Given you can offset charity donations against tax in most countries I doubt it will cost him much at all.

In fact the more I think about this there are lots of winners here:

The cancer charity
Mel McLaughlin – she handled/is handling the situation pretty well.
Female journalists who don’t appreciated unsolicited advances.
The public, who are being reminded hitting on people in professional situations is inappropriate.
The public as some of the more rampant journos are demonstrating how excessive their reactions are here and probably elsewhere.
STW with lots of hits
Even Chris Gayle can view it as cheap publicity for his strip room and will perhaps get contacted by hopeful users

Ransos I believe the argument about the use of the word girl stems from the usage by the delectable JHJ, who as far as I know never hit on anyone, Well not the sports reporter in question. As far as I know.

For that gag to work properly, it’s best done without the stray apostrophe

bollocks shit and ****. Actually it was a stray inverted comma, and on reflection ‘being’ is redundant.

I call girls ‘lasses’. As in ‘that lass who did that thing’ (ie professor x, y, or z.) Only at home though and I get told off for it.

‘Boy’ is a reasonable analogy for ‘girl’ when testing terminology across genders. In fact it’s pretty much the only one.

You realise the term profession has lost all meaning when it is applied to journalism.

Ransos I believe the argument about the use of the word girl stems from the usage by the delectable JHJ, who as far as I know never hit on anyone, Well not the sports reporter in question. As far as I know.

Makes you think though.

Nealglover specifically referred to “this case”.

I specifically quoted what I was referring to in every post I’ve made, to make it clear what I was talking about.

As was said earlier, keep up 😉

I remember seeing Hazel Irvine interviewing Ally McCoist after a match a few years ago. His team had lost and she asked “Disappointed not to score tonight Ally?” He grinned, winked at her and replied “The night’s still young Hazel”.

She laughed. Was probably flattered too. She certainly didn’t provoke a whole load of people going around pretending to be offended.

…a whole load of people going around pretending to be offended.

Just out of interest … Who’s pretending to be offended ?

Ransos I believe the argument about the use of the word girl stems from the usage by the delectable JHJ, who as far as I know never hit on anyone, Well not the sports reporter in question. As far as I know.

It’s a tough life being hit on and harrassed by world class athletes, believe you me…

he laughed. Was probably flattered too.

I doubt she was flattered, but there’s a difference between a witticism, as that was, and a naked proposition.

Pretending to be offended is the trendy thing to be nowadays. You see it all over the place. Facebook, the Guardian and Independent, Twitter etc.

I genuinely don’t believe people can be offended by some of the utterly trivial stuff out there so the only logical conclusion is they are pretending.

There are a lot of things in the world worth getting up in arms about. This isn’t one of them.

Someone the other day posted a great YouTube clip about comedian Steve Hughes on people being “offended”. Well worth a watch. I’d post a link myself if I wasn’t technically useless.

molgrips – Member
he laughed. Was probably flattered too.
I doubt she was flattered, but there’s a difference between a witticism, as that was, and a naked proposition.

Ally is fairly quick witted and picked up on an potential double entendre, Chris Gallery ignored the question completely and fairly boorishly propositional the presenter. They’re very different scenarios. If I’d done that at work I’d be getting disciplinary action and potentially dismissed.

If he’d answered the question then asked her out it’d have been less bad but ignoring her shows complete contempt.

I doubt she was flattered, but there’s a difference between a witticism, as that was, and a naked proposition.

I strongly suspect she was. And with Ally McCoist I suspect it was more than just a witticism. Her having the hots for him was a standing joke on Scottish comedy shows back in those days. Not that anything ever happened though.

Pretending to be offended/professionally offended is the trendy thing to be talk about nowadays.

FTFY

I remember seeing Hazel Irvine interviewing Ally McCoist after a match a few years ago.

Was it a few years ago as in the 1970s?

Ally is fairly quick witted and picked up on an potential double entendre, Chris Gallery ignored the question completely and fairly boorishly propositional the presenter. They’re very different scenarios. If I’d done that at work I’d be getting disciplinary action and potentially dismissed.

A fair point. However the interviewer should just have slapped him and walked away. He’d have deserved it.

There are a lot of things in the world worth getting up in arms about. This isn’t one of them.

Says the man… So all those women who ARE up in arms about this kind of thing in general – what are they complaining about? Are they all silly little emotional women or what?

Was in the 80s I think. After a Scotland match.

It’s a tough life being hit on and harrassed by world class athletes, believe you me…

Pretending to be offended is the trendy thing to be nowadays. You see it all over the place. Facebook, the Guardian and Independent, Twitter etc.

