Jan and Klodi's Party Bus - part II **off topic discussion**

LollipopJimmy

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

Yes. It was a classic.

Not my best work at all really but it was jest. Anyway its funny how people read things differently over the medium of text

OleRodrigo

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Not my best work at all really but it was jest. Anyway its funny how people read things differently over the medium of text

Some people are too busy :

- working out how to be offended
- working out how to promote themselves
- whinging

that they've lost their sense of humour. Keep 'em coming LJ !

Chuchote

Mizzle in Irish: ceobhrán

Weepsie

magicbastarder wrote: »

one of those days of being in the right place at the right time - i found myself cycling through rain a good bit, but it was very 'sheety'; cycling in the wet for a kilometre or two, then in the dry for another km, then back in the wet, repeat ad nauseam.

This is my experience too for a while. I got absolutely soaked on Friday in the worst of the days rain though so maybe it was some payback that I avoided much of it today.

We also did opposite directions today. I'd say I was heading towards where the rain had mostly already fallen, and you were in its path.

ednwireland

Great spin this morning madison stellar jacket doing its job then some looper decides the best place to overtake is a flooded dip and sends a wall of water over me. Hope the 2 seconds it saved was worth it

Beasty

ednwireland wrote: »

Hope the 2 seconds it saved was worth it

Well I reckon it cost a lot more than that just to report it here.....

magicbastarder

i assume he meant the 2 seconds saved for the motorist rather than himself!

Chuchote

Cyclist down, possibly; people are talking about a lad "a foreigner, but sure there's nothing wrong with that" who was coming down Howth Hill and went into a van that pulled out; he is said to have died a few days later in hospital. The crash was said to have been on Thursday the 24th or 31st. Has anyone heard about this?

magicbastarder

nowt that i've been able to find on google.

Lusk_Doyle

Chuchote wrote: »

Why do we bother arguing? Humans have 3 years to utterly change our industries or climate change will become irrevocable, leading to what used to be called a nuclear winter, which the human race will not survive. Humans aren't going to make that change. We are now, effectively, extinct.

What are what used to be nuclear winters called now?

Chuchote

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

What are what used to be nuclear winters called now?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/the-atomic-origins-of-climate-science

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/climate-change-for-the-im_b_9865898.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

tomasrojo

Dalata Hotel Group pulling sponsorship from Hook's show.

Lusk_Doyle

Chuchote wrote: »

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/the-atomic-origins-of-climate-science

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-tegmark/climate-change-for-the-im_b_9865898.html

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

FFS. Could you not just give me the answer? I don't have time to be reading all your propaganda!

magicbastarder

tomasrojo wrote: »

Dalata Hotel Group pulling sponsorship from Hook's show.

i've never heard of them before. so in cold commercial terms, hook's comments have been a success for them.

LollipopJimmy

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've never heard of them before. so in cold commercial terms, hook's comments have been a success for them.

They own the Clayton Hotels among others. It's a big hit for his show to take, this could very well be the end of George Hook

Lusk_Doyle

magicbastarder wrote: »

i've never heard of them before. so in cold commercial terms, hook's comments have been a success for them.

One of the big international hotel groups going I think.

magicbastarder

cheers, i've certainly heard of clayton hotels, didn't know who the parent was.

eeeee

How the fcuk is Hook still in a job? Jesus fcuking 'christ', what he said was condoning violence against women. I can't even get my head around the fact that he is allowed a national platform to preach rank, outright violence against women. It saddens me that in our current society, this isn't serious enough for someone to lose their job. That commercial sponsorship is a bigger threat to their position than blaming victims of rape for their own assault.

I actually consider Hook's comments a form of violence. I can almost hear certain knickers twisting at that idea.

And people wonder why we need feminism :rolleyes:

ThisRegard wrote: »

Hey excuse for not doing so is pretty poor, what did she think he was going to do to her?

She complains that in her opinion Newstalk don't care about such complaints but she never followed hers up to find out.

Anyway the whole thing is a mess. I've often said on the radio thread that I believe Hook purposely winds people up with his opening monologue, and without having heard the piece, he may have pushed that too far this time. There'll be a concerted effort from everywhere now to have him fired.

