Discussion:
OT: Noel Clarke
(too old to reply)
Sid Nuncius
2021-04-30 05:08:08 UTC
Permalink
Nugger.

I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all. I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose work
I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is accused,
apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.

Nugger.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
krw
2021-04-30 09:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose work
I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is accused,
apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.

Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would not
be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing and later
found innocent. The Prime Minister seems to have been accused of being
very wicked recently and in this morning's paper (Mail, sorry) Dana
recounts the unfounded stories concerning her brother from family
members. Not to mention Ryan Giggs.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
BrritSki
2021-04-30 09:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose
work I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is
accused, apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.
Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would not
be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing and later
found innocent.  The Prime Minister seems to have been accused of being
very wicked recently and in this morning's paper (Mail, sorry) Dana
recounts the unfounded stories concerning her brother from family
members.  Not to mention Ryan Giggs.
Indeed. I am keeping an open mind re Noel.

On BoJo not so much. OTOH I think it is ridiculous that our PM is paid
so little and has to fend for himself in a relatively small flat above
the office. Ikea Starmer has said he had to leave important matters to
buy some curtains (which was clearly Carrie's dept.) when in fact he has
to leave important matters to make his lunch, do his shopping or be in
to receive it etc. There is a Trust setup to deal with maintenence of
Chequers and Dorneywood and it seems they were going through a process
to setup similar for No. 10 hence the initial payment (allegedly) not by
BoJo. And TBH I don't really care who pays for it as long as it's not
the taxpayer.

The Dyson affair was also very overblown, mainly by lies from Laura
Kuenssberg (who I normally trust and like) that he was a friend of BoJo
and a Tory donor and it was completely OK imo to waive the normal tax
rules for people visiting temporarily (and hence presumably exceeding
their tax-free days) to assist with vital work, even if the ventilators
were eventually not needed. Note that this whole affair COST Dyson money
and they didn't make a penny from the UK for their efforts.

The most important of Cummings' allegations are that Carrie pressurised
BoJo to stop the inquiry into her mate.

And the PPE procurement is undoubtedly a scandal, but how big remains to
be seen.
Sid Nuncius
2021-04-30 15:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose
work I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is
accused, apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.
Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would
not be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing and
later found innocent.  The Prime Minister seems to have been accused
of being very wicked recently and in this morning's paper (Mail,
sorry) Dana recounts the unfounded stories concerning her brother from
family members.  Not to mention Ryan Giggs.
Indeed. I am keeping an open mind re Noel.
On BoJo not so much. OTOH I think it is ridiculous that our PM is paid
so little and has to fend for himself in a relatively small flat above
the office. Ikea Starmer has said he had to leave important matters to
buy some curtains (which was clearly Carrie's dept.) when in fact he has
to leave important matters to make his lunch, do his shopping or be in
to receive it etc. There is a Trust setup to deal with maintenence of
Chequers and Dorneywood and it seems they were going through a process
to setup similar for No. 10 hence the initial payment (allegedly) not by
BoJo. And TBH I don't really care who pays for it as long as it's not
the taxpayer.
I agree with a good deal of this, but I have to say that I do care who
paid for it. It's a shame that it's been clouded with lots of "oh, who
cares about curtains and cushions" obfuscation - and indeed, I don't
give a monkeys how much was paid for what in the flat. However, this is
shurely similar to accepting paid holidays and so on. There is more
than a possibility that someone shelling out the odd hundred thousand
for Johnson's furnishings may just conceivably want something in return
- which is why absolute openness about all this sort of thing is
essential. I'm sure a lot of it goes on on all sides of politics, but
it shouldn't - and especially not with the PM.

