QFT.

I just mean I wanted to know whether it was consensual (if I really cared, that is). Of course, every interaction with your boss (sexual or other) is never among equals.
If I were bothered at all (I ain't), it would rather be because of some shady extortionist who tries to create public moral outrage out of a case in which he wasn't even remotely personally involved (I suppose) so that he can rake in the money. The epitome of hypocrisy.
Letterman is perfectly entitled to expose such a git to ridicule.

To me there seems to be some sort of a weird double standard regarding sex in the states, as to the best of my knowledge they have the worlds largest porn industry. Also what Platapus said, that never made any sense to me.

Come on, man ... are you serious? This isn't about sex on TV. Have you ever watched prime time American television?

The sex isn't the part that's getting people worked up. It's the moral dalliances of someone who's image has been tarnished that makes for water cooler conversation.

It's funny how people on the other side of the pond someone think American's are prudes about this stuff. Again, I've gotta ask - have you all ever seen out prime time programming?

The difference is that the person in question profits off of his public perception. Your average person does not.

Dave is cheap!:rotfl2:

What's 2 million to him?

Yes I ahev when I lived in the US I couldn't get over the fact that you would have a violent action film on in the early evening and all the swearwords were overdubbed and any sex or nudity was taken out but hey you could watch a guys guts explode.

In Britain we have our hangups about sex too but I think in the US you are worse than us.

Saying that we seem to be having quite a few episodes at the moment with teachers and students and the sickes involving a nursery nurse and the kids she looked after.

And this is relevant... how exactly? It's not. How does this change the fact that he was being bribed/extorted by his supervisor? It doesn't. How is this a problem? It's not; if he's got the ability to make money off something like this, then let him. It's not illegal; there are plenty of other people on TV who do it all the time. Like I said, it's a personal issue- so he's got every right to decide what to do with it and how to treat it. If he wants to keep it private, fine. If he wants to make it public, fine. He's at least respecting the wishes of the employee by keeping her name private.

Doubt any woman would want to be a member of the "I Shagged Dave Club" in public.

First, my point had nothing to do with the employee.

Secondly, people who profit off of their public image invite public scrutiny, fair or not, consistant with the US' libel laws.

Third, anyone getting involved with a public figure risks publicity for doing so.

So yes, it's relevant.

Putting the ethical standards aside this type of behavior can cause all sort of difficulty in the workplace.

An example.......

A supervisor who does not keep a certain professional distance from his employees and considers them friends, can cause issues for those who are not considered friends. In the office enviroment the behavior is easily detected and animosities develop. The actions of 'friends' are looked upon as sucking-up, while those' not considered friends' are often ridiculed, or left out of important decisions. The end result is a toxic work enviroment, which is detrimental to the workplace, and all involved.

No, but mine did.

Well really anybody who has a public image is liable for scrutiny- even ordinary chumps like you and me-- fair or not. But defamation laws here are just as closely related to privacy laws, and according to our privacy laws, the dissemination (debate or discussion of . . . by public members) of private information in this manner is really in violation of said privacy laws because of the element of subjective expectations of privacy.

With that said, we must, in the interest of the law, focus on the main legal discussion at hand here: which is not about Letterman's sexual circle/chastity, but the fact that his supervisor attempted to extort him over his sexual circle/chastity. Issues of chastity are protected by privacy laws; extortion, as done against him by his supervisor, is not.

Yeah... and? This isn't news to us. This is an element of everyday life for us all. Well, all of us who have a social life anyway.

Not to us. Unless we're going to be sitting in court hearing the case anyway, in which case we'll be entitled to hear the details of the case and we won't be in violation of anything pertaining to privacy laws.

People who interject themselves into the public eye by way of profession are legally protected far differently, and less, than "ordinary chumps". Dude, where did I at all suggest that extortion is legal?

My issue was with this statement that you made:This has nothing to do with the extortion aspect of the case. You were apparently criticizing people for taking an interest in the NOW PUBLIC personal affairs in his life.

My point was that, oh well! That's what happens when you've made your image into your business. If things happen that tarnish that image, despite whether or not you THINK it should tarnish that image, that's the risk you take.

I have no idea why you've extrapolated that into the legality of the extortion case.Yeah, not really.

Having an active social life does not qualify one as a public figure, either legally or figuratively.You're changing the argument my statement was in response to in an attempt to make it irrelevant.

Look at the bright side, when Palin is on the show again, they'll have something interesting to talk about:haha::haha::haha:.

LOL... I cant picture a man that old... doing that...:dead: