1,185 posts
|
Post by joem on Nov 11, 2017 20:45:04 GMT
First it was the BBC cutting Top of the Pops shows with Savile in them, in the process
Now Netflix cancels House of Cards due to Spacey's involvement and in a Kafkaesque or Plan Z move TriStar Pics reshoots "All the Money in the World" to remove the same gentleman from it.
But back to the BBC which, in its insuperable wisdom, now sees it fit to deprive us of the chance to see Agatha Christie's "Ordeal By Innocence" because one of the actors has been accused of rape. At least £3,000,000 down the drain.
My question is this: if this Stalinist rewriting of history, writing people out of history when they are accused but not yet convicted of something (I am obviously here thinking of the second and third examples quoted above, which passes as the new morality is now going to be the new norm.... why do we have to put up with obvious criminals such as Hitler permanently on our screens? Is this the end of second world war Nazi porn? No more Keystone Cops? No more Chaplin? No more glorification of real-life mobsters?
What will we ever watch?
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 11, 2017 20:48:36 GMT
The BBC were quite happy to cast Leslie Grantham in Eastenders for many years - a convicted murderer.
|
|
475 posts
|
Post by bimse on Nov 11, 2017 20:57:15 GMT
A “celebrity” chef who served two years for burglary doesn’t seem to trouble the TV guardians of our morality .
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 11, 2017 21:00:31 GMT
A “celebrity” chef who served two years for burglary doesn’t seem to trouble the TV guardians of our morality . I wasn't aware of that...
|
|
|
Post by Coated on Nov 11, 2017 21:23:12 GMT
They were convicted and rehabilitated. Should they be prevented from having public careers?
I think there is a huge difference between someone who has (hopefully) atoned for their sins and someone who was never held accountable such as Saville.
The BBC might be a bit quick to the mark holding back the Agatha Christie adaptation, but let's be realistic - if they screened it without definitive answers regarding the allegations, they'd be accused of pandering by part of the media. It's a lose/lose situation.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 11, 2017 21:31:25 GMT
The problem with the swift moves to suspend/cancel is that it risks giving the impression that a decision regarding guilt has already been reached. At this stage with all of the high profile cases, no charges have yet been laid - let alone assessed by due process.
Justice has to work for both the accuser and the accused. Ands without opening the whole can of worms that ended with two threads being locked, I fear that we are not seeing justice in action for anyone right now.
I agree that rehabilitation is vital to our justice system and I wouldn't deny anyone their rights. However we operate with the presumption of innocence - and we are coming close to that being undermined.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Nov 11, 2017 21:34:09 GMT
First it was the BBC cutting Top of the Pops shows with Savile in them, in the process Now Netflix cancels House of Cards due to Spacey's involvement and in a Kafkaesque or Plan Z move TriStar Pics reshoots "All the Money in the World" to remove the same gentleman from it. But back to the BBC which, in its insuperable wisdom, now sees it fit to deprive us of the chance to see Agatha Christie's "Ordeal By Innocence" because one of the actors has been accused of rape. At least £3,000,000 down the drain. My question is this: if this Stalinist rewriting of history, writing people out of history when they are accused but not yet convicted of something (I am obviously here thinking of the second and third examples quoted above, which passes as the new morality is now going to be the new norm.... why do we have to put up with obvious criminals such as Hitler permanently on our screens? Is this the end of second world war Nazi porn? No more Keystone Cops? No more Chaplin? No more glorification of real-life mobsters? What will we ever watch? You’d prefer that they broadcast programmes intact with Saville in them? You want them to broadcast a prime time drama with one of its stars currently under criminal investigation? If the answer is yes to either of those maybe you could share with us where you would draw a line, seeing as child molesters and alleged rapists don’t cut the mustard. Someone like Chaplin is now long gone and the fifteen year old he bedded too; with the ones you mentioned, their victims are most definitely still around, so that explains that difference. As for programmes about Nazis are you expecting to be taken seriously in suggesting that people should not be given warnings from history about fascism? I can point you in the direction of the websites of some people who would be very happy to hear that.
