Al Porter Scandal

Invincible

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What did he allegedly do

https://www.google.ie/amp/metro.co.uk/2017/11/18/irish-comedian-al-porter-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-by-four-men-7089258/amp/

The Bishop Basher

strandroad wrote: »

Absolutely. But then his employers acted quickly and decisively, unlike Hook's.

Hook didn't do anything wrong other then offend the delicate sensibilities of the perpetually offended and outraged..

Al porter has been sexually assaulting people alledgedy..Mod note! BTJ

There's no comparison whatsoever..

daheff

This is great. Means no more al porter on da radio

I can safely listen to todayfm after dermot & dave and not have to be offended by him.

Maybe they’ll come to their senses and bring back Anton in that slot !!!

Dev84

wetlandsboy wrote: »

I note that every time it’s mentioned, the presenters read a prepared statement. Love watching them cringe!

His career is basically over now. Before it had started one could argue.

We dont know if he did anything wrong so in itself is wrong that he has suffered trial by social media.

What id say is his victims seem more interested in seeing him slaughtered in the court of public opinion than going down the legal route which in itself speaks volumes.

I'd presume they havent gone to the guards to make an official complaint. If they had they'd hardly be on social media screaming about it.

Of course the above is not to say that this didnt happen.

The George Hook thing is different.

splinter65

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

Mickey grabbing.

Maybe he thought he was having a bit of craic as this ott gay fella and saw this carry on as part of his schtick only for it to backfire spectacularly. At best it was misguided banter (in his mind) and at worst it was sexual harassment.
He's not doing himself any favours by staying silent on the matter.

Sexual assault, not harassment. I would consider someone reaching into my knickers and gabbing and squeezing my vagina an assault, not harassment.
I would physically defend myself in whatever way I could and complain to the Gardai and I would expect the person to be arrested.
I wouldn’t want the attacker to be allowed to think that they would get away with this.
The extreme left wing bias pervading this country has dictated that the normal rules somehow don’t apply to gay people.
Al Porter is absolutely astonished today to find that it’s possible that some small amount of dry ****es don’t think his dick grabbing is hilarious.
Because he has been egged on for the last couple of years by the sniggering masses.
His “innuendo” and double entendres turned into insults and crassness and offensive abusive smut (all you have to do is watch Blind Date) but because we’re all so liberal now we just kept right on pretending that he’s an absolute darling.

Don Kiddick

You're assuming we've seen blind date or his show

Dev84

Don Kiddick wrote: »

You're assuming we've seen blind date or his show

To be fair if you've turned on the radio in the last 12 months you'll have heard of him.

Gwynplaine

Well Blind Date won't be on any more, so, bonus.

splinter65

Don Kiddick wrote: »

You're assuming we've seen blind date or his show

...then you wouldn’t know how offensive he is, and oh ! how the people laughed!

retro:electro

pjohnson wrote: »

Claiming George Hook is better known surely doesn't matter? I mean Hook never touched ANYONE. Porter has apparently grabbed others genitals. Regardless of how "well known" or how "young" Porter is. His alleged misdemeanours are far worse than anything Hook did.

Agreed. Hook was thrown to the wolves for asking a question which he bolloxed up and immediately apologised for. His status and age and whatever else are irrelevant, as are Al's.
Al allegedly groped people under their trousers and laughed in their faces. What a fcuking disgusting thing to do. I don't care if he was in character or all bravado due to his shtick- you don't put your hands on another person let alone shove them down their clothes and grab their genitals.

I can't stand either of them, but I'll judge both of them for their actions alone. Hook misspoke and fcuked up, but got treated like he condoned rape or something.
Al apparently touched people inappropriately and the silence from some is deafening, especially since one is a crime and the other isn't.

Don Kiddick

Dev84 wrote: »

To be fair if you've turned on the radio in the last 12 months you'll have heard of him.

