This thread has gone in so many terrible directions. Burn it.
Why don't you quote the poster who you don't agree with and question them, rather than just calling for threads to be pulled down? After all, that's what we're all here for
I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with anyone. It's just a thread that from the start has had people at each other's throats. It started out with an argument about the way the thread was made, someone was called a twat about 10 posts in, quick detour when someone was told they were homophobic, sharp turn into an argument about the attitudes of Muslim men, then a dive into another argument about the use of the word indiscretion. And it's only three pages in! It feels like a thread specifically designed to test AFKA's blood pressure
That new mod boy Cuddles will be expected to step up to the plate and sort it before the top man gets involved surely
This thread has gone in so many terrible directions. Burn it.
Why don't you quote the poster who you don't agree with and question them, rather than just calling for threads to be pulled down? After all, that's what we're all here for
I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with anyone. It's just a thread that from the start has had people at each other's throats. It started out with an argument about the way the thread was made, someone was called a twat about 10 posts in, quick detour when someone was told they were homophobic, sharp turn into an argument about the attitudes of Muslim men, then a dive into another argument about the use of the word indiscretion. And it's only three pages in! It feels like a thread specifically designed to test AFKA's blood pressure
F@ck me just seen a photo of that Bruno grabbing some woman's tit why's he not be thrown off. No wonder I bury my head in the sand
Like I said mate, the bloke off How To Look Good Naked has virtually made a career out of it. Dread to think whats lurkin round the corner for him in 10 -20 years time....
And Im not having a dig at him, it just make me wonder
I don't work in an office but to those that do. If I were to grope a woman's tit and a few others see the incident including a member of management. If the lady didn't make a complaint would my action be taken further.
F@ck me just seen a photo of that Bruno grabbing some woman's tit why's he not be thrown off. No wonder I bury my head in the sand
Like I said mate, the bloke off How To Look Good Naked has virtually made a career out of it. Dread to think whats lurkin round the corner for him in 10 -20 years time....
And Im not having a dig at him, it just make me wonder
I don't work in an office but to those that do. If I were to grope a woman's tit and a few others see the incident including a member of management. If the lady didn't make a complaint would my action be taken further.
This thread has gone in so many terrible directions. Burn it.
Burn it is quite apt. These threads make me think of the Salem witch trials.
Was just watching beyond 100 days on BBC news. They were talking about the Westminster harassment the woman presenter was told it's men and women. The woman presenter then said how can women make a complaint.
I’ll tell you what, mannish, Steve and Leroy would never get caught doing something like this. Shows the difference between the football league show and football league tonight
On a serious note I find this all proper wrong’un behaviour. I would absolutely hate to have a reputation in the workplace as like a sleaze or someone women think creepy or something.
Surely blokes can read when there is a natural attraction versus being a pervert.
You'd think so wouldn't you? Some simply don't care, they get off on making a woman uncomfortable/afraid. Some are genuinely clueless of the fact that their behaviour is unacceptable, or as I prefer to say, cuntish.
I (like 99.9% of all women) have experienced bullshit from both type of blokes.
That’s a good point. Because I’m not wired that way I wouldn’t have even thought that there may be blokes out there that don’t care. As mentioned, a big thing of mine has always never to be thought have as a sleeze. I very naively won’t even think there would be guys that know they’re doing it but don’t care
The litmus test and perhaps they can do some campaign around this like they do with what constitutes consent, is, would you accept that behaviour from a stranger to a female relative or friend?
This thread has gone in so many terrible directions. Burn it.
Why don't you quote the poster who you don't agree with and question them, rather than just calling for threads to be pulled down? After all, that's what we're all here for
I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with anyone. It's just a thread that from the start has had people at each other's throats. It started out with an argument about the way the thread was made, someone was called a twat about 10 posts in, quick detour when someone was told they were homophobic, sharp turn into an argument about the attitudes of Muslim men, then a dive into another argument about the use of the word indiscretion. And it's only three pages in! It feels like a thread specifically designed to test AFKA's blood pressure
That new mod boy Cuddles will be expected to step up to the plate and sort it before the top man gets involved surely
You not seen the CL username thread? I am the top boy and this forum is now called Cabbles Life
This thread has gone in so many terrible directions. Burn it.