|
|
475 posts
|
Post by bimse on Nov 11, 2017 21:50:22 GMT
They were convicted and rehabilitated. Should they be prevented from having public careers? I think there is a huge difference between someone who has (hopefully) atoned for their sins and someone who was never held accountable such as Saville. The BBC might be a bit quick to the mark holding back the Agatha Christie adaptation, but let's be realistic - if they screened it without definitive answers regarding the allegations, they'd be accused of pandering by part of the media. It's a lose/lose situation. I find it quite nauseating to see this “celebrity” cavorting on TV. Maybe he’s atoned for his crime , but every time I see him acting the fool and attempting to be funny, my thoughts go to his victims (a well known singer and his family) and I wonder how they feel ? I just don’t think such people should be in the public eye . They’d have difficulty getting work in many lines of employment that don’t put them in the public eye.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 11, 2017 22:09:50 GMT
First it was the BBC cutting Top of the Pops shows with Savile in them, in the process Now Netflix cancels House of Cards due to Spacey's involvement and in a Kafkaesque or Plan Z move TriStar Pics reshoots "All the Money in the World" to remove the same gentleman from it. But back to the BBC which, in its insuperable wisdom, now sees it fit to deprive us of the chance to see Agatha Christie's "Ordeal By Innocence" because one of the actors has been accused of rape. At least £3,000,000 down the drain. My question is this: if this Stalinist rewriting of history, writing people out of history when they are accused but not yet convicted of something (I am obviously here thinking of the second and third examples quoted above, which passes as the new morality is now going to be the new norm.... why do we have to put up with obvious criminals such as Hitler permanently on our screens? Is this the end of second world war Nazi porn? No more Keystone Cops? No more Chaplin? No more glorification of real-life mobsters? What will we ever watch? You’d prefer that they broadcast programmes intact with Saville in them? You want them to broadcast a prime time drama with one of its stars currently under criminal investigation? If the answer is yes to either of those maybe you could share with us where you would draw a line, seeing as child molesters and alleged rapists don’t cut the mustard. Someone like Chaplin is now long gone and the fifteen year old he bedded too; with the ones you mentioned, their victims are most definitely still around, so that explains that difference. As for programmes about Nazis are you expecting to be taken seriously in suggesting that people should not be given warnings from history about fascism? I can point you in the direction of the websites of some people who would be very happy to hear that. Ed Westwick isn't under criminal investigation. Allegations have been made - but he has not yet been questioned, let alone arrested or charged. Due process is very important to the Rule of Law. Do you ever watch a Polanski or Woody Allen film?
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 11, 2017 22:18:58 GMT
You’d prefer that they broadcast programmes intact with Saville in them? You want them to broadcast a prime time drama with one of its stars currently under criminal investigation? If the answer is yes to either of those maybe you could share with us where you would draw a line, seeing as child molesters and alleged rapists don’t cut the mustard. Someone like Chaplin is now long gone and the fifteen year old he bedded too; with the ones you mentioned, their victims are most definitely still around, so that explains that difference. As for programmes about Nazis are you expecting to be taken seriously in suggesting that people should not be given warnings from history about fascism? I can point you in the direction of the websites of some people who would be very happy to hear that. Ed Westwick isn't under criminal investigation. Allegations have been made - but he has not yet been questioned, let alone arrested or charged. Due process is very important to the Rule of Law. Do you ever watch a Polanski or Woody Allen film? A report has been made to the police about him. The police may or may not find evidence to charge him with the crime, but given the title of the drama he's in I don't think the BBC could have done anything else. If he's ultimately cleared then they can show it at a later date. If not, well, maybe they can re-shoot his scenes with someone else.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Nov 11, 2017 22:26:05 GMT
Ed Westwick isn't under criminal investigation. Allegations have been made - but he has not yet been questioned, let alone arrested or charged. Due process is very important to the Rule of Law. Do you ever watch a Polanski or Woody Allen film? A report has been made to the police about him. The police may or may not find evidence to charge him with the crime, but given the title of the drama he's in I don't think the BBC could have done anything else. If he's ultimately cleared then they can show it at a later date. If not, well, maybe they can re-shoot his scenes with someone else. Firstly the police have to determine if a crime has taken place at all. And it is not for the criminal justice system to clear him - it is for the prosecution to persuade the jury (should charges ever be laid) that he is guilty of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. We have to protect the presumption of innocence - no matter how difficult that might be. Without it, our justice system will fall apart - and that will damage both victims and defendants. I want thorough and even-handed investigations of all allegations that are made to the proper authorities. I don't want trial by media.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2017 22:32:11 GMT
Trial by media is becoming the norm, based of current morals (which change over time). They get a scent of a story and take the opportunity for hundreds of stories.
