[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

I totally understand that,the thing that bothers me is even IF someone is found not guilty of such things their careers and reputations are ruined for life, I don't think people should be named unless they are found to be guilty as mud sticks.

This.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

I brought up Michael Jackson as I was saying look how he was proved innocent ,yet some people still made child molestation jokes .

The parents & kids that accused Michael Jackson basically ruined his life and it took a toll on his health,poor guy was never the same after that ordeal.

From the beginning I never believed any of it ,they just wanted his money and because he didn't know how to deal with them he just willingly paid them off Hoping it would all go away .

So like I was trying to tell Marsh last night ,once it's been said that's it and people will always doubt the accused even if their name is cleared .

I agree with every word, GoldHeart. Great points, great post.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

So like I was trying to tell Marsh last night ,once it's been said that's it and people will always doubt the accused even if their name is cleared .

You're muddying what we actually discussed now, which was the victims.

The victims are not to blame for their complaints or police reports being made public because the perpetrator is a celebrity. That's a separate point.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

You're muddying what we actually discussed now, which was the victims.

The victims are not to blame for their complaints or police reports being made public because the perpetrator is a celebrity. That's a separate point.

i get your point, anyone could do this, not just celebrities


i think the women did overreact a bit, cause i can't see Morgan being a sexual perv, i think he might've been drunk at that time

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

I resent your use of the term 'bleating' to describe my rational and civil posts and responses to you because it, and its connotations are needlessly insulting and offensive. I am certainly no 'sheep' because if I were I would be agreeing with populist views such as yours.

I also do not need your advice for me to 'maybe watch the words' I am 'using', Marsh because - by instinct and through long writing practice - I choose my words carefully and say what I mean and mean what I say and I stand firmly behind every logical word which I have written on here about this matter.

In response to your comment: "As for his "innocence", he's apologised. You don't apologise for something you haven't done."

This is pure B.S.

It is crystal clear from reading his apology that he was NOT admitting guilt for perpetrating any of the offences which are now being alleged against him, but was - according to my interpretation of the reported apology - stating that his words and actions were misinterpreted and was apologising for causing distress to those who misinterpreted them as that was never his intention.

I do not KNOW the truth of this unsavoury, unfortunate matter no more than you do, and I am only referring to reportage in addition to speculating, but perhaps his apology had more to do with 'Damage Limitation' through some perception that now these allegations have surfaced and now that he has been named, that 'mud' does indeed 'stick' and that some of the media, some of his peers, and some of the Great American or World public will Charge him, Try him, Indict him, and Sentence him whether or not he is actually guilty.

As I write, reports are already coming in that highly lucrative contracts which Morgan Freeman had are being cancelled, so any fears he may have had as outlined above would seem justified.

Now - in my opinion, and regardless of the type of allegations being now made against him - for a man of his years, his standing, and his reputation - such penalties are wrong when he has not even been charged with any type of offence let alone been found guilty.

Incidentally, history is littered with cases where Celebrities and Politicians and less famous people have paid blackmailers - not for any crimes which these people have committed but merely to STIFLE false allegations being made by the blackmailers from being made public.

All over the world, there are also completely INNOCENT people sitting in jail cells - some on Death Row - despite excellent investigative journalists, detectives, and criminologists conclusively proving their innocence through campaigns and documentary series such as 'Rough Justice and 'The Thin Blue Line', 'After Innocence' and others so even a conviction in a court of law does not always mean conclusively that the convicted is actually guilty.

The above being so, it is wholly inexcusable and wrong for anyone on a Big Brother Forum to not only decry an uncharged man's innocence but also to berate any members who dare to disagree.

I my opinion.

Thank you

And let's not forget these are Allegations .

And in past scandals when celebrities have paid off "victims" , how come nobody questions why the victims accept the money from their abuser??.

I sure as hell wouldn't accept dirty money from someone who's supposedly hurt me .

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

i get your point, anyone could do this, not just celebrities


i think the women did overreact a bit, cause i can't see Morgan being a sexual perv, i think he might've been drunk at that time

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

i just am a fan of Morgan, he was iconic in Invictus as Nelson Mandela for example and many other really lovely movies

[Niamh.]

Not Morgan too

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Nicky91

i just am a fan of Morgan, he was iconic in Invictus as Nelson Mandela for example and many other really lovely movies

And that's the most important thing, Nicky.

[AnnieK]

Trial by media again - this is not helpful to anyone.
People will blame victims and claim they are gold digging OR
People will believe the allegations as gospel even if they prove to be untrue.

Cases like this should be resolved before being released into the media - that is what muddies the waters.