Still, I'm sure that when Mr Johnson comes to read the result of Lord
Umbrella's investigation, he will be wholly objective in deciding
whether or not he should find himself guilty.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2021-04-30 19:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose
work I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is
accused, apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.
Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would
not be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing
and later found innocent.  The Prime Minister seems to have been
accused of being very wicked recently and in this morning's paper
(Mail, sorry) Dana recounts the unfounded stories concerning her
brother from family members.  Not to mention Ryan Giggs.
Indeed. I am keeping an open mind re Noel.
On BoJo not so much. OTOH I think it is ridiculous that our PM is paid
so little and has to fend for himself in a relatively small flat above
the office. Ikea Starmer has said he had to leave important matters to
buy some curtains (which was clearly Carrie's dept.) when in fact he
has to leave important matters to make his lunch, do his shopping or
be in to receive it etc. There is a Trust setup to deal with
maintenence of Chequers and Dorneywood and it seems they were going
through a process to setup similar for No. 10 hence the initial
payment (allegedly) not by BoJo. And TBH I don't really care who pays
for it as long as it's not the taxpayer.
I agree with a good deal of this, but I have to say that I do care who
paid for it.  It's a shame that it's been clouded with lots of "oh, who
cares about curtains and cushions" obfuscation - and indeed, I don't
give a monkeys how much was paid for what in the flat.  However, this is
shurely similar to accepting paid holidays and so on.  There is more
than a possibility that someone shelling out the odd hundred thousand
for Johnson's furnishings may just conceivably want something in return
- which is why absolute openness about all this sort of thing is
essential.  I'm sure a lot of it goes on on all sides of politics, but
it shouldn't - and especially not with the PM.
You're right, but I still don't care and the sum at stake is £58K btw,
spent on stuff that will remain at No. 10.

To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Nick Odell
2021-04-30 19:17:37 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose
work I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is
accused, apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.
Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would
not be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing
and later found innocent.  The Prime Minister seems to have been
accused of being very wicked recently and in this morning's paper
(Mail, sorry) Dana recounts the unfounded stories concerning her
brother from family members.  Not to mention Ryan Giggs.
Indeed. I am keeping an open mind re Noel.
On BoJo not so much. OTOH I think it is ridiculous that our PM is paid
so little and has to fend for himself in a relatively small flat above
the office. Ikea Starmer has said he had to leave important matters to
buy some curtains (which was clearly Carrie's dept.) when in fact he
has to leave important matters to make his lunch, do his shopping or
be in to receive it etc. There is a Trust setup to deal with
maintenence of Chequers and Dorneywood and it seems they were going
through a process to setup similar for No. 10 hence the initial
payment (allegedly) not by BoJo. And TBH I don't really care who pays
for it as long as it's not the taxpayer.
I agree with a good deal of this, but I have to say that I do care who
paid for it.  It's a shame that it's been clouded with lots of "oh, who
cares about curtains and cushions" obfuscation - and indeed, I don't
give a monkeys how much was paid for what in the flat.  However, this is
shurely similar to accepting paid holidays and so on.  There is more
than a possibility that someone shelling out the odd hundred thousand
for Johnson's furnishings may just conceivably want something in return
- which is why absolute openness about all this sort of thing is
essential.  I'm sure a lot of it goes on on all sides of politics, but
it shouldn't - and especially not with the PM.
You're right, but I still don't care and the sum at stake is £58K btw,
spent on stuff that will remain at No. 10.
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.

Nick
Sid Nuncius
2021-05-01 06:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help. From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.

I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly. I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour. I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable. My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2021-05-01 07:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help.  From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly.  I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour.  I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable.
Indeed, but is it true ? The police should always listen, but not
believe until they had good reason to.

I remain open minded and note that I cannot find any mention of the
police being involved. I am a firm believer in innocent until proved
guilty, unlike Bafta and ITV.
Sid Nuncius
2021-05-01 08:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Indeed, but is it true ?  The police should always listen, but not
believe until they had good reason to.
I remain open minded and note that I cannot find any mention of the
police being involved. I am a firm believer in innocent until proved
guilty, unlike Bafta and ITV.
Yes - of course he must, in law, be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. However, twenty separate allegations from apparently credible
sources doesn't look good at all and on the evidence to date I think the
case against him is strong. I accept that I may be shown to be wrong.