|
|
|
Post by justfran on Nov 11, 2017 22:41:19 GMT
I agree that there is too much trial by media these days - and not just with celebrities (look what happened to Christopher Jefferies). Innocent until proven guilty no longer seems to be the case these days. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial and let the justice system do it’s job.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Nov 11, 2017 22:50:30 GMT
You’d prefer that they broadcast programmes intact with Saville in them? You want them to broadcast a prime time drama with one of its stars currently under criminal investigation? If the answer is yes to either of those maybe you could share with us where you would draw a line, seeing as child molesters and alleged rapists don’t cut the mustard. Someone like Chaplin is now long gone and the fifteen year old he bedded too; with the ones you mentioned, their victims are most definitely still around, so that explains that difference. As for programmes about Nazis are you expecting to be taken seriously in suggesting that people should not be given warnings from history about fascism? I can point you in the direction of the websites of some people who would be very happy to hear that. Ed Westwick isn't under criminal investigation. Allegations have been made - but he has not yet been questioned, let alone arrested or charged. Due process is very important to the Rule of Law. Do you ever watch a Polanski or Woody Allen film? He appears unlikely to avoid investigation and the BBC would appear to think so too. As for Allen, he isn’t and evidence has been judged and no charges made. Haven’t seen Polanski films for decades, in fact I saw Tess in the Fopp sale today and passed, I can see other adaptations of it if I want to.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 11, 2017 23:22:51 GMT
As well intentioned as this thread is, we have had 2 similar threads that have turned acrimonious because of similar sensitive subject - it ended up both got locked down, this thread will more than likely suffer the same fate.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2017 23:34:12 GMT
Before the thread is locked. There is no way Polanski should be given sympathy from any celebs, if what I read he did is correct.
|
|
1,880 posts
|
Post by Marwood on Nov 12, 2017 1:22:39 GMT
After the revelation of Louis CKs, ahem, 'antics' and his film getting pulled from general release (I don't have any interest in seeing it, from what I've heard its a Woody Allenesque thing about an old man going out with someone young enough to be their grand-daughter), its a bit disturbing to see on other forums that some people are thinking that rather than shambling off over the horizon in embarrassment , it will give him a new impetus for material in his stand-up act. No, sorry but what he has done is/was just wrong - not the sort of thing you can laugh off with a 'hey, we've all been there - right?' : if you think it will lead to epic laughs then maybe you should seek help.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 9:50:30 GMT
This trial by media, and even worse (in ed westwicks case) social media has to stop.
Ed Westwick hasnt even been charged with anything and it was first a facebook accusation. We used to have innocent until priven guilty, pulling the whole programme (which from my memory doesnt even have his character as the lead) is an over reaction (is white gold, where he is more a lead, still available?) and gives the impression of guilt. Especially, as has been mentioned, there are other people with higher profiles (ed westwick really is pretty unknown to wider public unless you watched gossip girl) that are still working. You can't have it both ways.
