Foxtrol wrote: » This portion of his statement (that no one asked him to write)
Music Hook wrote: » No. Quite a few people here have had their hypocrisy on sexual violence exposed when the victim is male. Where's Grayson, Brian?, Raym, JoeytheParrot, Popepalpatine? Strangely quite on this one.
20Cent wrote: » Anyone else sick of the "well where were the x outrage when y happened they must be hypocrites" trope?
Music Hook wrote: » There are some others strangely quite too, Jobsbridge4life springs to mind. The same people stay very quite too on threads about Islamic violence towards women. Oh apologies to RayM, he was involved in this thread earlier, making jokes about male rape.
seamus wrote: » What's wrong with it? Is he expected to revise his own memories with this new information? Is he required to lie and say that he always thought Al Porters was a sex pest, even if he didn't? "I have always found him to be kind and decent." As, in "My experiences with this person have always been positive". Is that shocking? Do you have proof that in fact Al Porter has been horrible to Colm O'Gorman and O'Gorman is lying?
Foxtrol wrote: » He wasn’t asked to make a statement so he could have stayed quiet.
Foxtrol wrote: » I think an extremely vocal advocate for sexual abuse victims giving a character reference for someone who has not refuted accusations of being a serial sexual assaulter is not the standard 'they must be hypocrites'. He gets paid 100k to run a charity which relates to this issue.
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.
seamus wrote: » He didn't make a statement. It was a tweet. It's right above you in this thread. O'Gorman was tweeting a personal reaction to what he was hearing. Just like he's entitled to. More lies and misrepresentation. Unsurprising.
Foxtrol wrote: » It says a lot that your response to my post is trying to pick on the differences between a tweet and a statement. He later tweeted the whole thread in one picture, does that make it a statement now so you can get to the substance of my post? He’s fully entitled to make a personal reaction just as I am fully entitled to question why a person who is one of the most vocal advocates in the media for those who suffered sexual abuse included a character reference for someone accused of being a serial perpetrator of this same crime.
david75 wrote: » In the first tweet of a series he said he always found al to be kind and decent. He then went on to address any kind of sexual allegation should be investigated and the victims listened to. Seriously the cherry picking that’s going on around o gormans comments is as nauseating as the porter thing itself. Plenty of known And convicted sex offenders would have any amount of people around them saying he always seemed so nice and normal. Are they to blame for that persons misconduct just by knowing them? This is no different to what Colms saying. The pro life campaign are making lame attempts to attach o Gorman to Porters behaviour * just cos he knows him and happens to also be gay* I swear to jaysis some people in this country would make you despair.
david75 wrote: » In what universe is ‘I always found him to be kind and decent’ a character reference??? Can we ask why Ronan Mullen who hid and protected priests and bishops who molested kids from prosecution is still allowed take up our airwaves and occupy a seat in our senate? The double standards of the pro life crowd really are the most obviously transparent and ridiculous of things.
Foxtrol wrote: » Yes, a sexual abuse victim advocate stating positive comments about a person accused of being a serial sexual assaulter (including one victim in care) would make me despair. I ask for a third time, how do you think Colm would feel if people stated to 35k people that they liked his abuser and found him decent and kind?
Vladimir Poontang wrote: » What we REALLY need to know is how Ibrahim Halawa feels about all of this.
cloudatlas wrote: » I agree context is needed in this case, Al did some work with Amnesty at least that is my understanding so in that capacity he seemed decent. Would have been completely different if Colm had said Al is a lovely guy and I don't believe he did it! but that isn't what he said at all. Besides there was an article in the Irish Times written by someone who worked in the Gate bar and said Micahel Colgan was nice to her, should she be condemned if that was her experience. Nobody condoned the actions of these people just conveyed their own experience and qualified it by saying they hoped the victims were listened to.
Foxtrol wrote: » Was the person who said Colgan was nice to her constantly in the media talking and head of a charity related to victims of sexual assault? There is a difference in who is making the statements. The irony is that Colm is now saying there is a witch hunt out to get him when he has led many himself. I would hope what he was trying to get across was that he didn’t see or suspect Porter from his relationship with him but if that was his intention he messed it up by making supportive character comments about Porter rather than staying factual. He should put his hands up and admit it was an error, however, he probably saw that Hook doing similar just added fuel to the fire so he is going with ‘troll and bots are out to get me’ defense.
david75 wrote: » O Gorman isn’t the issue of the story here. You seem to be trying to make it so. There are HUNDREDS of people in media and tv and press etc that know Al Porter. The majority of them have presence on twitter. Where exactly are your posts attacking them for not speaking out on the topic? I make the pro life connection cos your current attempt to make this about O Gorman is a lot of it word for word the same as tweets being sent to him personally and they’re mostly from pro life accounts and faceless bots.
pilly wrote: » How do you know all this with one post to your name?
