While I remain uninterested and astonished by the interest shown in other folks sexual peccadilloes!

What good for the goose is also good for the gander!

These folk work in an industry that is trigger happy when it comes to sexual scandal? And if you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen or join Trump and call it false news, locker room bloke stuff, taken out of context or whatever; and just tough it out.

That said, I have little time for folks who set themselves up as arbitrators of moralistic behavior, then go about as if the moral code is a foreign country as it applies to their lives/code for living?

With family and friends suffering the subsequent, high profile and often costly consequences, when it all goes pear shaped? With the principle players, left largely unscathed and unrepentant?

That said, none of us know what we'd countenance, if we had money, power and effective control over the lives, prospects and incomes of others!?
Alan B.

“The public always loves a salacious scandal, in part because such titillation provides a bit of comic relief from our own more mundane lives.”

No they do not and no their lives are not mundane. Yours might be or else you would not be so obssessed with such a non-topic.

So Alan B and Phanto, you are "uninterested" in the topic or believe that the public does not like a salacious scandal!

Reading and commenting on the article alone is prima facie evidence of your own interest. The huge media coverage of the goings on at Seven also demonstrates a very high level of public interest.

Anyone with their wits about them would be aware of the extent of workplace romances/dalliances that do occur. Many married couples have met at work and many mrriages have also broken down due to extra-marital affairs with work colleagues. Whether you want to admit it or not these are important social issues.

The events described speak volumes about the reactions of employers and the mores of our society.

Bren:

You did not have to read anything more than the first sentence to know that the rest of the article was based on a false premise.

What is the point of reading an article where the basic premise is so wrong?

Indeed phanto, as is Bren's self evident legalistic reinvention and reinterpretation of what you said and what I said.

What consenting Adults do behind closed doors, remains of little interest!

But the article is published and comes to certain conclusions that are of little personal interest!

My only concern as a childhood survivor of same, is the consequent collateral damage and horror stories, when it all goes pear shaped!

My peculiar sexual interest, if Bren would like to know, is reverse roles, plus silicone and shaver free women, with hour glass, well endowed curvy figures, who strip and then gyrate their hips frequently and furiously! Of their free paid to perform choice and, comfortable enough in the own skin to enjoy it; and the stand to attention result it predominantly provokes in post pubescent males!

And banned on four public free to air channels! Ostensibly by folk, whose own personal moral code, as seen in the article, makes a complete moralistic mockery of such censorship!
Ipso facto, I'm no prude!
Alan B.