As to ITV and BAFTA, if there were just a single allegation which is
denied then it might be different, but surely they have to distance
themselves while the accusations of twenty women are investigated. Of
course there is a possibility that this is all a mistake or fabrication
and if he is shown to be innocent I trust that he will be fully
reinstated, but in the meantime I think they had little choice. And I
think making the final episode of Viewpoint available on-line until
Sunday is a reasonable solution to a difficult dilemma. YMMV.
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2021-05-01 10:15:28 UTC
Permalink
... making the final episode of Viewpoint available on-line until
Sunday is a reasonable solution to a difficult dilemma.  YMMV.
It does, not least because when we download a program we don't get the
subtitles #firstworldproblems
Nick Odell
2021-05-01 12:10:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 May 2021 11:15:28 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
... making the final episode of Viewpoint available on-line until
Sunday is a reasonable solution to a difficult dilemma.  YMMV.
It does, not least because when we download a program we don't get the
subtitles #firstworldproblems
Isn't there a way of downloading subtitles from the ITV player in a
similar fashion to using get_iplayer to download them from the BBC? In
get_iplayer you just put the programme details and the command
--subsonly and you get a file that VLC Media Player can stitch
together with the programme.

Alternatively, there are plenty of sites that offer subtitles for a
whole range of movies, documentaries, comedies, dramas etc. I should
imagine someone, somewhere has already published the subtitles you are
looking for. Try Googling the programme name and subtitles and see
what comes up.

My current agreement with TV Licensing is that they won't charge me a
fee and I won't watch their programmes so it's been quite a while
since I've done that. But even if subtitles aren't absolutely
necessary (and for some, of course they are) I still think they
improve a programme enormously.

Nick



Nick
BrritSki
2021-05-01 13:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Odell
On Sat, 1 May 2021 11:15:28 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
... making the final episode of Viewpoint available on-line until
Sunday is a reasonable solution to a difficult dilemma.  YMMV.
It does, not least because when we download a program we don't get the
subtitles #firstworldproblems
Isn't there a way of downloading subtitles from the ITV player in a
similar fashion to using get_iplayer to download them from the BBC?
Not that I've discovered with Sky. Not a problem on laptop...
Penny
2021-05-01 22:32:52 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 May 2021 09:15:43 +0100, Sid Nuncius <***@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Sid Nuncius
As to ITV and BAFTA, if there were just a single allegation which is
denied then it might be different, but surely they have to distance
themselves while the accusations of twenty women are investigated. Of
course there is a possibility that this is all a mistake or fabrication
and if he is shown to be innocent I trust that he will be fully
reinstated, but in the meantime I think they had little choice. And I
think making the final episode of Viewpoint available on-line until
Sunday is a reasonable solution to a difficult dilemma. YMMV.
The decision to pull the episode because of the allegations may be down to
that clause in the broadcasting licence (which they will have reviewed
recently) about not causing offence.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up on its (brief) availability online. I had
recorded 1-4 but not watched any of them, so spent this evening
binge-watching the lot (only 4 hours, not five as I could skip the ads on
the recording). Shame about the lack of subtitles on ITV Hub, the sound
quality was fine on the broadcast episodes but somewhat muffled on my TV in
the online version.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Jenny M Benson
2021-05-02 08:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Penny
The decision to pull the episode because of the allegations may be down to
that clause in the broadcasting licence (which they will have reviewed
recently) about not causing offence.
Does that clause not cover radio? I am always mystified by the warnings
on R4X. something along the lines of "the following is x years old and
reflects the attitudes and language of the time."

