Celebrity Allegations, #MeToo etc

Innocent until proven guilty sounds good but doesn't really work in the real world. Who in their right mind would treat people like Cosby or Toback as if they were 100% innocent? No one is saying send them to jail without due process, but treating them as if they are innocent isn't possible because we aren't robots.
 
Snowjoe said:
That’s the difficult part I always think. Because of where the crime happens it’s often between two people behind closed doors and can boil down to “he said she said” which makes it hard to build enough evidence to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt I suppose. But then you can just lower the bar for the legal system to get more convictions. I don’t know what the answer is.
Click to expand...
I know from experience the CPS only takes around 1 in 10 cases to court, simply due to lack of evidence gathered. As you say it's one word against another usually, and especially if you're dealing with cases from X amount of years gone by, it's extra tricky.
 
kps88 said:
Innocent until proven guilty sounds good but doesn't really work in the real world. Who in their right mind would treat people like Cosby or Toback as if they were 100% innocent? No one is saying send them to jail without due process, but treating them as if they are innocent isn't possible because we aren't robots.
Click to expand...
There are degrees though. Cosby is another level, after about 7 or 8 it became clear that he must've done something wrong. Where it's one allegation though, I see no problem giving the benefit of innocence until proven otherwise.
 
kps88 said:
Innocent until proven guilty sounds good but doesn't really work in the real world. Who in their right mind would treat people like Cosby or Toback as if they were 100% innocent? No one is saying send them to jail without due process, but treating them as if they are innocent isn't possible because we aren't robots.
Click to expand...

Yeah - another extreme case is, of course, OJ. He was found not guilty, but hell we all know he did it and he is treated that way by the media and most of the public too.
 
Rado_N said:
The Piven thing concerns me in the way people are just taking it for granted that he's guilty.

I mean, if he is then he's a scumbag and deserves the full weight of justice, but it's wrong to just say that because he's been accused he's definitely done it. The idea that coming out to deny it is automatically a mistake is ridiculous, what if he actually is innocent?

There was a case in my local area where a scout leader (iirc) was accused by 3 women of having molested them way back in the day. Each of them giving detailed accounts of what had happened and where in this old building he'd taken them. It was only found to be bullshit because they screwed up and gave the same account of this room he'd taken them to that it turned out was part of an extension to the building that didn't exist until many years after they'd claimed the incidents had happened. He was obviously cleared but those accusations don't go away and people ignorantly still trot out stuff like "no smoke without fire".

Obviously I'm not saying for one minute that we should dismiss allegations out of hand but we should also be careful about assuming guilt and we need to be careful about tarring people with the Weinstein brush too easily.

@adexkola has made a lot of good posts this last few pages.
Click to expand...
I agree, the idea that people are scumbags for denying allegations is ridiculous. The Ched Evans case sticks out to me.

JPRouve said:
Are those 1000 rapes confirmed or alleged?
Click to expand...
No answer.
That graphic is misleading.
 
jungledrums said:
Out of every 1000 alleged rapes? It’s the same thing some of the earlier posters are saying. It’s tragic that it’s difficult to prove, but one cannot simply assume guilt.
Click to expand...
There is no assumption of guilt in this, it's a government survey of people asking whether they've been victims of any crime. It's not an accusation against a person. So the usual motive given for why people would lie about this - to ruin someone's life by tarring them as a sexual predator - doesn't really work.

Maybe it's all just a long con by radical feminists to skew official statistics and make men look bad, who knows.
 
Ubik said:
There is no assumption of guilt in this, it's a government survey of people asking whether they've been victims of any crime. It's not an accusation against a person. So the usual motive given for why people would lie about this - to ruin someone's life by tarring them as a sexual predator - doesn't really work.

Maybe it's all just a long con by radical feminists to skew official statistics and make men look bad, who knows.
Click to expand...
I suppose you could look at it the other way and say the lack of accountability in not having to accuse someone might lead to people being less rigorous with the truth.
 
George Takei has just released a statement refuting sexual harrassment charges against him.
 
2 Man Midfield said:
There are degrees though. Cosby is another level, after about 7 or 8 it became clear that he must've done something wrong. Where it's one allegation though, I see no problem giving the benefit of innocence until proven otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yeah Cosby is an extreme case but it's a bit arbitrary where people draw the line.
 
The Woody Allen one puzzles me. A lot of people talk about him as if he is 100% guilty but as far as I can tell it is a lone allegation from a member of his seriously weird family that seem to be at war over it. A lot of commentators say that it is a disgrace another one of his films is coming out but is he supposed to be ostracised on one unproven allegation?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The Woody Allen one puzzles me. A lot of people talk about him as if he is 100% guilty but as far as I can tell it is a lone allegation from a member of his seriously weird family that seem to be at war over it. A lot of commentators say that it is a disgrace another one of his films is coming out but is he supposed to be ostracised on one unproven allegation?
Click to expand...

Agree. The fact that he often gets mentioned in the same breath as someone like Polanski is extremely unfair.
 
