View previous topic | View next topic

Vicious attention seekers

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

bobwilson
1098290.  Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:40 am Reply with quote

Have I missed something here? Apologies if this is already covered elsewhere.

In an email to BBC Radio 1's Newsbeat Miss Madeley said she wanted to stand up to "vicious attention seekers."

That's the famous Miss Madeley (famous for being the daughter of Richard Madeley and Judy Finnegan) and therefore worthy of being quoted on National Radio Newsbeat (unlike, for instance, an email sent from Joe Bloggs to Radio One Newsbeat), making a statement about “attention seekers” - sorry, “vicious attention seekers”.

Because as we all know - an email sent to Radio One Newsbeat is ALWAYS read out as a news item. You don't have to be an attention seeking whore, or be the non-entity offspring of a brainless bird married to a twat to have your email read out on the national news on Radio One?

Not in any way connected to the attention seeking Judy Finnegan (who seems to believe there is a distinction between violent and non-violent rape); and who's husband (admirably) has supported his moron wife - by threatening to rape (legally) anyone who suggests that his wife is a braindead idiot who should be subjected to the same non-violent violation tthat his wife indicates is not too bad a fate.

That would be the wife who draws a distinction between violent and non-violent rape and who is most famous for being a vacuous host on daytime television (and/or being married to a vacuous host on daytime television).

Can I just say I would not be disappointed if the not at all attention seeking Miss Madeley, Mr Madeley and Judy Finnegan were to be dispatched from the planet in a totally non-violent but terminal way so that we lesser mortals wouldn't have to listen to the twitterings of these imbeciles ever again? I emphasise "non-violent" - I wouldn't want the dangerously well-connected Mr Madeley to report me to the thought police for any possible infringement of his civil right to defend his rape-apologetic wife.

And there are those who complain about my postings?

I would post links but I don't want to give the oxygen of publicity to these morons.

I'm looking forward to the spineless Madeley beginning an action - as soon as he does so I'll have a (long prepared) counter claim against Madeley and his birdbrain wife. Let's hope he begins his action soon.

 
Posital
1098298.  Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:28 am Reply with quote

So - taken at face value - a celebrity's daughter is being cyber-bullied.

It's a nasty-enough business for anyone to use any or all means to make it stop...

Regardless of how well thought out it is.

Unfortunately, what's done (through bullying) cannot be easily undone.

 
bobwilson
1098301.  Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:01 am Reply with quote

Quote:
So - taken at face value - a celebrity's daughter is being cyber-bullied.


Maybe I misread it but no - a sleb's daughter isn't being bullied (why the moniker "cyber" as if to indicate this is different from other bullying).

A sleb (not a slebs daughter) is being attacked for suggesting that some types of rape are not violent. My point (only attributable to me) is that the response of the daughter of a sleb is only being reported as newsworthy BECAUSE she's the daughter of a sleb. Nobody bothered her until SHE decided to play on the fame of her parents to get herself an audience. That, to me, is the DEFINITION of a sleb.

The daughter of a sleb is entitled to be heard as much as the rest of us - but since said daughter has been quoted on a national news programme (and, as far as I can tell, has made no protest about this intrusion on her privacy) - that makes said daughter a sleb herself.

Unless someone can indicate how I get my views mentioned on National Radio 1?

What we have here is Judy Finnegan - who's only claim to fame is that she's got a presentable face, no opinions and is married to Richard Madeley (again - nothing more than lacking a face that will cause children nightmares - be honest, would you buy double glazing from this man?)

And their sprog pontificating. Not (as would be reasonable) their sprog stating that the mother is talking out of her arse - the sprog whining that mother (talking out of her arse) is getting grief for talking out of her arse.

In my book that makes sprog an accomplice.

As for Madeley's "threats" to those who've responded to his wife's postings. Well - he's not answerable for her idiocy so what the fuck has it do with him? Is she not capable of speaking for herself?

But as I understand it, all the alleged "threats" are of a "non-violent" nature - as defined by the twitterings of Finnegan. Any suggestion of rape are exclusively confined to "non-violent" coercion - so that's alright isn't it?

