|
Post by Jan on Apr 30, 2021 14:24:40 GMT
Not hard to fathom at all. They didn’t want to act on the basis of accusations and be accused of being racist. Which is exactly what’s happening now. What would accusations of sexual misconduct have to do with being racist? Isn't it more racist to ignore the allegations because he's black? I’m not giving my opinion, I’m merely noting what some of his supporters in the profession are already saying.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 30, 2021 14:29:33 GMT
Being slapped on the bottom without consent is sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment is always serious.
I don’t why some people think that slapping someone - anywhere - is no big deal. Let alone slapping their sensitive sexual areas! Bottoms are erogenous zones for a great many people.
It’s not ok! It can be very distressing and humiliating.
Edit: FFS, it apparently needs spelling out: whether or not you personally find being slapped on the bum upsetting no doubt depends on how sensitive that part of your body is. Regardless, it is known to be a sexual area and our basic societal standard of behaviour is that you don’t touch other people’s sexual areas without consent, and you shouldn’t be touching anyone sexually in a professional setting.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 30, 2021 14:31:40 GMT
|
|
2,502 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Apr 30, 2021 14:35:11 GMT
Frustrating for those who want to know how the story ends. It's being made available on-demand "briefly" on the ITV Hub for anyone who's invested 4 hours and wants to find out the ending.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 14:48:52 GMT
Being slapped on the bottom without consent is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is always serious. I don’t why some people think that slapping someone - anywhere - is no big deal. Let alone slapping their sensitive sexual areas! Bottoms are erogenous zones for a great many people. It’s not ok! It can be very distressing and humiliating. Edit: FFS, it apparently needs spelling out: whether or not you personally find being slapped on the bum upsetting no doubt depends on how sensitive that part of your body is. Regardless, it is known to be a sexual area and our basic societal standard of behaviour is that you don’t touch other people’s sexual areas without consent, and you shouldn’t be touching anyone sexually in a professional setting. And it needs to be pointed out that the cheeks of your backside are different to other parts of your backside. People have differently sensitivities. It doesn’t make mine less valid. If you’re affronted by someone smacking your backside then that is your right but I don’t have to and I don’t have to believe it’s the same as rape.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 30, 2021 14:53:03 GMT
No-one said it is the same as rape.
Rape is not the only bad thing that can happen!
Unwanted sexual contact is distressing, it’s often more humiliating in a work setting to be subjected to it by someone who has power over you because you can’t do anything about it without threatening your job.
This is basic stuff.
Just because you don’t find it upsetting doesn’t mean that it’s not unacceptable, or not serious.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 14:58:28 GMT
No-one said it is the same as rape. Rape is not the only bad thing that can happen! Unwanted sexual contact is distressing, it’s often more humiliating in a work setting to be subjected to it by someone who has power over you because you can’t do anything about it without threatening your job. This is basic stuff. They are saying it’s the same as recording someone naked without consent. It’s not. And I think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding bottom smacking so to speak I think it’s the humiliation thing is the issue for many women. They feel undermined rather than it being sexual. It shouldn’t happen in a work place of course but let’s not conflate issues.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 30, 2021 15:00:46 GMT
The whole article is a litany of unacceptable behaviour. There’s no reason to compare the levels of unacceptability.
It’s. All. Bad.
It’s. All. Wrong.
Why are you trying to defend any of it?!
Edit: bottoms, not sexual? What a laugh. You’ll be telling us that boobs aren’t sexual next, because they don’t do anything for you.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 30, 2021 15:02:51 GMT
No-one said it is the same as rape. Rape is not the only bad thing that can happen! Unwanted sexual contact is distressing, it’s often more humiliating in a work setting to be subjected to it by someone who has power over you because you can’t do anything about it without threatening your job. This is basic stuff. They are saying it’s the same as recording someone naked without consent. It’s not. And I think you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding bottom smacking so to speak I think it’s the humiliation thing is the issue for many women. They feel undermined rather than it being sexual. It shouldn’t happen in a work place of course but let’s not conflate issues. Unwanted physical contact, which includes bottom slapping, is a crime. Recording someone without their consent is a crime. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 15:07:56 GMT
I know what crimes are thanks.