It also leads to the bigger question as we move forward, what happens to a persons body of work? Will the BBC never show a weinstein or spacey movie again? What about the other people involved in those projects, should their work never be shown because of one member of the cast or crew? Are people not allowed to watch a piece of entertainment again because one person has committed a crime? If so, a lot of tv shows, films and yes theatre shows will vanish. It could result in a very reduced down arts scene.
Im not saying guilty people should go unpunished or continue to work, but film, tv and theatre are such collaborative art forms that to ban everything seems a potentially dangerous and possibly unfair precedent. Especially as much of this seems to be based on the twitter brigade, which is only a very small part of public opinion. It would be interesting to see if the BBC did show it, how many would tune in. A drama is different to say a stand up comedian whose show would be sold purely on their name and personality.
There have also been muliple cases of women falsly accusing men of rape and even after the truth has come out that mans life has already been ruined. It also diminishes the real rape cases. Sadly, with recent revelations there will be some aspiring actresses/celebrities out there who make false claims to raise their profile (sad, but true). There needs to be a safe and secure process put in place where woman can make these claims and let them be investigated. Anonymity for both parties until charges are brought
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 12, 2017 10:08:18 GMT
A “celebrity” chef who served two years for burglary doesn’t seem to trouble the TV guardians of our morality . Not to mention the celebrity chef who took his passion for foraged food too far when he went into his local Tescos. BBC seem happy to keep Chris Evans on the radio despite the several allegations currently against him, so they are inconsistent to say the least.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 12, 2017 10:21:00 GMT
False accusations are really rare. Not every accusation can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean they were false accusations, just that they couldn't met the evidentiary standard for sending someone to prison. Legal systems are predicated on the basis of it being better that a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to prison. Even if the guilty person going free continues to offend. There's a reason why convictions tend to occur when there are multiple victims.
Civil society does not have to make the same decision. We can decide that we would rather an innocent person doesn't have their career as an actor or director prosper than have a rapist become rich, celebrated, powerful and successful. We can decide that we just don't enjoy watching the work of someone we think might be a rapist. People in the industry can decide that they don't want to work with people who have been accused because they don't want to risk the safety of their staff or because they don't like the atmosphere they create on set. Certainly with a Weinstein or a Spacey it is evident that they created hostile working environments.
Of course that will depend very much on the audience and the industry. Over the years audiences have decided that they can watch films by Woody Allen and Roman Polanski without being distracted by the accusations against them, and many in the industry have worked with them without complaint. But right now that sentiment appears to be shifting.
No-one really wants to watch Jimmy Saville or Rolf Harris on TV now. Kevin Spacey's career is dead. We will see what happens with Ed Westwick.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Nov 12, 2017 11:28:39 GMT
False accusations are really rare. In your opinion - actual research in some areas, rape for example, shows they are uncommon but not rare, a figure of around 8% is indicated. Even using the commonly quoted figure of 2% regularly promoted by some feminist academics doesn't really qualify as "really rare".
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2017 11:49:51 GMT
I have a strange feeling that false accusations may be less rare when it comes to celebrities. There is so much craziness around fame - think about the stalkers that celebrities attract. Nothing surprises me in the crazy world of showbiz. The high profile of the accused also puts at risk a fair trial. I speak as an old school feminist.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Nov 12, 2017 11:50:55 GMT
Civil society does not have to make the same decision. We can decide that we would rather an innocent person doesn't have their career as an actor or director prosper than have a rapist become rich, celebrated, powerful and successful. You can, but if you have any sort of moral sense at all you wouldn't, because you're essentially saying "I don't care who gets hurt so long as I get what I want". That's not really any different from the purported attitudes of the people who are being attacked. When someone stops caring whether someone is innocent or not — if they ignore the possibility that they might be wrong — then as far as I'm concerned they've lost any right to claim to be civilised.