 
CharliesDragon
1098311.  Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:41 am Reply with quote

But if this "non-violent rape" is not bad, why use it as a threat? "Oh, if you don't stop arguing with me I'll give you fifty bucks, no strings attatched!" He clearly knows rape is a much-used threat for a reason. *Shakes head*

 
Posital
1098323.  Sat Oct 18, 2014 8:09 am Reply with quote

Nearly got me - I nearly started reading up on this.

And then I saw sense.

 
barbados
1098360.  Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:03 pm Reply with quote

There are a couple of points to raise,
Firstly we don't, at this moment in time, follow the "does bobwilson know who they are?" approach to celebrity, so just because you haven't heard of someone doesn't mean they are not suitably well know to be classed as "famous"

Secondly, the case in question is not quite as straightforward as you imply. Yes, in the eyes of the law he did commit rape, there is no doubt as far as the law is concerned. However, most people would not have the same attention with regard to his rehabilitation back into the workplace. And it would seem that the stumbling block in his return to work is the remorse (or lack of) as a "role model" and this is where Finnegan's comments cause a problem. She is suggesting that what he did, was not the most serious of rapes. Couple that with his protestations of innocence - I'm not sure but you can only be sorry if you think what you have done is wrong, and Evans doesn't believe he is guilty so he can't be sorry.

Madeley's comments were in response to people threatening to rape his daughter, and his comments under the circumstances are understandable aren't they?

 
bobwilson
1099988.  Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:22 pm Reply with quote

Quote:
Madeley's comments were in response to people threatening to rape his daughter, and his comments under the circumstances are understandable aren't they?


Absolutely

Finnegan (not quite brave enough to decide whether to adopt her husband's name or state unequivocally that she's an independent woman with her own name) - makes a distinction between "non-violent rape" and "violent rape".
/
So - now we have to decide whether the rape is violent or non-violent - according to Madeley and his wife.

Just a question - if we feed the daughter with sufficient alcohol and mushrooms - does that count as non-violent? I only ask because I want to know. If the rapist is sufficiently sleb and at a party - is that non-violent? What if the rape happens in a warzone? What if we take Madeley to a warzone where we rape his arse with his consent (after he gives his consent - in fear or worse?).

Or more realistically - why is Finnegan even allowed to spout her nonsense on television any more

 
barbados
1100040.  Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:23 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:


Or more realistically - why is Finnegan even allowed to spout her nonsense on television any more

Probably the same reason you are allowed to spout your nonsense here.
While we might not agree with what you say, we accept that you actually have a right to say it, unless of course your comments are made to incite violence, then you need to keep your opinions to yourself.

 
Posital
1100048.  Sat Nov 01, 2014 9:57 am Reply with quote

+1

bobwilson wrote:
So - now we have to decide whether the rape is violent
or non-violent - according to Madeley and his wife.
No we don't.

 
Jenny
1100060.  Sat Nov 01, 2014 11:01 am Reply with quote

I don't have to give any thought to two minor slebs. I intend to ignore them and their opinions. People who are interested may care to comment and wish to read about it, and the BBC can broadcast that if they like, and open the slebs up to comment from such people. Barbados is dead right above - they can say what they like, just as you can, within the bounds of legality. If people think less of them for it, that's their problem.

 
bobwilson
1100964.  Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:10 am Reply with quote

Jenny wrote:
I don't have to give any thought to two minor slebs. I intend to ignore them and their opinions. People who are interested may care to comment and wish to read about it, and the BBC can broadcast that if they like, and open the slebs up to comment from such people. Barbados is dead right above - they can say what they like, just as you can, within the bounds of legality. If people think less of them for it, that's their problem.


That is a properly reasonable position Jenny.

Unfortunately (and as is well understood by meeja personalities) - a reasonable position counts for very little. What matters is the sleb status.

What we have here is a a sleb stating that there is such a thing as "non-violent rape". We might as well claim that Peter Sutcliffe committed "non-violent murder" since he did it with the love of Jesus.