Talking a sweet out of a picknmix is a crime.
Talking a dog is a crime.
Are they both crimes yes, the same? No.
People are confused but in the law it has to be proven it’s sexual in nature.
Under section 78 SOA 2003 touching or any other activity is “sexual” if a reasonable person would think that: the act is sexual by its nature; or the act may be sexual and because of the circumstances in which it occurred or the purpose the defendant has, or both, it is sexual. Sexual intercourse is an act that is sexual by its very nature. However, if the touching is not sexual by its nature, for example, touching a part of someone’s body through clothes, whether it is considered to be sexual or not will depend on: the circumstances of the touching (for example, where the touching occurred, what was touched and with what); and / or the defendant’s purpose
If it was a clear cut crime it would be dealt with through the police but it’s not so the court of Twitter get to decide.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 30, 2021 15:08:53 GMT
I hope someone is reporting this officially to the Police. We need to see high profile arrests and prosecutions to show that this is not only unacceptable, it is also criminal
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 15:18:10 GMT
The whole article is a litany of unacceptable behaviour. There’s no reason to compare the levels of unacceptability. It’s. All. Bad. It’s. All. Wrong. Why are you trying to defend any of it?! Edit: bottoms, not sexual? What a laugh. You’ll be telling us that boobs aren’t sexual next, because they don’t do anything for you. I didn’t say bottoms aren’t sexual don’t put words into my mouth without consent. I said there’s a difference between the cheek of the backside and the other parts.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 30, 2021 15:26:58 GMT
Yes, bum cheeks are sexual. This is why thongs exist, and why spanking can be sex-play.
And clearly, if they weren’t, a creep like Noel Clarke wouldn’t want to touch or slap them, he wouldn’t have been deliberately filming an actresses’ bottom is a sex scene for his own amusement, and men filming women’s bottoms going up stairs and escalators wouldn’t be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 15:32:35 GMT
Yes, bum cheeks are sexual. This is why thongs exist, and why spanking can be sex-play. And clearly, if they weren’t, a creep like Noel Clarke wouldn’t want to touch or slap them. People are aroused by touching so anywhere they’ll be aroused so the law is clear the intent has to be sexual in nature. Anyway it’s clear he recorded a woman naked without consent I hope she goes through with reporting to police and he’s convicted. I hope the women traumatised can recover. To respond to your edit: No one is condoning the recording of naked people or up-skirt recording. Conflating the touch of a hand against a clothed bottom cheek is not the same in law.
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Apr 30, 2021 16:08:21 GMT
Being slapped on the bottom without consent is sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is always serious. I don’t why some people think that slapping someone - anywhere - is no big deal. Let alone slapping their sensitive sexual areas! Bottoms are erogenous zones for a great many people. It’s not ok! It can be very distressing and humiliating. Edit: FFS, it apparently needs spelling out: whether or not you personally find being slapped on the bum upsetting no doubt depends on how sensitive that part of your body is. Regardless, it is known to be a sexual area and our basic societal standard of behaviour is that you don’t touch other people’s sexual areas without consent, and you shouldn’t be touching anyone sexually in a professional setting. Thank you. 👏 I do not consent to anyone touching my body, thank you. I have autonomy over my body. No one has the right to touch it. Bringing in the scenario of a professional environment (film / TV set) ... it’s damn right unacceptable. Are we *seriously* going to try and like play this down?? Are we going to go there? Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 30, 2021 16:35:17 GMT
Statement from Alexandra Roach, co-star of Viewpoint:
|
|
|
Post by ThereWillBeSun on Apr 30, 2021 16:37:52 GMT
Statement from Alexandra Roach, co-star of Viewpoint: Speaks volumes. It’s a shame as a great cast but 💯 the right decision.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Apr 30, 2021 16:44:51 GMT
