Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc
- Thread starter Buchan
- Start date
Considering some of the archaic comments that he's made in the past, would not be surprising.
She should have beat the shit out of him like she beat her nephew.
Of course the old cnut denies it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/aly-raisman-larry-nassar_us_5a05a3c0e4b01d21c83e1e4c
I think this allegation has already been posted, but it's a new interview. On a side note - this thread needs threadmarks because it's impossible to keep track.
I think this allegation has already been posted, but it's a new interview. On a side note - this thread needs threadmarks because it's impossible to keep track.
As I said in another post, this thread might not have been the best place to vent my frustration about the increasing use of 'feelings'. My concerns are not in any way limited to women, nor to matters of sexual harassment. It just so happened that the word was used several times in the original article, and I would have appreciated it if the root cause of these feelings were made a bit more specific. For example, the women who felt threatened by his agent. Was the agent bluntly making concrete threats, or maybe even a bit more subtly, like "I wouldn't talk about it if I were you"? In which case I would wholeheartedly agree with them about being threatened. Or was it a simple request to please stop talking about it? These things matter when assessing the severity of the offence(s).
In general, I'm not dismissing anyone's feelings as invalid. People feel what they feel. My concerns about the use of 'I feel' in serious issues goes far beyond this case. But I won't bore you anymore with it
His reply.
Seriously though, it's crazy how one's name can be dragged through the mud so easily.
Four women not three.
Yeah Jeremy, the jeopardised careers are the real story here and not the numerous confirmed victims.
I like how he says the “benefit of a doubt” instead of “benefit of the doubt”. Like, there’s no doubt in his case so he’d like you to give him the benefit of another doubt instead.
How do you confirm something like this that happened 30 years ago? I'm not trying to be smart. I genuinely don't know how these cases are solved. Is it word against word in some cases or all have some kind of proof.
I feel like he should be saying which of the other allegations that people are too hasty to believe. Louis CK has admitted, as has Spacey, weight of evidence against Weinstein is inarguable, Ratner's pretty much there...
Tbf he is right when he cautions against believeing allegations as fact. The current climate would certainly see any false allegations gain more traction than they normally would.
Not that this says anything about the four allegations against him, mind. Or indeed the Weinstein, Spacey or Louis CK situations.
Not that this says anything about the four allegations against him, mind. Or indeed the Weinstein, Spacey or Louis CK situations.
Need a new thread title. Reads like it's an ITVBe show.
He doesn't need to mention any of the other allegations at all, just plead his own innocence. "We seem to be entering dark times" is a horrible sentence, given the kind of stuff that so many women (and men) are finally feeling able to say they've been put through for god knows how long.
Not his place, and his point is absolutely correct in the more general sense.
I was sexually harassed 50 years ago, why am i mentioning it now?
Well its all the rage and I'm skint
Feck off
Well its all the rage and I'm skint
Feck off
That line irked me too.
He’s either saying:
1. We seem to be entering dark times when women feel they can speak out.
2. I don’t believe any of these women that are coming out with allegations about any of these other men.
Grow up.
Agree, it's not an appropriate way to describe the current situation overall. "Dark times" are when people like Weinstein aren't held to account for their actions.
Nonetheless, the general point that we shouldn't rush to judgement is (as always) correct. If he was going to make that point though then he should have referred to his own specific situation (which he obviously claims is a case of false allegations) rather than referring to other cases where the perpetrators' guilt is in little doubt.
Outside of a court of law, I think you apply common sense. If a lot of people from an individual's past accuse him of a particular kind of behaviour, then, unless he's been extraordinarily unlucky in his acquaintances, there's likely to be something behind it.
In the case of an entertainer like Cliff Richard for example, where everyone who'd ever been within 100 miles of the guy over the course of a 50 year career was invited to come forward with a story, the probabilities are very different.
It's great that men and women feel confident to come out and make accusations of sexual assault. I don't think Piven would deny that. I also don't think he would say he didn't believe the stories that were corroborated by independent evidence, or the confessions of the perpertrators.
However I think the phrase "dark times" is absolutely appropriate from his perspective, where the words of a few are enough to tarnish his reputation. Hence his usage of the words "due process". It's not that long ago that rape accusations coupled with a total bypass of due process were used to terrorize a sector of the population in the US. Some may view the loss of one's livelihood as one of little relevance compared to more dark consequences that used to occur back then, but I don't think that makes the phenomenon any less disturbing, or "dark" as he puts it.
This implies our common sense is anywhere near accurate, or we as humans are any good at intuitively coming up with probabilities of events. Anyone who claims they can do this easily is full of shit.
Hypothetical scenario here.
3 girlfriends get talking. One of them really wanted a role in the latest John Bob movie. She didn't get it and blames the casting director Jim Omiwebe. The 3 friends get other people who feel wronged or disappointed by Mr. Omiwebe. They get to talking and decide to come out and accuse him of assualt, harassment, etc.
