Indo and Melanie Verwoerd

coylemj

They just won't let go. Not content with their part in the dismissal of Melanie Verwoerd (because every time UNICEF wanted to get some press coverage, the message was lost in a cloud of yet more Gerry Ryan BS), today they have an article claiming that she is heading home 'to the South African bush' - does she live in a fcuking treehouse?

Have the sick bag ready, here's the second paragraph.......

She longed for her soulmate Gerry to be by her side to comfort her through the cloudy skies and whisper words of solace in her ear.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/she-wouldnt-put-brakes-on-as-far-as-gerry-was-concerned-2841523.html

bill_lehane

"As the headlines about his murky connections to notorious drug dealers refused to abate, the charity soon realised it was best to bury any association with the DJ in the grave with him."

If this were to accurately represent the views of the Unicef board, it would be the clearest case of discrimination by family/marital status I've ever heard, and she'll get hundreds of thousands of euro in compensation at the courts.

coylemj

bill_lehane wrote: »

"As the headlines about his murky connections to notorious drug dealers refused to abate, the charity soon realised it was best to bury any association with the DJ in the grave with him."

The same people who wrote about a story that 'refused to abate' are the very people who are keeping the story running, classic media hypocrisy.

bill_lehane wrote: »

If this were to accurately represent the views of the Unicef board, it would be the clearest case of discrimination by family/marital status I've ever heard, and she'll get hundreds of thousands of euro in compensation at the courts.

It's not that black and white. Apparently the board wanted to appoint a contract PR person for 6 months to front any UNICEF announcements in order to fix the problem that every time MW went in front of a journo all they wanted to talk about was GR. Even when she delivered the UNICEF message, there was always a question about GR at the end of the interview and this was the lead item in the article the next day which saw the UNICEF message buried at the bottom of the report.

The expectation I guess was that when MW came out of her 'voluntary' hibernation the papers would have moved on but she wouldn't agree to this plan so they decided to give her the boot. I think this will seriously undermine her claim for unfair dismissal, the board can say that they had a problem because they couldn't get any message out through the fog of the GR story, they suggested a solution which would not in any way diminish MW's status or salary but she wouldn't go along with it so they felt that they had no choice but to let her go.

bill_lehane

Oh I agree completely. I think there has definitely been a degree of non-cooperation by MW with her fellow senior staff, and certainly she did not go quietly with a discreet payoff as she could have.

But I just think it's a very unfair situation for her given GR's case should not have anything to do with her employment.

Moreover, I think most of the kind of reporters who were quizzing her about that would probably not have attended the Unicef press conferences otherwise, sadly.

coylemj

bill_lehane wrote: »

But I just think it's a very unfair situation for her given GR's case should not have anything to do with her employment.

I agree but UNICEF were paying her salary and they didn't create or contribute to the situation, all they wanted was someone who was media-savvy and could run the office. It appears that they also paid a decent salary so they had a reasonable expectation that the person doing the job wouldn't end up having their personal life eclipse their role as head of UNICEF.

bill_lehane wrote: »

Moreover, I think most of the kind of reporters who were quizzing her about that would probably not have attended the Unicef press conferences otherwise, sadly.

True, she probably attracted the 'showbusiness' correspondents to the UNICEF press conferences about famine in Somalia - but what were UNICEF supposed to do? I think the solution they proposed was reasonable in the circumstances and she should have gone along with it.

Fuinseog

coylemj wrote: »

They just won't let go. Not content with their part in the dismissal of Melanie Verwoerd (because every time UNICEF wanted to get some press coverage, the message was lost in a cloud of yet more Gerry Ryan BS), today they have an article claiming that she is heading home 'to the South African bush' - does she live in a fcuking treehouse?

Have the sick bag ready, here's the second paragraph.......

She longed for her soulmate Gerry to be by her side to comfort her through the cloudy skies and whisper words of solace in her ear.


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/she-wouldnt-put-brakes-on-as-far-as-gerry-was-concerned-2841523.html

Verwoerd lost her job at UNICEF because of her association with a known, albeit revered in this country, drug addict.

coylemj

Fuinseog wrote: »

Verwoerd lost her job at UNICEF because of her association with a known, albeit revered in this country, drug addict.

I don't think that's very fair to the lady, she herself said that she genuinely believed he was not a habitual drug user and I think most people accepted that, however naive you may think it sounds. They didn't live under the same roof so I guess it was easy to keep his habit concealed from her.

Either way, you cannot be fired from your job for sins or crimes committed by your other half.

bill_lehane

coylemj wrote: »

I don't think that's very fair to the lady, she herself said that she genuinely believed he was not a habitual drug user and I think most people accepted that, however naive you may think it sounds. They didn't live under the same roof so I guess it was easy to keep his habit concealed from her.

Either way, you cannot be fired from your job for sins or crimes committed by your other half.

I agree completely, glad to not be the only one that thinks so. I mean the whole point of having the principle of equal status enshrined in law is that it applies to every case, even if the circumstances of this one were far from ideal.

As an aside, she was a great presenter on RTE Radio I thought, shame that show Spectrum was discontinued.

Fuinseog

she was condemned by association. Ryans drug abuse was an open secret.

ButtimersLaw

Fuinseog wrote: »

she was condemned by association. Ryans drug abuse was an open secret.

While never being sure how something can be open and a secret, I have to say i neither knew or cared.

At the time I felt sorry for Melanie Verwored and her assertions that Gerry didn't take drugs, and that the reason she knew that was that he and she were very close and almost inseparable, and that she would have known and he "promised" her that he didn't take drugs.

The post mortem should have been a clue to her that she wasn't as close to Gerry Ryan as she might have liked to believe and claim.

I still feel sorry for her as she continues with her almost crusade like desire to stay in the headlines, doing articles in the celebrity gossip magazines about herself and Gerry Ryan, all the while looking more deluded and somehow desperate.

Even if it were true that they were going to get married and sail into the sunset together (which is doubtful), her appearance to be cashing in on the aftermath of his untimely death is unedifying, although it seems important to her, in some way, that we all believe in her version of events.

Her claim that she knew him well enough to know that he didn't take drugs throughout the time they were friends was shown up for what it was by the results of the post mortem. Why she has to continue to appear to cash in on his death by her desire to appear in gossip magazines, radio & tv, and writing books about it is uncertain, although it suggests her agenda is less that unselfish.

barney4001

congratulations to Melanie on her book being cleared,it should never been brought to court anyway

barney4001

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/1027/1224325766009.html

jasonpat

Everyone in this country has the right to live as he or she wants, so there is not a problem to live in the tree house.