Obviously one should not re-write history or pretend that things didn't
happen or weren't said, but how can anyone justify continuing to
broadcast potentially offensive content in the interests of comedy?
--
Jenny M Benson
Penny
2021-05-02 09:08:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 2 May 2021 09:50:07 +0100, Jenny M Benson <***@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Jenny M Benson
Post by Penny
The decision to pull the episode because of the allegations may be down to
that clause in the broadcasting licence (which they will have reviewed
recently) about not causing offence.
Does that clause not cover radio? I am always mystified by the warnings
on R4X. something along the lines of "the following is x years old and
reflects the attitudes and language of the time."
Obviously one should not re-write history or pretend that things didn't
happen or weren't said, but how can anyone justify continuing to
broadcast potentially offensive content in the interests of comedy?
There were a couple of TV compilations a while back called something like
'It was all right in the 60s' and 'It was all right in the 70s'. They were
both cringe-worthy and interesting. It is easy to forget what was 'normal'
in those times and how far we have come. Shocked reactions from younger
people of today were included.

D#1 often complains about 'casual racism' from her out-laws and worries
(quite reasonably) about exposing her own children to it. She has not
watched those programmes and maybe she should.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sam Plusnet
2021-05-02 20:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Penny
D#1 often complains about 'casual racism' from her out-laws and worries
(quite reasonably) about exposing her own children to it. She has not
watched those programmes and maybe she should.
I was talking to a relative who I haven't seen for two or three years.
He 'explained' Brexit & immigration to me.

He said:

"All those[1] people came over to work for the NHS, so of course they
needed houses. That meant that even more people came over to build..."

[1] He didn't clarify "those" & I didn't ask.

The whole family seem to be casual racists & xenophobes.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter
2021-05-02 09:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Penny
The decision to pull the episode because of the allegations may be down to
that clause in the broadcasting licence (which they will have reviewed
recently) about not causing offence.
Does that clause not cover radio?  I am always mystified by the warnings
on R4X. something along the lines of "the following is x years old and
reflects the attitudes and language of the time."
Obviously one should not re-write history or pretend that things didn't
happen or weren't said, but how can anyone justify continuing to
broadcast potentially offensive content in the interests of comedy?
Recently posted by me in uk.media.radio.bbc-r4:

"Because Hancock's Half Hour is 67 years old we are told that it
contains language and attitudes of its time. Why? If it were 67
minutes old it would contain language and attitudes of its time. I find
these apologies (or whatever they are) that prefix every classic comedy,
increasing annoying."

The answer to your question is that everyone is at liberty to be
offended and the national broadcaster should not interfere with that right.
--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)
Jenny M Benson
2021-05-01 10:15:42 UTC
Permalink
I am a firm believer in innocent until proved guilty, unlike Bafta and ITV.
Sid comments on not having read any comments by female Umrats. I had
intended to comment in exactly the same vein as Brritters but
circumstances had prevented my doing so.

I can't remember now whether I heard of the cancellation of his current
tv series before or more or less at the same time as hearing what Noel
himself said on the subject, but I was very disturbed that such action
was being taken before there was any legal conviction. I don't
understand why it is apparently deemed ok to assume the accused is
guilty and to speak and act accordingly as long as the accused is a
famous person.
--
Jenny M Benson
John Ashby
2021-05-01 10:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help.  From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly.  I hope that nothing I have said has been taken
to imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour.  I'm
strongly inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is
alleged is monstrous and inexcusable.
Indeed, but is it true ?  The police should always listen, but not
believe until they had good reason to.
I remain open minded and note that I cannot find any mention of the
police being involved. I am a firm believer in innocent until proved
guilty, unlike Bafta and ITV.
To me the response of Bafta, ITV and Sky is roughly the equivalent of
Gardening Leave; accusations are made and if they are deemed serious or
credible enough, the accused is suspended from work while they are
investigated. More complicated if the accused is a free-lancer or
supplier as in this case, but the parallel is there.

john
BrritSki
2021-05-01 11:36:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
To me the response of Bafta, ITV and Sky is roughly the equivalent of
Gardening Leave; accusations are made and if they are deemed serious or
credible enough, the accused is suspended from work while they are
investigated.
I don't think that stands up. Where people are sent on gardening leave
it is because there is a risk of them continuing the behaviour and/or
covering up the behaviour (H should definitely be suspended) and/or that
there is risk of contact with the victims.