But all of that is by the by. The important factor is that Madeley defended his wife's position (that it was a "non-violent rape") but wanted to use the law to protect his daughter against suggestions that she (the daughter) should be subjected to similarly "non-violent rape".

He can't have it both ways. The victim in the case was subjected to physical abuse - Madeley's daughter was subjected to verbal abuse. I know which I think is worse - others may disagree.

Frankly, if Madeley, Finnegan or their sprogs stick their heads above the parapet the first question they should be asked (incessantly) is to define what their definition of violence is? Followed by what their definition or rape is. Until they give a proper answer to those questions that satisfies everyone within earshot, none of them should be allowed to work in a medium that allows them to be heard.

 
Posital
1100999.  Sat Nov 08, 2014 8:01 am Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
none of them should be allowed to work in a medium that allows them to be heard.
Perhaps you mean "where their opinions can be heard"?

 
CB27
1101008.  Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:37 pm Reply with quote

bobwilson wrote:
But all of that is by the by. The important factor is that Madeley defended his wife's position (that it was a "non-violent rape") but wanted to use the law to protect his daughter against suggestions that she (the daughter) should be subjected to similarly "non-violent rape".

He can't have it both ways.

While I disagree with the view that rape can be non violent, I thought the argument made was not that it was OK to commit such a crime, just that it should carry different levels of punishment. Is it having it both ways to not want your daughter (or anyone) subjected to a crime?

 
bobwilson
1101816.  Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:05 pm Reply with quote

Obviously I wasn't clear enough (a constant failing of mine).

Posital is right that their opinions should be heard.

My difficulty is with the contradictory position of Madeley, Finnegan and their sprogs.

Finnegan says that an actual rape can be non-violent. Finnegan's sprog takes exception to the opprobrium that is heaped on Finnegan for stating this opinion. Madeley takes exception to numerous volunteers offering to demonstrate “non-violent” rape on Finnegan's sprog.

Of course there should be different levels of punishment for the crime – depending on circumstances. For a non-entity daughter of a couple of photogenic TV presenters who have expressed the opinion that rape can be a non-violent crime – I'd suggest that anyone offering their services (verbally) to perform the deed would require no more than “no thanks” - certainly not any kind of police investigation.

If Madeley wants to escalate the investigation he can hardly complain if the perpetrator wants to similarly escalate the crime (since the penalty will be similar).

Alternatively, he and his idiot wife and family can just stfu.

To answer CB directly

Is it having it both ways to not want your daughter (or anyone) subjected to a crime? No – it isn't. But if your daughter stands outside a kebab bar on a Friday night offering to fight anyone who steps outside you can hardly complain if she gets punched to the ground. Nor is it reasonable to use your sleb status to have the perpetrator given an exemplary sentence.

 
barbados
1101827.  Sat Nov 15, 2014 3:30 am Reply with quote

CB27 wrote:
bobwilson wrote:
But all of that is by the by. The important factor is that Madeley defended his wife's position (that it was a "non-violent rape") but wanted to use the law to protect his daughter against suggestions that she (the daughter) should be subjected to similarly "non-violent rape".

He can't have it both ways.

While I disagree with the view that rape can be non violent, I thought the argument made was not that it was OK to commit such a crime, just that it should carry different levels of punishment. Is it having it both ways to not want your daughter (or anyone) subjected to a crime?

I think this was actually touched upon in the thread dealing more specifically with rape.
There are a couple of instances where rape can be non violent, firstly when one partner "pesters" the other into having sex who ends up giving in just to get some peace. There is no violence involved, but rape is still committed
The other would involve a 16 year old boy, with his 15 year 11 month girlfriend who quite willing has sex. There is no violence involved, not even any coercion, yet it is still rape. So yes, rape can be non violent.
In this particular case, for what its worth, I have a feeling that what has occured is regret.
Would what have happened come under the non violent banner? Well if it was as some outlets report, possibly. However you look at it, lives have been ruined thanks to one night. And there are a lot of celebs who are jumping on a bandwagon, that to me seems a little too "right on".

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group