[Football] Touching-up v Snowflakes

Motogull said:

Having been to a few rugby dinners in the past, a male only event is not that unusual to me as a concept. This thing obviously started life with good intentions, but there is a line between boorish behaviour and touching. If the organisers knew it was getting dodgy enough to insist on NDAs, that is when action should have been taken not until after the Financial Times went 'tabloid'. Going to a fund raising event does not give someone a free pass to take liberties. Vernon Kay was there which automatically makes it a stay-well-clear event for me.

Click to expand...

Big G said:

How about fvck both those groups!!!
I hate generation snowflake with a passion and how through social media only (because they don’t have spine or a grasp on reality) they all think they’re morally obliged to see whose moral high horse sits the highest and actually think that by playing the ‘I’m offended by absolutely anything card’....they in some way are immune to any form of disagreement.....or more importantly have no fvcking idea how offensive they are trying to morally guilt their pathetic views down everyone’s throat!!
I hate equally (see how I don’t discriminate!!) those from any generation that honestly think they can just touch up some ‘person’ because it’s in some way ok because of who they are, how much money they have or any fvcking reason you want!
No it’s fvcking not ok in any way shape or form end of......their simply is no justification and that’s it!
How about we all become ‘generation common fvcking sense’

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Good job there weren't any who posted on here who "honestly think they can just touch up some ‘person’ because it’s in some way ok because of who they are, how much money they have or any fvcking reason you want" then. Universal disapproval of the proceedings in question on here, albeit sometimes not loud enough to satisfy the more outraged.

Click to expand...

Big G said:

Couldn’t agree more mate. But didn’t you get the memo.....if you’re not ‘offended’, ‘morally outraged’ or seek to go out of your way to be ‘offended’...then you are not allowed to have any opinion at all!
Including common sense!

Click to expand...

Big G said:

Couldn’t agree more mate. But didn’t you get the memo.....if you’re not ‘offended’, ‘morally outraged’ or seek to go out of your way to be ‘offended’...then you are not allowed to have any opinion at all!
Including common sense!

Click to expand...

BadFish said:

Seems to me now like those who are offended or outraged are not allowed to have an opinion.

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Of course they/you are entitled to an opinion. The problem on this thread has been those who are spitting feathers level outraged being totally dismissive of anyone else. Anyone saying, "I don't approve of what was happening" or "I don't condone" was greeted with something along the lines of, "So, you don't mind women getting groped then?" Yes, of course they minded, but disapproval or not condoning was just not considered as sufficient outrage by some.

Nobody - and I mean nobody - has come on here and said that all that went on was hunky-dory, but from the way some carry on you'd think that other NSCers were saying that sticking your hand up a woman's skirt is fine. Reality - no-one did say that!

Click to expand...

BadFish said:

I think you have misread the posts and missed a fair bit of nuance if that is your conclusion but each to their own. We all see things differently.

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Well, OK. I'm not outraged by that answer........................

Click to expand...

BadFish said:

Come on, your just not trying hard enough

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

Well, OK. I'm not outraged by that answer........................




But I think you might agree, that even though I disapproved of the goings on, the p r a t who told me that the world would be a slightly better place when I am dead was out of order. Some 'nuance' that!

Click to expand...

GT49er said:

I hadn't finished.........!

Click to expand...

BadFish said:

I would agree with that yes and i think they should have apologised (although to be fair I don't think that is exactly what was said/meant) I felt the same about the post telling someone else they were full of shit and should shut up.

Click to expand...

dingodan said:

I got the impression she took the job for the night as a way of "undercover reporting", i.e. she was after the story.

I'd like to hear from those women who actually took that work honestly, knowing what they were doing, not the journalists who crashed it so they could get offended.

I hope everyone is just as outraged for these guys and wants to see these women publicly shamed and lose their jobs too, and if not, why not?

Click to expand...

Motogull said:

Having been to a few rugby dinners in the past, a male only event is not that unusual to me as a concept. This thing obviously started life with good intentions, but there is a line between boorish behaviour and touching. If the organisers knew it was getting dodgy enough to insist on NDAs, that is when action should have been taken not until after the Financial Times went 'tabloid'. Going to a fund raising event does not give someone a free pass to take liberties. Vernon Kay was there which automatically makes it a stay-well-clear event for me.

Click to expand...

Cheshire Cat said:

Any event that is marketed as "gentlemen" or "sportsmen", should be avoided at all costs.

Click to expand...