None of that is the case with stopping the transmission or removing the
award (which was a bit daft in the first place imo). Suspending work on
current productions would be fair enough, but not transmitting what's
already in the can is pure virtue signalling imo.
Serena Blanchflower
2021-05-01 08:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help.  From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly.  I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour.  I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable.  My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
Don't worry Sid, I[1] certainly didn't see anything to suggest your
distress was anything other than sadness that he appears to have grown
into someone less pleasant than the lad you had known.

As you said, although he should certainly be considered innocent until
proved guilty, and I share Brritski's concern over trial by newspaper
(rather than the legal system), the evidence that has been published
sounds pretty convincing, while his rebuttal seems less than reassuring.


[1] Obviously I can't speak for other female umrats but I can't see
anything in what you said which could lead anyone to think you were
excusing NC's alleged behaviour.
--
Best wishes, Serena
Oh God, help us not to despise or oppose what we do not understand
(William Penn)
Vicky Ayech
2021-05-01 09:20:04 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 May 2021 09:55:44 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
Post by Serena Blanchflower
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help.  From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly.  I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour.  I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable.  My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
Don't worry Sid, I[1] certainly didn't see anything to suggest your
distress was anything other than sadness that he appears to have grown
into someone less pleasant than the lad you had known.
As you said, although he should certainly be considered innocent until
proved guilty, and I share Brritski's concern over trial by newspaper
(rather than the legal system), the evidence that has been published
sounds pretty convincing, while his rebuttal seems less than reassuring.
[1] Obviously I can't speak for other female umrats but I can't see
anything in what you said which could lead anyone to think you were
excusing NC's alleged behaviour.
I think over the last years the climate of what women accept has
changed. I think the incidents, ranging from annoyance to real abuse
have happened frequently in various situations; work, leisure, social,
family.

It was how things were. Not for all women. Not the behavious of all
men, but it was how it was. The work and financial change for women
might be one thing made a difference, although not necessarily. You'd
have thought sufferagettes and the vote might have changed things but
maybe some courtesy was lost and men who resented women
over-compensated in bad attitude. Recent movements to change things
made women look back at what they should not have put up with, so I
suppose that is why one complaint can now trigger many more.

We saw it in another context with the Jim story in TA.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2021-05-01 11:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
On Sat, 1 May 2021 09:55:44 +0100, Serena Blanchflower
[]
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by Serena Blanchflower
As you said, although he should certainly be considered innocent until
proved guilty, and I share Brritski's concern over trial by newspaper
(rather than the legal system), the evidence that has been published
sounds pretty convincing, while his rebuttal seems less than reassuring.
For those not familiar with it, I recommend the (US) series "Law and
Order: Special Victims Unit", on FreeView channel 21 most days (and I
think 40 some days). It covers this subject IMO very even-handedly -
both the pursuit of the nasties and the absolute harm false accusations
can do. It's done a Michael Jackson lookalike, businessmen abusing their
position, mild teacher whose life was ruined, (dis)honour matters of
various religions/societies - more or less everything. It includes
characters whose views cover the whole spectrum from
victim-is-always-right to almost the opposite.