I know what crimes are thanks. Talking a sweet out of a picknmix is a crime. Talking a dog is a crime. Are they both crimes yes, the same? No. People are confused but in the law it has to be proven it’s sexual in nature. Under section 78 SOA 2003 touching or any other activity is “sexual” if a reasonable person would think that: the act is sexual by its nature; or the act may be sexual and because of the circumstances in which it occurred or the purpose the defendant has, or both, it is sexual. Sexual intercourse is an act that is sexual by its very nature. However, if the touching is not sexual by its nature, for example, touching a part of someone’s body through clothes, whether it is considered to be sexual or not will depend on: the circumstances of the touching (for example, where the touching occurred, what was touched and with what); and / or the defendant’s purpose If it was a clear cut crime it would be dealt with through the police but it’s not so the court of Twitter get to decide. Good grief does it really have to be said - just because something isn't technically a crime (or a crime of a sexual nature) doesn't mean it is right or has to be tolerated! You are asking for your opinions to be respected but in the same breath entirely dismissing people who might be more sensitive than you. Just because you might tolerate something or not see it as offensive doesn't mean everyone else has to as well.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 16:50:40 GMT
I know what crimes are thanks. Talking a sweet out of a picknmix is a crime. Talking a dog is a crime. Are they both crimes yes, the same? No. People are confused but in the law it has to be proven it’s sexual in nature. Under section 78 SOA 2003 touching or any other activity is “sexual” if a reasonable person would think that: the act is sexual by its nature; or the act may be sexual and because of the circumstances in which it occurred or the purpose the defendant has, or both, it is sexual. Sexual intercourse is an act that is sexual by its very nature. However, if the touching is not sexual by its nature, for example, touching a part of someone’s body through clothes, whether it is considered to be sexual or not will depend on: the circumstances of the touching (for example, where the touching occurred, what was touched and with what); and / or the defendant’s purpose If it was a clear cut crime it would be dealt with through the police but it’s not so the court of Twitter get to decide. Good grief does it really have to be said - just because something isn't technically a crime (or a crime of a sexual nature) doesn't mean it is right or has to be tolerated! You are asking for your opinions to be respected but in the same breath entirely dismissing people who might be more sensitive than you. Just because you might tolerate something or not see it as offensive doesn't mean everyone else has to as well. I got called a sexual assault apologist because I said of the 20 women it ranged from a slap on the arse to recording someone naked without consent. They are different.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 30, 2021 16:51:47 GMT
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Apr 30, 2021 17:17:35 GMT
I really wish people would stop acting like “not getting to be a celeb anymore” is overly punitive.
The hysteria about being “locked up” and “denied access to the world” is completely disproportionate to what’s actually happening: that TV and film companies no longer want to offer someone roles because it will damage their viewing figures.
99.99% of people who desperately want to be movie and TV stars, do not get to be movie stars. Being a celebrity is not some sort of right. Being denied celebrity status is not a punishment, but the natural consequence of behaviour in a job that’s entirely dependent on public likability. Celebrities exist only on the grace of the public. If the public lose interest in a person, they simply don’t get to be a celebrity anymore. Plenty of celebs have lost their careers and livelihoods simply because they gained weight, or aged, or had children, or became ill, or acted in a couple of boring projects. No outrage there, is there?
Why should a movie or TV studio decide to hand their millions of pounds to Noel Clarke, instead of the hundred other talented artists in their pitch slate? Why is choosing someone else over him an egregious punishment?
In many industries, being accused of being abusive or a bully is cause for firing; a cafe manager would certainly never say “well that waiter has screamed at half a dozen people but they’ve not been convicted of a crime so I can’t possibly fire them.” Why should actors be treated as untouchable and held to a different standard, with lasting fame some kind of birthright except in cases of criminal conviction?
