It’s completely mental that someone can walk around their office putting their hand up skirts. I’ve always worked for law firms so may be that’s why I’ve never heard of complaints like that.
Has anyone else ever heard stories like this in an office environment?
Oh a security guard once got sacked as it was discovered he had drilled a peephole between gents and ladies. Can’t think of anything else in 30 years. Financial wrongdoing yes but not hands up skirts
I've worked for a law firm all my adult life, and only heard stories of the odd dodgy character (usually not a lawyer but someone in business services) but never whilst I've been there. Previous to that had a teenage job as a canvasser for a double glazing company... The salesmen were the creepiest slimiest scummiest stereotypes it is possible to imagine.
Many people in sales are ‘taught’ how to ‘manipulate’ prospects into parting with their money. A lot of the skills required to make a sale are the same as talking a potential partner into bed. Sadly sometimes success with women leads people to believe that all women must, naturally, fall for their charms.
People with exceptional success with women, including celebrities, seem to be unable to tell the difference between acceptable charm and overstepping the mark. The most frightening thing about this is that these people don’t, actually, realise that what they are doing is wrong - they genuinely believe that their ‘advances’ are always welcome.
I’m not saying that all sales people, or celebrities, assume that they can touch the bodies of any women they like, but some, clearly do. The conversation that Trump got into trouble about when he talked about it being ok to grab a lady’s private parts only scratches the surface of just how many men think that it is ok.
Only by education will these men ever understand, which is why, I imagine, that lawyers tend not to do it - most people in Law firms will be highly educated.
Agree with a lot of that. A lot to be sold for the culture in some places as well. Also, law (especially my area) attracts a lot of introverts whereas sales a lot more extroverts. I'd imagine finance has its fair share of human turds of the ultra competitive alpha male variety
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
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
Bit early to speculate on what these indiscretions were, or whether they were just 'stupid mistakes'. And the fact that he could banter with fellow presenters and charm guests certainly doesn't necessarily make him a good bloke. Yes, he did have a 'likeable' persona when broadcasting, but so did Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris etc. After 40 years in telly I learned not to judge a person based on what they seemed like on tv or the radio. I met quite a few 'celebs' and presenters who shattered my preconceptions by being horrible when the camera was switched off.... and some who were actually much nicer. But, like you, I hope whatever it is he's alleged to have done is not as awful as it might appear.
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
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.
Some "mistakes" in relation to sexual behaviour: 1: Going in the wrong hole. 2: Accidentally touching someone in a lift or while reaching for a tin on a supermarket shelf. 3: Getting caught doing it on purpose.
When I read kings hill addick's post above about education being the solution I intended to write that developing empathy would be a better solution but now hesitate. On the one hand you could ask 'what if it were a member of your family getting the unwanted stuff?' Incidentally I want to avoid gender assumptions if possible because as a young man at work my backside was grabbed and squeezed three times. Once by a man and twice by women. Strangely it doesn't bother me yet they are mini incidents that I still remember all these years later. 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. Speaking only from a personal opinion I don't believe women would welcome it, certainly not like men might. So has the concept of empathy informing restraint any place in this debate or is it purely an intellectual challenge for people inclined to harass? Perhaps the place to start would indeed be how would people feel if their family member were a victim.
When I read kings hill addick's post above about education being the solution I intended to write that developing empathy would be a better solution but now hesitate. On the one hand you could ask 'what if it were a member of your family getting the unwanted stuff?' Incidentally I want to avoid gender assumptions if possible because as a young man at work my backside was grabbed and squeezed three times. Once by a man and twice by women. Strangely it doesn't bother me yet they are mini incidents that I still remember all these years later. 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. Speaking only from a personal opinion I don't believe women would welcome it, certainly not like men might. So has the concept of empathy informing restraint any place in this debate or is it purely an intellectual challenge for people inclined to harass? Perhaps the place to start would indeed be how would people feel if their family member were a victim.
Seth that makes it personal and I have no problem with you asking the question. My point, however, was that many men (and maybe women, but I think less so) believe that their advances are welcome. Empathy is, in these situations, irrelevant because they probably assume that their family members would 'welcome' the attention also.
Many people understand the difference between telling a lady that her hair looks great when she gets back from the hairdresser or that her new dress looks amazing and telling her that she has 'a cracking pair if tits' or a 'fantastic ar$e' and follow it up with smacking or grabbing it. It's those that believe that the latter behaviors are acceptable (and I mean they really think it's ok) that need to be told that it is not. In reality there are those that know it's not acceptable and will continue to do it regardless - that is another problem.
