Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Down Goes O'Reilly!!


darkblue

Recommended Posts

being a sex offender pays better.

 

Only if you're a superstar.

 

But even then he still got the boot and for women who are the victims of sexual abusers like him in the business world that's a clear victory.

 

Fox should be shamed of themselves (they're not, of course) for allowing O'Reilly to get away with his crap with women for years. They deserve no credit now, merely responding to advertisers withdrawing their funds and the growing stench of it all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Only if you're a superstar.

 

But even then he still got the boot and for women who are the victims of sexual abusers like him in the business world that's a clear victory.

 

Fox should be shamed of themselves (they're not, of course) for allowing O'Reilly to get away with his crap with women for years. They deserve no credit now, merely responding to advertisers withdrawing their funds and the growing stench of it all.

The fact that he's the guy who got Trump up and running doesn't help the stench that's settling around Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's going down even harder than Frazier.

 

 

LOL. So happy wont see his ugly mug on the screen (not that I watched him, but hard to avoid him in news clips). Probably the only way he could get a woman (to harass her)....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand well that some women may have felt their work environment was far from ideal but I have not seen any reports that would classify him as: "a sexual predator." 

 

One report of his behaviour is:

“Within the first week and a half of working there ... he made like a grunting noise," she told "The View." "As time went on, I noticed every time he walked past my desk, if no one was around, he would make that noise."
 
"Fast forward to maybe three, four weeks in, we were on the elevator alone coming up to our floor, and he let me off first as gentlemen usually do," she continued. "As I was getting off the elevator, he said 'looking good, there, girl.'"
 
"One day he walks past my desk ... he walks past and says 'Hey, hot chocolate,'" she said. "I didn’t respond. I was mortified ... I took that as a very plantational remark."
 
It seems very much to me that he is/was a clueless arrogant brute but I feel that hardly qualifies placing him in the same category as: Bill Cosby.
 
It is common for people in power to become so detached from the workers that they feel their: "little attentions" are cute and are bonding moments. I have seen such many times in vastly different environments and that even women in positions of authority do it. It is the flip side of people being nicer to a woman if she is pretty and dresses nicely. 
 
It happens. Roll your eyes. Understand he is a jerk. Get over it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I understand well that some women may have felt their work environment was far from ideal but I have not seen any reports that would classify him as: "a sexual predator." 

 

One report of his behaviour is:

“Within the first week and a half of working there ... he made like a grunting noise," she told "The View." "As time went on, I noticed every time he walked past my desk, if no one was around, he would make that noise."
 
"Fast forward to maybe three, four weeks in, we were on the elevator alone coming up to our floor, and he let me off first as gentlemen usually do," she continued. "As I was getting off the elevator, he said 'looking good, there, girl.'"
 
"One day he walks past my desk ... he walks past and says 'Hey, hot chocolate,'" she said. "I didn’t respond. I was mortified ... I took that as a very plantational remark."
 
It seems very much to me that he is/was a clueless arrogant brute but I feel that hardly qualifies placing him in the same category as: Bill Cosby.
 
It is common for people in power to become so detached from the workers that they feel their: "little attentions" are cute and are bonding moments. I have seen such many times in vastly different environments and that even women in positions of authority do it. It is the flip side of people being nicer to a woman if she is pretty and dresses nicely. 
 
It happens. Roll your eyes. Understand he is a jerk. Get over it.

 

 

While I understand the point you're making here,  what I don't understand is why did Fox and O'Reilly pay off these women.   Being a jerk isn't illegal and with the lawyers they could pay for they should have been able to win a civil suit.

 

Yea,  Bill said he settled to protect his children but to me that rings hollow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand well that some women may have felt their work environment was far from ideal but I have not seen any reports that would classify him as: "a sexual predator." 

 

Hmm. So offering professional perks to women and then taking the offers way when they rebuff him sexually - that ploy doesn't qualify as sexual predatoring, huh?

 

Phoning them at home with dirty talk to intimidate them - making sounds like he's doing you know what.

 

None of that qualifies.

 

Good to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand the point you're making here,  what I don't understand is why did Fox and O'Reilly pay off these women.   Being a jerk isn't illegal and with the lawyers they could pay for they should have been able to win a civil suit.

 

Yea,  Bill said he settled to protect his children but to me that rings hollow.

 

 

It is common to settle simply to make a problem go away. I know a hospital of recent paid a woman nearly half of a million dollars even although they were not truly at fault for the woman's problem. Defending against a lawsuit is time-consuming and the bad publicity often proves more expensive.

 

I am sure publicity is a very great factor in all decisions made by Fox.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. So offering professional perks to women and then taking the offers way when they rebuff him sexually - that ploy doesn't qualify as sexual predatoring, huh?

 

Phoning them at home with dirty talk to intimidate them - making sounds like he's doing you know what.

 

None of that qualifies.

 

Good to know.

 

 

I would certainly not place the same label on such a person as I would place on a person who drugs and rapes. 