Noel is perfectly free to pursue any job he wants, and to continue to self-produce his work. And other people are perfectly free to choose not to give him money for that work.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 17:27:05 GMT
I really wish people would stop acting like “not getting to be a celeb anymore” is overly punitive. The hysteria about being “locked up” and “denied access to the world” is completely disproportionate to what’s actually happening: that TV and film companies no longer want to offer someone roles because it will damage their viewing figures. 99.99% of people who desperately want to be movie and TV stars, do not get to be movie stars. Being a celebrity is not some sort of right. Being denied celebrity status is not a punishment, but the natural consequence of behaviour in a job that’s entirely dependent on public likability. Celebrities exist only on the grace of the public. If the public lose interest in a person, they simply don’t get to be a celebrity anymore. Plenty of celebs have lost their careers and livelihoods simply because they gained weight, or aged, or had children, or became ill, or acted in a couple of boring projects. No outrage there, is there? Why should a movie or TV studio decide to hand their millions of pounds to Noel Clarke, instead of the hundred other talented artists in their pitch slate? Why is choosing someone else over him an egregious punishment? In many industries, being accused of being abusive or a bully is cause for firing; a cafe manager would certainly never say “well that waiter has screamed at half a dozen people but they’ve not been convicted of a crime so I can’t possibly fire them.” Why should actors be treated as untouchable and held to a different standard, with lasting fame some kind of birthright except in cases of criminal conviction? Noel is perfectly free to pursue any job he wants, and to continue to self-produce his work. And other people are perfectly free to choose not to give him money for that work. The problem is when someone loses a career to allegations. An allegation is enough to take a career from someone. Even though there seems to be more outrage about people not being able to see the last episode of his drama. Perhaps audiences want to wait until someone is investigated and tried by the justice system and not Twitter
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 30, 2021 17:39:14 GMT
I really wish people would stop acting like “not getting to be a celeb anymore” is overly punitive. The hysteria about being “locked up” and “denied access to the world” is completely disproportionate to what’s actually happening: that TV and film companies no longer want to offer someone roles because it will damage their viewing figures. 99.99% of people who desperately want to be movie and TV stars, do not get to be movie stars. Being a celebrity is not some sort of right. Being denied celebrity status is not a punishment, but the natural consequence of behaviour in a job that’s entirely dependent on public likability. Celebrities exist only on the grace of the public. If the public lose interest in a person, they simply don’t get to be a celebrity anymore. Plenty of celebs have lost their careers and livelihoods simply because they gained weight, or aged, or had children, or became ill, or acted in a couple of boring projects. No outrage there, is there? Why should a movie or TV studio decide to hand their millions of pounds to Noel Clarke, instead of the hundred other talented artists in their pitch slate? Why is choosing someone else over him an egregious punishment? In many industries, being accused of being abusive or a bully is cause for firing; a cafe manager would certainly never say “well that waiter has screamed at half a dozen people but they’ve not been convicted of a crime so I can’t possibly fire them.” Why should actors be treated as untouchable and held to a different standard, with lasting fame some kind of birthright except in cases of criminal conviction? Noel is perfectly free to pursue any job he wants, and to continue to self-produce his work. And other people are perfectly free to choose not to give him money for that work. The problem is when someone loses a career to allegations. An allegation is enough to take a career from someone. Even though there seems to be more outrage about people not being able to see the last episode of his drama. Perhaps audiences want to wait until someone is investigated and tried by the justice system and not Twitter Twenty allegations. Twenty.
|
|
4,028 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Apr 30, 2021 17:40:39 GMT
It’s not ‘an allegation’, it’s 20 allegations. And plenty of other people indicating that those 20 allegations are the Spacey-esque tip of the iceberg.
You get the benefit of the doubt for one allegation, if you have a good reputation in the industry. Noel Clarke very obviously does not have a good reputation. The sheer volume of allegations here removes any doubt to give him the benefit of.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 17:49:25 GMT
20 Allegations
The Guardian has spoken to 20 women, all of whom knew Clarke in a professional capacity. They variously accuse him of sexual harassment, unwanted touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behaviour and comments on set, professional misconduct, taking and sharing sexually explicit pictures and videos without consent, and bullying between 2004 and 2019.