Why don't you quote the poster who you don't agree with and question them, rather than just calling for threads to be pulled down? After all, that's what we're all here for
I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with anyone. It's just a thread that from the start has had people at each other's throats. It started out with an argument about the way the thread was made, someone was called a twat about 10 posts in, quick detour when someone was told they were homophobic, sharp turn into an argument about the attitudes of Muslim men, then a dive into another argument about the use of the word indiscretion. And it's only three pages in! It feels like a thread specifically designed to test AFKA's blood pressure
That new mod boy Cuddles will be expected to step up to the plate and sort it before the top man gets involved surely
You not seen the CL username thread? I am the top boy and this forum is now called Cabbles Life
So you were being serious then congratulations, if The 31 Year Man cant stand the pressure though I'm happy to come out of retirement to lend a hand, I'm not cheap mind
Actually you were one for my council of moderators for Cabbles Life, but you just lost out to Fiiish on account of how blustering he’s been on the EU thread
finally heard the BBC mention l'affaire d'Riley at midnightlast night on F5Live .. the item just repeated the party line, the Sunday Times reported that .. blah blah and the BBC and Riley were making no comment
I guess that is the end for Riley .. I liked him on BBC radio, he had quite a relaxed attitude, was good with interviews and his colleagues seemed to like him .. he was often on the 5L breakfast show and Rachel Burden (unfortunate name) the regular presenter was always metaphorically all over him with friendly, if not flirtatious comments ..
It's a pity that a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature' can have such a terrible effect on anyone's career, but there you go
Very unfair comment about Rachel Burden who is a highly professional broadcaster. I am a regular listener to radio 5 I can honestly say I have never heard her say anything flirtatious to Riley or anyone else.
It cuts both ways. Unwanted behaviour from either sex is unwarranted. I remember early 90's there was a sex mag aimed at women brought out and the women of the office quite openly were waving round centrefold pictures of Spurs goalie Ian Walkers cock at younger male members of staff. If I had got out a copy of fiesta and started showing people fanny shots I would have got binned.
It cuts both ways. Unwanted behaviour from either sex is unwarranted. I remember early 90's there was a sex mag aimed at women brought out and the women of the office quite openly were waving round centrefold pictures of Spurs goalie Ian Walkers cock at younger male members of staff. If I had got out a copy of fiesta and started showing people fanny shots I would have got binned.
** as everyone slopes off to Google "Ian Walkers cock" to make a quick comparison **
I only ask because my Mrs had the Come Dance spin off show on the other night and on it was that new judge. During her interview she got up and danced with a bloke and at the end grabbed (gropped) his arse, in full view of the studio audience and the people at home. She then sat back down and had a bit of a jokey exchange with Zoe Ball about how lucky she was and Ball agreed (cant remember exact words, but was something like "cor yeah, hes a bit of alright").
Now, the above doesnt particularly bother me, but you do ask what would've happened if it was Len Goodman and a female dancer, because that would've bothered me.
Strange eh
Gotta laugh ibborg asked this question yesterday morning and I don't think 1 person has replied. If this woman has groped this man's arse in full view of everyone and tv audience she should be suspended.
I only ask because my Mrs had the Come Dance spin off show on the other night and on it was that new judge. During her interview she got up and danced with a bloke and at the end grabbed (gropped) his arse, in full view of the studio audience and the people at home. She then sat back down and had a bit of a jokey exchange with Zoe Ball about how lucky she was and Ball agreed (cant remember exact words, but was something like "cor yeah, hes a bit of alright").
Now, the above doesnt particularly bother me, but you do ask what would've happened if it was Len Goodman and a female dancer, because that would've bothered me.
Strange eh
Gotta laugh ibborg asked this question yesterday morning and I don't think 1 person has replied. If this woman has groped this man's arse in full view of everyone and tv audience she should be suspended.
