Al Porter Scandal

Get Real

Trond wrote: »

Porters Facebook page is actually scary. The sheer amount of people blindly defending him.

Whoever made the comparison with McGregors fans who refuse to acknowledge his wrong doings is a great shout.

Where were these people when the Weinstein allegations first materialised? Or the plethora of other similar types of allegations.

They'd be the very ones condemning that type of behaviour. Yet in this instance, it's popular to throw up "innocent until proven guilty" and question the alleged victims motives. I bet these people wouldn't dare question the motives of the victims of Weinstein for example.

The people defending Al Porter seem to be inconsistent in their principles. They wouldn't defend a male accused of using his position to take advantage of females. They wouldn't comment "why judge before it goes to court" and they'd be eaten alive if they commented such a thing.

Yet a white irish gay male, who up until two weeks ago represented everything good about our society and how progressive it is-these same people won't condemn him where they'd condemn others by reading a headline and investigating no further.

I'm all for non judgement of any of these accused. If I have my own personal opinions on their guilt or otherwise, I generally keep it to myself. In fact, I haven't commented on Al or any other celeb sex scandal in the past 5 years.

What I am commenting on is the lack of consistency of some of his supporters, friends on FB I know, that support him, but have condemned those involved in other headlines in the past when they broke, without knowing anything. Where's the logic in that? "Well I condemn Mr.X for what he said about groping pssy, but Mr.Y here, it's alleged he did grope and feel, but he's different, give him a chance"

Foxtrol

cloudatlas wrote: »

What response?

All I found was the following - "To be absolutely and unequivocally clear, any person, whoever they are who commits sexual assault needs to be held to account. Without exception. And again, the men who spoke out about Al Porter must be heard and taken seriously." Colm O'Gorman

This portion of his statement (that no one asked him to write)

I know Al. I like him. I have always found him to be kind and decent.

20Cent

Anyone else sick of the "well where were the x outrage when y happened they must be hypocrites" trope?

seamus

Foxtrol wrote: »

This portion of his statement (that no one asked him to write)

What's wrong with it? Is he expected to revise his own memories with this new information? Is he required to lie and say that he always thought Al Porters was a sex pest, even if he didn't?

"I have always found him to be kind and decent."

As, in "My experiences with this person have always been positive". Is that shocking? Do you have proof that in fact Al Porter has been horrible to Colm O'Gorman and O'Gorman is lying?

gramar

Music Hook wrote: »

No. Quite a few people here have had their hypocrisy on sexual violence exposed when the victim is male.

Where's Grayson, Brian?, Raym, JoeytheParrot, Popepalpatine? Strangely quite on this one.

For someone 'new' to boards you know them all!

pilly

Music Hook wrote: »

No. Quite a few people here have had their hypocrisy on sexual violence exposed when the victim is male.

Where's Grayson, Brian?, Raym, JoeytheParrot, Popepalpatine? Strangely quite on this one.

How do you know all this with one post to your name?

seamus

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone else sick of the "well where were the x outrage when y happened they must be hypocrites" trope?

There was a guy on this thread practically wetting himself on Saturday morning trying to second-guess what Matt Cooper was going to say about this 48 hours later. Of course, nothing anyone says about it is going to satisfy you when you've already decided what they're going to say. And naturally he was criticising Matt Cooper for saying what he hadn't said yet, both because he was going to say it and hadn't said anything yet.

gramar

Music Hook wrote: »

There are some others strangely quite too, Jobsbridge4life springs to mind. The same people stay very quite too on threads about Islamic violence towards women.

Oh apologies to RayM, he was involved in this thread earlier, making jokes about male rape.

Seeing as you're new..it's 'quiet' and not 'quite'. Lots of grammar nazis about on boards you know!

Foxtrol

seamus wrote: »

What's wrong with it? Is he expected to revise his own memories with this new information? Is he required to lie and say that he always thought Al Porters was a sex pest, even if he didn't?

"I have always found him to be kind and decent."

As, in "My experiences with this person have always been positive". Is that shocking? Do you have proof that in fact Al Porter has been horrible to Colm O'Gorman and O'Gorman is lying?

He wasn’t asked to make a statement so he could have stayed quiet. If he felt the need to make one given the close association he and the charity he gets paid to run has with Porter he could have left out the character reference.

This statement came out after Porter’s ‘apology’ where he did not refute the allegations and gave the flamboyant persona excuse.

I ask again, I wonder how Colm would or did feel when he accused his abusers and people came out in public saying how much they like him and that they always found him kind and decent. How does that help the victims, which I would have hoped would be to the forefront of his mind?

EndaHonesty

St Patrick's Mental Health Services confirms it received official complaint in relation to Al Porter

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/st-patricks-mental-health-services-confirms-it-received-official-complaint-in-relation-to-al-porter-815209.html

Foxtrol

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone else sick of the "well where were the x outrage when y happened they must be hypocrites" trope?

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.

seamus

Foxtrol wrote: »

He wasn’t asked to make a statement so he could have stayed quiet.

He didn't make a statement. It was a tweet. It's right above you in this thread. O'Gorman was tweeting a personal reaction to what he was hearing. Just like he's entitled to.