|
|
1,064 posts
|
Post by bellboard27 on Nov 12, 2017 12:18:20 GMT
This discussion has focused on a person starring in a show/film, but what about those behind the scenes. Should all films which Harvey Weinstein has been involved with never be shown? On the other hand, what about all the other creatives in a show/film? Do they lose out because one is bad? I do not have the answers but whether to show something or not is more complex than at first sight.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Nov 12, 2017 13:04:47 GMT
Somehow the debate has become about ‘ever’ rather than ‘for now’. Pushing it to an imagined extreme doesn’t help.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Nov 12, 2017 13:42:14 GMT
False accusations are really rare. Not every accusation can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesn't mean they were false accusations, just that they couldn't met the evidentiary standard for sending someone to prison. Legal systems are predicated on the basis of it being better that a guilty person go free than an innocent person go to prison. Even if the guilty person going free continues to offend. There's a reason why convictions tend to occur when there are multiple victims. Civil society does not have to make the same decision. We can decide that we would rather an innocent person doesn't have their career as an actor or director prosper than have a rapist become rich, celebrated, powerful and successful. We can decide that we just don't enjoy watching the work of someone we think might be a rapist. People in the industry can decide that they don't want to work with people who have been accused because they don't want to risk the safety of their staff or because they don't like the atmosphere they create on set. Certainly with a Weinstein or a Spacey it is evident that they created hostile working environments. Of course that will depend very much on the audience and the industry. Over the years audiences have decided that they can watch films by Woody Allen and Roman Polanski without being distracted by the accusations against them, and many in the industry have worked with them without complaint. But right now that sentiment appears to be shifting. No-one really wants to watch Jimmy Saville or Rolf Harris on TV now. Kevin Spacey's career is dead. We will see what happens with Ed Westwick. There are cases out there of a man being accused of rape and convicted then handed a custodial sentence, thinking more recently about the case of Chad Evans. However accusations by one person can be made to the police and the police will not do anything, because the police want to wait for other accusations to come forward, they call it going on "Safari" or "Shaking the Tree". The Crown Prosection Servics know that if they just have 1 person in court to say the defendant "did it" and the defendant said "I didn't do it, your honour", the the jury will likely side with the defendant, how could the jury find someone guilty, one persons admission isn't beyond reasonable doubt, there have been many times a defendant has walked, as the case sounded strong and the victim sounded very truthful, but yet the case has collapsed because the jury isn't confident of convicting on one person's admission. This isn't helped by when people make proven false accusations, like in the case of Chad Evan. More recently a onus victim got jailed, when her account proved to be false, when she claimed she was raped by 8 men, before this another man was convicted because of her making false allegations and was serving a jail term, it was proven to the jury in this case by the prosecution that she made these allegations to make her lover jealous, she rightfully got jailed for 4 years for perverting the course of justice, in my mind eye, she should have got double that, she has done a terrible disservice to all genuine victims, with her pernicious allegations. I have been in that exact situation on a jury panel in a similar case, where several people made allegations, but if it was one person, I am not sure if my vote would have been different. The burden to get the right decision is immense, even today I replay the trial in my head to see if I made the correct decision, I always come up with the same conclusion though. Incidentally the man walked free from jail 20 years earlier, where a jury wouldn't convict the defendant of 6 charges of rape, that person happened to be his own daughter. So in a way I have seen all sides and from a jury perspective and see why the police do nothing in the first instance.
