Al Porter Scandal

Galwayguy35 · 21-11-2017 07:24PM

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

What we REALLY need to know is how Ibrahim Halawa feels about all of this.

Well the good news is he is back on the airwaves, Cooper interviewed him earlier on, same oul drivel out of him.

He must have thought we were forgetting about him.

splinter65 · 21-11-2017 07:27PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

WTF does pro life have to do with this thread?

I don’t know the ins or outs of Mullen but if that is true he shouldn’t be near the airwaves or senate.

If you have issues with Mullen and don’t see any issue with Colm then I’d question your double standards.

Any thread in AH can be turned into a prolife knocking exercise, and, indeed, will be if the kitchen get too hot for the libtards.

david75 · 21-11-2017 07:41PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Any thread in AH can be turned into a prolife knocking exercise, and, indeed, will be if the kitchen get too hot for the libtards.

Does make me chuckle when pro lifers use the term Libtards.. then go back to ranting about the precious right to life of Down syndrome foetuses.

pitifulgod · 21-11-2017 07:52PM

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.

It's not a character reference, it's more like "I'm shocked that a person I considered to a decent individual and friend is facing these accusations. However I entirely support the victims and think they should be put first and the full extent of the law should pursue it." Imagine the reason O'Gorman even commented was because Porter was involved in Amnesty events in the past and certain people with other agendas in relation to repeal the 8th were going after Amnesty.

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.

You're misrepresenting what the intention of the statement. I imagine O'Gorman is fully aware of how the character of abusers are put first, given his history of being a victim of abuse. However his statement, put the victims first.

tonycascarino · 21-11-2017 07:52PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Well the good news is he is back on the airwaves, Cooper interviewed him earlier on, same oul drivel out of him.

He must have thought we were forgetting about him.

Thank god for that. I am sure the book and movie deal will be along shortly for Halawa too before finishing it off with an appearance on Celebrity Big Brother

splinter65 · 21-11-2017 07:56PM

david75 wrote: »

Does make me chuckle when pro lifers use the term Libtards.. then go back to ranting about the precious right to life of Down syndrome foetuses.

Keep going David. Eventually someone will take the bait and you can make this into yet another abortion thread.

pjohnson · 21-11-2017 07:58PM

Luke Skywalker is dissapointed in you Dave

david75 · 21-11-2017 08:00PM

splinter65 wrote: »

Keep going David. Eventually someone will take the bait and you can make this into yet another abortion thread.

Deffo don’t want it to. I’m not the one trying to force colm o Gorman and by association his work on the 8th into a debate that has nothing to do with it though.

pilly · 21-11-2017 08:10PM

Mike Hermantrout_ wrote:

It's perfectly reasonable to want a cut off point during pregnancy when it would be illegal to abort. The unborn deserves consideration and at a certain point during pregnancy the unborn deserves legal protection in my opinion.

And what has that to do with Al Porter?

david75 · 21-11-2017 08:11PM

Well said.

To get back on topic,
What is the cut off point between just a bit of flamboyant banter and actual sexual misconduct though?

Still baffled the amount of support the guy is getting.

pilly · 21-11-2017 08:13PM

david75 wrote:

Still baffled the amount of support the guy is getting.

I don't see anyone on here supporting him so not sure why you're baffled David. If you're referring to FB that's a different forum altogether.

Foxtrol · 21-11-2017 08:17PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

It's not a character reference, it's more like "I'm shocked that a person I considered to a decent individual and friend is facing these accusations. However I entirely support the victims and think they should be put first and the full extent of the law should pursue it." Imagine the reason O'Gorman even commented was because Porter was involved in Amnesty events in the past and certain people with other agendas in relation to repeal the 8th were going after Amnesty.

O’Gorman clearly referenced Porter’s character, saying he was ‘nice and kind’ and that he liked him. He tweeted this after Porter’s half assed apology where he didn’t refute the allegations, gave the excuse that these assaults were part of his persona, and attempted to put blame on the victims.

If he was under that pressure to comment he could have said his piece about victims needing to be heard and simply state that he never saw or suspected these allegations. His personal feelings towards Porter were totally unnecessary and could only cause victims pain.

You're misrepresenting what the intention of the statement. I imagine O'Gorman is fully aware of how the character of abusers are put first, given his history of being a victim of abuse. However his statement, put the victims first.

There’s the intention of the statement and what people perceive. I’ve already stated that I hope his intention what came across, but he messed it up. If you make these mistakes you put up your hands up not try to blame a witch hunt or twitter bots.

