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 ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
[Next bit from me (JamesSeed)]:
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking. Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
[Next bit from lincsaddick]:
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
Oh dear. Perhaps I should stay clear of these debates. I recognise @Lincsaddicks name, but don't know anything about him. Is he always so excitable? [Ah, I see he's got 52 'Abuse' comments.] PS Bit in italics by 'lying timewaster' @JamesSeed
Pretty much. I was once told to go play with the traffic because I dared to say Lee Novak had a good game.
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 ?
It's loaded phrases like 'a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a 'sexual nature'' that I find well, creepy, to be honest. And implying that Rachael Burdon was flirting with Riley, which somehow makes any alleged sexual assault ok?
And to anyone comparing women getting 'touched up' with men getting 'touched up'.... There's a world of difference. Convictions for rape and other sexual offences have risen to 5,190 and 13,490 respectively (CPS figures). The vast majority of these are men on women. So when someone starts forcing their attentions on a woman, it's hardly surprising that the woman might get more creeped out by it than a man would.
Lincs, your comments (or is it your attitude?) come from the dark ages. Sorry if that sounds sounds hackneyed.
no need to apologise, a tenner in the post will suffice .. and just to pick up on one point here and to make another which is relevant in my opinion
you and other posters opine that R Burden was in no way 'flirtatious' with Riley when they broadcast together on the breakfast show .. well, in my opinion she often was, albeit perhaps in a professional jocular (that word again) manner .. in any event it seems that she enjoyed his company .. again, perhaps this was just her professionalism approach and she might hate his guts 'off air', we'll never know .. another case of an individuals' (my) opinion at odds with someone else's (yours) ..
last word from me here ... any interpretation on your part that I regard any possible 'flirtation' between Riley and certain female BBC members of staff as absolving him from any inappropriate sexual behaviour, is just that, your (incorrect) interpretation of what I have written
AND, I'd like you to 'google' .. 'false accusations of rape uk' and look at the result .. for example, the Guardian,( https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/01/109-women-prosecuted-false-rape-allegations) .. the bible of truth to many on here reported, albeit in 2014, that in the previous 5 years there had been 109 prosecutions for this offence .. so it isn't just men who can be horrible conniving and malicious sex obsessed creeps
The figures are for convictions, not allegation, false or otherwise.
You can stand up for, or mitigate for, sex pests if you like. It’s a free country after all. But I suspect Weinstein is quite possibly more than a sex pest. Surely there are better causes you could get behind than this? What a waste of your time.
And why talk about Burden flirting in connection to Riley if you didn’t think there’s a ... connection.
you're accusing me now of 'standing up for sex pests' ? .. seems that when the brain seeds were handed out, those allocated to you fell upon stony ground .. grow up f f s and stop taking my quotes out of context and twisting them
[Next bit from me (JamesSeed)]:
Well I still don’t get why you’re backtracking. Re-read your early posts. They’re creepy.
And there’s no need to descend to playground name calling.
[Next bit from lincsaddick]:
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
Oh dear. Perhaps I should stay clear of these debates. I recognise @Lincsaddicks name, but don't know anything about him. Is he always so excitable? [Ah, I see he's got 52 'Abuse' comments.] PS Bit in italics by 'lying timewaster' @JamesSeed
Pretty much. I was once told to go play with the traffic because I dared to say Lee Novak had a good game.
Classy! I wonder how far you have to go before you get banned from the forum.
I doubt if asking someone out will get anyone into trouble. It’s just the embarrassment if they say no!
Fallon woud never have resigned if it were just a case of touching someone’s knee. Particularly when the owner of said knee had already said weren’t bothered.
The wife once worked for hsbc investment banking every now and again they'd have a meeting. If someone was to say "You look nice this morning" to someone else could get them a ticking off. Why the wife said because the person could be implying that Don t look nice in other mornings
If you behave normally at work there won't be an issue.
Comments
:-)
so I am now a 'backtracking creep' .. I say again birdseed brain, read my posts again, perhaps for the first time and quote the bits that you find 'creepy' and where I backtrack .. I have to go out now and can spare no more time on a lying timewaster like you
Oh dear.
Perhaps I should stay clear of these debates. I recognise @Lincsaddicks name, but don't know anything about him. Is he always so excitable? [Ah, I see he's got 52 'Abuse' comments.]
PS Bit in italics by 'lying timewaster' @JamesSeed
Pretty much. I was once told to go play with the traffic because I dared to say Lee Novak had a good game.
Perhaps I should stay clear of these debates. I recognise @Lincsaddicks name, but don't know anything about him. Is he always so excitable? [Ah, I see he's got 52 'Abuse' comments.]
PS Bit in italics by 'lying timewaster' @JamesSeed
Pretty much. I was once told to go play with the traffic because I dared to say Lee Novak had a good game.
Classy! I wonder how far you have to go before you get banned from the forum.