Hollyoaks - Stephanie Davies finally speaks out about her sacking
1 of 3
What is she saying isn't true? She has been sacked for a reason. So if its not because she turned up drunk what was it for?
Originally Posted by Hankshaw:
“What is she saying isn't true? She has been sacked for a reason. So if its not because she turned up drunk what was it for?”
“What is she saying isn't true? She has been sacked for a reason. So if its not because she turned up drunk what was it for?”
Saving face?
She has dated actors who played...
Bart McQueen who she stole from his former long term girlfriend.
Freddie Roscoe on and off who is now dating the Grace Black actress.
She now has another boyfriend.
She was fired from her job, but is showing no remorse for what she did (and regardless of what she claims, she clearly breached at least one of the terms of her contract - you don't get fired on the spot with immediate effect without good reason). Not even a hint of an apology to the Hollyoaks bods!
I did feel a bit sorry for her (even though the situation was of her own making), but any sympathy I might have had has evaporated!
I did feel a bit sorry for her (even though the situation was of her own making), but any sympathy I might have had has evaporated!
Originally Posted by johartuk:
“She was fired from her job, but is showing no remorse for what she did (and regardless of what she claims, she clearly breached at least one of the terms of her contract - you don't get fired on the spot with immediate effect without good reason). Not even a hint of an apology to the Hollyoaks bods!
I did feel a bit sorry for her (even though the situation was of her own making), but any sympathy I might have had has evaporated!”
“She was fired from her job, but is showing no remorse for what she did (and regardless of what she claims, she clearly breached at least one of the terms of her contract - you don't get fired on the spot with immediate effect without good reason). Not even a hint of an apology to the Hollyoaks bods!
I did feel a bit sorry for her (even though the situation was of her own making), but any sympathy I might have had has evaporated!”
Well she described herself as the Lindsay lohan of hollyoaks which isn't something I'd be proud of if I was her. She's clearly got issues.
No accountability at all.
A much more dignified approach would have been to say she didn't agree with the sacking, but respected the producer's decision and thanked them for the opportunity she was given.
A much more dignified approach would have been to say she didn't agree with the sacking, but respected the producer's decision and thanked them for the opportunity she was given.
Originally Posted by srhgts:
“Quite a dignified response, really.”
“Quite a dignified response, really.”
A dignified response would have included acknowledgement that she did something wrong and/or some kind of apology to her (now former) employers. Stephanie's response contained neither of these things.
Originally Posted by johartuk:
“A dignified response would have included acknowledgement that she did something wrong and/or some kind of apology to her (now former) employers. Stephanie's response contained neither of these things.”
“A dignified response would have included acknowledgement that she did something wrong and/or some kind of apology to her (now former) employers. Stephanie's response contained neither of these things.”
In your opinion it would, clearly I feel differently.
Originally Posted by Hankshaw:
“What is she saying isn't true? She has been sacked for a reason. So if its not because she turned up drunk what was it for?”
“What is she saying isn't true? She has been sacked for a reason. So if its not because she turned up drunk what was it for?”
She's saying not everything we might have heard is true, but is being suitably vague about it, as I'm sure she has been advised to be. Vague about the past and positive about the future. That's not her - that's her agent/management.
Originally Posted by johartuk:
“A dignified response would have included acknowledgement that she did something wrong and/or some kind of apology to her (now former) employers. Stephanie's response contained neither of these things.”
“A dignified response would have included acknowledgement that she did something wrong and/or some kind of apology to her (now former) employers. Stephanie's response contained neither of these things.”
Yeah theres nothing dignified about this. She also has the opportunity to set things straight but seems to be in denial.
Originally Posted by lulu g:
“She's saying not everything we might have heard is true, but is being suitably vague about it, as I'm sure she has been advised to be. Vague about the past and positive about the future. That's not her - that's her agent/management.”
“She's saying not everything we might have heard is true, but is being suitably vague about it, as I'm sure she has been advised to be. Vague about the past and positive about the future. That's not her - that's her agent/management.”
That she wasn't given warnings about her behaviour? That she wasn't fired for being drunk? I don't see what she gains from being like this. It's a situation that calls for her hold her hands up and admit she was in the wrong. Trying to score points does her no favours.
Originally Posted by Hankshaw:
“That she wasn't given warnings about her behaviour? That she wasn't fired for being drunk? I don't see what she gains from being like this. It's a situation that calls for her hold her hands up and admit she was in the beenwrong. Trying to score points does her no favours.”