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by AnnieK

Trial by media again - this is not helpful to anyone.
People will blame victims and claim they are gold digging OR
People will believe the allegations as gospel even if they prove to be untrue.

Cases like this should be resolved before being released into the media - that is what muddies the waters.

That is exactly how I feel about it Annie,the media has the power to ruin peoples lives we have seen it time and time again,and things as serious as this need to be dealt with before the media can spread its venom.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Yeah. Inappropriate touching repeatedly apparently. Which I would class as assault.

Inappropriate touching generally means things like a hand on a leg or, I believe, in this case a lower back was mentioned. It's not OK and it should be stamped out, especially where a power discrepancy exists... but it's not sexual assault... it's inappropriate touching. I have no problem with people who have - for example - had an arm put around them or a hand put on their lower back saying not to do it, that they don't like it, that it isn't OK. Respect of personal space is important. But I do have a really major problem with people who have had things like this happen, saying that they were "sexually assaulted", because it lessens the crime and makes it much harder for people who have actually been sexually assaulted - i.e. have been groped, pinned, or worse - to be taken seriously. When someone comes forward and says "I was sexually assaulted" it should be clear that a serious sexual crime has been committed. If you have to ask the question "Well, did he jam his hand down your pants, or did he put his hand on your lower back" then the waters become seriously muddied.

Again that's not to say that people shouldn't speak up and complain about being made to feel uncomfortable, because if anything, all of this MUST have made a huge difference for future generations in places like Hollywood. This behaviour basically hinges on people essentially believing that they "have unquestionable influence" and are "untouchable". I can't imagine that anyone in Hollywood feels untouchable any more, or ever will again... behaving inappropriately in any way has become "a major risk"... as it should be.

But still. Things have to be kept realistic. There has to be a difference between "I felt very uncomfortable" and "I was murdered in my soul and will be traumatised forever!!"

Encouraging people to be as dramatic as possible seems to be the trend these days and I have no idea why. It doesn't help anyone. Not the victim themselves, not other victims, and not future potential victims.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Inappropriate touching generally means things like a hand on a leg or, I believe, in this case a lower back was mentioned. It's not OK and it should be stamped out, especially where a power discrepancy exists... but it's not sexual assault... it's inappropriate touching. I have no problem with people who have - for example - had an arm put around them or a hand put on their lower back saying not to do it, that they don't like it, that it isn't OK. Respect of personal space is important. But I do have a really major problem with people who have had things like this happen, saying that they were "sexually assaulted", because it lessens the crime and makes it much harder for people who have actually been sexually assaulted - i.e. have been groped, pinned, or worse - to be taken seriously. When someone comes forward and says "I was sexually assaulted" it should be clear that a serious sexual crime has been committed. If you have to ask the question "Well, did he jam his hand down your pants, or did he put his hand on your lower back" then the waters become seriously muddied.

Again that's not to say that people shouldn't speak up and complain about being made to feel uncomfortable, because if anything, all of this MUST have made a huge difference for future generations in places like Hollywood. This behaviour basically hinges on people essentially believing that they "have unquestionable influence" and are "untouchable". I can't imagine that anyone in Hollywood feels untouchable any more, or ever will again... behaving inappropriately in any way has become "a major risk"... as it should be.

But still. Things have to be kept realistic. There has to be a difference between "I felt very uncomfortable" and "I was murdered in my soul and will be traumatised forever!!"

Encouraging people to be as dramatic as possible seems to be the trend these days and I have no idea why. It doesn't help anyone. Not the victim themselves, not other victims, and not future potential victims.

Simply superbly put.

[Niamh.]

Yes good points TS

[Shaun]

People seem to be conflating 'sexual assault' or 'assault' with 'harassment' in here and I think it's dangerous to just put all of them under the same bracket when they're very different crimes with very different perpetrators.

I'm not even 100% sure the claims of harassment made by these women are even technically illegal, they're just something you can be fired and sued for? Like I don't see the room for Freeman to be arrested for this, even if the claims are true.

[arista]

Yes
TS its not like he raped any Lady,
a 80 year old dirty thoughts actor.

Nothing strange, really
Its good he was fast to say sorry.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Shaun

People seem to be conflating 'sexual assault' or 'assault' with 'harassment' in here and I think it's dangerous to just put all of them under the same bracket when they're very different crimes with very different perpetrators.

I'm not even 100% sure the claims of harassment made by these women are even technically illegal, they're just something you can be fired and sued for? Like I don't see the room for Freeman to be arrested for this, even if the claims are true.