All corroborated by someone telling their friends, someone labelling a dick pic ‘Noels Dick’. One photo of someone doing some sort of yoga on a dancefloor at an event with VPL which men leered over and laughed at.
I hope police can investigate and find the alleged tapes of the naked audition, however the casting director who was present said she couldn’t believe that happened. And by releasing the info on Twitter first gives Noel time to dump any tapes and then prove even more he’s a predator to Twitter.
|
|
1,093 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Apr 30, 2021 17:57:39 GMT
Nobody loses their career over an “allegation.” That’s simply not how the industry works.
Whenever you see someone’s career turn upside down and witness everyone abandon them overnight, it’s because they were widely disliked and everyone knew they were a nightmare.
Ever wonder why some celebs survive scandals unscathed and some lose their careers overnight?
This is not a large industry. Everyone knows who the abusers and who the bullies are. It’s a shame those with power aren’t more willing to lead (though I know for a fact plenty of people have refused to work with NC over the years because of his behaviour) but the idea that commissioners are just sitting there going, “Well gee he always seemed like a nice bloke, but the Guardian say he’s cancelled so we won’t hire him anymore” is not based in reality.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Apr 30, 2021 18:08:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2021 18:13:14 GMT
Nobody loses their career over an “allegation.” That’s simply not how the industry works. Whenever you see someone’s career turn upside down and witness everyone abandon them overnight, it’s because they were widely disliked and everyone knew they were a nightmare. Ever wonder why some celebs survive scandals unscathed and some lose their careers overnight? This is not a large industry. Everyone knows who the abusers and who the bullies are. It’s a shame those with power aren’t more willing to lead (though I know for a fact plenty of people have refused to work with NC over the years because of his behaviour) but the idea that commissioners are just sitting there going, “Well gee he always seemed like a nice bloke, but the Guardian say he’s cancelled so we won’t hire him anymore” is not based in reality. Loved by the Irish media. Was the host of multiple media shows from tv to radio. Was the host of an Irish remake of Cilla Black Surprise Surprise. Sold out large gigs for Irish comics and was liked across the Herero/Homo binary. Career gone, articles if he so much appears in public. And the Twitterati think he shouldn’t be allowed work because he’s not innocent because they couldn’t prove his guilt. www.irishmirror.ie/showbiz/irish-showbiz/al-porter-focusing-family-health-20993191 An allegation is enough to ruin a career. Another: www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/i-m-not-the-same-sil-fox-comedian-seeks-damages-after-sex-assault-case-is-dismissed-1.4488854Let the police handle sexual crimes not the media social or print.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 30, 2021 18:13:29 GMT
It's fairly telling that no one is coming out publicly to defend him.
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Apr 30, 2021 18:15:09 GMT
Nobody loses their career over an “allegation.” That’s simply not how the industry works. Whenever you see someone’s career turn upside down and witness everyone abandon them overnight, it’s because they were widely disliked and everyone knew they were a nightmare. Ever wonder why some celebs survive scandals unscathed and some lose their careers overnight? This is not a large industry. Everyone knows who the abusers and who the bullies are. It’s a shame those with power aren’t more willing to lead (though I know for a fact plenty of people have refused to work with NC over the years because of his behaviour) but the idea that commissioners are just sitting there going, “Well gee he always seemed like a nice bloke, but the Guardian say he’s cancelled so we won’t hire him anymore” is not based in reality. Loved by the Irish media. Was the host of multiple media shows from tv to radio. Was the host of an Irish remake of Cilla Black Surprise Surprise. Sold out large gigs for Irish comics and was liked across the Herero/Homo binary. Career gone, articles if he so much appears in public. And the Twitterati think he shouldn’t be allowed work because he’s not innocent because they couldn’t prove his guilt. An allegation is enough to ruin a career. Another: www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/i-m-not-the-same-sil-fox-comedian-seeks-damages-after-sex-assault-case-is-dismissed-1.4488854Let the police handle sexual crimes not the media social or print. Well it's a well researched guardian article here. You obviously have a bug bear over metoo but saying 'just go to the police' is an issue for several reasons
|
|