[Interesting fact (JAIF): Mariska Hargitay, who plays Olivia Benson the
main character (and has been doing for I think over 20 years!), is the
daughter of Jayne Mansfield.]
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by Serena Blanchflower
[1] Obviously I can't speak for other female umrats but I can't see
anything in what you said which could lead anyone to think you were
excusing NC's alleged behaviour.
I think over the last years the climate of what women accept has
changed. I think the incidents, ranging from annoyance to real abuse
have happened frequently in various situations; work, leisure, social,
family.
Agreed. Unfortunately, some males haven't changed as much. (It may be
that there were always [at least] two types of males: I've never groped
anyone [of either gender!], and I don't _think_ I've ever been tempted
to.)
Post by Vicky Ayech
It was how things were. Not for all women. Not the behavious of all
men, but it was how it was. The work and financial change for women
might be one thing made a difference, although not necessarily. You'd
have thought sufferagettes and the vote might have changed things but
maybe some courtesy was lost and men who resented women
over-compensated in bad attitude. Recent movements to change things
That is very perceptive.
Post by Vicky Ayech
made women look back at what they should not have put up with, so I
suppose that is why one complaint can now trigger many more.
Though not all such triggered memories are accurate. (And yes, I do know
that that argument is over-used too.)
Post by Vicky Ayech
We saw it in another context with the Jim story in TA.
Indeed. (L&A:SVU does cover child abuse too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

People may say I can't sing, but no-one can ever say I didn't sing.
Florence Foster Jenkins (reportedly)
Penny
2021-05-01 10:19:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 May 2021 07:03:16 +0100, Sid Nuncius <***@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Sid Nuncius
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help. From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly.
I haven't been following this closely, though I've heard the headlines and
his statement. My reaction to his statement was to wonder if anyone had
told him at the time that his behaviour was inappropriate. It seems that,
even in 2021, some men still haven't got 'the message'.

With NC's rise to fame and the adulation that goes with it, it's possible
nobody had the guts to tell him off and put him straight.

It brought to mind my unhappy (for several reasons) trip to France to stay
with a French family over Christmas when I was 15. We attended several
'posh' parties and I was horrified to have my bottom pinched several times.
I don't think I said anything about it to my hosts at the time. When I
returned home and told my mother she just said, oh yes, they do that there,
it's a complement.
Post by Sid Nuncius
I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour. I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable. My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
Don't worry, Sid, your reaction is perfectly understandable.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Chris
2021-05-02 12:26:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help. From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly. I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour. I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable. My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
It’s passed over my head Sid. IMHO actors are and always have been of a
simple hugging and kissing nature ever since I’ve been around them, long
before everyone acted like a Frenchman and woman.

Sincerely Chris
Peter
2021-05-02 13:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help. From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly. I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour. I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable. My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
It’s passed over my head Sid. IMHO actors are and always have been of a
simple hugging and kissing nature ever since I’ve been around them, long
before everyone acted like a Frenchman and woman.
Sincerely Chris
It is part of the feeling of entitlement that many lauded people have.
When it's just a feeling of entitlement then they can be dismissed as
idiots. But when it manifests itself as (for example) sexual assault,
they should be given a good slapping.
--
Just as 'beautiful' points the way for aesthetics and 'good' for ethics,
so do words like 'true' for logic. All sciences have truth as their
goal; but logic is also concerned with it in a quite different way:
logic has much the same relation to truth as physics has to weight or
heat. Frege in 'Thoughts' (Der Gedanke)
krw
2021-05-02 14:27:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help.  From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly.  I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour.  I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable.  My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
It’s passed over my head Sid.  IMHO actors are and always have been of a
simple hugging and kissing nature ever since I’ve been around them, long
before everyone acted like a Frenchman and woman.
Sincerely Chris
It is part of the feeling of entitlement that many lauded people have.
When it's just a feeling of entitlement then they can be dismissed as
idiots.  But when it manifests itself as (for example) sexual assault,
they should be given a good slapping.
This story worries me:
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/liam-scarlett-death-ballet-sexual-misconduct-b1833094.html

Which contains a statement in respect of the Royal Ballet School that
there were no matters to pursue.

And of course there is Caroline Flack.

In a different generation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill -
read personal life - different standards apply.