How is common sense going to help us with this case without knowing anything other than the words of the involved?
Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the people who claim something happened? And, if they can't prove it, shouldn't they be liable for damages( or something)?
3 girlfriends get talking. One of them really wanted a role in the latest John Bob movie. She didn't get it and blames the casting director Jim Omiwebe. The 3 friends get other people who feel wronged or disappointed by Mr. Omiwebe. They get to talking and decide to come out and accuse him of assualt, harassment, etc.
How is common sense going to help us with this case without knowing anything other than the words of the involved?
Shouldn't the burden of proof fall on the people who claim something happened? And, if they can't prove it, shouldn't they be liable for damages( or something)?
Big mistake for Piven to double down and say these women are lying.
This statement from him will hopefully give courage to other women he's targeted to speak out and tell their story.
This statement from him will hopefully give courage to other women he's targeted to speak out and tell their story.
No. An unproven allegation isn't the same as a proven false allegation. Punishing people whose allegations aren't proven to be correct would be a massively retrograde step as it would make it even harder to get people to come forward.
What if they're lying though? Imagine being falsely accused of something like that in this climate, it must be horrific. What would you do if you were accused of something like this that you knew to be false? I'd be fecking furious.
Piven has always struck me as a bit of a twat, so I wouldn't be surprised if these allegations are true, but the simple fact is that I have no way to know if they are. Nor does anyone else except Piven and these women. "Innocent until proven guilty" should extend to the court of public opinion.
If he's innocent then it's hardly a mistake.
If he's guilty? The cynical side of me says denying it could work given these things are so hard to prove. Confessing would hardly do him much good.
Only if it can be proven that they in fact are lying. Libel/slander laws have a high burden of proof.
Eh? Does that apply even if he's not lying?
If it was one person who made these accusation then it would be possible for them to make it up. We are talking about multiple women who have shared their stories and i believe them.
I just dont believe this notion that all these women have decided to engage in a conspiracy by making up stories regarding the same actor.
A basic criterion in judging the validity of such accusations is that they come from independent sources. Police or prosecutors are always wary of the possibility of collaboration.
Of course in the face of such a widespread conspiracy the guy's goose may be cooked anyway. But neither the justice system nor ordinary human judgement is perfect.
Making them liable for damages would be a great way of ensuring that victims never come forward.
In a lot of cases of sexual assault and rape there aren't really any physical evidence or witnesses, so even if it's reported, it's unlikely to result in anything. In that case, victims would now have to pay restitution to the person that violated them, in addition to seeing them go unpunished for it.
Well this is the kind of argument that's allowed men to get away with sexually assaulting and harassing women for time immemorial, yes.
Many of these cases wouldn't pass through a court of law because of the lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt, fine. A woman cannot easily prove, for example, that a man followed her into an empty public toilet, shoved her up against a wall and stuck his hand into her underwear against her will. Not unless she's clairvoyant and stuck a camera in the room beforehand. But does that happen? Of course it does. How often do you reckon the guy faces repercussions of any sort?
Due process will be gone through, that's about being dealt with under the law. In public opinion however, these things tend to come down to the balance of probabilities. If the public believe the women, then they believe them. Not much else you can say.
I mean ffs, even GOPers are cutting their ties with one of their own candidates over allegations (which he fulsomely denies, of course). Men are not the victims here.
Same.
3 women saying, "I saw Jeremy Piven come on this woman's cardigan" is significantly different from 3 women saying, "Jeremy Piven raped me". The first is multiple witnesses corroborating a single event, which is stronger evidence.
The latter is 3 women speaking about 3 different events. This may be used to suspect Piven is a serial rapist, but in no court is another allegation admitted as proof someone commited a seperate crime.
The justice system is held to a higher standard, which is why extrajudicial punishment is universally frowned upon. It allows for defendants, witnesses and victims to be cross-examined, for evidence to be vetted, and so on. Trial by numbers is a more convenient path, but cue "dark times"...
One of the victims (Tiffany Scourby) contacted a friend of hers after the incident occurred to tell her about what he did. Her friend has confirmed she was told about this sexual assault.
http://people.com/tv/jeremy-piven-accused-sexual-assault-tiffany-bacon-scourby/
You can't say "balance of probabilities" and ignore the normally very low probability that one person assaulted many women, and not a single one filed a police report. Probability is just a substitute for, "here's my default position and that's it", which is fair enough. Just don't dress it up as the logical conclusion.
I understand that testimony from other 'victims' may not be admissible in court, but it's regarded by police as strong evidence that they're on the right track. As, I think, it should.
In fairness, my first post did start with 'Outside of a court of law'.
I've known someone that was raped and refused to go to the police about it (knew the guy, no evidence, didn't want to go through people saying she was a liar), so I don't find it hard to believe at all to be honest.
And I'm not even coming to a judgement on Piven's case here, I'm saying his statement about other cases and "dark times" was bullshit and self-serving.