Al Porter Scandal

SnakePlissken wrote: »

So if one was to do the same to a woman, i.e. place their hand beneath her clothing and physically grab her vagina, she should also just shrug such an attack off?

That's the exact opposite of what I said. I said it depends on the person and the circumstances.

Grayditch wrote: »

Don't mind them, Al. Don't mind the people angry at you sexualtiy assaulting people. We stand by you!!!

I wouldn't have expected people who like Al Porter to be showing great judgement in any aspect of their life, so I'm not that shocked at the absolute mutants on twitter, sailing through any cognitive dissonance.

Come back Al. Nobody else is good at making painful jokes about everything shaped even mildly phallic!

Dry ****e holy feckin joes ! This country would sicken ya!

Apparently the Secret RTE Producer on Twitter is going to tell all about Al working on Electric Picnic last year. @rtesecretpro

Could anyone PM me the screenshots of the whatsapp/facebook conversations?

Thank You.

gramar wrote: »

That is of course what most are interested in and not the largely faux outrage on behalf of the 'victims'.

Yes lets get annoyed at the people who got groped. Not the groper. Flamboyant groping is cool.

K.Flyer wrote: »

What I am trying to figure out is this. If said allegations did take place why didn't any of his accusers, individually or collectively, take it to the Garda if they felt so offended, outraged and distraught about it and have him charged or cautioned, instead of running to the papers with it years later.

There may well be a few people wanting attention, but I'd say a lot didn't go to the Garda because of the reaction they expected to get.

It sounds bizarre, and I'm trying to phrase it in the best way possible, but personally think that despite the fact that what he did was sexual assault many people to register the same severity to it due to the fact that sexual assault like this, against men is something that wouldn't have previously been as widely reported. I think growing up it may be something people overlook a little leading to it not being taken as seriously. Obviously that's changing.

It's easy for us to question why they didn't go straight to the Garda, but I can understand why they wouldn't.

This isn't related to the above, but some of the comments he reportedly made while he did it were extremely creepy.

Cienciano wrote: »

Where did I clearly state that? copy and paste the line, because I never said that. I repeatedly said I said it depends on the person and the circumstances how it effects people. It's not black and white.

I understand what you are saying about context, those situations are consensual ones, but surely this specific situation is black and white.

Al Porter may chalk it down as joking around but clearly the men who came forward didn't find it that way. It was groping. Plain and simple it seems.

pilly wrote: »

I've no idea who Colm O'Gorman is? But the amount of people on this thread somehow trying to compare it to the George Hook situation is unreal!!!

The two situations are completely different, what have they even got to do with each other?

You’ve got it wrong.
People on this thread are comparing the public REACTION to George Hook expressing an unpopular opinion ( some were calling for George to be arrested) to the reaction to a psychiatric patient alleging that Al Porter molested him (Colm O’Gorman the head of Amnesty Ireland, himself a survivor of clerical sexual abuse has given a character reference to Al) .
The fact is G Hook is a white straight male Christian man.
Al Porter is gay.

splinter65 wrote: »

You’ve got it wrong.
People on this thread are comparing the public REACTION to George Hook expressing an unpopular opinion ( some were calling for George to be arrested) to the reaction to a psychiatric patient alleging that Al Porter molested him (Colm O’Gorman the head of Amnesty Ireland, himself a survivor of clerical sexual abuse has given a character reference to Al) .
The fact is G Hook is a white straight male Christian man.
Al Porter is gay.

O Gorman's response seems to be unequivocal someone above posted it.

Got a link to what amounts to a character reference?

seamus wrote: »

One were actual statements, recorded and verifiable, by George Hook, which were not criminal, but incredibly ignorant and insensitive.

The other are allegations of criminal behaviour, unverified and unproven, of sexual assault.

How anyone can rationally expect the media to respond to both in the same way, I don't know. One has legal constraints on what you can discuss, the other does not.

Of course, all of those people whinging about it aren't really interested in rights and wrongs. Like all conservatives and right-wingers, it's about scoring points and proving hypocrisy, not about looking at ethics and morals.

You thought Hooks comments were ignorant and you found them insensitive.
It’s just your opinion that Hook is ignorant and your feelings were hurt.
There was widespread condemnation of G Hook through the left wing media.
Al Porter hasn’t denied any of the allegations. Rather, he has sought to imply that his exuberance has been misinterpreted in some way and that his accusers have not been fair to him.
And there’s silence from Matt Cooper and Mary Coughlan and all who found G Hooks opinion (as you did) so terribly unbearably unpalatable.
Al Porters “apology” is not ignorant or insensitive apparently, but George Hooks comments were.

Foxtrol wrote: »

He is an abuse survivor who is one of the well known campaigners for victims of sexual violence and go-to people for the media to go to on that topic. For some reason he has come out and called Al Porter ‘kind and decent’ which is totally perplexing and disappointing.

I fully agree that the two situations are completely different but the response from people who were outraged by Hook and staying quiet or supportive on this, much more serious, unrefuted allegation is clear hypocrisy.

Here you go. Just in case anyone wants to continue spreading this lie that Colm O'Gorman is on Porter's "side":
https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/932349587217674240

Anyone who claims that this is a "defence" of Porter or a character reference, clearly refuses to see beyond their own anti-liberal nonsense.

Trond wrote: »

Porters Facebook page is actually scary. The sheer amount of people blindly defending him.

Whoever made the comparison with McGregors fans who refuse to acknowledge his wrong doings is a great shout.

Where were these people when the Weinstein allegations first materialised? Or the plethora of other similar types of allegations.

They'd be the very ones condemning that type of behaviour. Yet in this instance, it's popular to throw up "innocent until proven guilty" and question the alleged victims motives. I bet these people wouldn't dare question the motives of the victims of Weinstein for example.

The people defending Al Porter seem to be inconsistent in their principles. They wouldn't defend a male accused of using his position to take advantage of females. They wouldn't comment "why judge before it goes to court" and they'd be eaten alive if they commented such a thing.

Yet a white irish gay male, who up until two weeks ago represented everything good about our society and how progressive it is-these same people won't condemn him where they'd condemn others by reading a headline and investigating no further.

I'm all for non judgement of any of these accused. If I have my own personal opinions on their guilt or otherwise, I generally keep it to myself. In fact, I haven't commented on Al or any other celeb sex scandal in the past 5 years.

What I am commenting on is the lack of consistency of some of his supporters, friends on FB I know, that support him, but have condemned those involved in other headlines in the past when they broke, without knowing anything. Where's the logic in that? "Well I condemn Mr.X for what he said about groping pssy, but Mr.Y here, it's alleged he did grope and feel, but he's different, give him a chance"