Not if he didn't mind. Has anyone asked him?
If I was him I wouldn't say nothing then 6 months down the line sue the BBC for not taking action.
Def agree on the works both ways, but the recent upsurge in sexual abuse 'reporting' in the media seems to predominantly be aimed at males.
Eg I have lost count of the amount of times I've had my Arse and/or manhood grabbed by pissed up birds in nightclubs. Of course I didn't mind and of course it happens the other way round, probably more often, but let's not pretend it's all one way.
Also the way women in offices I have worked in have talked about the delivery guy, or the new guy in finance etc. Christ if we talked about women in the same manner it would be pervert central.
Think that whole aspect is very biased, even down to the way the presenters on strictly etc can't control their excitement when a good looking chap is on there.
Can you imagine Len Goodman etc creaming (not literally) over the women dancers, in the same way the women (plus Craig and Bruno) do the men dancers? Pervert central again would be the shout.
The above is in no way meant to distract from the cases of serious sexua abuse etc but it does grate on me.
finally heard the BBC mention l'affaire d'Riley at midnightlast night on F5Live .. the item just repeated the party line, the Sunday Times reported that .. blah blah and the BBC and Riley were making no comment
I guess that is the end for Riley .. I liked him on BBC radio, he had quite a relaxed attitude, was good with interviews and his colleagues seemed to like him .. he was often on the 5L breakfast show and Rachel Burden (unfortunate name) the regular presenter was always metaphorically all over him with friendly, if not flirtatious comments ..
It's a pity that a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature' can have such a terrible effect on anyone's career, but there you go
As I said yesterday it was on a least two news bulletins that I heard during the afternoon. Would have been Radio 2 or 6, I cant remember which tbh as I wasn't expecting to be grilled on it later. He was also named by the BBC online early in the morning as you've now acknowledged.
Your obvious agenda against the BBC is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things though.
You previously posted comments on the Harvey Weinstein thread clearly, at least in part, blaming the victims of his sexual abuse and now you're downplaying whatever Riley has done (and I've not seen any details reported in any of the mainstream media) as a "stupid mistake/indiscretion".
I'm not going to ask you to share what you seem to know that no one else does at the moment as that's not appropriate and I guess more will come out in the days and weeks to come.
on the Weinstein thread, I opined that it is more than probable that some women, especially actresses have in the past used their sexual allure to persuade men in power to give them parts in movies, it's called 'leading men on', 'prick teasing' is a crude term for a similar situation .. if you think that is not a possibility, then you are naïve at best or deliberately avoiding the issue at worst
as to the Riley on the radio thing, I heard four news bulletins yesterday, the last at midnight on Radio 5 .. only during the midnight bulletin was the Riley affair mentioned, and then as I have typed above, in the context that the Sunday Times had stated that Riley was suspended from duty and that neither the BBC nor Riley were commenting on the article or any possible suspension. And Riley was 'named' on the BBC website only in that the Sunday Times had reported his suspension, the BBC per se did NOT report his suspension. Can you not see the important difference in those two situations? I suspect, i.e. it is my opinion that if the ST had not mentioned Riley in the article regarding sexual harassment at the BBC, the BBC would NOT have broadcast the fact that Riley was under suspension, that is, that despite, in my opinion the fact that a well known broadcaster had been suspended, the BBC would have deemed that not worthy of a news snippet open to the general public. The BBC is very keen to throw rocks out of the greenhouse and not at all comfy when a few rocks are thrown back from outside.
As to downplaying what Riley is possibly alleged to have done .. where did I type that? I used the term 'indiscretion' .. surely (for example) pinching a woman's arse in a manner that was not called for or making an unwanted sexual comment is indiscreet. I suppose that you would call it sexual assault and demand that Riley be horsewhipped on Salford Quays and then banged up for a few years .. it is called a difference of opinion.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
Def agree on the works both ways, but the recent upsurge in sexual abuse 'reporting' in the media seems to predominantly be aimed at males.