That, right there is victim blaming. Classic, basic, common or garden victim blaming. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the concept.

And, though it pains me to point it out,, it really does, the fact that it is necessary worries and shocks me to my core, but do you really have to wonder why someone who has been subject to the comments she was by Hook wouldn't want to meet him on his territory at the scene of the incidents then I just give the fcuk up on humanity, I really do.


Why oh why oh why is it so hard for some people to fundamentally and often violently disrespect and demean half the population?

rubadub

Seems they were the main sponsors

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clayton-hotels-threatens-to-pull-sponsorship-from-newstalk-over-george-hook-rape-comments-36117390.html

I have not heard the broadcast in question. Much as I despise the man I find this very hard to believe.

Rape victim, Fiona Doyle, told Independent.ie on Friday that Mr Hook's comments were "outrageous" and "offensive".

"What George said is that a man can't help himself if he comes across a drunk woman. It takes the responsibility off men. Men should know not to touch a woman."

magicbastarder

nee wrote: »

I can't even get my head around the fact that he is allowed a national platform to preach rank, outright violence against women.

you would expect - hope? - that someone paid to present a high profile show on a current affairs station who supposedly pride themselves on their output, would be intelligent and fairly tuned in. i genuinely struggle to understand how he is given a platform. for god's sake, one of the few times i listened to his show, it was startling how he was treating a female presenter compared to a male presenter - to the point where *his own daughter* texted in complaining about the way he was behaving.

they should just play the sound of a bellowing t-rex instead of him.

Fighting Tao

Lusk_Doyle wrote: »

One of the big international hotel groups going I think.

They are international (U.K. too) these days but they are an Irish company. Their main brands are Maldron and Clayton but they also own others such as The Ballsbridge, The Gibson and the Belevedere.

Chuchote

It's interesting as a reflection on the 'othering' of cyclists how violent the reaction has been (from decent people) against Hook's rape comments, compared to the reaction to many of his comments on cyclists.

brocbrocach

nee wrote: »

And, though it pains me to point it out,, it really does, the fact that it is necessary worries and shocks me to my core, but do you really have to wonder why someone who has been subject to the comments she was by Hook wouldn't want to meet him on his territory at the scene of the incidents then I just give the fcuk up on humanity, I really do.

Well if she'd steeled herself against the possibility of meeting the doddery old fool in the corridor and made her complaint Hook's pulpit may well have been taken away from him before he had a chance to make his comments.
That would've been a good social influence.

ThisRegard

nee wrote: »

How the fcuk is Hook still in a job? Jesus fcuking 'christ', what he said was condoning violence against women


{rant removed}

So why was my post deleted? Would it have been removed as quick has it been in response to a regular user?

There was nothing offensive or abusive, no moderator note left behind, so what was the issue?

If you familiarise yourself with any of recent posts, most noticeably in the Radio forum, you will have seen that I've been calling out and reporting blatant sexism and misogyny that's widespread across that forum, so don't think your in a position to call me out for something I am not. You can make your claims all you want, and I'm entitled to call your claims and understanding as to who I am for that they are.

seamus

brocbrocach wrote: »

Well if she'd steeled herself against the possibility of meeting the doddery old fool in the corridor and made her complaint Hook's pulpit may well have been taken away from him before he had a chance to make his comments.

Or, she could have been cornered in a meeting room with Hook, two solicitors and a Newstalk exec threatening her with all sorts of civil actions and pushing pieces of paper at her to sign.

It's pretty clear here that the fault for not following through lies with Newstalk. Rather than make any reasonable effort to find out what happened, they just assumed the issue was dropped when she refused to come to their offices. She shouldn't have to "steel" herself for a possible confrontation, she's the victim!

ThisRegard

seamus wrote: »

It's pretty clear here that the fault for not following through lies with Newstalk. Rather than make any reasonable effort to find out what happened, they just assumed the issue was dropped when she refused to come to their offices. She shouldn't have to "steel" herself for a possible confrontation, she's the victim!