“That she wasn't given warnings about her behaviour? That she wasn't fired for being drunk? I don't see what she gains from being like this. It's a situation that calls for her hold her hands up and admit she was in the beenwrong. Trying to score points does her no favours.”
No, she has not said any of that. I'm pretty sure her own natural inclination would have been to come out fighting, which would have made the situation ten times worse. I think she has been advised to come out and say something (rather than say nothing and appear defeated), but without actually saying very much at all. It's damage limitation by her management.
Originally Posted by cybersq:
“Her agent was the one who said it...”
“Her agent was the one who said it...”
Exactly. I was surprised how her agents came out and said she had had several warnings before. Usually they would try and spin it but in this case they didn't. An employer can't sack you without warnings and a procedure in this country or you could take then to court. Sounds to me like denial.
Originally Posted by lulu g:
“She's saying not everything we might have heard is true, but is being suitably vague about it, as I'm sure she has been advised to be. Vague about the past and positive about the future. That's not her - that's her agent/management.”
“She's saying not everything we might have heard is true, but is being suitably vague about it, as I'm sure she has been advised to be. Vague about the past and positive about the future. That's not her - that's her agent/management.”
Originally Posted by lulu g:
“No, she has not said any of that. I'm pretty sure her own natural inclination would have I think she has been advised to come out and say something (rather than say nothing and appear defeated), but without actually saying very much at all. It's damage limitation by her management.”
“No, she has not said any of that. I'm pretty sure her own natural inclination would have I think she has been advised to come out and say something (rather than say nothing and appear defeated), but without actually saying very much at all. It's damage limitation by her management.”
Thankyou, that's what I was getting at. She's not making bitchy comments as others did towards her or making further drama out of the whole thing.
Originally Posted by srhgts:
“Thankyou, that's what I was getting at. She's not making bitchy comments as others did towards her or making further drama out of the whole thing.”
“Thankyou, that's what I was getting at. She's not making bitchy comments as others did towards her or making further drama out of the whole thing.”
Credit to her for not being bitchy but to actually deny it happened isn't much better. If this is her management's idea then it was the wrong decision.
Originally Posted by margarite6666:
“Exactly. I was surprised how her agents came out and said she had had several warnings before. Usually they would try and spin it but in this case they didn't. An employer can't sack you without warnings and a procedure in this country or you could take then to court. Sounds to me like denial.”
“Exactly. I was surprised how her agents came out and said she had had several warnings before. Usually they would try and spin it but in this case they didn't. An employer can't sack you without warnings and a procedure in this country or you could take then to court. Sounds to me like denial.”
Yes, I was surprised by that too. You have to wonder why they did that. The obvious answer, as far as I can see it, is that the truth was even worse, that, although it doesn't look like it at first glance, it was a form of damage limitation. I may be wrong, of course.
Originally Posted by Matt35:
“Credit to her for not being bitchy but to actually deny it happened isn't much better. If this is her management's idea then it was the wrong decision.”
“Credit to her for not being bitchy but to actually deny it happened isn't much better. If this is her management's idea then it was the wrong decision.”
I really don't think she's denying anything happened at all. The fact is there's a lot of discussion about it, there's going to be misinformation and things being misinterpreted, stuff made up by tabloids etc. There's no denying she was sacked or why, but who knows what specifics or minutiae may have been misreported. It sounds a lot more like that's what she's referring to.
Originally Posted by johartuk:
“A dignified response would have included acknowledgement that she did something wrong and/or some kind of apology to her (now former) employers. Stephanie's response contained neither of these things.”
“A dignified response would have included acknowledgement that she did something wrong and/or some kind of apology to her (now former) employers. Stephanie's response contained neither of these things.”
Agreed. I didn't have much of an opinion of her in the first place, but it's even lower now if she can't even admit she did anything wrong or, more importantly, offer up some sort of apology or admission of regret for letting down her employers, work colleagues and her 'fans' (if she has any).
Poor old Jonny Larkin's brainchild of the Ste/Sinead storyline won't be seen playing out in all its glory (I am so gutted!
*not* ) there's all the extra work of re-writes & re-shooting it creates, and continuity gaps and storyline holes will undoubtedly noticeable. It'll make the show, for a while, an even bigger mess than it is right now. But hey, Steph is fine with everything - no regrets, no apologies, no need to work on her attitude or approach to life and work. She's all good, top of the world. What an arrogant little madam she's coming across as!!! She's going to need to up her game a bit if she wants to get more acting work. Or just carry on as she is, and become a full-time member of the z-list celeb trash circuit. The latter option is looking more likely
1 of 3