Eg I have lost count of the amount of times I've had my Arse and/or manhood grabbed by pissed up birds in nightclubs. Of course I didn't mind and of course it happens the other way round, probably more often, but let's not pretend it's all one way.
Also the way women in offices I have worked in have talked about the delivery guy, or the new guy in finance etc. Christ if we talked about women in the same manner it would be pervert central.
Think that whole aspect is very biased, even down to the way the presenters on strictly etc can't control their excitement when a good looking chap is on there.
Can you imagine Len Goodman etc creaming (not literally) over the women dancers, in the same way the women (plus Craig and Bruno) do the men dancers? Pervert central again would be the shout.
The above is in no way meant to distract from the cases of serious sexua abuse etc but it does grate on me.
Def agree on the works both ways, but the recent upsurge in sexual abuse 'reporting' in the media seems to predominantly be aimed at males.
Eg I have lost count of the amount of times I've had my Arse and/or manhood grabbed by pissed up birds in nightclubs. Of course I didn't mind and of course it happens the other way round, probably more often, but let's not pretend it's all one way.
Also the way women in offices I have worked in have talked about the delivery guy, or the new guy in finance etc. Christ if we talked about women in the same manner it would be pervert central.
Think that whole aspect is very biased, even down to the way the presenters on strictly etc can't control their excitement when a good looking chap is on there.
Can you imagine Len Goodman etc creaming (not literally) over the women dancers, in the same way the women (plus Craig and Bruno) do the men dancers? Pervert central again would be the shout.
The above is in no way meant to distract from the cases of serious sexua abuse etc but it does grate on me.
Ok 1. No one should touch anyone without consent, ever. But 2. Out of all those times mate, did you ever feel intimidated, afraid, dirty, worried for your life?
It’s shit that it happens, but the balance of power is insanely screwed that a woman groping a man, is really (unfortunately) quite different to a man groping a woman.
What I find genuinely disturbing is the level of variety.
I have heard and seen some pretty animalistic behaviour amongst my work colleagues in terms of physical fighting, proper, proper barneys and some pranks that go well beyond what is acceptable in life let alone the work place but I have hand on heart only seen one instance that falls into the sexual category and that ended up with the bloke getting fired. He was an arsehole of the highest order so I didn't lose any sleep over that but what I witnessed was a completely consensual, willing sexual encounter between a younger (at the time she would have been about 25 if guess, same sort of age as me then) woman and a late forties man. I've got no idea what went on after that to say whether or not he deserved to be sacked but I've since been told stories of how such and such is a pervert or how such and such is a maneater. I've got to be honest, I play it safe at work as far as the fairer sex are concerned for fear of anything at all being taken the wrong way.
Going back to my original point though, what is inappropriate is so subjective. I err on the side of caution and am happy to come across as boring, I've got no interest in flirting with people at work I don't see how that could ever end well and the line between flirting innocently on firms time and finding yourself in front of a tribunal is one I'm happier to not straddle
Anyway in terms of empathy and the bit I wish I could avoid, gender, I know a lot of men who would say they would love it if a woman in the workplace was suggestive and/or fondled them.
Yeah, but that's because they always assume it'd be a young attractive woman rather than an one who's old/fat/ugly or has attrocious personal hygiene.
finally heard the BBC mention l'affaire d'Riley at midnightlast night on F5Live .. the item just repeated the party line, the Sunday Times reported that .. blah blah and the BBC and Riley were making no comment
I guess that is the end for Riley .. I liked him on BBC radio, he had quite a relaxed attitude, was good with interviews and his colleagues seemed to like him .. he was often on the 5L breakfast show and Rachel Burden (unfortunate name) the regular presenter was always metaphorically all over him with friendly, if not flirtatious comments ..
It's a pity that a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature' can have such a terrible effect on anyone's career, but there you go
As I said yesterday it was on a least two news bulletins that I heard during the afternoon. Would have been Radio 2 or 6, I cant remember which tbh as I wasn't expecting to be grilled on it later. He was also named by the BBC online early in the morning as you've now acknowledged.
Your obvious agenda against the BBC is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things though.