 

I have found that the world has many, many crude disgusting jerks. I believe that that has been so since the beginning of time. They come in all creeds, races and political beliefs. I feel that the use of violence separates the jerks from the sexual predators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is common to settle simply to make a problem go away. I know a hospital of recent paid a woman nearly half of a million dollars even although they were not truly at fault for the woman's problem. Defending against a lawsuit is time-consuming and the bad publicity often proves more expensive.

 

I am sure publicity is a very great factor in all decisions made by Fox.

 

It is much easier for a big corporation and rich defendant to crush a plaintiff in legal bills by not settling.  i would say that practise is much more common.  Plus settling is not always a good PR move.  Many will see that as an admission of guilt.  But settlement is a way to mitigate the damages that may be awarded by a jury if the case against the defendant is a good one.  This last point is what usually drives settlement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand the point you're making here,  what I don't understand is why did Fox and O'Reilly pay off these women.   Being a jerk isn't illegal and with the lawyers they could pay for they should have been able to win a civil suit.

 

Yea,  Bill said he settled to protect his children but to me that rings hollow.

 

Sure does.  I mean, I don't ever really WATCH Fox or O'Reilly, but I've long had my fill of hearing about all this.  Are we supposed to think his kids would never be aware of anything once he settles?   I he REALLY wanted to protect his children, he should have behaved half way human.

 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is much easier for a big corporation and rich defendant to crush a plaintiff in legal bills by not settling.  i would say that practise is much more common.  Plus settling is not always a good PR move.  Many will see that as an admission of guilt.  But settlement is a way to mitigate the damages that may be awarded by a jury if the case against the defendant is a good one.  This last point is what usually drives settlement.

 

 

It is my understanding that: "legal financing" has made it impossible for wealthy defendants to win by simply outspending poor plaintiffs. This is in particular true when there has been no physical injury and the plaintiff does not depend on a settlement or award to cover future medical bills.

 

It is my view that the decisions to settle were most likely made because Fox is so very high-profile. Each settlement might have been newsworthy for a day. Each case going to court would have been newsworthy for weeks. A single such trial would quickly fade from public memory but trial after trial after trial would have established in the public mind that Fox was evil and corrupt. - I am not saying that they are not evil and corrupt. My point is that it is very important to them that the public does not perceive them as such. - The news of three settlements having been made will fade from public memory as quickly as a single trial would have. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would certainly not place the same label on such a person as I would place on a person who drugs and rapes. 

 

I have found that the world has many, many crude disgusting jerks. I believe that that has been so since the beginning of time. They come in all creeds, races and political beliefs. I feel that the use of violence separates the jerks from the sexual predators.

 

Violence is the determinant in defining "sexual predator". Okay.

 

What about threats - be they of "violence" or of other unpleasant possibilities.

 

Do threats of any kind - explicit or implied - constitute sexual predator-ness?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Violence is the determinant in defining "sexual predator". Okay.

 

What about threats - be they of "violence" or of other unpleasant possibilities.

 

Do threats of any kind - explicit or implied - constitute sexual predator-ness?

I would say threats for loss of a job--serious damage to your career-- or bodily harm constitute a kind of psychological terrorism. And in some legal terms, you might say they could approach a provocation to defend yourself.

 

And when the terms with which you are sexually harassed with are also laced with negative racial slurs,foundEd within a historical context, you may be within the vicinity of a hate crime.

 

An example could be a black woman who had been sexually harassed verbally and with body language repeatedly, only to find that one day the perpetrator put a lynch rope on her desk or something like a sign that said "colored only".

 

I think in some terms you don't have to actually physically harm someone to have committed a hate crime.

 

So, that sort of thing is not okay to put up with and it's not okay to ignore. The only way to stop this kind of treatment or activity is to bring it to the Forefront and complain about it.

 

In that way many others in the future may not have to endure it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say threats for loss of a job--serious damage to your career-- or bodily harm constitute a kind of psychological terrorism. And in some legal terms, you might say they could approach a provocation to defend yourself.

 

And when the terms with which you are sexually harassed with are also laced with negative racial slurs,foundEd within a historical context, you may be within the vicinity of a hate crime.

 

An example could be a black woman who had been sexually harassed verbally and with body language repeatedly, only to find that one day the perpetrator put a lynch rope on her desk or something like a sign that said "colored only".

 

I think in some terms you don't have to actually physically harm someone to have committed a hate crime.

 

So, that sort of thing is not okay to put up with and it's not okay to ignore. The only way to stop this kind of treatment or activity is to bring it to the Forefront and complain about it.

 

In that way many others in the future may not have to endure it.

 

I don't believe in "hate crime". 

 

But the Human Rights Commission in Ontario Canada sure does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do threats of any kind - explicit or implied - constitute sexual predator-ness?

 

 

I believe that there is a simple litmus test: Is the threat sufficient that: "self-defense" is credible after she kills him.

 

A true predator of any nature makes overt attacks. The threat is very real and very immediate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The title could make for a good member name...DownGoesOReilly.

Feel free to use it, but get my approval first.

 

Why's THAT, dude?!

 

Did YOU prior to changing YOUR latest moniker from "finance" to "DownGoesFrazier" first seek the approval of the people in charge of the estate of Howard Cosell?

 

(...nope, I'll bet you sure didn't, huh!)

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...