h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think if someone deliberately reveals the matter, then after the intial stunned silence, they are always going to come off worse- not because of the affair, chances are in this particular case there was no black/white- just your typical work-involved-mad-passionate-oops-I-shouldn;t-have-done-that jobby. I think they (in this case she) will come off worse for raking up the past, and subjecting Norma Mahjor to all the pain again- after all, she truly is an innocent party. Major has certainly done the wise thing in my book- if he'd made anymore response than he has, then the whole thing could descent into mud-slinging, where the public learns more about the affair, and forms an opinion on that, rather than on Currie's actions.

Edwina acts as though she is unaware that what happened has caused, and is causing a great deal of distress and humiliation for another person. Her disregard for Norma Major, and for the feelings of her own ex-husband make her seem very callous.

Her novel a few years ago gave many huge hints of her affair with Major. Nobody caught on, because it just seemed too unlikely. During an interview to promote that book, Edwina was asked if John Major had read it. Edwina said Yes, he loved it, and he had told her that he and Norma fight over it every night in bed.

It's not nice for poor old Norma.

I have been abroad, so this thread is my main source of news on the Major/Currie affair.

But it does seem to me to be pertinant to ask 'who benefits' when someone announces a thing like this, particularly so long after the event.

Currie has always presented herself as very sexual, and it may just be saying "see, I wasn't just loud-mouthing, I really did pull".

It may be to boost sales of her book. She has been on my list of 'must pick up next time there is nothing better in the airport' reads for some time. And now of course she has jumped nearer the head of the queue.

What would be interesting to know is whether she has been on the other side of that particular triangle. It would be libelling my ex to some extent to say that I have been in both situations there, but I do have a sympathy for Norma Major that, from what you say, Currie lacks the experience to muster.

I hadn't thought of her as a bitch before.

B

You see, that's the thing. Edwina has nothing to lose and everything to gain. The marriage she was in at the time of the affair is already over. I can't see it causing any major problems withing here current marriage- that's like me getting upset if I found out Bruce had an affair when he was married, so what . So she gains money, and loses nothing personally. Whereas Major losses personally, and possibly financially- the New Statesman is now looking to sue him. For those that don't know- in the early 90s New Statesman published a stpry about Major having an affair with the civil servant- it was b******s, and both Major and the civil servant sued the New Statesman- trouble is, Major based his case in the arguement that he was a loyal husband, who hadn't had an affairs, and the story damaged his reputation as such . Cue action from the New Statesman now, saying "look! He wasn't a loyal husband, he shouldn't have got all those damages for defamation of character..."

Blimey. Revenge served cold indeed. If the NS gets its money back, what's the odds that Currie will sue them for calling her a civil servant when she was an elected MP?

Just a thought!





B

any one who saw this

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_684571.html?menu=news.quirkies

Something I heard tonight.

"When John Major was a kid, he was some other kids imaginary friend."

Does that make the 90s an imaginary decade?

Ahhh, how sweet would that be? "You were constantly inebriated from 1997 to 2000? And what about all those shenanigans you got up to?" "No, officer, it was just a dream..."

Hehe!

... actually that isn't that far off the truth ...

B