I've been through this process twice personally with people, one with regards to comments such as Hook made, the other more general bullying.

Each time the complaint was taking very seriously. One instant the person was removed from the job, the other time the person eventually left of their own volition. Both times it turned out that they had done this before to other people.

One of the complainants took a bit of encouragement to come forward as the person in question was much more senior to them. Both victims met the people in question regularly in a daily basis.

The lady who mentioned on twitter her 2 inappropriate confrontations had the opportunity to pull him up and possibly have him watch his words from that point on. She chose not to in case she might meet him, and didn't return to the issue until after Fridays incident.

There is no reason to believe that she would have been silenced or have her complaints not taken as seriously as many other companies around the country would have. Without her input it was a matter of your word against mine, and the matter would not have gotten very far.

eeeee

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've been through this process twice personally with people, one with regards to comments such as Hook made, the other more general bullying.

Each time the complaint was taking very seriously. One instant the person was removed from the job, the other time the person eventually left of their own volition. Both times it turned out that they had done this before to other people.

One of the complainants took a bit of encouragement to come forward as the person in question was much more senior to them. Both victims met the people in question regularly in a daily basis.

The lady who mentioned on twitter her 2 inappropriate confrontations had the opportunity to pull him up and possibly have him watch his words from that point on. She chose not to in case she might meet him, and didn't return to the issue until after Fridays incident.

There is no reason to believe that she would have been silenced or have her complaints not taken as seriously as many other companies around the country would have.

So your blaming the victim for not coming forward and Hook remaining in his position on the back of her lack of complaint? Seriously?
You can't see, at all how it would be difficult for her to stand up to him? For a myriad of reasons?
You can't see how you're putting all the responsibility on the victim to sort out the perpetrators behaviour? And correct the abuse towards her?
Fcukin hell.
I actually give up.

ThisRegard

Look, you have your interpretation of what I post, and I can tell you how wrong your interpretation is. I feel you're looking to find in my posts what your view is from the outset and there's no changing how entrenched you are. All I can do as this point it tell you that you are wrong.

rollingscone

http://reductress.com/post/has-feminism-gone-too-far-now-that-it-is-specifically-critiquing-me/

CramCycle

ThisRegard wrote: »

I've been through this process twice personally with people, one with regards to comments such as Hook made, the other more general bullying.

I have been through it once. Based on sexism and general bullying.

Each time the complaint was taking very seriously. One instant the person was removed from the job, the other time the person eventually left of their own volition. Both times it turned out that they had done this before to other people.

One of the largest companies in their sector. The complaint was taken seriously in that they seriously just wanted it to go away. They called the complainant to a meeting with the accused, and the head of legal (as a supportive friend). They gave her 24 hours to find someone to come in with her, and said they had to be internal. They asked her to take someone into a meeting with two of the highest ranking staff in the building to stand on her side with little or no warning and expect them to support them in something they probably knew little about.

One of the complainants took a bit of encouragement to come forward as the person in question was much more senior to them. Both victims met the people in question regularly in a daily basis.

This person already had 34 complaints but no one who was comfortable enough they would still have a job to push it.

The person on twitter has 2 inappropriate comments made to her. She had the opportunity to pull him up and possibly have him watch his words from that point on. She chose not to in case she might meet him, and didn't go public until after Friday.

Most likely because it was now public, there would be sense of confidence that there would be no fall back on her, whereas previously, she possibly (and justifiably) feared there might be.

If people find that victim blaming because I have an issue with the latter, I despair.

Despair away, it is victim blaming. if you cannot understand why a victim of certain crimes or behaviour are uncomfortable coming forward, then I suggest you come at it from a different perspective or maybe think of a different behaviour. Imagine it was a gun crime outside your door and the perpetrator knows if there was a witness, it would have to be you, can you understand why someone might not come forward. Maybe a doctor acted inappropriately but as far as you know, the waiting lists for your illness are really long if you go elsewhere or the reputation of others in the field leave you feeling that despite the behaviour, your best hope for a cure is sticking with that doctor. Maybe you are in a field where the circle of people involved is very small and there would be a fear that a complaint would be met with disbelief and shunning.