Nope
I know who he is...but I stay away from Irish TV and radio

wakka12

KKkitty wrote: »

I believe his accusers. Why else would they say he's done this to them. His accusers don't seem like they want to make a quick buck off this but to make others aware that this is the sort of behaviour that Al Porter is capable of. I never went out of my way to watch Al Porter or listen to him on radio but there's no smoke without fire as the saying goes. The fact that he's been obviously instructed to go on any kind of leave speaks volumes.

Most likely is true, as you say 'why else would they say he's done this to them'. But then again, maybe a group of people could hate al porter, and think to themselves if four of us think of 4 detailed stories and go publicly everyone will think , why would this group of lads do this and have detailed stories.

I do think he's guilty, but Id like to see some proof of what he did before he gets any punishment.

Beechwoodspark

I just saw the front of the Sunday indo.

There's a fairly prominent picture of him on the cover looking remorseful.

They hardly had a photo shoot yesterday for that pic did they?

volchitsa

anna080 wrote: »

Agreed. Hook was thrown to the wolves for asking a question which he bolloxed up and immediately apologised for. His status and age and whatever else are irrelevant, as are Al's.
Al allegedly groped people under their trousers and laughed in their faces. What a fcuking disgusting thing to do. I don't care if he was in character or all bravado due to his shtick- you don't put your hands on another person let alone shove them down their clothes and grab their genitals.

I can't stand either of them, but I'll judge both of them for their actions alone. Hook misspoke and fcuked up, but got treated like he condoned rape or something.
Al apparently touched people inappropriately and the silence from some is deafening, especially since one is a crime and the other isn't.

Hook has a history of such comments, all known to be true, many of them having occurred on air. His bosses are entitled to take him off air if they feel his presence is harming their revenues, which it was. It's a business decision, end of story.

Porter, who I don't like at all, is accused of having done something which he denies. There may be a criminal trial, and it's important that nothing is done to prevent that happening. Like an assumption in the media of his guilt for instance.

See the difference?

Weepsie

anna080 wrote: »

Agreed. Hook was thrown to the wolves for asking a question which he bolloxed up and immediately apologised for. His status and age and whatever else are irrelevant, as are Al's.
Al allegedly groped people under their trousers and laughed in their faces. What a fcuking disgusting thing to do. I don't care if he was in character or all bravado due to his shtick- you don't put your hands on another person let alone shove them down their clothes and grab their genitals.

I can't stand either of them, but I'll judge both of them for their actions alone. Hook misspoke and fcuked up, but got treated like he condoned rape or something.
Al apparently touched people inappropriately and the silence from some is deafening, especially since one is a crime and the other isn't.

Hook more than misspoke, and it was not the first time he made very similar comments.

giveitholly

volchitsa wrote: »

Hook has a history of such comments, all known to be true, many of them having occurred on air. His bosses are entitled to take him off air if they feel his presence is harming their revenues, which it was. It's a business decision, end of story.

Porter, who I don't like at all, is accused of having done something which he denies. There may be a criminal trial, and it's important that nothing is done to prevent that happening. Like an assumption in the media of his guilt for instance.

See the difference?

Where and when did he deny it?

Don Kiddick

volchitsa wrote: »

Hook has a history of such comments, all known to be true, many of them having occurred on air. His bosses are entitled to take him off air if they feel his presence is harming their revenues, which it was. It's a business decision, end of story.

Porter, who I don't like at all, is accused of having done something which he denies. There may be a criminal trial, and it's important that nothing is done to prevent that happening. Like an assumption in the media of his guilt for instance.

See the difference?

Yes...you're trying to make a correlation between unpopular opinion and sexual assault

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Hook has a history of such comments, all known to be true, many of them having occurred on air. His bosses are entitled to take him off air if they feel his presence is harming their revenues, which it was. It's a business decision, end of story.

Porter, who I don't like at all, is accused of having done something which he denies. There may be a criminal trial, and it's important that nothing is done to prevent that happening. Like an assumption in the media of his guilt for instance.