So who’s pretending to be offended here, as you said.

I can see lots of people saying he was wrong to do what he did was wrong etc.

Nobody pretending to be offended though.

Or did you mean the interviewer ?

Was in the 80s I think. After a Scotland match.

RIght. Not really what I would describe as being ‘a few years ago’.

[/quote]So who’s pretending to be offended here, as you said.

I was speaking in more general terms than just on here.

Fair enough.

Although I’ve not really seen anyone pretending to be offended over this anywhere really.

Just people saying he was being a dick etc.

Says the man… So all those women who ARE up in arms about this kind of thing in general – what are they complaining about? Are they all silly little emotional women or what?

I don’t think so. Do you? You chose those words, not me. Interesting choice of phrase. Not something I’d use myself

I’d say that in general they have a flawed sense of perspective. Both the men and the women. Or the boys and the girls. Whatever.

@kennyp – shall we make a list of what you’re allowed to be offended of? Sounds very dictatorial…

Just people saying he was being a dick etc.

I agree with you there.

@kennyp – shall we make a list of what you’re allowed to be offended of? Sounds very dictatorial…

Yeah, if you want. Go for it. I’m off to have my dinner though.

All this copying and pasting and Junky isn’t even here yet!

Bravo, STW!

All this copying and pasting !

All this copying and pasting !

All this copying and pasting !

All this copying and pasting !

All this copying and pasting !

All this copying and pasting !

John Barclay is about 60, used to play for Sussex and was county captain. He was president, an honourary position, of the MCC a few years ago and has been team manager for England on a couple of tours. Definitely old school, but also a very fine cricketer who wasn’t miles away from captaining England.

I’d say that in general they have a flawed sense of perspective.

But as we discussed on the other sexism thread, you can’t dismiss someone’s point on a subject about which you do not know as much.

It’d be like me telling someone their snowboard’s rubbish.

But I’m not dismissing their opinions as such. I’m giving my own opinion, which is that I believe they are wrong. And they in turn are quite entitled to say mine are wrong. I certainly won’t be offended or outraged if they do.

And it’s a pretty straightforward subject. Transcript of the interview is freely availabilite. A quick read provides all the information you need. Equally though, I wouldn’t try and give an opinion on someone’s snowboard either. I know next to nothing about snowboards.

I believe they are wrong.

On what basis, though?

The saddest thing is that we are talking about this on a day when a black african scored a century for South Africa.

On the basis of hugely overreacting to something pretty trivial. Or in the case of a lot of the folk tweeting, being desperate to be publicly seen to being outraged.

YOU think it’s trivial

There’s some dodgy logic there, isn’t there? You think it’s trivial, people tell you it’s not, so you then think they are being silly, because they are upset about something that you think is trivial, but you won’t listen to them because you think they’re silly, because you think it’s trivial.

Is it possible for you to learn anything here?

Yes I think it’s trivial. However I didn’t say anything about people being silly. You did. For some reason. That’s the second time you’ve tried to attribute me with saying things I didn’t say. Please stop.

And I have listened. I’ve read lots of people’s comments. Some I agree with some I don’t. There’s no dodgy logic. Someone expressed an opinion. I considered that opinion to be incorrect and therefore said so. And as I said, I’m equally happy for people to say that my opinion is wrong.

Oh for ****’s sake. You knew full well what I meant. I posed the question that you (or whoever else) might be somewhat more dismissive of the people who are telling you that it’s a problem because they are women – subconsciously or otherwise.

Now if you disagree, then put a counter argument, don’t talk rubbish about me putting words into your mouth. Why the hell would I do that? I’m not personally attacking you, I’m trying to draw out good arguments.

Like maybe you tell us why you think casual sexism is trivial.

…. However I didn’t say anything about people being silly. You did. For some reason. That’s the second time you’ve tried to attribute me with saying things I didn’t say. Please stop.

No, but you did claim that they weren’t really bothered by it at all, and were in fact just pretending.

I was disagreeing with both men and women. Therefore I can’t put a counter argument because there isn’t a case to argue against.

I believe the whole thing is trivial in that it was nothing more than a daft remark. Nothing to do with sexism, just someone saying something they maybe shouldn’t have. Hardly worthy of the huge media attention. There are far more important things in the world to get worked up about

And by saying “so you think……” you are trying to attribute to me opinions that I don’t actually hold. Had you put a question mark after the statements that would have changed the context greatly. That’s why I asked you to stop. No need to swear.

Yes I do believe a lot of people, particularly public figures using Twitter, are pretending to be outraged. Some people probably are genuinely annoyed. Fair enough. I think they are wrong to be but they are quite entitled to their opinions.