BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!

Subject: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:14 AM

I just heard on the news that they are thinking of sacking Sven Yoren Ericson [the England Football team manager], because he had an affair with his secretary. It's absolutley none of their business, and they should leave him alone, they thought he was the best person for the job, when they employed him, now they talking of sacking him for something which is his private life.
If he commited an offence, I could understand ie, if he cheated some money, or beat someone up etc.
Or if he was not good at his job they should sack him, but what he does in his own time [as long as its not illegal etc] is his own private business, between him nd his wife [is he married? not sure!]

Loads of people have affairs, they don't get the sack for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 03:43 AM

Now the world cup is over they don't need him any more, and if they can get rid of him for commiting a misdemeanour, it will save them shed loads of money.
It just shows you that passing and keepie uppie, are necessary skills off the pitch too.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: mooman
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 04:36 AM

The hypocritical thing about this is the chief of the FA also (allegidly) had a fling with the same person.

I quite agree with the Right Honourable Sir jOhn MBE OBE

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: el ted
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:52 AM

Hang on, hang on. are you saying this sven bloke had sex with his secretary AND the chief of the FA? That is one kinky swede!

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:56 AM

I agree that whom (or what) he has sex with is nobody's business unless it affects how well he does what he's paid to do. Assuming he didn't use his position to put undue pressure on the other party, then they both got what they wanted.

If the FA want to sack him, they should be honest enough to say they're doing it because he's crap.

wr.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: mooman
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 11:14 AM

Weerover,

Would that position be centre half or inside forward?

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: C-flat
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 11:57 AM

As a single man he can sleep with who he wants to. I don't see how it affects his abilities as a football manager. Why does anyone care enough to even report it to the press?
C-flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:13 PM

Anyone who acts in this manner, him and her, is a complete and utter fucking arsehole. They should take relationships seriously and set an example to others. In his case many young people look up to him and may believe what he does is OK i.e.: have a relationship with one partner and have a bit on the side. When children are involved (don't know if this is the case here) things become very uncomfortable and family bond time is stolen from them. In my opinion family values are rapidly disappearing down the drain because of these and similar situations. Some people should stop being so self centred and think about there actions on others.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Fibula Mattock
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 12:27 PM

GUEST, that's maybe how your world view is. There are others. Why should someone's ability to work be based on somewhat irrelevant morals imposed by society? My world view is that it's no one's business except those involved. Some people work their relationships in different ways than others. Practically, it's hard to see why this man should be castigated for behaviour that (whether you think it's wrong or it's right) has nothing to do with his day job.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:00 PM

Actually he isn't in trouble for having an affair but the fact that he lied to the FA. If they can't trust someone they are paying millions too why pay them at all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: C-flat
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:00 PM

Guest, we're not talking about marriages or children as neither is involved in this case so your opinion on family values doesn't apply.
As I said earlier, Erikson is a single man and entitled to do what or who he wants without the bloody awful UK press trying to stir things up or silly arses moralising about what he should and shouldn't do in his own PRIVATE life.
It might be different if, as a public figure, he had been soap-boxing about sex outside of marriage or adopting a position of moral high ground to advance himself and then been caught out breaking his own rules, but this guy is a FOOTBALL MANAGER and a SINGLE one at that!

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 01:50 PM

John, I think when you are in the public light, like it or not you can expect your personal life to come out. I'm not saying that is right (in fact quite frankly I couldn't really care less who is shagging who unless I had some direct involvement and get pissed off with "media gossip") but that's how it works and anyone going into such a position as England manager should know that.

I don't see that as the point at issue here though. The impression I get from one side is that the FA made a statement based on what Sven had told them. I'm afraid that if that is true and he did lie in the full knowledge the integrity of others would then be questioned for supporting him in making a public statement supporting this lie, I've no time for him. It remains unclear to me whether this happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: C-flat
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 02:05 PM

I agree Jon, and I'm sure Erikson new what the job entailed. I wonder why the FA felt it neccessary to question Erikson in the first place or why they felt the need to make a public statement about it.
If the guy has been sleeping with someone it would be natural to want to avoid bringing her into the media glare and so, yes, he lied, but it wasn't anyone elses business to know anyway.
C-flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: weerover
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 02:22 PM

Guest of 12:13,

As it happens I kind of agree with much of what you say (he treated his longish-term partner despicably), and I live my own life accordingly. What I don't see is where it is Ericsson's employer's responsibility (or yours or mine) to look after his morals.

wr.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 05:16 PM

Fibula's right, his abilities as the England Manager are a completely seperate issue from whether or not he shagged his secretary. If it wasn't for the nosey-parker tabloids needing to make a fast buck no-one would ever have heard about it. And I wonder how many tabloid editors are shagging their secretaries/sub-editors/reporters/office juniors/cleaners, and what would their reactions be if they got the poke (pun intended) because they played away (another pun intended).

Some people need to get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Peace
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 06:22 PM

So, is there a difference or not between what he did and what Bill Clinton did? Curious. (There are a few keepers comin' from this one.)

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Blackcatter
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 06:29 PM

I think that part of it is that most companies have rules against employees dating. Especially a supervisor and their "under staff."

It's often bad for the business and who knows if the woman was pressured into the affair to keep her job?

It's surprising to me that he's straight, over in the US we have heard the rumors of just how many British footballers are gay.

Or is that cricket players?

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: C-flat
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 06:43 PM

Ah well, that's perhaps because he's from Sweden, Blackcatter. Not British at all. Having said that, I don't know of many gay footballers but then there's no reason why I would know what any of their preferences are.
Brucie, I don't ever remember seeing Eriksson with a cigar!

C-flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Peace
Date: 28 Jul 04 - 07:35 PM

C-flat: You ara a hoot. Thank you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,weerover
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 02:01 AM

Brucie,

I would apply different standards to politicians generally: in their case it is important that what they say is the truth (and yes, I know that almost never happens). If they are prepared to mislead their nearest and dearest how much further would they be prepared to go with the electorate, most of whom they will never meet?

wr.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 01:17 PM

just another asinine post from a drunk who can't spell

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 29 Jul 04 - 02:03 PM

Speaking as a hide-bound conservative, it used to be considered dishonorable for a gent to divulge the lady's name in cases like this*. My, how the standards change...

clint

*see "Long Black Veil."

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 10:57 AM

Apparently David Blunkit had an affair, I thought he was gay, as every time you see him, he's always got his arm around some bloke.
He never seems to do much work anyway, as he's always taking his dog for a walk!

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: HRH ted of hull
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:00 AM

jOhn,
    that is hysterical! I damn near wet myself!

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:06 AM

Ted, it's true, I saw him on telly a few days ago, he was holding hands with John Prescott.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 11:07 AM

I reckon Tony will be Jealous, missing out.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 02:20 PM

I met him and his dog once (the one previous to this), I prefered the dog.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: C-flat
Date: 20 Aug 04 - 02:46 PM

Sir jOhn, you are priceless!
C-flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 12:19 AM

"Assuming he didn't use his position to put undue pressure on the other party, then they both got what they wanted."

I am curious to know exactly what position they were using. Simply quote from the Kama Sutra to help with this explanation. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 21 Aug 04 - 03:52 AM

Liz he probably prefers the dog too....LOL.
Actually I belive this whole issue is based on trust and loyalty..if he can do the dirty on a partner then he can equally do the dirty on his employers....That's not to say he would necessarily but it leaves him open to censure on principle. Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 05:00 AM

I never met him or his dog, but i'm not bothered about that.
best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 09:04 AM

"over in the US we have heard the rumors of just how many British footballers are gay".

Priceless, coming from a native of a country where they wear armour to play their diluted girlie-version of Rugby! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 01:33 PM

It may be of some comfort to the accused that no one in Canada cares about this. And I do mean, no one.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,Seaking
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 11:40 PM

Apart from some sections of our tabloid press I don't think there's much genuine interest here in the U.K. either

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Peace
Date: 29 Sep 04 - 11:43 PM

Interest in what?

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 06:19 AM

well not actually interested, but I wouldn't mind seeing the polaroids (as the saying goes)

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,curious
Date: 30 Sep 04 - 05:19 PM

So at least two people have had affairs with this particular gal... Could you send me her name and phone number please?

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,Secretfriend
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 05:56 AM

do you want mine curious?

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 06:13 AM

If it is because he lied, fair enough and good riddance.
The same holds for Clinton - he lied, so he had to be got rid of.

As to where - and whether - they dip their wick, it's none of our business, provided it is not illegal (animals, children and so on).
Otherwise we might as well criminalise adultery and go back 100 years.

As for children, they should get the moral examples and advice from their parents first, not from football managers. If they have reached the stage of the latter, then something is already seriously wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,curious
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 09:57 AM

Secretfriend, could you be a little more gender specific??

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 01 Oct 04 - 10:02 AM

No time to be picky, curious...

Subject: RE: BS: Having an Affair[none of their business!
From: GUEST,Secretfriend
Date: 02 Oct 04 - 06:19 AM

how about secretgirlfriend then? what about you?