See the difference?

Have you a link to Porter denying the allegations? I didn’t see anything.

Dev84

splinter65 wrote: »

Have you a link to Porter denying the allegations? I didn’t see anything.

But he's not obliged to defend himself on social media.

I wouldnt hesitate to think that if he has gone to a solicitor to take advice he has been told to say nothing until a statement is prepared by a good PR company and his solicitor.

mikeysmith

Dev84 wrote: »

But he's not obliged to defend himself on social media.

I wouldnt hesitate to think that if he has gone to a solicitor to take advice he has been told to say nothing until a statement is prepared by a good PR company and his solicitor.

They won't prepare any statement for a while

If he says anything immediately he can be wrongfooted by unfolding allegations

retro:electro

volchitsa wrote: »

Hook has a history of such comments, all known to be true, many of them having occurred on air. His bosses are entitled to take him off air if they feel his presence is harming their revenues, which it was. It's a business decision, end of story.

Porter, who I don't like at all, is accused of having done something which he denies. There may be a criminal trial, and it's important that nothing is done to prevent that happening. Like an assumption in the media of his guilt for instance.

See the difference?

When did he deny it?

VinLieger

Curious if the panto will go ahead or if hes gonna be in it, i dont care but theres a hell of a lot of people with tickets

volchitsa

Sorry, may have been confusing him with some of the US ones, but he certainly hasn't admitted to them, ok?

Unlike Hook.

More importantly though, both the allegations and the possible sanctions are on a completely different scale. Porter is entitled to presumption of innocence. Hook was the "victim" of a business decision by his employers.

Dev84

VinLieger wrote: »

Curious if the panto will go ahead or if hes gonna be in it, i dont care but theres a hell of a lot of people with tickets

It cant.
After today fm removing him there is no way the panto will go ahead with him.

It would be an abdolute disaster should and when more accusations come to light.

Ash.J.Williams

Ballstein wrote: »

The fella who ran the Gate theatre got flayed cause he TOLD a woman she looked well. Trump is still being hounded because he TALKED ABOUT grabbing a woman by the pussy. Porter went into the jacks and stuck his hand down a fellas pants grabbing his junk, yet he’s “only messing” sure “he’s great craic”.
The problem with setting off a mob to lynch someone is that sometimes the mob lynch people who you don’t want lynched. Old white men like Hook can’t even say a word that doesn’t fit the current narrative without the mob demanding his removal, yet one of the most respected newspapers in the world run a front page headline with 4 independent allegations and all of a sudden certain people are saying there’s no proof.

Colgan said she looked like she lost enough weight that he'd almost **** her

blade1

VinLieger wrote: »

Curious if the panto will go ahead or if hes gonna be in it, i dont care but theres a hell of a lot of people with tickets

Dev84 wrote: »

It cant.
After today fm removing him there is no way the panto will go ahead with him.

It would be an abdolute disaster should and when more accusations come to light.

It can't go ahead.
Health and safety issue.
Imagine the stampede when somebody shouts "he's behind you".

Ash.J.Williams

Dev84 wrote: »

It cant.
After today fm removing him there is no way the panto will go ahead with him.

It would be an abdolute disaster should and when more accusations come to light.

The thing with Porter is... It matters not whether the allegations are true or false... The fact is all his panto material is now obselete... He's only there to tell micky jokes to parents

splinter65

Dev84 wrote: »

But he's not obliged to defend himself on social media.

I wouldnt hesitate to think that if he has gone to a solicitor to take advice he has been told to say nothing until a statement is prepared by a good PR company and his solicitor.