Years ago I worked with a chap who was very kind and genuine. He cared about his colleagues more than most and would do anything he could to help someone. However, when he first joined the company, he made a few mistakes. Those of us that worked there were all close friends and this allowed certain conversations and behaviors to be acceptable. He misread that and assumed that it was ok to pull one of the ladies in the office onto his lap - in an out of hours event. This is not something that I think anyone else in the company would have done and I'm convinced that he meant nothing by it. He was given a lecture and it never happened again. He just didn't realise that it was not acceptable - and he was in his 40s, not a teenager. If you'd asked him if he'd have said that it was acceptable for someone to do this to his sister he would have said yes, because he believed it to be harmless. He had just failed to see how his actions could be deemed unacceptable. It was an innocent mistake but it could have been something more and that is why people need to be educated as to what is acceptable and what is not.
I have no idea what the chap from the BBC has done, and I completely understand no one (including the BBC) saying much other than that there is an 'investigation', but he might have been completely out of order and he might have known it - or he might have just assumed that what he was doing was acceptable when it was, in actual fact, not!
It’s completely mental that someone can walk around their office putting their hand up skirts. I’ve always worked for law firms so may be that’s why I’ve never heard of complaints like that.
Has anyone else ever heard stories like this in an office environment?
Oh a security guard once got sacked as it was discovered he had drilled a peephole between gents and ladies. Can’t think of anything else in 30 years. Financial wrongdoing yes but not hands up skirts
Didn’t Matthew Corbett regularly get his hand up Sue’s skirt ?
We employed a young muslim lad a few years ago, he started off keen and enthusiastic however his attitude changed towards the girls and women in our office as he felt they were beneath him and not as good as him. Looking back it appeared to be a typical view of a muslim male concerning women.
It started to irritate us as bosses but we were aware we had to tread carefully without the PC brigade coming down on us. However he helped us out big time when he approached several girls at the photo copier asking if they would like a "shoulder rub". We monitored this when we were informed and spotted a pattern that he would jump up and go to the copier when certain girls were at the machine.
Job done, we sacked his sorry arse and kicked him out, never heard another word.
Fixed that for you.
It did not need fixing thank you. We have plentry of non Muslim guys in the office who respected their female workers a lot more than this guy did and to the best of my knowledge none of those guys demand their wives and girlfriends cover their faces when going out and ban them from entering the places they worship.
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.
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
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
That is one hell of a take.
take .. what are you trying to say ?
Take as in take on this/opinion on this situation.
I take umbrage with the idea that “it’s a pity that a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a sexual nature can have such a terrible effect on anyone’s career” in reference to GR potentially losing his job on 5 Live should he be found to have been doing anything along the lines of which has been alleged.
I like GR’s broadcasting too but if he’s done what is alleged then that’s his fault and nobody else’s. If he didn’t want it to effect his career, he shouldn’t have done what he is alleged to have done.
Why should a female member of staff at Radio 5 or anywhere have to deal with the effect on their career that would be caused by the fear that a bloke at the station might be about to get involved in something untoward like that?
Or if the issue is the fact that it’s only “a few” indiscretions, maybe we should get some official rules written up so we know how many gropes per annum we can get away with.
And the bizarre comment about Rachel Burden supposedly being flirtatious, in your opinion, is a bit baffling too, as I see no way it links to this?
I listen in the mornings and there’s jokes etc between all the different presenters and the sports/traffic readers etc - I don’t read that as flirting at all, just entertaining radio. Certainly not a thing to somehow relate to some alleged indiscretions
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.
The burning question for me and, I'm certain, most of you is, wtf were women doing anywhere near the sports department in the first place for Christ's sake?????????
The burning question for me and, I'm certain, most of you is, wtf were women doing anywhere near the sports department in the first place for Christ's sake?????????
you're only getting away with this sexist approach because you are a moderator and all the lads are keen to keep on your good side .. ((:>) the BBC is now seemingly run by women for women and from now on anyone who says anything against women is a fascistic, woman hating, misogynistic, child beating, bed wetting Nazi .. and that's just your good parts ((:>)
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 the North / South divide
^^^^^ grrrrrrrrrrr .. leave my quotes unscathed you vandal .. anyway I was born in Kent and raised in sunny Lewisham/Blackheath .. I am a northerner by immigration only ((:>)
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.
At what point is it acceptable to "pinch a woman's arse" or "make an unwanted sexual comment" in a work environment then?
Jeez, what flipping century is it in whatever workplace you work in???
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.
At what point is it acceptable to "pinch a woman's arse" or "make an unwanted sexual comment" in a work environment then?
Jeez, what flipping century is it in whatever workplace you work in???
