https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/apr/29/actor-noel-clarke-accused-of-groping-harassment-and-bullying-by-20-women
trending on twitter etc
edit: BAFTA make a statement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56937479
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9526951/Noel-Clarke-suspended-Bafta-20-women-accused-sexual-harassment-groping-bulling.html
Hooo boy! Lot's of allegations. Likely at least some of them are true.
shareIt doesn't look good does it?
shareYou're so judgemental. It's just a case of he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said...
shareEven so, all joking aside, this won't end well.
shareI'm disappointed in John Barrowman as well.
shareI thought people were typically overreacting over an allegation, but 20? Lol. The guy is done.
shareCan't stand the guy (but would like to think that everyone is innocent until proven guilty)
Although with ITV, it's likely a case of;
Black. Rapists. Lives. Matter.
...but would like to think that everyone is innocent until proven guilty
Jimmy Saville (whilst no angel) is likely nowhere near as guilty as people say he was?
I don't buy into this 'He Was Too Powerful' to stop bullshit either. He was regulary at live televised events (which could have been easily hijacked for victims to come forward)
And regardless of such, I'm always wary about people making allegations against those that can't answer back.
If you were to believe every tabloid story about Saville, then it's no wonder he was always dressed in Sportswear/Marathon attire, as he would have had to (numerically, according to press allegations) be constantly dashing/running/racing to his next rape/assault every day for over 30 years (which is bullshit, plain and simple) but a lot easier (and financially rewarding for both accuser and tabloid) when your attacker has zero chance of reply.
Saville was likely just a product of an different era, when (like it or not) teenage girls would readily sleep with celebrities. Just as well the likes of Paul McCartney, Jimmy Page and Co have better lawyers (and a more loyal fanbase) as they could just as easily be labelled for the same stuf that Savile was accused of? It's a selective, hypoctitical, double-standard that says a lot more about society, than it does about the alleged crimes.
As for Noel Clarke, like I said, I can't stand the guy (regardless of his alleged crimes) so will take a minor victory in not having to endure him in the media....But he's entitled to a fair trial (and should always be presumed innocent, until proven otherwise) It's not a perfect system of justice....But it's what seperates us from savages.
I'd hate to think YOU were in court, and the notion of (quote) "Innocent until proven guilty" were thrown away?
Keep your head buried in the sand lol
shareWhy?
shareMaking excuses for Saville and underplaying his crimes. I mean, seriously.
shareI'm making excuses for no-one, but If you believe half the shite in the tabloids, it's *you* that"s got their head buried in the sand?
Please feel free to list his 'crimes' (and cite evidence, other than sensationalistic hearsay)
Or better yet, try addressing the points I made about other celebrities from that era (who also committed paedophilia offences)...or are you too (conveniently) hypocritically 'selective' with your moralistic finger wagging?
I fully stand by my belief in a "fair trial" and "innocent until proven guilty" .....not "trial by media".....it's both a shame Saville never got his (then we'd have genuine evidence, not just salacious one-sided conjecture) but likewise it's a blessing that Noel Clarke will get his day in court) and if found guilty, I'll cheer such conviction with the rest of you?
But pointing out both extremes, doesn't mean I condone either individual. Invariably, with trials, the 'truth-will-out' (as they say) and clarke will have to answer to (and for) his crimes.....Saville (sadly) wasn't afforded such justice (and will forever be the fodder of questionable eternally-one-sided tabloid gossip, and little else)
I would also hope that same rule of law be applied to you, should you ever need it?
But feel free to project your own (double-standard) cowardice onto strangers at moviechat, who (at very least) respect the notion of a fair trial....if that labels me a 'paedophile supporter', then I'm thankful you're not in any way, shape or form connected with judiciary?
Many newspapers investigate crimes not previously pursued by the police and the courts.
History has proven that serial sex pests in power positions, routinely get away with it because the victims feel powerless, and don't believe the court system would support a single complaint. Plus they're worried about losing their own job.
Weinstein and Clarke were only caught after thorough investigations by reputable newspapers The NY Times and The Guardian. This is hardly trial by tabloid.