We are in a guilty until proven innocent culture unfortunately, where an accusation can ruin someones life no matter how true.

Again, not saying any of this accusations are untrue, probably are for the most part. But right now all it takes is a random member of the public to type a few characters on twitter to ruin someones life. To me, thats a scary thought.
 
SalfordRed18 said:
We are in a guilty until proven innocent culture unfortunately, where an accusation can ruin someones life no matter how true.

Again, not saying any of this accusations are untrue, probably are for the most part. But right now all it takes is a random member of the public to type a few characters on twitter to ruin someones life. To me, thats a scary thought.
Click to expand...

Exactly. In the current climate, you and I could probably start tweeting that we were groped by X and Y on a vacation to LA and a shit storm would start up for that person! Scary indeed.
 
Will Absolute said:
Me too. (Until a few days ago. I know a lot about him now.)

It reminds me of G K Chesterton's description of journalism: " Journalism largely consists in saying ' Lord Jones is dead' to people who never knew Lord Jones was alive."
Click to expand...

I mentioned it because various people appeared to suggest that he is a World famous comedian.
 
jungledrums said:
Out of every 1000 alleged rapes? It’s the same thing some of the earlier posters are saying. It’s tragic that it’s difficult to prove, but one cannot simply assume guilt.
Click to expand...

A court cannot and should not, but people are going to make common sense judgements. Jimmy Saville was never convicted of anything: do you believe there's a doubt about his guilt?
 
Sassy Colin said:
I mentioned it because various people appeared to suggest that he is a World famous comedian.
Click to expand...

He's had several Netflix specials for his standup, has sold out Madison Square Garden something like 8 times, his sitcom has won Emmys, he's hosted SNL, he's a huge name in comedy.
 
Of all the accused I'm going to relish watching Steven "I love Vladimir Putin" Seagal getting taken down.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
The Woody Allen one puzzles me. A lot of people talk about him as if he is 100% guilty but as far as I can tell it is a lone allegation from a member of his seriously weird family that seem to be at war over it. A lot of commentators say that it is a disgrace another one of his films is coming out but is he supposed to be ostracised on one unproven allegation?
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It's not too uncommon for allegations of that kind to be made in bitter break-ups. People should keep an open mind about Woody.
 
Fergies Gum said:
Click to expand...


The problem with this is that it doesn't have to be a binary situation. "He did it" or "she's lying" ignores the possibility that the situation may have been misinterpreted by both sides.

Like when people say, 2% of rape accusations are proven false in a court of law... That doesn't mean 98% of them are proven true in a court of law.
 
Last edited:
Classical Mechanic said:
The Woody Allen one puzzles me. A lot of people talk about him as if he is 100% guilty but as far as I can tell it is a lone allegation from a member of his seriously weird family that seem to be at war over it. A lot of commentators say that it is a disgrace another one of his films is coming out but is he supposed to be ostracised on one unproven allegation?
Click to expand...

It depends on how much you buy the story in this article - https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1992/11/farrow199211 . On the flip side you have this - https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast and https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/hard-questions-for-ronan-farrow-an-open-letter/ (both by Allen's biographer)

A grown woman still publicly claiming that she was molested by him is not something you can brush off easily despite the family dynamics at play. (https://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/kr...from-dylan-farrow/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0) If it was anyone else than Allen, they he would have been a pariah by now. Even Polanksi only gets by because the victim in question herself wants to move past the case. Now with other women coming up against Polanski, that has become more difficult.

Even forgetting all this, may be I am not western enough in my values, but 57 year old man having an affair with his wife's adopted teenage daughter is something I have a hard time to accept. Then defence of it being fine since it is not illegal is not a far cry from breitbart editor arguing that only problem with Republican senator's scandal is that he "dated" a 14 year old and not the other teens' in question. The defence of him not being a paternal figure so it was fine for him to take nude photographs of a teenager (no one knows from when) is problematic on its own.
 
Last edited:
crappycraperson said:
It depends on how much you buy the story in this article - https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1992/11/farrow199211 . On the flip side you have this - https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast and https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/hard-questions-for-ronan-farrow-an-open-letter/ (both by Allen's biographer)

A grown woman still publicly claiming that she was molested by him is not something you can brush off easily despite the family dynamics at play. If it was anyone else than Allen, they he would have been a pariah by now. Even Polanksi only gets by because the victim in question herself wants to move past the case. Now with other women coming up against Polanski, that has become more difficult.