I am not saying which is right and which is wrong - but I would like to
stick with the belief that people are innocent until proven guilty.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
John Ashby
2021-05-02 15:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Peter
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Nick Odell
On Fri, 30 Apr 2021 20:34:00 +0100, BrritSki
Post by BrritSki
To come back to the original subject, it would appear that ITV have
decided to be judge and jury and have decided not to broadcast the rest
of Viewpoint :(
Like anybody else with skin in the game, they are in an impossible
position. There is a followup article in The Guardian which fleshes
out the BAFTA position too. They were jumped into doing something by
the knowledge that The Guardian were going to publish and I presume
The Guardian published because of the backlash they would have
expected if somebody else published first and it came out that they
had held back. IMO it's a nasty, nasty business from whichever point
of view you look at it.
But now NC has issued a statement talking about how sorry he is if any
of his actions have been "misinterpreted" and promising to seek
professional help.  From what we have been told so far, it really does
look to me as though the allegations are true. And the worst of any
nastiness is that suffered by the twenty women who have come forward,
and presumably by others who have not.
I note that no lady umratettes have joined in this discussion, which
disturbs me slightly.  I hope that nothing I have said has been taken to
imply any sort of excuse for NC's the alleged behaviour.  I'm strongly
inclined to believe those who have spoken out, and what is alleged is
monstrous and inexcusable.  My distress is solely at the discovery that
the nice lad I knew 30 years ago seems to have grown up to be a sexual
pest at the very least.
It’s passed over my head Sid.  IMHO actors are and always have been of a
simple hugging and kissing nature ever since I’ve been around them, long
before everyone acted like a Frenchman and woman.
Sincerely Chris
It is part of the feeling of entitlement that many lauded people have.
When it's just a feeling of entitlement then they can be dismissed as
idiots.  But when it manifests itself as (for example) sexual assault,
they should be given a good slapping.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/news/liam-scarlett-death-ballet-sexual-misconduct-b1833094.html
Which contains a statement in respect of the Royal Ballet School that
there were no matters to pursue.
Yet they terminated his contract. This reads to me as "Nothing illegal,
but a breach of the standards we expect of our staff."
Post by krw
And of course there is Caroline Flack.
A sad case, but the assaults on her boyfriend were well documented.
Ultimately her death was precipitated by an over-zealous media campaign.
Post by krw
In a different generation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill -
read personal life - different standards apply.
Not so much, the different standards were not that the behaviour wasn't
wrong, it wasn't talked about, or the perpetrator either was shipped off
to the colonies or ended up at the bottom of the village pond. Of
course, there has always been the genius excuse (which largely operated
in Gill's case), he has a talent for X so we'll gloss over Y.

john
Post by krw
I am not saying which is right and which is wrong - but I would like to
stick with the belief that people are innocent until proven guilty.
Sid Nuncius
2021-05-02 15:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by krw
In a different generation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill -
read personal life - different standards apply.
Not so much, the different standards were not that the behaviour wasn't
wrong, it wasn't talked about, or the perpetrator either was shipped off
to the colonies or ended up at the bottom of the village pond. Of
course, there has always been the genius excuse (which largely operated
in Gill's case), he has a talent for X so we'll gloss over Y.
<languid wave>
May I commend to the house George Orwell's essay Benefit Of Clergy?
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
John Ashby
2021-05-02 17:17:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by John Ashby
Post by krw
In a different generation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill -
read personal life - different standards apply.
Not so much, the different standards were not that the behaviour
wasn't wrong, it wasn't talked about, or the perpetrator either was
shipped off to the colonies or ended up at the bottom of the village
pond. Of course, there has always been the genius excuse (which
largely operated in Gill's case), he has a talent for X so we'll gloss
over Y.
<languid wave>
May I commend to the house George Orwell's essay Benefit Of Clergy?
Thank you. As so often Eric Blair thinks and writes clearly and with an
understanding of nuance.