Sadly, in your perfect world these people would still be sexually abusing women. But if you can live with that, that's your choice.
Oh and try calling me a coward to my face, see what happens. I'll rearrange your teeth for free.
I'm the meantime, welcome to my ignore list :-)
Gotta love the internet tough guy....pulling the uber-fanny "ignore" copout. That's the online equivalent of calling someone a name from afar, then running away. I'd suggest you delete such comments (not because you're fooling anyone....yourself, especially) but because you're making *yourself* look like a right cunt (and that's *my* job)
I'd call you a coward twice (to both of your faces) and you'd do fuck all about it, other than worry why you didn't stay hidden behind the anonymity that the internet has (clearly) afforded you.
Obviously I've touched a nerve (for you to be threatening violence against random strangers) haven't I?
I'm gonna enjoy ripping the shit out of you (despite your "ignore" protestations)
Your idiocy (and fake wannabe tough-guy act aside) your biggest crime is suggesting that The Guardian is a (Quote) "Reputable newspaper"?...ha-fucking-ha....Game fucking over Buttercup, do you intend to knock my teeth out with your handbag?
Your choice in 'Newspapers' would certainly indicate so?
He doubled down by also mentioning the NY times. Reputable? Hahahahahahahahahaha!!
shareAnother deranged movie chat troll defending pedos.
shareI'm not defending pedo's....I am defending EVERYONE'S right to a fair trial (be they innocent or guilty) Why is that so hard to understand?
Do you think that if I was merely 'trolling'...I'd go to the lengthy posts that I have.....When I could just as easily write something 'controversial' (and leave it there?) whilst letting the likes of 'JestersDead' get heated up about it, regardless? If you care to re-read my comments, I didn't even bring up Jimmy Saville.....'FootOfDavros' did. I merely gave my opinions on how tabloids like to 'sleaze' things up (and that in reality, a lot of what you've read about the less-than-saintly Saville, are likely fabricated) I've already expressed my upset that Saville was never brought to justice DURING his lifetime. You can accuse anyone of anything if they're dead and have zero chance of reply. I've even wished both posters the same fair trial and due process in court (should they ever need it?)
Hardly the actions of a troll, is it?
If you watch old clips from years ago, people where making jokes about Saville and there was the thing with Johnny Rotten. It appears to be something people knew and ignored.
The thing is sadly in cases like this, it tends to be one person's word against another person. As often no one else was there, there tends to be little to no evidence. But when multiple people come forward then it doesn't look good for the accused
I'm not saying Saville was a saint, and that there wasn't loads of inside jokes about his lecherous behaviour. The fact that (by your own admission) that these were "jokes" backs up my assertion that (unfortunately) these were different times, when lots of celebrities and indulged in sex with underage children....and not only was it condoned, but also came with bragging rights.
I wish (if only for the sake of justice for his alleged victims) that Saville was openly called-out for his crimes when he was alive. Other celebrities were called out before him (and I find it hard to believe that he was *that* powerful to avoid prosecution in his lifetime?)
The likes of Michael Barrymore, Matthew Kelly, etc were likewise cash-cows for their respective studios, but still faced the police for any wrongdoing (unecessarily so, in Kelly's case) during a time when Saville was alive (but was already long off the screen)
But let's not forget that there's also plenty of nasty people out there, that will cry rape for financial reasons and go straight to civil court? But more often than not, are usually weeded out in a fair hearing.
Oh it wouldn't surprise me if some people did come out lying and/or trying to profit, but to me there's just too many complaints. That doesn't excuse other people.
It's complicated, because you'd expect the whole Noel Clarke thing to have blown up during the who me too movement. All I can presume is the victims maybe brushed it off. It's not uncommon for victims to try and rationalise the whole thing and maybe tell themselves that it was an accident, mistake etc. It probably wasn't until 1 person finally felt like they had to say something, that others felt like they had been right originally, that it was wrong, and could also stand up and shout.
I don't think this will be the last celebrity we'll hear.
Also there's the whole thing with John Barrowman, and how some think it's as bad and some think it wasn't that bad and are trying to justify it.