sounds like some sort of vampire movie. You know, where people mope around sucking the life blood out of others.