More lies and misrepresentation. Unsurprising.

pilly

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.

You keep saying character reference. Where is this character reference?

Just in your head I think.

I would call plenty of people kind and decent if that's how they've always interacted with me. Doesn't mean I'm providing a character reference in a court of law. Completely different thing altogether.

david75

Foxtrol wrote: »

He is an abuse survivor who is one of the well known campaigners for victims of sexual violence and go-to people for the media to go to on that topic. For some reason he has come out and called Al Porter ‘kind and decent’ which is totally perplexing and disappointing.

I fully agree that the two situations are completely different but the response from people who were outraged by Hook and staying quiet or supportive on this, much more serious, unrefuted allegation is clear hypocrisy.

In the first tweet of a series he said he always found al to be kind and decent. He then went on to address any kind of sexual allegation should be investigated and the victims listened to.


Seriously the cherry picking that’s going on around o gormans comments is as nauseating as the porter thing itself.

Plenty of known And convicted sex offenders would have any amount of people around them saying he always seemed so nice and normal. Are they to blame for that persons misconduct just by knowing them?

This is no different to what Colms saying. The pro life campaign are making lame attempts to attach o Gorman to Porters behaviour * just cos he knows him and happens to also be gay*

I swear to jaysis some people in this country would make you despair.

QuietMan2010

seamus wrote: »

What's wrong with it? Is he expected to revise his own memories with this new information? Is he required to lie and say that he always thought Al Porters was a sex pest, even if he didn't?

"I have always found him to be kind and decent."

As, in "My experiences with this person have always been positive". Is that shocking? Do you have proof that in fact Al Porter has been horrible to Colm O'Gorman and O'Gorman is lying?

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.

Foxtrol

seamus wrote: »

He didn't make a statement. It was a tweet. It's right above you in this thread. O'Gorman was tweeting a personal reaction to what he was hearing. Just like he's entitled to.

More lies and misrepresentation. Unsurprising.

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.

david75

This attitude we’re seeing is exactly why those tens of thousands of victims of sexual abuse at the hands of priests in Ireland never came forward. It’s appalling given our history and recent history of ignoring and turning a blind eye and shaming the victim is still continuing. Sickening in fact.

david75

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.

In what universe is ‘I always found him to be kind and decent’ a character reference???

Can we ask why Ronan Mullen who hid and protected priests and bishops who molested kids from prosecution is still allowed take up our airwaves and occupy a seat in our senate?

The double standards of the pro life crowd really are the most obviously transparent and ridiculous of things.

cloudatlas

david75 wrote: »

In the first tweet of a series he said he always found al to be kind and decent. He then went on to address any kind of sexual allegation should be investigated and the victims listened to.


Seriously the cherry picking that’s going on around o gormans comments is as nauseating as the porter thing itself.

Plenty of known And convicted sex offenders would have any amount of people around them saying he always seemed so nice and normal. Are they to blame for that persons misconduct just by knowing them?

This is no different to what Colms saying. The pro life campaign are making lame attempts to attach o Gorman to Porters behaviour * just cos he knows him and happens to also be gay*

I swear to jaysis some people in this country would make you despair.

I agree context is needed in this case, Al did some work with Amnesty at least that is my understanding so in that capacity he seemed decent. Would have been completely different if Colm had said Al is a lovely guy and I don't believe he did it! but that isn't what he said at all. Besides there was an article in the Irish Times written by someone who worked in the Gate bar and said Micahel Colgan was nice to her, should she be condemned if that was her experience. Nobody condoned the actions of these people just conveyed their own experience and qualified it by saying they hoped the victims were listened to.

Foxtrol

david75 wrote: »

In the first tweet of a series he said he always found al to be kind and decent. He then went on to address any kind of sexual allegation should be investigated and the victims listened to.

Seriously the cherry picking that’s going on around o gormans comments is as nauseating as the porter thing itself.

Plenty of known And convicted sex offenders would have any amount of people around them saying he always seemed so nice and normal. Are they to blame for that persons misconduct just by knowing them?

This is no different to what Colms saying. The pro life campaign are making lame attempts to attach o Gorman to Porters behaviour * just cos he knows him and happens to also be gay*

I swear to jaysis some people in this country would make you despair.

Yes, a sexual abuse victim advocate stating positive comments about a person accused of being a serial sexual assaulter (including one victim in care) would make me despair.

I ask for a third time, how do you think Colm would feel if people stated to 35k people that they liked his abuser and found him decent and kind?

Foxtrol

david75 wrote: »

In what universe is ‘I always found him to be kind and decent’ a character reference???

Can we ask why Ronan Mullen who hid and protected priests and bishops who molested kids from prosecution is still allowed take up our airwaves and occupy a seat in our senate?

The double standards of the pro life crowd really are the most obviously transparent and ridiculous of things.

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.

suicide_circus

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes, a sexual abuse victim advocate stating positive comments about a person accused of being a serial sexual assaulter (including one victim in care) would make me despair.

I ask for a third time, how do you think Colm would feel if people stated to 35k people that they liked his abuser and found him decent and kind?

