Wednesday, March 15, 2017

The Porn Nurse

England's Sun newspaper is a pretty disgusting rag. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch and even his mother, the late and respected Dame Elisabeth Murdoch expressed her frank views to Rupert about his newspaper.

Apparently the paper features an almost bare breasted woman on its page 3. Nothing wrong with a nice set of titties, but it gives you the gist of what the paper is about.

A man paid around £9,000 for his education to become a nurse. Students raise money for their education in many ways and some work in the world of pornography and prostitution.

A newly qualified nurse was outed by The Sun as once being a cast member in gay pornographic movies. That is how he raised money to complete his nursing degree.

This is relevant because he did...........well, nothing. He is now a nurse, hopefully a good one. Does it matter how he funded his nursing degree? That he made pron videos means he can't be a good nurse?

The Sun headline was "Naughty but nurse. We reveal a nurse at a top hospital is an ex-porn star who starred in 23 X-rated films during his training".

So he funded his training by making porn movies. The Sun is a national newspaper in England, read by many people. This is so not a story. After immediate protests arose, The Sun pulled the story from their website. What? A trash newspaper does not even have the courage of its convictions to stand behind its trash?

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/13/nhs-nurse-outed-outed-as-a-former-gay-porn-star-by-the-sun-for-no-reason/

33 comments:

  1. Rupert Murdock is the lowest sort of scum. The Sun sounds just like the trashy tabloids we have here in the States.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jennifer, most Australians would agree with you. He is not our finest export to the world.

      Delete
  2. Even if the Sun story was withdrawn, the damage has been done. Which hospital will hire the nurse now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hels, I hope the matter is ignored and he is employed on merit. I hope...

      Delete
    2. Hels, I have no doubt that the hospital where I volunteer (St Vincents, Sydney) would hire the nurse if he were to be in Australia. There are numerous out gay and lesbian nurses on the staff and the Sisters of Charity under whose auspices the hospital is run is very supportive of the LGBTI community. Hopefully there are similarly sympathetic hospitals in the UK.

      Delete
  3. Good for him for choosing a profession to help others. Hope his former job doesn't interfere with the current.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sandra, I don't believe he performs any longer.

      Delete
  4. Bare-breasted woman? Sounds like the Sun is porn. What hypocrisy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kirk, that did not occur to me, but yes, hypocritical.

      Delete
  5. It's actually a bit embarrassing that Murdoch is Australian, I disowned him many years ago ☺ As for deep throat nurse good on him, sometimes you've just got to do what you have to and as long as you're not hurting anyone, what business is it of anyone else's!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grace, I am glad I did not have my coffee cup to my mouth as I read deep throat nurse. :-)

      Delete
  6. And why not. So long as the movies are consensual I have no problems with them. Which is a bit like sex generally. (Though I firmly believe that animals and children cannot give informed consent.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EC, anyone reasonable would agree with you.

      Delete
  7. And i thought your title was about me!
    Judt kidding

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many a word in jest, John.

      Delete
  8. Doesn't seem much different from the days when people dug up graves to get cadavers to study from.
    How he paid for his degree isn't as important as the degree itself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. River, as EC said, it is not illegal and he is now a usefully employed in an honourable position.

      Delete
  9. Some people has no business casting the first stone.
    Coffee is on

    ReplyDelete
  10. I can live with a newspaper like that, there used to be one here long ago in Australia if I recall.
    If that what he had to do to pay for studies etc. no harm done as far as I'm concerned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Margaret, we used to have The Truth newspaper. It was a shocker.

      Delete
    2. Yes that's the paper, forgot it's name - really had a lasting impression then!

      Delete
    3. It was a good read of a load of rubbish and its name very tenuously linked to its content.

      Delete
  11. People should mind their own bloody business...the media should mind its own business, too, in so many instances. They shouldn't go sticking their bib in where it's not needed or wanted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee, at times I think newspapers should expose things, such as hypocrisy, say a preacher man of the cloth doing very differently to what is expected of him, and god knows, there have been many cases of that. In this case, you are quite right. No one else's business.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous10:10 pm

    Hi

    I'm a bit late to this discussion because I wanted to think it through. So what I think is that the newspaper had the right to print the information and criticism of that newspaper is unrealistic.

    I gather the movies themselves were legal. They would have been available to the public. The nurse could not reasonably expect that knowledge of his participation would not be made more public than just being known to people who bought or rented the movies.

    So the people who run the paper thought this information would be eagerly read by people who buy their paper, and they were right.

    If you believe in the right to free speech, I think you have to put up with the by product, which in this case is that the nurse's involvement in making pornographic movies became much more known than he had expected and some people now think poorly of him. He must have known at the time of making the movies that some people delight in being prudishly judgmental, and that there was some risk that such people could see or know about the movies. If you do believe in the right to free speech, such as in Andrew's example, there will often be collateral damage (eg the preacher man's innocent family.) You shouldn't limit other people's right to publish legally obtained publicly available information because you fear the reactions you think other people might have. If you limit the right to free speech on this basis, our country will be run by corrupt people. We have to put up with the gratuitous petty scandal mongering to make sure we get the real stuff.

    So my conclusions are that the benefits of free speech outweigh the disadvantages, that with hindsight we would all be wiser, and that it would be nice if people were kinder and more broad minded, but we are not.

    Also I thought porn stars were better paid.

    Cheers

    Marie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thoughtful input, Marie. Journalists often know information about public figures that does not get published. Why? Usually because it is not in the public interest and is a private matter. I consider this to be the same. No illegality. No hypocrisy. Not even a public figure. I am not suggesting there should be laws preventing such reporting, but it is simply a story published with the aim of attracting readers and henceforth profits, a the personal expense of exposing someone's private life. If the paper thought it was morally right, it would not have removed the story. It is not so much about legalities, but the niceties that make our society function.

      Delete
    2. Well stated Andrew.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:19 pm

      Hi Andrew

      I agree with what you say in that I would prefer the information had not been printed.

      However I do not think the paper removed that information for a moral reason. I think the newspaper made a business choice based on the decrease in revenue it thought it might incur if people condemning the story stopped buying/reading the newspaper altogether.

      I would never expect a moral decision from the Press. I think they decide not to print some stories because they fear being sued or fear a decreased readership as some people reach the limit of what is acceptable.

      People (me included) relish reading salacious gossip about people, especially about people who are famous/beautiful/rich i.e. people we envy. It's usually when it is people whose circumstances we relate to, or people we like, that we are offended. I can think of quite a few people (Matthew Newton, Grant Hackett, Ben Cousins) who have been dragged into the gutter by the Press when their difficult lives would have been less difficult if their circumstances had remained private.

      Cheers Marie

      PS Could you PLEASE blog about South Australia and renewable energy - you know you can do it!!

      Delete
    4. Thanks Victor.

      Back to you Marie. I don't disagree, private companies, such as this newspaper, is there to make money. It saw the reaction to the story and pulled it. Acceptability to the public is the only real reign on the gutter press and by the protests against the story, including my blog post, The Sun can see where the limits are. I too love gossip, especially if it is salacious, but do I really need to know? My life would not be less if I did not know about who you name and if that helped them, that would good.

      Funny you mention SA electricity. I had some email exchanges with River in Adelaide about it and I have a half written post, which I will probably finish and post this week.

      Delete
  13. You're so funny! The paper won't stand behind its trash. You crack me up. No it would make no difference whatsoever to me if my nurse had worked his or her way through school doing porn. Gutsy!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Strayer, everyone knows it is trash newspaper, even those who buy it. He porn nurse might have a better handle on anatomy than most nurses.

      Delete