I am sick and tired of being misquoted .. where do I used the word acceptable ? .. I have used the word indiscreet ... look it up .. or are you too stupid to do that .. shall I cut and paste the definition here for you ?
EDIT .. and you have not too neatly changed the issue which was the BBC reporting on Riley's suspension and have resorted to putting words in my mouth, at worst lying as to what I actually wrote in an attempt to win your losing argument .. shame on you
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.
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
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
Comments
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
After 40 years in telly I learned not to judge a person based on what they seemed like on tv or the radio. I met quite a few 'celebs' and presenters who shattered my preconceptions by being horrible when the camera was switched off.... and some who were actually much nicer.
But, like you, I hope whatever it is he's alleged to have done is not as awful as it might appear.
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.
1: Going in the wrong hole.
2: Accidentally touching someone in a lift or while reaching for a tin on a supermarket shelf.
3: Getting caught doing it on purpose.
On the one hand you could ask 'what if it were a member of your family getting the unwanted stuff?' Incidentally I want to avoid gender assumptions if possible because as a young man at work my backside was grabbed and squeezed three times. Once by a man and twice by women. Strangely it doesn't bother me yet they are mini incidents that I still remember all these years later.
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. Speaking only from a personal opinion I don't believe women would welcome it, certainly not like men might.
So has the concept of empathy informing restraint any place in this debate or is it purely an intellectual challenge for people inclined to harass?
Perhaps the place to start would indeed be how would people feel if their family member were a victim.
Many people understand the difference between telling a lady that her hair looks great when she gets back from the hairdresser or that her new dress looks amazing and telling her that she has 'a cracking pair if tits' or a 'fantastic ar$e' and follow it up with smacking or grabbing it. It's those that believe that the latter behaviors are acceptable (and I mean they really think it's ok) that need to be told that it is not. In reality there are those that know it's not acceptable and will continue to do it regardless - that is another problem.
Years ago I worked with a chap who was very kind and genuine. He cared about his colleagues more than most and would do anything he could to help someone. However, when he first joined the company, he made a few mistakes. Those of us that worked there were all close friends and this allowed certain conversations and behaviors to be acceptable. He misread that and assumed that it was ok to pull one of the ladies in the office onto his lap - in an out of hours event. This is not something that I think anyone else in the company would have done and I'm convinced that he meant nothing by it. He was given a lecture and it never happened again. He just didn't realise that it was not acceptable - and he was in his 40s, not a teenager. If you'd asked him if he'd have said that it was acceptable for someone to do this to his sister he would have said yes, because he believed it to be harmless. He had just failed to see how his actions could be deemed unacceptable. It was an innocent mistake but it could have been something more and that is why people need to be educated as to what is acceptable and what is not.
I have no idea what the chap from the BBC has done, and I completely understand no one (including the BBC) saying much other than that there is an 'investigation', but he might have been completely out of order and he might have known it - or he might have just assumed that what he was doing was acceptable when it was, in actual fact, not!
Mate.
I (like 99.9% of all women) have experienced bullshit from both type of blokes.
take .. what are you trying to say ?
I take umbrage with the idea that “it’s a pity that a few stupid mistakes/indiscretions of a sexual nature can have such a terrible effect on anyone’s career” in reference to GR potentially losing his job on 5 Live should he be found to have been doing anything along the lines of which has been alleged.
I like GR’s broadcasting too but if he’s done what is alleged then that’s his fault and nobody else’s. If he didn’t want it to effect his career, he shouldn’t have done what he is alleged to have done.
Why should a female member of staff at Radio 5 or anywhere have to deal with the effect on their career that would be caused by the fear that a bloke at the station might be about to get involved in something untoward like that?
Or if the issue is the fact that it’s only “a few” indiscretions, maybe we should get some official rules written up so we know how many gropes per annum we can get away with.
I listen in the mornings and there’s jokes etc between all the different presenters and the sports/traffic readers etc - I don’t read that as flirting at all, just entertaining radio. Certainly not a thing to somehow relate to some alleged indiscretions
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.
the BBC is now seemingly run by women for women and from now on anyone who says anything against women is a fascistic, woman hating, misogynistic, child beating, bed wetting Nazi .. and that's just your good parts ((:>)
Jeez, what flipping century is it in whatever workplace you work in???
EDIT .. and you have not too neatly changed the issue which was the BBC reporting on Riley's suspension and have resorted to putting words in my mouth, at worst lying as to what I actually wrote in an attempt to win your losing argument .. shame on you
If this woman has groped this man's arse in full view of everyone and tv audience she should be suspended.
These threads make me think of the Salem witch trials.
No wonder I bury my head in the sand
And Im not having a dig at him, it just make me wonder