Professional Victims can make foolish comments too.

david75

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes, a sexual abuse victim advocate stating positive comments about a person accused of being a serial sexual assaulter (including one victim in care) would make me despair.

I ask for a third time, how do you think Colm would feel if people stated to 35k people that they liked his abuser and found him decent and kind?

O Gorman isn’t the issue of the story here. You seem to be trying to make it so.
There are HUNDREDS of people in media and tv and press etc that know Al Porter. The majority of them have presence on twitter.

Where exactly are your posts attacking them for not speaking out on the topic?

I make the pro life connection cos your current attempt to make this about O Gorman is a lot of it word for word the same as tweets being sent to him personally and they’re mostly from pro life accounts and faceless bots.

Vladimir Poontang

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

david75

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

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

Wouldn’t be surprised if Porter was at the airport to get a feel of him tbh

Vladimir Poontang

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

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

Amanda brunker is lining something up to get involved someway

Vogue and Roz Purcell too are waiting for the indo to ask about it

Foxtrol

cloudatlas wrote: »

I agree context is needed in this case, Al did some work with Amnesty at least that is my understanding so in that capacity he seemed decent. Would have been completely different if Colm had said Al is a lovely guy and I don't believe he did it! but that isn't what he said at all. Besides there was an article in the Irish Times written by someone who worked in the Gate bar and said Micahel Colgan was nice to her, should she be condemned if that was her experience. Nobody condoned the actions of these people just conveyed their own experience and qualified it by saying they hoped the victims were listened to.

Was the person who said Colgan was nice to her constantly in the media talking and head of a charity related to victims of sexual assault? There is a difference in who is making the statements. The irony is that Colm is now saying there is a witch hunt out to get him when he has led many himself.

I would hope what he was trying to get across was that he didn’t see or suspect Porter from his relationship with him but if that was his intention he messed it up by making supportive character comments about Porter rather than staying factual. He should put his hands up and admit it was an error, however, he probably saw that Hook doing similar just added fuel to the fire so he is going with ‘troll and bots are out to get me’ defense.

david75

Ignoring the moron posting it here’s the bag of coke / few quid in an envelope text from porter. This is the man.

https://twitter.com/leighg_97/status/933031141338173441

20Cent

Foxtrol wrote: »

Was the person who said Colgan was nice to her constantly in the media talking and head of a charity related to victims of sexual assault? There is a difference in who is making the statements. The irony is that Colm is now saying there is a witch hunt out to get him when he has led many himself.

I would hope what he was trying to get across was that he didn’t see or suspect Porter from his relationship with him but if that was his intention he messed it up by making supportive character comments about Porter rather than staying factual. He should put his hands up and admit it was an error, however, he probably saw that Hook doing similar just added fuel to the fire so he is going with ‘troll and bots are out to get me’ defense.

You are really grasping at straws there chief.

Foxtrol

david75 wrote: »

O Gorman isn’t the issue of the story here. You seem to be trying to make it so.
There are HUNDREDS of people in media and tv and press etc that know Al Porter. The majority of them have presence on twitter.

Where exactly are your posts attacking them for not speaking out on the topic?

I make the pro life connection cos your current attempt to make this about O Gorman is a lot of it word for word the same as tweets being sent to him personally and they’re mostly from pro life accounts and faceless bots.

Oh no you’ve caught me, I posted on boards for 10 years on a variety of topics barely ever dipping my toe into any abortion/gay marriage debates in the hopes of one day attacking O’Gorman in the hopes of assisting the pro life agenda.

I made my original post that I was ‘surprised and disappointed’ by his comments and his defenders have jumped out of the woodwork and turned this into this discussion. If being ‘surprised and disappointed’ is an attack then it says a lot about your tolerance of criticism and need to be a victim.

The reason why I am not speaking out against the other people in the media because a) they are not one of the faces for advocates for victims of sexual violence, b) they are not paid 100k a year by a charity that has ties to victims of sexual violence, c) they have not come out giving positive comments about Porter’s character. If you know of any media people who fit the 3 of those let me know as I would be happy to comment on them also.

Muahahaha

20Cent wrote: »

Anyone else sick of the "well where were the x outrage when y happened they must be hypocrites" trope?

Well sick of it, it smacks of wah, wah, wah, what about this, what about that, deflect, deflect, deflect away from the central issue.

I cant believe some on here are trying to make this thread about Colm OGorman. He clearly and unequivocally said that:

1) He is disturbed by the allegations
2) The victims need to be taken seriously
3) "Appropriate authorities" need to get involved (I presuming it is the Gardai he is referring to here

So OGorman expresses his shock, expresses support for the victims and says a criminal investigation is needed into Al Porters behaviour and posters here twist that into being a character reference? Lol, you couldnt make it up! Some people in this thread are a bit twisted in the head if you ask me.

splinter65

pilly wrote: »

How do you know all this with one post to your name?

It is possible to read boards. It’s not obligatory to sign up.

Galwayguy35

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

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

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

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

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

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

Luke Skywalker is dissapointed in you Dave

david75

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.