DS Forums

 
 

Hollyoaks - Stephanie Davies finally speaks out about her sacking


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19-07-2015, 14:48
Mr Men
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 411

What do you think?

http://m.digitalspy.co.uk/soaps/s13/...eing-axed.html
Mr Men is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-07-2015, 15:05
Hankshaw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,889
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?
Hankshaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:21
Mr Men
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 411
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.
Mr Men is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:39
Matt35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,553
She's in denial. She needs to get help for whatever problems she has.
Matt35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:42
srhgts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 7,564
Quite a dignified response, really.
srhgts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:43
Soapfan678
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,161
Quite a dignified response, really.
I agree.
Soapfan678 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:47
Matt35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,553
Yes apart from that fact she doesn't seem to think she's done anything wrong.
Matt35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:48
johartuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,511
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!
johartuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:50
Matt35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,553
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.
Matt35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:52
babelogue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 641
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.
babelogue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:56
johartuk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,511
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.
johartuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 15:59
srhgts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 7,564
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.
srhgts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:01
lulu g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 43,573
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.
lulu g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:09
Hankshaw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,889
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.
Hankshaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:10
Hankshaw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,889
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.
Hankshaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:16
cybersq
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,899
Her agent was the one who said it...
cybersq is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:17
lulu g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 43,573
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.
lulu g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:26
Mr Men
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 411
She is a diva!
Mr Men is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:30
margarite6666
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,854
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.
margarite6666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:33
srhgts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 7,564
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.
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.
srhgts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:40
Matt35
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,553
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.
Matt35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:40
lulu g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 43,573
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.
lulu g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:45
srhgts
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 7,564
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.
srhgts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:51
Orangemaid
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sat at computer with heatin on
Posts: 45,573
it sounds like her character would do, not the actress herself
Orangemaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2015, 16:55
Bluebird69
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,713
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
Bluebird69 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:36.