|
|
4,048 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Nov 12, 2017 13:55:05 GMT
Civil society does not have to make the same decision. We can decide that we would rather an innocent person doesn't have their career as an actor or director prosper than have a rapist become rich, celebrated, powerful and successful. You can, but if you have any sort of moral sense at all you wouldn't, because you're essentially saying "I don't care who gets hurt so long as I get what I want". That's not really any different from the purported attitudes of the people who are being attacked. When someone stops caring whether someone is innocent or not — if they ignore the possibility that they might be wrong — then as far as I'm concerned they've lost any right to claim to be civilised. I could turn that around on you exactly, though. That if you permit people who have been accused of horrible crimes to continue in their careers because it couldn't be proved to a jury - and we do know that in many cases it doesn't even get to a jury, because it's just so hard on victims - you are saying you don't care who they might have hurt as long as you get the entertainment you want. And let's not forget we are talking about a climate where the likes of Weinstein and Spacey had many, many victims, and many people knew or had heard about it. Agents sent actresses into hotel-room meetings with Weinstein even when other clients had told them what happened in them. Life is not fair. The universe is not naturally just. So what we are talking about is who we would rather bear the burden of that unfairness. For a very long time now the unfairness has fallen disproportionately on the vulnerable and the victims. Changing that may mean that it falls on the occasional innocent man - although that has yet to be seen, note, we haven't actually had a verified false accusation yet. I like neither of those options - I would far prefer to live in a fair world. But I can't pretend there isn't a choice to make between them.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Nov 12, 2017 14:25:39 GMT
I could turn that around on you exactly, though. That if you permit people who have been accused of horrible crimes to continue in their careers because it couldn't be proved to a jury - and we do know that in many cases it doesn't even get to a jury, because it's just so hard on victims - you are saying you don't care who they might have hurt as long as you get the entertainment you want. I'm not just thinking of entertainment or just about abuse here, and it can be a very different matter when there are many accusations and certainly when people have admitted their guilt. But those are specific instances and it's dangerous to extend that to the general case. My go-to case when it comes to issues of social media justice is the case of Justine Sacco, which I mentioned on the old forum. She made a knowing joke on Twitter about the obliviousness of privileged westerners and their attitude to the third world, but people took it seriously and went on a campaign to destroy her without ever bothering to check that they had their facts right and understood the situation properly. She lost her job (although it worked out to be better for her in the long run), but all the people who attacked her moved on to the next target of their ire without ever bothering to spare a thought for the person whose life they'd disrupted. They'd been outraged, they'd made someone suffer for their outrage, job done. Better not stop and think "Wait, am I actually the good guy here?" Might not get the right answer. This is the danger that's often overlooked. You can't undo the damage. A very few people might realise they got it wrong and perhaps some will even apologise, but sorry doesn't give someone their life back and it doesn't repair their reputation. You can always punish someone later if more evidence comes to light, but how do you take back ruining someone's career? Social justice is incredibly risky, and I don't see any signs that people are taking that into account.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Nov 12, 2017 14:51:47 GMT
I’m confused about the use of the term ‘social justice’ here Matthew. Isn’t this about ‘criminal justice’? That isn’t risky, it’s a prerequisite for a functioning society.
|
|
4,799 posts
|
Post by The Matthew on Nov 12, 2017 15:44:26 GMT
I’m confused about the use of the term ‘social justice’ here Matthew. Isn’t this about ‘criminal justice’? That isn’t risky, it’s a prerequisite for a functioning society. Perhaps that's not the right term. I mean the way people decide that the criminal justice system isn't doing the job and so they make up their own mind about guilt and innocence and act accordingly. Twenty years ago it didn't matter. Now it takes just hours to cause irreparable harm, and I'm extremely concerned at the attitude that occasionally wrecking the lives of the innocent is acceptable. We're talking about ruining someone's career now and worrying about whether they're guilty later, if ever. That's not justice. The legal system has a set of checks and balances in it to make sure that everyone is treated as fairly as they can be, but when people decide that they're entitled to take on the role of judge and jury themselves there are no constraints. It's not some sort of electronic game. There are real people out there whose real lives are affected by this. To all the people who aren't worried about attacking the innocent I'd like to ask: What mechanism for restitution do you have in place if it turns out you're wrong? "None" is not an answer that anyone should accept. I can understand that people get upset at the idea that the guilty may go free but removing protection from the innocent is not the solution, and in the case of multiple offences it is very rare indeed that the guilty aren't convicted. The courts are good at what they do. Many offenders may go into court thinking that they can tell three quarters of a story and perhaps fudge the details a bit to make it look as though they're innocent but the court staff do this day in and day out and they've seen all the tricks before. They can spot the dissembling and the carefully omitted fact a mile off and they'll keep pressing until they get to the truth. They don't always get it perfect, but they get it right far more often than the public can.
|
|