Essentially someone video'd a person having sex with a woman in a red dress in a UN marked car in the street in Israel.
The UN has announced that it is "shocked and deeply disturbed". Really? I suggest that they need to get out a bit more.
If it was voluntary and consensual, if nobody was married, then it's a bit dumb of someone to do it in a liveried car, but "deeply disturbed"? Give me a break.
There's allegations of sexual assault, sexual misbehaviour, sexual exploitation, and goodness knows what more. Of course, it could be some of those things, but when asked if it was consensual, involved prostitution or abuse it turned out that they didn't know but were looking into it. How about they save the "shocked and deeply disturbed" until they do know?
And even if it was prostitution, is that illegal in Israel? It wasn't, but I know they were looking to change the law recently.
I swear this sanctimonious, judgemental and appalling world is going backwards and the BBC is revelling in every minute of it.
www.bbc.com/news/53191444
|
|
Probably because they've got form in the UN for all manner of sex for food etc over the years. I can see why they'd put out a statement condemning this rather than a bland 'we'll look into it' statement, which in the past has meant we'll just ignore it.
|
|
As Sooty says bearing in mind previous problems that the UN have had the language of the statement is understandable. BBC reports seems perfectly reasonable to me.
|
>> BBC reports seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The BBC, as with most other media outlets, are excellent judges of what their target audience wants, so that's only to be expected.
|
They could have condemned it, said it was wrong etc. etc.
Perhaps even shocked, though I doubt it. But disturbed?
|
I was led the offending clip and the action is filmed while the car is stopped in traffic ( - the driver isn't involved) and continues as it pulls away. I've not analysed it that closely but although they could be at it, they also may not be - but not far off.
It's here if anyone wants to see if - no naughty bits on display www.freepressjournal.in/world/wrong-place-wrong-time-un-official-car-sex-video-goes-viral-investigation-underway
I don't see much wrong with the Beeb reporting either - they reported the facts, quoted some stuff presumably form a press conference and retold some of it's history in that area. They're not supposed pass an opinion. It was the UN who used the word disturbed, the Beeb just reported it.
|
It used to be so much more of a gamble before EPBs...
;-)
|
|
There wasn’t much room in the back of a Mk1 Polo, or 3 door 205 Pug either. Supple, rather than subtle, was the order of the day ( or night)
|
I used to have an MG Midget. Had to park by a tree, open the window and put your feet on the tree.
;-))
|
|
It is at the end of the day, just a company car, based on that - BTDT, GTTS
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 27 Jun 20 at 09:21
|
>> BTDT, GTTS
>>
....not in a car with IBM emblazoned on the door whilst driving down Peckham High Street, you haven't.
;-)
|
>> >> BTDT, GTTS
>> >>
>>
>> ....not in a car with IBM emblazoned on the door whilst driving down Peckham High
>> Street, you haven't.
>>
>> ;-)
Blue suit, white shirt, plain tie, ID badge, - Unmistakeable uniform.
|
>>
>> Blue suit, white shirt, plain tie, ID badge, - Unmistakeable uniform.
>>
....erm....... Mormon?
|
>> >>
>> >> Blue suit, white shirt, plain tie, ID badge, - Unmistakeable uniform.
>> >>
>>
>> ....erm....... Mormon?
I think Joyce McKinney died.
Edit, no she is in a Looney bin.
|
And I had a Spitfire.
Kept an old tent groundsheet and tartan rug in the boot. Wouldn’t want to have damaged that lovely wooden dashboard....think the Midget had a horrible black crinkle plastic dash.
|
"That kind of behaviour "goes against everything we stand for and having been working to achieve in terms of fighting misconduct by UN staff", Mr Dujarric told the BBC on Friday"
As mentioned above, UN workers have a history in this respect (or lack of it) - it certainly doesn't reflect well on an organisation does it, especially as the Haitian abuse is still alive and well.
www.hrw.org/news/2020/01/11/un-peacekeeping-has-sexual-abuse-problem
|
>> Essentially someone video'd a person having sex with a woman in a red dress in
>> a UN marked car in the street in Israel.
>>
>> The UN has announced that it is "shocked and deeply disturbed". Really? I suggest that
>> they need to get out a bit more.
What reaction should the UN offer?
Sha**ing in public in a liveried vehicle, even if they're a couple and off duty, must be a reputational issue for the organisation. If they've been partying while working - the slumped passenger may well be drunk - it's not good either.
As the article points out the UN has ample 'previous' for sexual harassment/misconduct involving employees, perhaps particularly posted staff and locally recruited employees. That's perhaps less likely in Israel, an advanced state with high per capita income, that in some other parts of the world where victims may not be able to afford to say no, but it cannot be dismissed or excluded from the disciplinary inquiry that should follow.
The woman is wearing a crop top and mini skirt in red. Without forming a definite judgement is she dressed for the office or an older 'profession'? Another matter for an inquiry to determine. If she is a hooker then I'd suspect the reputational damage, at least in some parts of the world perhaps including the Orthodox groups in Israel moves up a notch or three.