I’ll ask for a fourth time to his defenders, how do you think O’Gorman would feel if someone of high standing made similar statements to 35k plus people that his abuser was a nice and kind person after he came forward claiming the abuse? This type of comment veers very close to how priests got away with causing so much pain, which is why I initially posted that this was surprising and disappointing to me

david75 · 21-11-2017 08:37PM

Nobody’s buying what youre selling here Foxtrol.

Tweet O Gorman there and ask him directly. He’s been replying and addressing all the concerns you seem to have all day. Even a casual breeze through his twitter would make that clear to you.

suicide_circus · 21-11-2017 09:11PM

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

What we REALLY need to know is how Ibrahim Halawa feels about all of this.

Perhaps he'd show Al the fastest way down from the top of a tall building?

seamus · 21-11-2017 09:23PM

QuietMan2010 wrote: »

David Walsh was excoriated for saying Tom Humphries was 'a fine man'. That was Walsh's experience of his friend and former colleague, but yes he was expected to revise those memories in light of the new information about Humphries' crimes. O'Gorman has made a mistake with his comments here, particularly with what is emerging from St. Pats.

Never heard of Walsh or his comments. Quick Google suggests that he basically backed the wrong horse. After the allegations he praised Humphries and called him a fine man. Which anyone is entitled to do for a friend.

Someone screwed him over though by releasing his words after Humphries was convicted. I'm sure his opinion of Humphries has changed in the intervening period.

O'Gorman has not done the same here. In fact he's basically done the opposite - expressed his shock and upset that the Porter may not be the person he thought. Anyone who reads O'Gormans tweets as an endorsement of Porter needs to go back to Junior Cert English.

Foxtrol · 21-11-2017 09:32PM

seamus wrote: »

Never heard of Walsh or his comments. Quick Google suggests that he basically backed the wrong horse. After the allegations he praise Humphries and called him a fine man.

O'Gorman has not done the same here. In fact he's basically done the opposite - expressed his shock and upset that the Porter may not be the person he thought.

Stating someone is kind and decent is the opposite of saying someone is a fine man

david75 · 21-11-2017 09:41PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Stating someone is kind and decent is the opposite of saying someone is a fine man

AS has been pointed out to you several times now that’s a fraction of what he said as part of a larger comment. Did you not read the whole comment? You don’t seem to have. You definitely seem to have an axe to grind with O Gorman when in fact it’s Al Porters behaviour were trying to discuss, not colm o gormans

20Cent · 21-11-2017 09:43PM

Walsh gave a written reference TO THE COURT in defence of Humphries in order to petition for a shorter sentence. Why this is still allowed I don't know.

O'Gorman was reflecting on his experience of meeting Porter.

Hope that clears it up.

Fr_Dougal · 21-11-2017 09:53PM

seamus wrote: »

Anyone who reads O'Gormans tweets as an endorsement of Porter needs to go back to Junior Cert English.

Surprised at you making this comment, Seamus.

Foxtrol · 21-11-2017 09:54PM

20Cent wrote: »

Walsh gave a written reference TO THE COURT in defence of Humphries in order to petition for a shorter sentence. Why this is still allowed I don't know.

O'Gorman was reflecting on his experience of meeting Porter.

Hope that clears it up.

Agreed, I don't know why people would make positive comments in public about someone accused of sexual assault, especially if not refuted or found guilty. It doesn't seem wise as it could easily be misinterpreted

Muahahaha · 21-11-2017 09:56PM

pilly wrote:

I don't see anyone on here supporting him so not sure why you're baffled David. If you're referring to FB that's a different forum altogether.

Plenty on here are are apologists for his sexual assaults. There are no grey areas with sexual assaults, either you condone it as acceptable or condem it as outside of what any decent person would deem to be normal adult behaviour. Plenty on here have been trying to play it down over the last 24 hours. That is either support for sexual assaulters or support for Al Porter. Whichever it is it's pretty disgusting.

QuietMan2010 · 21-11-2017 10:01PM

20Cent wrote: »

Walsh gave a written reference TO THE COURT in defence of Humphries in order to petition for a shorter sentence. Why this is still allowed I don't know.

O'Gorman was reflecting on his experience of meeting Porter.

Hope that clears it up.

Nope, Walsh was criticised for his 2012 comments that his friend and colleague Tom Humphries was 'a fine man'. Those comments were made after the allegations against Humphries were made public and five years before the court case. O'Gorman said about Porter: "I know Al. I like him. I have always found him to be kind and decent." These comments were made after the allegations against Porter were made public.

Matt Cooper, who conducted the 2012 interview with Walsh, was particularly agitated about the comments at the time of the trial. And rightfully so. But by the same token, O'Gorman should know better than to make his supportive comments about Porter's character, given the circumstances.

pitifulgod · 21-11-2017 10:12PM

QuietMan2010 wrote: »

Nope, Walsh was criticised for his 2012 comments that his friend and colleague Tom Humphries was 'a fine man'. Those comments were made after the allegations against Humphries were made public and five years before the court case. O'Gorman said about Porter: "I know Al. I like him. I have always found him to be kind and decent." These comments were made after the allegations against Porter were made public.

Matt Cooper, who conducted the 2012 interview with Walsh, was particularly agitated about the comments at the time of the trial. And rightfully so. But by the same token, O'Gorman should know better than to make his supportive comments about Porter's character, given the circumstances.

“I maybe know a bit more than most people about the charges and the situation Tom has found himself in. There is no question in my mind that he is a fine man.”

That's what Walsh said, he was leaping to Humphries defence. Walsh would remain 'a fine man' regardless. O'Gorman is saying to put the victims first, he's putting that above his previous view of Porter and wants the case to be investigated and prosecuted. Walsh also repeatedly emphasised what a great guy Humphries is, in his view.

weldoninhio · 21-11-2017 10:17PM

seamus wrote: »

Never heard of Walsh or his comments. Quick Google suggests that he basically backed the wrong horse. After the allegations he praised Humphries and called him a fine man. Which anyone is entitled to do for a friend.

Someone screwed him over though by releasing his words after Humphries was convicted. I'm sure his opinion of Humphries has changed in the intervening period.

O'Gorman has not done the same here. In fact he's basically done the opposite - expressed his shock and upset that the Porter may not be the person he thought. Anyone who reads O'Gormans tweets as an endorsement of Porter needs to go back to Junior Cert English.

I'd suggest reading up on him. He gave a character witness statement for the nonce's court case.

I wrote a personal character reference for Tom because we have been friends for 30 years and, despite the serious wrong he has done, I could not abandon him,” Walsh said.

Don Kiddick · 21-11-2017 10:20PM

Is this not still the hand dropping on mickeys thread ?

20Cent · 21-11-2017 10:25PM

O'Gorman is being smeared for his pro choice views. That is the only rational explanation for the venom being directed at him.

Foxtrol · 21-11-2017 10:25PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

“I maybe know a bit more than most people about the charges and the situation Tom has found himself in. There is no question in my mind that he is a fine man.”

That's what Walsh said, he was leaping to Humphries defence. Walsh would remain 'a fine man' regardless. O'Gorman is saying to put the victims first, he's putting that above his previous view of Porter and wants the case to be investigated and prosecuted. Walsh also repeatedly emphasised what a great guy Humphries is, in his view.

How is it a previous view? He states ‘I know Al. I like him. I have always found him to be kind and decent.’ That is not showing that his opinion has changed at all from the recent unrefuted accusations and victim blaming from Porter.

Pretzill · 21-11-2017 10:30PM

I wouldn't be a fan of Al Porter's style of comedy - I'm surprised it's popular at all as I thought that innuendo, double endendre - Julian Clary meets Carry On...style to be very dated.

But placing your hands down someone's trousers is assault - and shocking to the person who had it done to them - I suppose some would laugh it off embarrassed - some would retaliate with a thump - and some rightly report it.

People have the right not to have their private space invaded by some serial letch - these types of things were accepted/ ignored/shrugged off in the past - and the perpetrators allowed continue. No more.

pitifulgod · 21-11-2017 10:33PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

How is it a previous view? He states ‘I know Al. I like him. I have always found him to be kind and decent.’ That is not showing that his opinion has changed at all from the recent unrefuted accusations and victim blaming from Porter.

In his actual tweets you're condemning, he specifies that there's nothing kind or decent about Porter's. He's finding difficult to comprehend out of shock however he's very much so on the victim's side. The implication is that his view of Porter has been somewhat been turned on its head as a result of the accusations hence 'this is hard to take on board'.

https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/932663097101291520

His support of victims in his tweets are unequivocal and he actually praised their courage for coming out. It's pretty telling that you didn't include the tweets when you first posted...

21-11-2017 10:36PM

Al Porter may face garda investigation after former patient makes complaint alleging sexual assault

It's understood the complaint is the same allegation that was published on Sunday.

Under current guidelines a psychiatric hospital is obliged in law to notify a “serious reportable incident” within 48 hours to the Mental Health Commission, the legal watchdog for mental health services.
It is also obliged to report a formal complaint about an alleged sexual assault to gardai.

When the claims were initially published on Sunday, St Patrick’s issued a statement to say that no allegations had been made to them by clients or staff about Al Porter.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/al-porter-may-face-garda-investigation-after-former-patient-makes-complaint-alleging-sexual-assault-36340657.html

Al Porter Scandal

Comments