Even forgetting all this, may be I am not western enough in my values, but 57 year old man having an affair with his wife's adopted teenage daughter is something I have a hard time to accept. Then defence of it being fine since it is not illegal is not a far cry from breitbart editor arguing that only problem with Republican senator's scandal is that he "dated" a 14 year old and not the other teens' in question. The defence of him not being a paternal figure so it was fine for him to take nude photographs of a teenager (no one knows from when) is problematic on its own.
Click to expand...
It's certainly made watching Manhattan a tough ask these days.
 
crappycraperson said:
It depends on how much you buy the story in this article - https://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/1992/11/farrow199211 . On the flip side you have this - https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast and https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/hard-questions-for-ronan-farrow-an-open-letter/ (both by Allen's biographer)

A grown woman still publicly claiming that she was molested by him is not something you can brush off easily despite the family dynamics at play. If it was anyone else than Allen, they he would have been a pariah by now. Even Polanksi only gets by because the victim in question herself wants to move past the case. Now with other women coming up against Polanski, that has become more difficult.

Even forgetting all this, may be I am not western enough in my values, but 57 year old man having an affair with his wife's adopted teenage daughter is something I have a hard time to accept. Then defence of it being fine since it is not illegal is not a far cry from breitbart editor arguing that only problem with Republican senator's scandal is that he "dated" a 14 year old and not the other teens' in question. The defence of him not being a paternal figure so it was fine for him to take nude photographs of a teenager (no one knows from when) is problematic on its own.
Click to expand...

In Western culture of course Allen’s relationship with his adoptive daughter is bloody weird but, as you say, it isn’t illegal. As for the allegations against him by his other daughter, both sides put forward reasonable arguments against each other. The one thing that seems true is that the family are just really strange in every way. Allen, so far, has no other accusers either which whilst not proof of innocence, seems curious given the powerful position he is in and how his accuser paints him as a very weird obsessive pervert.

There just isn’t enough there for me to feel that he should be hung out to dry yet. People can vote with their own feet if they feel there is enough there for them of course.
 
In terms of personal boycotts against stars, when Pete Townsend was arrested for having child porn on his computer that put me off The Who and I can’t get into Michael Jackson anymore. I’m not really invested in film like I am music so I don’t really feel the connection to the creators/actors when I watch them, if that makes sense.

I think Michael Jackson is in a probably worse situation than Allen, given the multiple accusers with similarly weird behaviour. Jackson still gets airplay on all(?) radio stations and is openly adored (and defended) by many.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
In terms of personal boycotts against stars, when Pete Townsend was arrested for having child porn on his computer that put me off The Who and I can’t get into Michael Jackson anymore. I’m not really invested in film like I am music so I don’t really feel the connection to the creators/actors when I watch them, if that makes sense.

I think Michael Jackson is in a probably worse situation than Allen, given the multiple accusers with similarly weird behaviour. Jackson still gets airplay on all(?) radio stations and is openly adored (and defended) by many.
Click to expand...

Ditto for R. Kelly.

People pick and choose what celebrities they waive their principles for.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
I think Michael Jackson is in a probably worse situation than Allen, given the multiple accusers with similarly weird behaviour. Jackson still gets airplay on all(?) radio stations and is openly adored (and defended) by many.
Click to expand...
That's because Jackson went through a very high-profile trial and was cleared.
 
Snowjoe said:
That’s the difficult part I always think. Because of where the crime happens it’s often between two people behind closed doors and can boil down to “he said she said” which makes it hard to build enough evidence to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt I suppose. But then you can just lower the bar for the legal system to get more convictions. I don’t know what the answer is.
Click to expand...

I hope there's a 't missing from that sentence.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
In Western culture of course Allen’s relationship with his adoptive daughter is bloody weird but, as you say, it isn’t illegal. As for the allegations against him by his other daughter, both sides put forward reasonable arguments against each other. The one thing that seems true is that the family are just really strange in every way. Allen, so far, has no other accusers either which whilst not proof of innocence, seems curious given the powerful position he is in and how his accuser paints him as a very weird obsessive pervert.

There just isn’t enough there for me to feel that he should be hung out to dry yet. People can vote with their own feet if they feel there is enough there for them of course.
Click to expand...

Not all child molesters are serial ones. Many stop at just one. I agree given the court case was dropped you can not conclusively hold him guilty. But as per your original post, it is not as simple as everyone just ignoring the elephant of the accusation in the room. Accusation that is still maintained to this day. Personally, given the example of Louie CK, who played around with all this masturbation and consent stuff so much in his shows/stand ups and which turned out to be a reflection of his real life demons, I don't have hard time believing Allen as someone who is obsessed with the May Dec relationships given the theme in some of his movies and his actual real life relationship. Extending that to being a child molester is rough but it is not out of question either. There is enough doubt there and good reason for it to be wary of being associated with him.
 
Penna said:
That's because Jackson went through a very high-profile trial and was cleared.
Click to expand...

The tens of millions of dollars in hush money that he paid to multiple other children that accused him of being a paedophile is the issue for me. Just like with some of these recent celebs, there's just so many accusers against him.
 
adexkola said:
Ditto for R. Kelly.

People pick and choose what celebrities they waive their principles for.
Click to expand...

It also depends upon how much you're prepared to separate the art from the artist. If someone does something truly reprehensible, is it OK to admit that you still love their work? I mean, Chinatown will always be one of the best films of all time, even if it was made by a paedophile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.