[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

The first millionaire from Simons new game show Red or Black Nathan Hageman is in danger of not receiving his winnings.......

http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/874583-red...-ex-girlfriend


Should he or shouldn't he?

Yes he did his time.


He is a Legal Player

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes he did his time.


He is a Legal Player

I thought so too, I actually didn't think they'd be allowed to take the winnings from him but they must be.

[Pyramid*]

Mmmm...... given that the show were aware of his criminal background, they still allowed him to participate: regardless.

I've no time for anyone who assaults or physcially harm another human being in such circumstances: male or female - but if the show knew before hand and allowed him to take part: it's no use them trying to take the moral high ground now.

He's entitled as far as I'm concerned. It might seem unfair - and from the victim's perspective, I understand the grievance feeling: I understand it all too well, but the show's people knew about it - and let him take part.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Mmmm...... given that the show were aware of his criminal background, they still allowed him to participate: regardless.

I've no time for anyone who assaults or physcially harm another human being in such circumstances: male or female - but if the show knew before hand and allowed him to take part: it's no use them trying to take the moral high ground now.

He's entitled as far as I'm concerned. It might seem unfair - and from the victim's perspective, I understand the grievance feeling: I understand it all too well, but the show's people knew about it - and let him take part.

No they were not aware
this is the press dug it up.
He never told them.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by arista

No they were not aware
this is the press dug it up.

No, it says they were aware but that he'd told them it was a man that he'd assaulted not a woman

[arista]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No, it says they were aware but that he'd told them it was a man that he'd assaulted not a woman

Yes so they did not have the Truth.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by arista

Yes so they did not have the Truth.

Neither were they bothered to check out what they were 'aware of'.

That's their problem...not his.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Neither were they bothered to check out what they were 'aware of'.

That's their problem...not his.

Yes its a Error on there part.


He Singed a SyCo contract.

So that the Legal point.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by arista

No they were not aware
this is the press dug it up.
He never told them.

ITV had initially supported Hageman following news of his conviction, saying they were aware of his criminal past.


Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/tv/874583-red...#ixzz1XAa4XaSC

Originally Posted by Niamh.

No, it says they were aware but that he'd told them it was a man that he'd assaulted not a woman

Correct, they state they were aware.

If they were bothered at all by any conviction: they would have felt the need to check it out ..... they knew about it, didn't feel they needed / wanted / cared to check it out.... so they should pay up the readies.