Bang On Right Shaun

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Shaun

People seem to be conflating 'sexual assault' or 'assault' with 'harassment' in here and I think it's dangerous to just put all of them under the same bracket when they're very different crimes with very different perpetrators.

I'm not even 100% sure the claims of harassment made by these women are even technically illegal, they're just something you can be fired and sued for? Like I don't see the room for Freeman to be arrested for this, even if the claims are true.

Well said, Shaun. Great and relevant points.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Shaun

People seem to be conflating 'sexual assault' or 'assault' with 'harassment' in here and I think it's dangerous to just put all of them under the same bracket when they're very different crimes with very different perpetrators.

I'm not even 100% sure the claims of harassment made by these women are even technically illegal, they're just something you can be fired and sued for? Like I don't see the room for Freeman to be arrested for this, even if the claims are true.

That's why I hate the term "sexual harassment" as it can mean anything from a flirty joke / comment to a hand on someone's shoulder .

It dilutes actual serious harassment & real rape .
It's got the stage where if a guy innocently places his hand on a woman's arm either to say hello or get their attention when talking ,the woman can turn around and say she was "sexually assaulted" it's ridiculous ! .

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Inappropriate touching generally means things like a hand on a leg or, I believe, in this case a lower back was mentioned. It's not OK and it should be stamped out, especially where a power discrepancy exists... but it's not sexual assault... it's inappropriate touching. I have no problem with people who have - for example - had an arm put around them or a hand put on their lower back saying not to do it, that they don't like it, that it isn't OK. Respect of personal space is important. But I do have a really major problem with people who have had things like this happen, saying that they were "sexually assaulted", because it lessens the crime and makes it much harder for people who have actually been sexually assaulted - i.e. have been groped, pinned, or worse - to be taken seriously. When someone comes forward and says "I was sexually assaulted" it should be clear that a serious sexual crime has been committed. If you have to ask the question "Well, did he jam his hand down your pants, or did he put his hand on your lower back" then the waters become seriously muddied.

Again that's not to say that people shouldn't speak up and complain about being made to feel uncomfortable, because if anything, all of this MUST have made a huge difference for future generations in places like Hollywood. This behaviour basically hinges on people essentially believing that they "have unquestionable influence" and are "untouchable". I can't imagine that anyone in Hollywood feels untouchable any more, or ever will again... behaving inappropriately in any way has become "a major risk"... as it should be.

But still. Things have to be kept realistic. There has to be a difference between "I felt very uncomfortable" and "I was murdered in my soul and will be traumatised forever!!"

Encouraging people to be as dramatic as possible seems to be the trend these days and I have no idea why. It doesn't help anyone. Not the victim themselves, not other victims, and not future potential victims.

Well I was speaking generally tbh. It was quite late when I responded to those posts so things got muddled when Weinstein, Jacko and Cosby were thrown into the mix and we were talking generally about victim blaming.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

That's why I hate the term "sexual harassment" as it can mean anything from a flirty joke / comment to a hand on someone's shoulder .

It dilutes actual serious harassment & real rape .
It's got the stage where if a guy innocently places his hand on a woman's arm either to say hello or get their attention when talking ,the woman can turn around and say she was "sexually assaulted" it's ridiculous ! .

That’s true and women are tactile and make flirty/mucky jokes all the time and rub their butt on you etc.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

That's why I hate the term "sexual harassment" as it can mean anything from a flirty joke / comment to a hand on someone's shoulder .

It dilutes actual serious harassment & real rape .
It's got the stage where if a guy innocently places his hand on a woman's arm either to say hello or get their attention when talking ,the woman can turn around and say she was "sexually assaulted" it's ridiculous ! .

That's why there's a distinction between harassment and assault. They're both very specific things.

If someone's constantly being pestered with inappropriate comments that is harassment, whether they want to claim it's a joke or not.

As for your comment that any woman who has her arm touched can scream she was sexually assaulted... name me one incident of this happening?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

That’s true and women are tactile and make flirty/mucky jokes all the time and rub their butt on you etc.

Who are these women rubbing their butts on you all the time?

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey

That’s true and women are tactile and make flirty/mucky jokes all the time and rub their butt on you etc.

As we know there's a lot of double standards , I bet there's women that joked had banter with Morgan Freeman and I bet they were tactile back . I know in general women can be just as rude when it comes to flirting and touching .

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Who are these women rubbing their butts on you all the time?

I’ve worked with women who fancied me and used to push themself on me with their ass and stand next to me and hip barge me in a playful manner.Not to mention touching me all the time and putting hands in my pocket etc.
I didn’t take to Twitter to complain.Maybe i should’ve?