You previously posted comments on the Harvey Weinstein thread clearly, at least in part, blaming the victims of his sexual abuse and now you're downplaying whatever Riley has done (and I've not seen any details reported in any of the mainstream media) as a "stupid mistake/indiscretion".
I'm not going to ask you to share what you seem to know that no one else does at the moment as that's not appropriate and I guess more will come out in the days and weeks to come.
on the Weinstein thread, I opined that it is more than probable that some women, especially actresses have in the past used their sexual allure to persuade men in power to give them parts in movies, it's called 'leading men on', 'prick teasing' is a crude term for a similar situation .. if you think that is not a possibility, then you are naïve at best or deliberately avoiding the issue at worst
as to the Riley on the radio thing, I heard four news bulletins yesterday, the last at midnight on Radio 5 .. only during the midnight bulletin was the Riley affair mentioned, and then as I have typed above, in the context that the Sunday Times had stated that Riley was suspended from duty and that neither the BBC nor Riley were commenting on the article or any possible suspension. And Riley was 'named' on the BBC website only in that the Sunday Times had reported his suspension, the BBC per se did NOT report his suspension. Can you not see the important difference in those two situations? I suspect, i.e. it is my opinion that if the ST had not mentioned Riley in the article regarding sexual harassment at the BBC, the BBC would NOT have broadcast the fact that Riley was under suspension, that is, that despite, in my opinion the fact that a well known broadcaster had been suspended, the BBC would have deemed that not worthy of a news snippet open to the general public. The BBC is very keen to throw rocks out of the greenhouse and not at all comfy when a few rocks are thrown back from outside.
As to downplaying what Riley is possibly alleged to have done .. where did I type that? I used the term 'indiscretion' .. surely (for example) pinching a woman's arse in a manner that was not called for or making an unwanted sexual comment is indiscreet. I suppose that you would call it sexual assault and demand that Riley be horsewhipped on Salford Quays and then banged up for a few years .. it is called a difference of opinion.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
Def agree on the works both ways, but the recent upsurge in sexual abuse 'reporting' in the media seems to predominantly be aimed at males.
Eg I have lost count of the amount of times I've had my Arse and/or manhood grabbed by pissed up birds in nightclubs. Of course I didn't mind and of course it happens the other way round, probably more often, but let's not pretend it's all one way.
Also the way women in offices I have worked in have talked about the delivery guy, or the new guy in finance etc. Christ if we talked about women in the same manner it would be pervert central.
Think that whole aspect is very biased, even down to the way the presenters on strictly etc can't control their excitement when a good looking chap is on there.
Can you imagine Len Goodman etc creaming (not literally) over the women dancers, in the same way the women (plus Craig and Bruno) do the men dancers? Pervert central again would be the shout.
The above is in no way meant to distract from the cases of serious sexua abuse etc but it does grate on me.
Def agree on the works both ways, but the recent upsurge in sexual abuse 'reporting' in the media seems to predominantly be aimed at males.
Eg I have lost count of the amount of times I've had my Arse and/or manhood grabbed by pissed up birds in nightclubs. Of course I didn't mind and of course it happens the other way round, probably more often, but let's not pretend it's all one way.
Also the way women in offices I have worked in have talked about the delivery guy, or the new guy in finance etc. Christ if we talked about women in the same manner it would be pervert central.
Think that whole aspect is very biased, even down to the way the presenters on strictly etc can't control their excitement when a good looking chap is on there.
Can you imagine Len Goodman etc creaming (not literally) over the women dancers, in the same way the women (plus Craig and Bruno) do the men dancers? Pervert central again would be the shout.
The above is in no way meant to distract from the cases of serious sexua abuse etc but it does grate on me.
Ok 1. No one should touch anyone without consent, ever. But 2. Out of all those times mate, did you ever feel intimidated, afraid, dirty, worried for your life?
It’s shit that it happens, but the balance of power is insanely screwed that a woman groping a man, is really (unfortunately) quite different to a man groping a woman.
