Georgina Littlejohn

ezinra · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:14 am

'It is life changing': Hugh Grant invades his privacy again to talk about his love child and why she was such a happy surprise

Love child? Welcome to 1955.

This is what constitutes an invasion of privacy, according to Even-Littler-john:

Quote:

He said: 'Everyone was right all these years, saying, "Hugh, why don’t you have some children? It changes your life".

'Now that I have a child, it is life changing. I recommend it. Get some!'

Yuk, yuk, tmi!!! Keep your private business to yourself, navel-gazer!!!

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:12 am

This is another one for Brian.
The suggestion is that Grant shouldn't ever complain about intrusive journalism because he gives interviews. It's both pathetic and puerile. It's another example of Dacre taking his revenge against anybody who fights back.

Fozzy · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:02 pm

Can the silly cow not grasp the concept that the very nature of privacy is that it is up to the individual in question, and NOT the Mail, to decide what elements of his private life will or will not be publicised? Does she think that if someone goes out to the pub and discusses his kids' GCSEs with his mates, that makes his private life open season? Should we have all the lowdown on her dad's private life because he chooses to tell us about the footy match he went to as a private individual?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:00 pm

She wrote this to suit the editorial line, which is aimed at any celebrity who questions the Mail's intrusive coverage, and Grant in particular because he appeared at Leveson. Despite what he said in testimony Dacre believes in the old-fashioned press values; take what you want, say what you want and if anyone objects, fuck 'em over big time.

oboogie · **Posted:** Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:32 pm

It wouldn't surprise me if the journalist purposely asked about his kid so that they could cry foul on the invasion of privacy accusations. Shouldn't be difficult, new parents aren't known for their reticence in talking about their offspring.

satnav · **Posted:** Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:09 pm

When an actor signs up to appear in a film part of the contract will commit the actor to be involved in promoting the film when it is released, Grant was on the show to promote his latest film and therefore he was simply honouring the terms of his contract.

According to an account of the interview published in America, Grant only agreed to talk about his child because he worried about all the negative comments that had appeared in the media about the child's mother and he just wanted to set the record straight.

Fozzy · **Posted:** Fri May 11, 2012 12:06 am

Looks like Dad's been checking out the local real estate ads -
Quote:
He's in a moving state of mind: Billy Joel puts his $15million Miami waterfront mansion up for sale

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... z1uVjwn1Vo

Migrant Worker · **Posted:** Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:05 am

She's leaving!

Time for a whip-round for a suitable leaving gift?

At least we'll still be able to follow her musings on her blog:
http://tailsfromthecity.me/

BTW, I'm loving the typo in her Twitter background image:

Sort it out, PupAid press officer!

Perhaps Georgie will now have more time to spend with her own damily...

satnav · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 12:31 am

Is going freelance a euphemism for being made redundant? Given that she seems to knock out a good 5 or 6 articles a day they will need to find someone who is good at cutting and pasting to fill her shoes as quickly as possible.

crabcakes_windermere · **Joined:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:56 pm **Posts:** 2078

I suspect Dad has wangled her on to the go freelance, get paid a higher wage for the same work thing. A deal only offered to preferred staff or people with the right face/surname so they can be given more money and people kept on internally can have their wages kept low.

It's why a lot of companies seem to sack managers and then immediately hire them back as consultants. They get richer, the wage bill appears to be reduced, they can pay less tax by claiming everything and its dog against their earnings, and the company can keep the wages of other people low as there's no example of anyone employed full time earning at a higher band.

mojojojo · **Joined:** Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:33 pm **Posts:** 4271

She does seem to be saying that she'll be doing a lot less 'work ' though. Does the DM know?

Fflaps · **Posted:** Fri Jul 06, 2012 9:36 am

From her blog it sounds like she's forging a new career as an 80s DJ <shudder>

crabcakes_windermere · **Joined:** Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:56 pm **Posts:** 2078

Fflaps wrote:

From her blog it sounds like she's forging a new career as an 80s DJ <shudder>

Even easier life then - stick Now 80-Now 89 on shuffle, then sit back and consume the rider. Her dad would be proud.

visage · **Joined:** Wed Dec 15, 2010 5:05 pm **Posts:** 305

Depends who the rider is....

Bones McCoy · **Joined:** Mon Aug 16, 2010 9:08 am **Posts:** 7326

crabcakes_windermere wrote:

I suspect Dad has wangled her on to the go freelance, get paid a higher wage for the same work thing. A deal only offered to preferred staff or people with the right face/surname so they can be given more money and people kept on internally can have their wages kept low.

It's why a lot of companies seem to sack managers and then immediately hire them back as consultants. They get richer, the wage bill appears to be reduced, they can pay less tax by claiming everything and its dog against their earnings, and the company can keep the wages of other people low as there's no example of anyone employed full time earning at a higher band.

It's very bad when Ken Livingstone does it.

Georgina Littlejohn

Who is online