Charlie and his wandering hands......

poeticseraphim

Someone once told me that he was a habitual customer of prostitutes.

Dangerous Man

Millicent wrote: »

Ah yeah, sure it's alright then that a government minister thought it appropriate to grab a journalist's arse. She should just get over herself and be delighted that someone wanted to grab her arse with the head on her, eh?

Nope - I neve said anything remotely like that. That's your imagination. Grabbing someone's arse is wrong. Of course. All I'm saying is that it's not as big a deal as some would like to think it is.

Spread

Ms Robinson is a card carrying misandrist. And her tax avoidance schemes deserve reading by up and coming Republican politicians. Hypocrasy is her forte as she headed a consumer Watchdog series on British TV while all the time indulging in morally bankrupt, self serving self enrichment tricks.
For Haughey to try it on with her .......... it must have been late at night after a particularly long and enjoyable lunch. Anne, you bowsy, go tell your porkies elsewhere. You've admitted "not being much of a mother" ........ how about going the full hog and admitting not being much of a human being?

purplepanda

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

No it's not. Nobody should put up with being groped.

Everyone has the right to defend their personal space, their invisible "bubble" IMO :cool:

Some women seem to think it's OK to grab a blokes backside, even crotch, or suddenly try to run their hands through your hair without permission in clubs & pubs :mad:

I have come very close to almost striking women who do this, if a fella did it he would be on the floor quick enough. :rolleyes:

I've never hit a woman in my life but my natural instinct to defend myself could mean that might happen sometime.

What is it with people, especially some supposed "men" who can't keep their hands to themselves?? :mad:

Maybe the modern "touchy-feely" society has gone too far? I blame the politicians ...:pac:

seamus

Spread wrote: »

Ms Robinson is a card carrying misandrist. And her tax avoidance schemes deserve reading by up and coming Republican politicians. Hypocrasy is her forte as she headed a consumer Watchdog series on British TV while all the time indulging in morally bankrupt, self serving self enrichment tricks.
For Haughey to try it on with her .......... it must have been late at night after a particularly long and enjoyable lunch. Anne, you bowsy, go tell your porkies elsewhere. You've admitted "not being much of a mother" ........ how about going the full hog and admitting not being much of a human being?

So it's acceptable for a man to grope a women if she's morally corrupt, or an alcoholic, or otherwise undesirable? So should be it OK to rape a junkie or a prostitute?

Why is there any question of defending him, or attacking her? Dirty scumbag gropes a woman in a lift. It doesn't matter who she was or what she's done - it's wrong.

Dolbert

He'd have got up on himself if he could turn around quick enough.

Madam_X

Spread wrote: »

Ms Robinson is a card carrying misandrist. And her tax avoidance schemes deserve reading by up and coming Republican politicians. Hypocrasy is her forte as she headed a consumer Watchdog series on British TV while all the time indulging in morally bankrupt, self serving self enrichment tricks.
For Haughey to try it on with her .......... it must have been late at night after a particularly long and enjoyable lunch. Anne, you bowsy, go tell your porkies elsewhere. You've admitted "not being much of a mother" ........ how about going the full hog and admitting not being much of a human being?

None of the above guarantees she's lying.

As for the number of "How could anyone grope an unattractive woman like her?" (f'ucking hell) comments: not that it should even be brought up, but she is not the unsightly beast people are pretending she is, and I'd bet she was an attractive woman at 25.
Depressing that there were lists made of who was safe/unsafe to be alone with. That stuff was going on in a place I worked in, up to the 1980s...

markie29

all a misunderstanding..he was just trying to slip a brown envelope into her arse pocket.

Mr. CooL ICE

Anne Robinson is a munter. But was she back in 1969?

GRMA

If it's true, he tried it on with her, she obviously hit him etc. it's nothing that warrants speaking of Haughey in the same breath as Saville.

Sure Haughey was a bad egg but he did some good too. the peace process would never have happened without him. While other politicians in the mid and late eighties where ignoring the problems and cozying up with Thatcher he was taking career ending risks (bear in mind the arms crisis ) by secretly talking with people like Adams. The significance and importance of these talks can't be underestimated. If Haughey was only out for himself why would he take such massive risks which did nothing for him personally?

Millicent

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Nope - I neve said anything remotely like that. That's your imagination. Grabbing someone's arse is wrong. Of course. All I'm saying is that it's not as big a deal as some would like to think it is.

It's not as small a deal as some here would like to make out either...

suicide_circus

If CH hadn't molested her she would never have turned into such a psycho bitch and thus would have never made such a compelling hostess on The Weakest Link and would never have been asked to do the American version of the show in all that S&M gear.
Charlie saved her career.

Piliger

token101 wrote: »

According to Anne Robinson, the presenter for 'The Weakest Link', she was the victim of an attempted groping in the late 60s by none other than Charlie Haughey

I have absolutely NO interest or willingness to believe people who come out with these totally and utterly unsubstantiated allegations now - 50 years later - against dead people who cannot defend themselves !

Haughey was a criminal. I have no liking whatsoever for him. But this kind of disgusting crap after all of this time makes me sick.

And that applies to many if not all of those making allegations against Saville. All coming out of the woodwork now that he is dead. No one to challenge them. No one to cross examine them. No one to prove them right or wrong. I have no doubt that it looks like he did some bad things, but the hysteria being drummed up by the Press in the UK is sickening.

Madam_X

Wouldn't be entirely dismissive of them either though - there is no reason for them to be disbelieved completely. Doubted, questioned, fair enough, but just dismissed out of hand? How cold would a person have to be to take such a stance.

Spread

seamus wrote: »

So it's acceptable for a man to grope a women if she's morally corrupt, or an alcoholic, or otherwise undesirable? So should be it OK to rape a junkie or a prostitute?

Why is there any question of defending him, or attacking her? Dirty scumbag gropes a woman in a lift. It doesn't matter who she was or what she's done - it's wrong.

If you read my post again ........ I never agreed with the above

Madam_X wrote: »

None of the above guarantees she's lying.

As for the number of "How could anyone grope an unattractive woman like her?" (f'ucking hell) comments: not that it should even be brought up, but she is not the unsightly beast people are pretending she is, and I'd bet she was an attractive woman at 25.
Depressing that there were lists made of who was safe/unsafe to be alone with. That stuff was going on in a place I worked in, up to the 1980s...

I was giving her some of her own medicine. Having lived in Blighty for years from the late 60s onwards, I read a lot of her rantings in the various tabloids and Little Englander broadsheets. She's a shrew of the lowest order who sprays vitriol at all and sundry and pouts horseshit about herself. You don't have to be a mathematician to realise that the lowest common denominator is her lair.

starbelgrade

LordChessington wrote: »

Anne Robinson is a munter. But was she back in 1969?

What difference does it make?

Seriously.

TheFruitarian

LordChessington wrote: »

But was she back in 1969?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/10/12/charlie-haughey-and-anne-robinson-the-gropes-of-wrath/

SEPT 23 1989

In fairness to Saville he was never a member of Fianna Fail

Dangerous Man

Millicent wrote: »

It's not as small a deal as some here would like to make out either...

I presume you're talking about the people who are referring to Anne Robinson as a munter and so on. Their opinions don't really matter as they're clearly taking the piss. You don't argue with that.

But let's be even clearer - do you think that someone who grabs another person's arse should be reported to the police?

How do you think an incident like this should be dealt with?

fasttalkerchat

TheFruitarian wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/10/12/charlie-haughey-and-anne-robinson-the-gropes-of-wrath/

Cheers for clearing that up. Not sure which of them was the victim!

telecaster

GRMA wrote: »

Sure Haughey was a bad egg but he did some good too. the peace process would never have happened without him.

Indeed, the island would have suffered violence eternally, with all civilised people doing nothing more than hoping and praying that a messianic figure like Haughey would come along and make everything ok.

purplepanda

Piliger wrote: »

And that applies to many if not all of those making allegations against Saville. All coming out of the woodwork now that he is dead. No one to challenge them. No one to cross examine them. No one to prove them right or wrong. I have no doubt that it looks like he did some bad things, but the hysteria being drummed up by the Press in the UK is sickening.

There's now over 400 allegations being investigated, latest including nine year old boy according to the recent reports.

His former media friends have failed counter the "alleged" allegations, his charities now see him as toxic publicity, whilst hospitals & The BBC are instigating full enquiries.

And none of his family & close friends have tried to recently make excuses & / or defend him as the allegations continue to mount up.

In this case, no smoke without fire :mad: Anyone now defending him is deluded

Madam_X

It is despicable indeed to dismiss anyone who makes an abuse allegation when there are so many factors that support them.

telecaster

purplepanda wrote: »

His former media friends have failed counter the "alleged" allegations, his charities now see him as toxic publicity, whilst hospitals & The BBC are instigating full enquiries.

And none of his family & close friends have tried to recently make excuses & / or defend him as the allegations continue to mount up.

In this case, no smoke without fire :mad: Anyone now defending him is deluded

Same goes for Saville

Fizman

I like to imagine he went to his grave with my bruises on his hands after he tried to grope me during the 1969 Irish elections.

Given the year, she should be grateful it was only a grope he attempted.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Could he not have grabbed a better looking arse

In 1969 it may well have been.

Mr. CooL ICE

starbelgrade wrote: »

What difference does it make?

Seriously.

I didn't say it did

Capt'n Midnight

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Well, that was his "thing".

Firstly, it was tacitly accepted at the time, and secondly, like Bertie after him, the man displayed glaring sociopathic tendencies.

Put simply, he just didn't care about those around him. Someone posted earlier today, a comment along the lines that if he were around today, and hadn't been bought off by the financial sector, then he would gleefully have stood by and let the banks collapse.

So, he may not have been all bad, then

Please explain in just exactly what universe the financial sector could not have bought CJ Haughey ?

Ben there,
Dunne that
Bought the Taoiseach

Are you trying to say he was a Goodman ?

Seriously we are talking about the guy who dipped into the fund for Lenihan's Liver transplant.