Re no 2. Me personally not really although the bollock grabbing was a bit uncomfortable tbh, as I was sober and taken by surprise (no time to warm myself up lol).
The point is that even if I was fine with it and 99% of blokes were, it still should not be done and found acceptable.
I'm not comparing these incidents to the Weinstein type attacks, more the recent reporting of the number of young girls sexually assaulted in the night life environment and how innapropriate that behaviour is.
Just a reminder that it can and does happen both ways.
Yesterday as we got ready to go out on a shout the fire station had it's weekly delivery but Roy the driver is obviously off and it was a woman, probably in her mid thirties and she walked into the muster bay as we got undressed and into our fire gear. Not that we were that bothered, although she would have been if she had looked at my sculptured lard, but if it had been the other way round I would probably end up sacked.
However if we had said excuse me etc then the situation changes, people have to speak up and not put up with unwanted advances and ignore the perceived consequences as we all have power over our bodies etc.
finally heard the BBC mention l'affaire d'Riley at midnightlast night on F5Live .. the item just repeated the party line, the Sunday Times reported that .. blah blah and the BBC and Riley were making no comment
I guess that is the end for Riley .. I liked him on BBC radio, he had quite a relaxed attitude, was good with interviews and his colleagues seemed to like him .. he was often on the 5L breakfast show and Rachel Burden (unfortunate name) the regular presenter was always metaphorically all over him with friendly, if not flirtatious comments ..
It's a pity that a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature' can have such a terrible effect on anyone's career, but there you go
As I said yesterday it was on a least two news bulletins that I heard during the afternoon. Would have been Radio 2 or 6, I cant remember which tbh as I wasn't expecting to be grilled on it later. He was also named by the BBC online early in the morning as you've now acknowledged.
Your obvious agenda against the BBC is irrelevant in the greater scheme of things though.
You previously posted comments on the Harvey Weinstein thread clearly, at least in part, blaming the victims of his sexual abuse and now you're downplaying whatever Riley has done (and I've not seen any details reported in any of the mainstream media) as a "stupid mistake/indiscretion".
I'm not going to ask you to share what you seem to know that no one else does at the moment as that's not appropriate and I guess more will come out in the days and weeks to come.
on the Weinstein thread, I opined that it is more than probable that some women, especially actresses have in the past used their sexual allure to persuade men in power to give them parts in movies, it's called 'leading men on', 'prick teasing' is a crude term for a similar situation .. if you think that is not a possibility, then you are naïve at best or deliberately avoiding the issue at worst
as to the Riley on the radio thing, I heard four news bulletins yesterday, the last at midnight on Radio 5 .. only during the midnight bulletin was the Riley affair mentioned, and then as I have typed above, in the context that the Sunday Times had stated that Riley was suspended from duty and that neither the BBC nor Riley were commenting on the article or any possible suspension. And Riley was 'named' on the BBC website only in that the Sunday Times had reported his suspension, the BBC per se did NOT report his suspension. Can you not see the important difference in those two situations? I suspect, i.e. it is my opinion that if the ST had not mentioned Riley in the article regarding sexual harassment at the BBC, the BBC would NOT have broadcast the fact that Riley was under suspension, that is, that despite, in my opinion the fact that a well known broadcaster had been suspended, the BBC would have deemed that not worthy of a news snippet open to the general public. The BBC is very keen to throw rocks out of the greenhouse and not at all comfy when a few rocks are thrown back from outside.
As to downplaying what Riley is possibly alleged to have done .. where did I type that? I used the term 'indiscretion' .. surely (for example) pinching a woman's arse in a manner that was not called for or making an unwanted sexual comment is indiscreet. I suppose that you would call it sexual assault and demand that Riley be horsewhipped on Salford Quays and then banged up for a few years .. it is called a difference of opinion.
I find the tone of your posts on Reily and Wieinstein quite disturbing. What century are you living in?
if you're disturbed then you must have a very fragile personality .. and 'what century am I living in ?' .. what a VERY hackneyed expression .. are you @Bournemouth Addick 's pen pal ?
