Irish Sports
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
09 Oct 17
23:38
Joined:
Date Joined:
26 Apr 12
Dil Wickremasinghe
Social Justice and Mental Health Broadcaster, Journalist, Activist, Social Entrepreneur, Trainer, MC, Actor and Stand up Comedian,Sri Lankan, Lesbian and Mother(I think)of two, has had her show pulled.
This is the lady who felt unable to share the airways with George Hook.
What has happened here?
Social Justice and Mental Health Broadcaster, Journalist, Activist, Social Entrepreneur, Trainer, MC, Actor and Stand up Comedian,Sri Lankan, Lesbian and Mother(I think)of two, has had her show pulled.
This is the lady who felt unable to share the airways with George Hook.
What has happened here?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 15
|
By:
I should add she was a victim of child abuse.
|
|
By:
Okay Pecker, I'll bite and I do this with the "Hook" thread firmly in mind that showed this forum's true colours. I found that thread reminiscent of the "spirit" of Brexit and the last cry of a dying beast i.e. utterly depressing.
Simply put, a principled woman is no longer broadcasting for Denis O'Brien and George Hook remains on the payroll and will be wheeled out again when its considered the furore has abated. Denis O'Brien has banned all Irish Times journalists from Newstalk and Today FM and if all the contributors to the above-mentioned thread are pleased about this you can soon look forward to the Irish versions of biased and owner-led media run by ego-driven men "rich" in nothing but filthy money. The Hook incident is about far more than a rambling, bigoted misogynist (although, god knows, that should be enough!). The journalists in both these organisations have sold their soul to the devil unfortunately (Matt and Ivan are such macho, modern joshing types, ya know) and its why I never listen to either station any more. And pecker, given your leanings, believe me, you missed nothing on Global Village. |
|
By:
(Matt and Ivan are such macho, modern joshing types, ya know) and its why I never listen to either station any more.
And pecker, given your leanings, believe me, you missed nothing on Global Village. Thanks RAC for reply. Above made me laugh. Just don't understand how they can do this under the "known" circumstances, as it strikes me as constructive dismissal of some sort, not being aware of contract. Not to mention the bad publicity and exodus of listeners, i imagine. Has she been a thorn in the side previously i wonder? As for G Hook, i think suspension was adequate punishment for the perceived offence. I say perceived as i am not sure his comments or attitudes have any intent of malice. |
|
By:
I'm glad you think it was just a "perceived" offence pecker-at least we understand each other perfectly. Whether malice afterthought it doesn't excuse a deep-seated disrespect of women in my view. What the Hook episode and its afters uncovers is twofold:
1. a "shock jock" who went too far (lots of previous) and should pay the price 2. the contempt DOB has for decency. (His previous mauling of one of Ireland's legends, Tony O'Reilly, was disgusting - compare and contrast their love of country.) On another note: Fashion designer Donna Karan has come to the defence of film producer Harvey Weinstein by praising the movie mogul and saying women who dress sensually are asking for trouble. The problem with such attitudes is that when not cloaked in anonymity one gets a long, long time to reflect on one's stupidity. |
|
By:
RAC, deep seated i agree and that is in part my point when i say perceived as i'm not convinced it is disrespect that's deep seated, however it was foolishly delivered, his message, and poorly thought through.
I believe a woman can wear whatever she chooses and even if practically naked on the high street is not to be perceived as asking for trouble. However i also believe that young girls dressed provocative, and attending, for example, footballers "Roasting" type parties should be aware that they are liable to be possibly placing themselves in danger and should take account of that. Clearly and unfortunately the world is like such. |
|
By:
so, basically, your point is: be careful what you wear or you "could" be raped?
do you think the problem is the item of clothing or the mentality? |
|
By:
I believe a woman can wear whatever she chooses and even if practically naked on the high street is not to be perceived as asking for trouble.
so, basically, your point is: be careful what you wear or you "could" be raped? Totally not RAC. I have stated the opposite view completely. With regard to Hook, i just think his intentions were not intended to be disrespectful, but his wording was insensitive.I don't know about his previous as what out of the country a long time. I just think he was saying that in today's society women need to be aware of dangers that exist. Why is the lady being treated the way she is by DOB? is what i would like to know.. T O'R was is a legend off course. |
|
By:
Typical of this forum that nobody has any sympathy for poor Harvey. What is the point in being a multimillionaire if one can't grope the odd model or actress.
|
|
By:
Did you know 2.18 percent of movie stars are male? leaving women in the minority.
Did you know that 25% of women are portrayed sexually in movies? but only 5% of men. I wonder what percentage of women that have been abused by Harvey Weener did not report the incident for fear of their career crashing. Makes me puke! |
|
By:
I guess a lot of aspiring actresses and starlets were probably glamorously and seductively dressed when meeting one of the most powerful and influential film producers in the modern era in his private quarters. In hindsight, probably asked for it and have themselves partly to blame.
|
|
By:
2.18% of movie stars are male?
And are another 70% male also? |
|
By:
RAC
Instead of guessing, why not look at the facts. Many feminists on the front foot now discriminating against men whilst defending those women who have known for more than a decade what Harvey was about. Did these women speak out..Did they protect their self interest..did they turn a blind eye and let the next VICTIM suffer the same or worse. What a load of cobblers, double standards.It's sickening. |
|
By:
so you agree with me pecker? the violated women are partly to blame?
Feminists have nothing to do with this unless you want to delude yourself. It's usually exploitative and powerful males that are the instigators. If you have no idea how difficult it is to swim against a raging torrent then you can use whatever false arguments that suit you. The system is stacked in favour of the powerful and its only Weinstein's loss of uber-status that has caught up with him, same as church here. your arguments are straight from wonky's catechism and that's saying something. |
|
By:
Stop insinuating drivel RAC..
The blame clearly lies with the perpetrator. The feminist clearly use this one man and his behaviour as a platform to rally around and bandy out stats they select in order to castigate males in general. Where were day 15 years ago, 10 years ago, when Hollywood was keeping this dirty little secret. They were not shouting the odds, they were not pointing the finger, speaking out. It's this lack that gives power it's power.. They all made money, males and females Hollywood to Paris... Face the facts man! Who wears the trousers.................Ha.......Do me a favour......... |
|
By:
In R.A.C. favor is the fact he'll grovel to anyone that sings his praises Pecker, poor guy is so lopsided it's unhealthy.
|