Personally I'm not that bothered. Couple having sex in a car? Meh, seen it a dozen times before but I seriously doubt anyone at UN, from the Secretary General down, can afford that sort of reaction when this has gone viral.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 27 Jun 20 at 10:42
|
Always worth dusting this one down, this time with Bromps "Couple having sex in a car? Meh, seen it a dozen times " in mind :-)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXzaVOk_Ydk
Last edited by: smokie on Sat 27 Jun 20 at 10:44
|
Couple having sex in a car? Meh, seen it a
>> dozen times before
I've clearly lead a sheltered life, because I've not.
What is it, one headlight flash or two to watch?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 27 Jun 20 at 11:17
|
>>What reaction should the UN offer?
Are they "shocked and deeply disturbed"?? Of course they're not.
p***ed off that they're going to get dragged through the mud, attacked by various groups and generally be distracted from their main job? Then yes, I expect so.
Especially since the sanctimonious reaction from the media and it's consumers is partly why they made the rules in the first place.
Clearly some dumbarse has broken the organisation's rules and no doubt they will deal with that. But "shocked and deeply disturbed"?? Give me a break.
|
The concern from the UN seems reasonable to me. There is already a reputational issue which this fuels. Signwritten car in a busy street in broad daylight? A trusted peacekeeping and aid organisation?
That's not a moral judgement. I have certainly had employment contracts that listed damaging the employer's reputation as an example of gross misconduct.
That's the behaviour of somebody very careless and arrogant, a loose cannon that the UN should publicly get rid of for the sake of its own image.
Whether it's newsworthy is a different question. I don't suppose it would be if it was Fred Bloggs in his council van. But the UN in Tel Aviv, in the context of the ongoing UN investigations? I'd say yes. It's been very widely reported and for the BBC not to do so would be incongruous.
|
>>
>>
>> Whether it's newsworthy is a different question. I don't suppose it would be if it
>> was Fred Bloggs in his council van.
>>
>>
Did the council van one a few times. I had chosen a discrete location, of course.
|
"That's the behaviour of somebody very careless and arrogant, a loose cannon that the UN should publicly get rid of for the sake of its own image."
But what is she's the local HR director or something?
Or have I jumped to different conclusion from everyone else? :-)
|
>> "That's the behaviour of somebody very careless and arrogant, a loose cannon that the UN
>> should publicly get rid of for the sake of its own image."
>>
>> But what is she's the local HR director or something?
What are you thinking, training? Or disciplinary action in progress?
|
>>..... Or disciplinary action in progress?
>>
>>
...did anybody spot a whip...?
|
I'm fairly broad minded but publicly s***ing in a marked works vehicle with your mates/colleagues on board strikes me as arrogantly depraved, low on morals and devoid of judgement. Perhaps suitability for the role should be questioned.
I've maybe just led a sheltered life :)
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 27 Jun 20 at 16:16
|
>> I'm fairly broad minded but publicly s***ing in a marked works vehicle with your mates/colleagues
>> on board strikes me as arrogantly depraved, low on morals and devoid of judgement. Perhaps
>> suitability for the role should be questioned.
>>
>>
Chances of a quickie don't come round that often, you've got to get in there while you can.
Although depraves, low on morals and devoid of judgement would be a charge I'd have had to own up to on occasions.
BBD doesn't work for the UN, does he?
|
>>
>> BBD doesn't work for the UN, does he?
>>
....not any longer...
|
>>I'm fairly broad minded but publicly s***ing in a marked works vehicle with your mates/colleagues on board strikes me as arrogantly depraved, low on morals and devoid of judgement.
Depraved? No, I can't agree with that. In a world swamped with porn it seems a little inconsistent to regard the real thing as depraved.
I'll give you the "devoid of judgement" though. Quite stupid. If one is going to do something one shouldn't then witnesses ought to be something to be avoided.
And a marked car, in a public place, with a witness in the passenger seat would appear to be the height of stupidity.
We are quickly growing into a Nation of people who love to be shocked at the behaviour of others. I think it's a variation on virtue signalling.
|
>>The concern from the UN seems reasonable to me.
Indeed, for many reasons. But "shocked and deeply disturbed"??
Sanctimonious rubbish.
It would appear that as a population we are not in the slightest bit interested in whether or not they are actually "shocked and deeply disturbed", or even whether or not that it is a reasonable reaction, but they have to say it or we will attack them.
Not a great approach and not likely to lead in a great direction. Or since we're already going there, it's even more worrying to continue and reinforce it.
Thought control of the people by the people. Not quite how Orwell thought it would happen.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 27 Jun 20 at 18:00
|
>
>> Not a great approach and not likely to lead in a great direction. Or since
>> we're already going there, it's even more worrying to continue and reinforce it.
>>
>> Thought control of the people by the people. Not quite how Orwell thought it would
>> happen.
>>
....would it be correct to describe you as "shocked and deeply disturbed"?....
|
No, because I am neither. Nor do I need to signal my righteousness for fear of being criticised by media consumers.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 27 Jun 20 at 18:09
|
|
*Now* I could understand "shocked and deeply disturbed".
|
Thought it was serious until I read some of the other articles on the page.
I like the tag line at the top "where facts don't matter"
|
UN Employee has sex in car - sooty123