I wasn't going to respond again tbh @Lincsaddick but since you insist on trying to pursue your argument with me...
You said, "...The BBC is keeping very quiet about this affair and have not, that I have heard, named Riley as the suspended employee..." and that if it were any other organisation they would be regularly broadcasting his name. You even asked to be corrected if this were not the case.
Your statement that he hadn't been named and indeed broadcast was factually incorrect. His suspension had been reported on and with pretty much the same level of scant detail that other media sources had reported it with.
Your gripe appears to be the BBC isn't giving you a minute by minute account, of what is after all an active internal investigation that potentially might even lead to criminal charges. Your interpretation seems to be this is a deliberate cover up - mine is that they are conducting an investigation that may result in dismissal or even criminal action and given they are also his employer they are actually very limited in what they can say about the case. There are after all laws governing these things and they have to be aware that civil/criminal courts would take a dim view of the BBC reporting on every stage of it's investigation, regardless of how entertaining you may find the detail. That is why they have stuck to reporting what other media sources have said imo. They cannot be held responsible for what other news outlets are saying.
Given the caning that the BBC took (rightly) over Savile and Cliff Richard they are clearly being extremly careful in their reporting of these issues and it is simply unbelievable they would attempt to just cover this up and hope another sex scandal goes away.
Now I know none of that fits with your agenda and if you chose to believe they are involved in something more malign that's your opinion but not one I share.
As for your other statements it's clear that we have very different views on these things and will never agree so best just leave it at that and cut out the personal stuff too maybe?
I wasn't going to respond again tbh @Lincsaddick but since you insist on trying to pursue your argument with me...
You said, "...The BBC is keeping very quiet about this affair and have not, that I have heard, named Riley as the suspended employee..." and that if it were any other organisation they would be regularly broadcasting his name. You even asked to be corrected if this were not the case.
Your statement that he hadn't been named and indeed broadcast was factually incorrect. His suspension had been reported on and with pretty much the same level of scant detail that other media sources had reported it with.
Your gripe appears to be the BBC isn't giving you a minute by minute account, of what is after all an active internal investigation that potentially might even lead to criminal charges. Your interpretation seems to be this is a deliberate cover up - mine is that they are conducting an investigation that may result in dismissal or even criminal action and given they are also his employer they are actually very limited in what they can say about the case. There are after all laws governing these things and they have to be aware that civil/criminal courts would take a dim view of the BBC reporting on every stage of it's investigation, regardless of how entertaining you may find the detail. That is why they have stuck to reporting what other media sources have said imo. They cannot be held responsible for what other news outlets are saying.
Given the caning that the BBC took (rightly) over Savile and Cliff Richard they are clearly being extremly careful in their reporting of these issues and it is simply unbelievable they would attempt to just cover this up and hope another sex scandal goes away.
Now I know none of that fits with your agenda and if you chose to believe they are involved in something more malign that's your opinion but not one I share.
As for your other statements it's clear that we have very different views on these things and will never agree so best just leave it at that and cut out the personal stuff too maybe?
lol .. full of misquotes and bent truths as usual ..
as to the 'personal stuff' .. on occasion you have interfered/intervened in jocular 'conversations' which were absolutely none of your business that I was having with other posters .. and, as in this case you have got the wrong end of the stick .. you're always keen to have a little snipe .. check your facts before getting involved and thereby avoid the personal stuff .. it's a two way thing
Comments
If I were to grope a woman's tit and a few others see the incident including a member of management.
If the lady didn't make a complaint would my action be taken further.
They were talking about the Westminster harassment the woman presenter was told it's men and women.
The woman presenter then said how can women make a complaint.
The litmus test and perhaps they can do some campaign around this like they do with what constitutes consent, is, would you accept that behaviour from a stranger to a female relative or friend?
Poor that in 2017 this is still rife
You’ll have to reapply in the New Year
Eg I have lost count of the amount of times I've had my Arse and/or manhood grabbed by pissed up birds in nightclubs. Of course I didn't mind and of course it happens the other way round, probably more often, but let's not pretend it's all one way.