If I was accused of a sexual assault I didn’t commit in an orchestrated effort to destroy my career, I definitely wouldn’t silently step aside from my work commitments while a PR/legal team deliberated all weekend over the wording of my statement.
It’s the ultimate injustice to be accused in the wrong of something so heinous.
If the Facebook message doesn’t exist or his Facebook account was hacked then that’s easily proven.
If is not true then It’s a very straightforward case of defamation if the Times is saying that Al Porter attacked this guy.
I can’t understand what you think he’s waiting for if the allegations are spurious.
His career has evaporated in 48 hours while he waits for these spin doctors to word a statement.
There isn’t even a suggestion that there will be a statement.

seamus

VinLieger wrote: »

Curious if the panto will go ahead or if hes gonna be in it, i dont care but theres a hell of a lot of people with tickets

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The thing with Porter is... It matters not whether the allegations are true or false... The fact is all his panto material is now obselete... He's only there to tell micky jokes to parents

There are plenty of other performers along the same lines in Ireland. They'll easily get a replacement for Porter who'll slot right into it.

Porter was the big name draw for the Panto, he wasn't going to be doing anything that 100 other less-known comedians aren't capable of.

The only funny thing about this, are those people falling over themselves to claim some kind of "victory" over "left wing liberals" because a popular gay performer has been alleged to have committed sexual assaults.

And then they'd already written the book on what the "liberal media's" response was going to be before anyone made a response.

splinter65

seamus wrote: »

There are plenty of other performers along the same lines in Ireland. They'll easily get a replacement for Porter who'll slot right into it.

Porter was the big name draw for the Panto, he wasn't going to be doing anything that 100 other less-known comedians aren't capable of.

The only funny thing about this, are those people falling over themselves to claim some kind of "victory" over "left wing liberals" because a popular gay performer has been alleged to have committed sexual assaults.

And then they'd already written the book on what the "liberal media's" response was going to be before anyone made a response.

Seamus do you not agree that the silence is deafening ?

Roger Hassenforder

seamus wrote: »

T
The only funny thing about this, are those people falling over themselves to claim some kind of "victory" over "left wing liberals" because a popular gay performer has been alleged to have committed sexual assaults.
.

There's nothing funny about this.

strandroad

splinter65 wrote: »

Seamus do you not agree that the silence is deafening ?

Wait for the Monday papers and radio...

Roger Hassenforder

Dev84 wrote: »

But he's not obliged to defend himself on social media.

I wouldnt hesitate to think that if he has gone to a solicitor to take advice he has been told to say nothing until a statement is prepared by a good PR company and his solicitor.

Well his PR company isn't up to scratch. First rule of crisis management is 'silence is not golden'.
TodayFM issued a statement fairly quick, nothing concrete, just they take the allegations seriously and are concerned about the welfare of one of their staff.
Nada from Porter himself.

smurgen

seamus wrote: »

There are plenty of other performers along the same lines in Ireland. They'll easily get a replacement for Porter who'll slot right into it.

Porter was the big name draw for the Panto, he wasn't going to be doing anything that 100 other less-known comedians aren't capable of.

The only funny thing about this, are those people falling over themselves to claim some kind of "victory" over "left wing liberals" because a popular gay performer has been alleged to have committed sexual assaults.

And then they'd already written the book on what the "liberal media's" response was going to be before anyone made a response.

The treatment has been different.we are talking about the hypocrisy.even the responses here defending him have a different tone. Weinstein was predatory yet Al Porters alleged victims wouldn't have felt threatened cause they were male.this is the line some posters are following and it's sickening.

razorblunt

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Well his PR company isn't up to scratch. First rule of crisis management is 'silence is not golden'.
TodayFM issued a statement fairly quick, nothing concrete, just they take the allegations seriously and are concerned about the welfare of one of their staff.
Nada from Porter himself.

He might have had decent PR representation if he hadn't been being making jibes about Anton Savage being "he who can't be named" around Today FM earlier in the week.

WHIP IT!

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you know these people haven't been to the gardai? Unfortunately it's one persons word against another's and the guards probably won't bother with it.