john
steve hague
2021-05-02 15:02:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris
Post by Sid Nuncius
pest at the very least.
It’s passed over my head Sid. IMHO actors are and always have been of a
simple hugging and kissing nature ever since I’ve been around them, long
before everyone acted like a Frenchman and woman.
Sincerely Chris
Wasn't the kissing normally of the "Mwah, mwah" variety though, no
tongues involved? A news report I saw a couple of days ago had Clarke
denying all the accusations, then saying he was going to have
counsilling for his problem.
Steve
Sam Plusnet
2021-05-02 20:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by steve hague
Post by Sid Nuncius
pest at the very least.
It’s passed over my head Sid.  IMHO actors are and always have been of a
simple hugging and kissing nature ever since I’ve been around them, long
before everyone acted like a Frenchman and woman.
Sincerely Chris
Wasn't the kissing normally of the "Mwah, mwah" variety though, no
tongues involved? A news report I saw a couple of days ago had Clarke
denying all the accusations, then saying he was going to have
counsilling for his problem.
I expect a publicist is involved in crafting all such
communiqués.
"That didn't have the desired effect, let's try this approach."
--
Sam Plusnet
krw
2021-05-01 12:44:50 UTC
Permalink
There is more than a possibility that someone shelling out the odd
hundred thousand for Johnson's furnishings may just conceivably want
something in return -
The only free lunch from a supplier where I was sure nothing was wanted
in exchange was one shortly before I retired where they could simply
thank me for being a customer for the previous 24 years!
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Sid Nuncius
2021-04-30 15:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose
work I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is
accused, apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.
Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would not
be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing and later
found innocent.
No, it wouldn't. But the fact that there are now twenty women making
these allegations does look as though there is substance to them. There
is certainly a prima facie case to answer.

(Let's hope that he at least has the dignity not to appear in public
next using a walking frame and making sure that he looks terribly frail
and vulnerable.)
--
Sid
(Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
krw
2021-05-01 12:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose
work I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is
accused, apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.
Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would
not be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing and
later found innocent.
No, it wouldn't.  But the fact that there are now twenty women making
these allegations does look as though there is substance to them.  There
is certainly a prima facie case to answer.
I do not disagree, however whilst filming a nude audition does seem to
be beyond the pale if true, some of the other behaviour is reported by a
woman who worked with / for him for three years - if she had been
offended or concerned at the time why did she continue? As in some
other cases there appears to be a wish to want history re-written and I
am not certain that is a fair basis on which to judge any individual.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
John Ashby
2021-05-01 15:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by krw
Post by Sid Nuncius
Nugger.
I don't want to prejudge, but this doesn't sound good at all.  I am
genuinely distressed to find that someone I liked very much, whose
work I admire and whose career I have followed with real pleasure is
accused, apparently plausibly, of this sort of harassment.
Nugger.
I had better blame the parents rather than the teachers in this case.
Sorry Sid that such allegations are flying around; however it would
not be the first time that people have been accused of wrong doing
and later found innocent.
No, it wouldn't.  But the fact that there are now twenty women making
these allegations does look as though there is substance to them.
There is certainly a prima facie case to answer.
I do not disagree, however whilst filming a nude audition does seem to
be beyond the pale if true, some of the other behaviour is reported by a
woman who worked with / for him for three years - if she had been
offended or concerned at the time why did she continue?  As in some
other cases there appears to be a wish to want history re-written and I
am not certain that is a fair basis on which to judge any individual.
This is disingenuous and doesn't take into account what is known about
abusive behaviour. Firstly it may gave developed gradually with each
step becoming normalised so that it's only with hindsight the victim
realises that a line was crossed a long time ago. Secondly there is
often a power imbalance that makes leaving a job/situation difficult;
fear of not getting a good reference, lack of better/similar
(professional) opportunities, gaslighting (You're lucky to have a job,
I'm the only one who'd put up with you...).

It's likely that history is not being rewritten so much as being
re-interpreted.

As has been said above, we don't know the truth of the allegations, but
reading about them there does seem to be some consistency and some
corroboration. OTOH it's interesting how much faster the knees jerk for
a black man than for, say, a prince of the realm.

john
Loading...