Also the way women in offices I have worked in have talked about the delivery guy, or the new guy in finance etc. Christ if we talked about women in the same manner it would be pervert central.
Think that whole aspect is very biased, even down to the way the presenters on strictly etc can't control their excitement when a good looking chap is on there.
Can you imagine Len Goodman etc creaming (not literally) over the women dancers, in the same way the women (plus Craig and Bruno) do the men dancers? Pervert central again would be the shout.
The above is in no way meant to distract from the cases of serious sexua abuse etc but it does grate on me.
But 2. Out of all those times mate, did you ever feel intimidated, afraid, dirty, worried for your life?
It’s shit that it happens, but the balance of power is insanely screwed that a woman groping a man, is really (unfortunately) quite different to a man groping a woman.
I have heard and seen some pretty animalistic behaviour amongst my work colleagues in terms of physical fighting, proper, proper barneys and some pranks that go well beyond what is acceptable in life let alone the work place but I have hand on heart only seen one instance that falls into the sexual category and that ended up with the bloke getting fired. He was an arsehole of the highest order so I didn't lose any sleep over that but what I witnessed was a completely consensual, willing sexual encounter between a younger (at the time she would have been about 25 if guess, same sort of age as me then) woman and a late forties man. I've got no idea what went on after that to say whether or not he deserved to be sacked but I've since been told stories of how such and such is a pervert or how such and such is a maneater. I've got to be honest, I play it safe at work as far as the fairer sex are concerned for fear of anything at all being taken the wrong way.
Going back to my original point though, what is inappropriate is so subjective. I err on the side of caution and am happy to come across as boring, I've got no interest in flirting with people at work I don't see how that could ever end well and the line between flirting innocently on firms time and finding yourself in front of a tribunal is one I'm happier to not straddle
The point is that even if I was fine with it and 99% of blokes were, it still should not be done and found acceptable.
I'm not comparing these incidents to the Weinstein type attacks, more the recent reporting of the number of young girls sexually assaulted in the night life environment and how innapropriate that behaviour is.
Just a reminder that it can and does happen both ways.
However if we had said excuse me etc then the situation changes, people have to speak up and not put up with unwanted advances and ignore the perceived consequences as we all have power over our bodies etc.
You said, "...The BBC is keeping very quiet about this affair and have not, that I have heard, named Riley as the suspended employee..." and that if it were any other organisation they would be regularly broadcasting his name. You even asked to be corrected if this were not the case.
Your statement that he hadn't been named and indeed broadcast was factually incorrect. His suspension had been reported on and with pretty much the same level of scant detail that other media sources had reported it with.
Your gripe appears to be the BBC isn't giving you a minute by minute account, of what is after all an active internal investigation that potentially might even lead to criminal charges. Your interpretation seems to be this is a deliberate cover up - mine is that they are conducting an investigation that may result in dismissal or even criminal action and given they are also his employer they are actually very limited in what they can say about the case. There are after all laws governing these things and they have to be aware that civil/criminal courts would take a dim view of the BBC reporting on every stage of it's investigation, regardless of how entertaining you may find the detail. That is why they have stuck to reporting what other media sources have said imo. They cannot be held responsible for what other news outlets are saying.
Given the caning that the BBC took (rightly) over Savile and Cliff Richard they are clearly being extremly careful in their reporting of these issues and it is simply unbelievable they would attempt to just cover this up and hope another sex scandal goes away.
Now I know none of that fits with your agenda and if you chose to believe they are involved in something more malign that's your opinion but not one I share.
As for your other statements it's clear that we have very different views on these things and will never agree so best just leave it at that and cut out the personal stuff too maybe?
lol .. full of misquotes and bent truths as usual ..
as to the 'personal stuff' .. on occasion you have interfered/intervened in jocular 'conversations' which were absolutely none of your business that I was having with other posters .. and, as in this case you have got the wrong end of the stick .. you're always keen to have a little snipe .. check your facts before getting involved and thereby avoid the personal stuff .. it's a two way thing