Seriously? Are you actually making that argument? You think the "victims" went to the Garda and were told "Al Porter, no way, he's a gas lad... get out!"... would ye stop, man. There were no reports made to the Garda, you know that as well as I do.

suicide_circus

smurgen wrote: »

The treatment has been different.we are talking about the hypocrisy.even the responses here defending him have a different tone. Weinstein was predatory yet Al Porters alleged victims wouldn't have felt threatened cause they were male.this is the line some posters are following and it's sickening.

It's abject hypocrisy and is proof, if any were needed, that people don't give a tuppenny ****e about victims, it's all about tribalism, identity politics and point scoring

NIMAN

One grown man going to the Gardai over another grown man touching his dick?

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I would call that wasting police time.

If another man touched my dick I'd tell him to get to feck. If he did it again, I'd deck him.

When did the world become so soft?

WHIP IT!

pjohnson wrote: »

so you can get away with things if you are young. George Hook and Louis CK touched no one but got hounded out of work. Porter deserves the same.

You missed my point. I don't and didn't agree with their treatment either. The silver lining for them is, they have had their careers and made their money.

retro:electro

NIMAN wrote: »

One grown man going to the Gardai over another grown man touching his dick?

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I would call that wasting police time.

If another man touched my dick I'd tell him to get to feck. If he did it again, I'd deck him.

When did the world become so soft?

Good for you. So you'd deck him- then what? Does that negate his crime? Nope. All that does is make one crime become two.

You could kung fu him in the ball sack and it still wouldn't mitigate his crime against you.

blade1

NIMAN wrote: »

One grown man going to the Gardai over another grown man touching his dick?

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I would call that wasting police time.

If another man touched my dick I'd tell him to get to feck. If he did it again, I'd deck him.

When did the world become so soft?

So you're saying it's better to be hard when a man touches your dick?

splinter65

NIMAN wrote: »

One grown man going to the Gardai over another grown man touching his dick?

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I would call that wasting police time.

If another man touched my dick I'd tell him to get to feck. If he did it again, I'd deck him.

When did the world become so soft?

I’m trying to picture a man (you) lying in bed in a psychiatric hospital having made a suicide attempt and having your penis and scrotum fondled and squeezed by a visiting celebrity and you saying “get to feck” and thinking no more about it....

eviltwin

NIMAN wrote: »

One grown man going to the Gardai over another grown man touching his dick?

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I would call that wasting police time.

If another man touched my dick I'd tell him to get to feck. If he did it again, I'd deck him.

When did the world become so soft?

You can't win here. You make allegations and your told go to the guards, you do that and you are wasting their time. It's this kind of attitude that makes it harder for male victims to come forward because they are judged for not.fighting back.

The Talking Bread

Niman just looking for a reaction, me thinks.


I think I will deck him if he makes a similar post again.

NIMAN

I think we are going to need to employ a lot more Guards.

The Talking Bread

NIMAN wrote: »

I think we are going to need to employ a lot more Guards.

Or else give the ones currently doing f*ck all something to do

splinter65

NIMAN wrote: »

I think we are going to need to employ a lot more Guards.

Absolutely. In house psychiatric patients need to get over themselves and get a sense of humor. It’s only a bit of banter.

The Talking Bread

VinLieger wrote: »

Curious if the panto will go ahead or if hes gonna be in it, i dont care but theres a hell of a lot of people with tickets

All publicity is good publicity I suppose.

NIMAN

eviltwin wrote: »

You can't win here. You make allegations and your told go to the guards, you do that and you are wasting their time. It's this kind of attitude that makes it harder for male victims to come forward because they are judged for not.fighting back.

I think once again its a case of considering every crime at the same level as belittling the real ones.

As Julia Hartley Brewer said about the guy who resigned from the UK cabinet for touching her knee 15 years previously. "Seriously, he resigned for that?".

OF course if someone is raped or seriously sexually assaulted, you should involve the police. But if someone slaps your bum or tells you that they'd feck you if you lost a bit of weight, do some think these require police time?

All crimes aren't the same.

NIMAN

Maybe Julian Cleary would be free?