Posted on 04/21/2017 2:05:45 AM PDT by Helicondelta
Coming forward publicly for the first time, Perquita Burgess, along with her attorney Lisa Bloom, appeared on “The View” Thursday to discuss the sexual harassment she claims Bill O’Reilly directed toward her.
O’Reilly was let go from Fox News the day before, and co-host Whoopi Goldberg introduced Burgess as potentially “the final nail in the coffin of Bill O’Reilly’s career at Fox News.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I’d have paid. $10M just to keep that name out of the papers.
FUGLY...
Was their a cup of hot chocolate on her desk? ...i mean, its new york? its cold. where i work you get unlimited free coffee and hot chocolate (the coffee machine has a hot water tap and they always have a basket next to it always filled with hot chocolate packets).
Oh, don’t you just know that woman was offended? LOL
Turns out it's like ten years old !
I don't particularly like the the guy but BOR was set up and he rolled over !
They got him while he was on vacation in Europe.
I don’t know about hot, but that there chin, I would say, is “double chocolate.”
Look at the intrigue in real life and all you have to do is read the news .... or in some cases, just watch TV.
'scuse me ... I gott'a puke.
What did she find pubic hairs on her coke can?
Fred Sanford gives it 4 out of 5 stars on the Aunt Esther scale of ugly. And he says O'Reilly should get his eyes checked, the big dummy.
O’Reiley?
Didn’t he used to have a show or something?
If BO spent any time at all on that ugly ho... He deserves to be fired and frankly, she doesn’t look like his type. I thought he was more into Gretchen.
He is alleged to have grunted and to have said "hot chocolate" to an African-American woman in the workplace. But it is significant that this woman was not an employee of Fox but of a temp agency.
By the way, when the attorney for this woman said there was no desire to seek money from O'Reilly or Fox because they wanted to maintain their credibility in their effort to "bring down O'Reilly" it was later revealed that she could not have sought money damages because the statute of limitations had run. So much for high-minded civic duty.
At some point we are going to have to let the pendulum swing back. I do not hold with the Muslim immigrant who excuse rape of women because her skirts are too short, but there ought to be some recognition of the culture in the Western world of flirtation, some recognition in the Western world culture of the desire by females through cosmetics and attire to make themselves alluring to the opposite sex. There should be some recognition that women provoke the very attentions about which they complain.
There are certain lines which can be objective and can be enforced without placing half the world at the mercy of feminists gone wild. For example, if there is an actual touching involved the matter becomes something the law has handled for centuries. An assault with the touching of some kind makes conduct which is otherwise benign actionable.
An explicit demand for sex in a master servant relationship or perhaps even an explicit or implicit promise of career damage if sex is denied might be grounds for imposing financial penalties. But what about an implicit or express promise for career advancement if sex is provided? Should that be actionable?
The idea that the discomfort of the female is a legitimate if subjective test must not be permitted to stand. This is much like the idea that speech can be censored if it makes the audience feel uncomfortable. It is precisely unpopular speech that requires protection. Similarly, it is the nature of the eternal war between the sexes that there should be an advance and rejection or advance and acceptance. That is the ultimate purpose of flirting to get things sorted out in the business of procreation.
Typically, the left thinks it can by legislation alter human nature and human behavior, invariably with catastrophic consequences.
When we come to the point where "grunting" or saying "hot chocolate" is actionable sexual harassment, the pendulum has gone too far in one direction.
Can she at least prove that she told someone about this 10 years ago?
I am confused....normally if someone gets a settlement.........there is a NO Talk about it type clause....wouldn’t that be the case here also?
It was probably imaginary hair on her coke can... If the terrible imaginary things that happened to Anita Hill were actually labelled as ‘sexual harassment’ there would be no men working in America. We would all be in jail or barred from working.
Sure. And he paid for silence he did not get. He should re-sue her after she collects and roll her for breach of contract.
Exactly
Did he also say “I’m coo coo for cocoa puffs?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.