Daybreak

The difference is that Alex Jones' photo's were tasteful, done for charity and concealing her nudity. Not an issue.

The problem for Tamsin is that her ones look cheap and nasty and show an extraordinary lapse in her judgment. And they were taken during the 10 years or so she's been a journalist. What WAS she thinking?? It's probable The Sun has even more snaps (and some they'd never be allowed to publish!!)

I think if the story 'has legs' and The Sun publish more, then they'd have to consider terminating her contract already.

What a sad world we live in where we let The Sun make a moral judgement on what we do with our lives.

Well, that kind of detail is sort of irrelevant - as like it or not, the fact that she did it can leave an impression on some people. The viewers, that is.

Right or wrong - that's life.

Back in the dim and distant, one of the first things we were told at drama school was to take seriously the early decisions that might shape our careers, and how we might be "perceived" inside and outside the industry. In the case of our class, there was a "wet t-shirt" competition at fresher's week - and the very attractive young ladies on our course were approached by the student union to appear (as was true of all years before and after).

A bit of fun - sure. Having confidence in your body - no problem. But pictures have a tendency to follow you and pop up when you least expect them.

I'm not judging this young lady - but a lot of people will, and that won't necessarily do the show any good. Why start off a new venture like Daybreak with a member of the team who might put off some of the audience who *assume* a personality type based on nudy pics?

Producers are paid to manage these problems - and there's one easy way to make it all go away.

Um, no. I don't "honestly think that" at all.

Obviously what I meant was to make money at the time the photos were taken. How do you know she didn't make money from the photos - AT THE TIME? They look professional (if a little tacky) so they must have been taken for something commercial - AT THE TIME.

With all due respect, David, it isn't us letting The Sun make a moral judgement. The Sun haven't said "they shouldn't hire her because she got naked for a camera, here's the proof", they've said "new Daybreak girl gets naked".

And regardless of what TS actually did or say, we're the ones who have made a decision on whether or not it's suitable. We've only considered evidence and/or an argument provided by TS, not accepted an argument because it was TS.

The only morale decision The Sun has made is whether or not to publish the photos, which I'm sure they've done to shift papers, receive ad money and fill space rather than to make some broad moral statement, but in reality they could just as easily have leaked on the internet.


Having said all that, I think this comes down to why she did it. Lots of people take pictures, or allow pictures to be taken of them, where they are nude, wearing few clothes or posing in a provocative way. The question mark becomes whether they were done in a private setting with the sole intention being for those to be viewed by themselves and specific recipients, or if they were taken commercially to be released into the public.

The latter is much more a crime on the family-friendly moral-compass we all like to use than the former, especially given the former would have involved The Sun going out of their way to find dirt on her rather than having a ready made, quick-fix story they felt was relevant.

If this is meant to be a family show then something like that would make you stop and think before casting her on the show and also if this is a newsy show it should have a proper newsreader if they insist on having her move the features editor to present the news and give her that or just stick with Helen who most people like .

Also is Kirstys posistion 100 percent safe.

And will there be tv pics on this new show ?

It isn't as though the shows started yet - she has't even officially been named. So she could still be changed if they really wanted too.

Also one of the insiders said there was supposed to be some news today or was Tasmin it?

I have literally no idea what that last bit meant. Care to elaborate?

In regard to it being a family show, which parents who knowingly let their children read The Sun will complain that she took her clothes off for a picture a while before getting this job? Are we now to say that every time a female presenter gets pregnant they have to leave because it's now been proven they've had sexual intercourse, where as previously we could have hoped (assumed, even) that every member had stayed a virgin their whole lives because this is, after all, family show.

I'd also be interested to know how many of the people who would criticize something she had done outside of this employment, at a time before being employed in that position, have ever posed for such photos, made a discriminatory, bigoted or unpleasant remark about someone in the comforts of their own home or in private, and whether they will be informing their employers and advising them to end their employment based on it.

If this picture was taken while Tasmin was a working journalist with the idea being it was released to a wider audience then you could question her appointment based on the sole fact that she would be representing her employer, as a celebrity associated with a specific brand or programme. If she did not intend for this to be made public and did it for her own benefit (which, looking at the dodgy angle, frankly unattractive pose and rather bad airbrushing, I'm guessing it was) then you have to accept what she did was legal, and society on the whole doesn't condemn that sort of behavior.

If you're really telling me the British public as a whole disagree with this sort of thing then clearly it needs to be outlawed, which would include TS being able to publish it and TLK being able to pose for it.

Seriously, comparing getting pregnant to posing for professional nude pictures?

I mean, seriously????????????

I Agree

And why are you under the assumption I am a child house?

quite. The bottom line (no pun intended), is this- can she still do her job and have credibility in doing it? It's too early to say, but it's probably a no.

Exactly! All this talk and she has not been confirmed as the Newscaster for Daybreak yet. Remember, it was The Sun that reported she had the job - hardly a credible source!