|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2019 6:53:53 GMT
|
|
990 posts
|
Post by nash16 on Apr 11, 2019 17:25:12 GMT
It's terrible. How do these people get away with it everytime? It is/was a Spacey-esque industry known "secret" what he would get away with.
|
|
2,536 posts
|
Post by n1david on Apr 11, 2019 17:30:54 GMT
Think it’s worth mentioning, in case people don’t read the article, that the Daily Telegraph in question is an Australian tabloid, and not the UK paper.
|
|
456 posts
|
Post by mistressjojo on Apr 11, 2019 23:12:20 GMT
In this instance the trial wasn't about whether Rush committed the deed, but that the newspaper published allegations that could not be substantiated and were basically just rumours. Maybe common knowledge in certain circles but no-one had taken any legal action at that stage.
They didn't even speak to the actress involved ( who hadn't made any formal complaint against Rush) and actually named her in the press without her consent. She was then made to appear as a witness for the defence in an attempt to prove their story was fact.
Did the sexual harassment occur? Quite possibly. But it was not the Daily Telegraph's place to cast judgement without evidence. Bad journalism all round.
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 12, 2019 8:28:00 GMT
I feel really sorry for her - she didn't ask for this situation at all.
Is Geoffrey Rush creepy? Probably. But some of the stuff the newspaper was trying to bring as evidence of harassment to justify their story was incredibly flimsy, and it's not surprising that he won on that basis.
|
|
1,179 posts
|
Post by joem on Apr 12, 2019 22:57:19 GMT
"I saw _________________________ (choose preferred actor's name) consorting with the devil!"
|
|
749 posts
|
Post by horton on Apr 13, 2019 8:09:53 GMT
Very interesting drama on Radio 4 yesterday about the subversion of the #metoo project for material gain/ power.
|
|
|
|
Post by sparky5000 on Apr 13, 2019 9:02:53 GMT
The issue I have with this case is the judge’s method of reasoning. He was like a dinosaur and doesn’t seem to get at all the struggle that women face in coming to terms with or revealing sexual harassment in the workplace. He was basically saying things like “but the actress was giving interviews praising Geoffrey Rush. Why would she do that if he had assaulted her.” - he doesn’t get it at all 🙄
|
|
4,038 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 13, 2019 12:27:25 GMT
I actually read the entire reasoning last night www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2019/2019fca0496It’s a long read, and very detailed, going through each point individually. Her evidence just wasn’t consistent or corroborated - the details changed over time, what she said in court differed from the written statement, and was contradicted by what other witnesses said. Several of the people who could have been called as witnesses, according to some of her statements, were not - which suggests the prosecuting team were aware their evidence would not help the case. Some of them were women who she claimed were also on the receiving end of similar suggestive behaviour from him, so it’s odd that none of them corroborated it. One of the incidents of touching she describes as happening on stage during previews, and yet apparently no-one in an audience of 900 people noticed or commented on it. The actor who was called as a witness to it actually described the other breast being touched to the one she described in her evidence. They filmed the show so the judge could watch the scene in question and concluded either version of events would have been visible. I don’t see what other conclusion he could have reached on the evidence he heard. |
|
