Rachel Riley - political commentator.

Chris Wilson said:
I had an interesting confrontation with a young chap in one of my infamous pubs last night. A very attractive middle aged woman came over to the bar where I was stood with two of my dogs, one is a VERY big lad, the other a puppy. She immediately said, "Hi, big boy". I turned to her and said "Are you talking to me or the dog?". She laughed and asked if it was OK to stroke the dogs. I said it was fine, go ahead. When we had a brief chat about what breed they were she started to order her drink. A young lad with braided hair standing nearby then said to me "It's 2019, talking like that to a lady is in very bad taste, you shouldn't say things like that". I just laughed. The lady heard him and asked if he really thought she'd be offended by what I'd said. He got a bit defensive saying such banter to a stranger was out of order. To my amazement and delight she winked at me, put her hand on the front of my trousers, and said to me, "I was definitely talking to the dog". The lad nearly choked :) She was a star and my kind of woman, we had a good laugh about it and she said that this PC stuff had gotten way out of hand and a sense of humour when talking to women was disappearing especially amongst young men.

To the poster who asked if comments about Rachel Riley and women in general were unsavoury they need to think whether she would really be offended by men admiring her physically, and talking about her amongst themselves... Minding one's P's and Q's is all very well, but a bit of banter is still totally harmless to many normal women these days.
Click to expand...

None of this happened. Why did you type it out?:confused:
 
Irish_Tom said:
I wonder whether RR (or the fictional dog whisperer in your story) would be offended if they were told to shut up and get naked, and I wonder how they would feel about the suggestion of being made air-tight if you said it to their face the moment you met them?
Click to expand...

She lives round the corner to me and I see her out and about from time to time. Perhaps we could try :D
 
Shampoo said:
None of this happened. Why did you type it out?:confused:
Click to expand...


I can prove a Confederate flag, this is something you'll have to either accept or ridicule it's entirely your prerogative "Shampoo". Whether you or anyone one else believe it or not is of no concern to me :) Although I fail to see why it sounds so fantastic, some people must have boring nights out, or associate with a lot of liars, and make sweeping assumptions about people they have never met.
 
Chris Wilson said:
I don't believe anyone on here has said anything controversial to Rachel in person have they? Just a bit of lad's banter on an internet forum about what they fantasize doing to her ;) I have to wonder what pubs some in here go to where they apparently speak to women as if addressing royalty and all sexual banter is verboten. They must be a dreary night outs bounded by political correctness, eyes never wandering, alcohol intake constantly modest, a critical ear kept out for anyone enjoying a bit of innuendo :)
Click to expand...

As I said before, it’s all about context — these are supposed to be family-friendly forums. We’re not allowed to swear or personally attack each other, so it’s clearly not the same as being down the pub with your mates or a private WhatsApp group where that kind of thing is the norm.

Colonel_Klinck said:
Thing is that story is simply harmless flirting for use of a better word. Her comment of "hi big boy" left it wide open and it was consensual. However if she had just walked up to the bar and you'd come out with some comment like for instance "alright love" while obviously looking her body up and down and aiming the comment at her **** you could understand how she might look at you like a knuckle dragging ****. I don't think PC has gone too far as it really is just about respect, politeness and manners. It's the interpretation of PC that has got a bit ****** up.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Vince said:
She lives round the corner to me and I see her out and about from time to time. Perhaps we could try :D
Click to expand...
Give it a go and report back. ;)
 
cheesyboy said:
Thing is, I don't know how you can read her tweet as anything but a suggestion Corbyn is a nazi. So seems an odd decision.
Click to expand...

I'm totally not a Corbyn the Communist fan and I do like to look at Rachel Riley a bit, but I too can't see how that tweet could be taken any other way.
 
Whilst we can infer anything we want from her two word & two emoji tweet, legally all the judge could rule on is those two words and two emoji's.

cheesyboy said:
Thing is, I don't know how you can read her tweet as anything but a suggestion Corbyn is a nazi. So seems an odd decision.
Click to expand...

If you think that two words "Good Advice" followed by a red flag and an egg emoji equals the suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn is a Nazi then I think what you are doing is inferring what you think she meant, not (in the legal sense) reading the words she did use as she never named Corbyn and she never said or suggested Nazi and it's why she won her case.

Minusorange said:
Yes she's sarcastically inferring that Corbyn is a nazi
Click to expand...

Inferring is done in the 3rd person not the 1st person i.e. YOU think she said XYZ, whereas Riley can't infer her own comment so while you may infer XYZ from her comment, legally she only stated "Good Advice", which is why Riley won her case.

Minusorange said:
so we can't state opinion on Twitter anymore because it becomes libel ?
Click to expand...

"Rachel Riley tweets that Corbyn deserves to be violently attacked because he is a Nazi." - Thats not given as an opinion though, thats said as a statement of fact which is why Riley won her case. So if you don't falsely libel someone you'll be safe on Twitter.
 
ianh said:
If you think that two words "Good Advice" followed by a red flag and an egg emoji equals the suggestion that Jeremy Corbyn is a Nazi then I think what you are doing is inferring what you think she meant, not (in the legal sense) reading the words she did use as she never named Corbyn and she never said or suggested Nazi and it's why she won her case.
Click to expand...
I think you have to try pretty hard in the context of the day's news, and the tweet she quoted, to NOT infer that she was calling Corbyn a nazi, if you are a reasonable person.

Now, you might, as Corbyn, not be able to use that argument to make your own libel case against Riley, but I really do think that the post reacting to Riley should not itself have been able to qualify as a libel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom