Fantastic.:dance::dance:

Never followed this story but reading the thread start to finish is fascinating.

So did he pay these guys to beat him up or not?

Why was he wandering around with a piece of rope round his neck?

I’m none the wiser.

Nothing's confirmed yet, but it seems like he paid them to help fake the hatecrime, and the rope was part of the monkeyshines.

When it comes right down to it the situation is still as it was on the first page; all the information is as yet unavailable and people are keen to draw conclusions from an incomplete story. Those who were certain that he was definitely attacked currently have egg on their faces as recent developments certainly indicate that it may have been a staged attack and that he was in on it... however... that makes it seem even stranger to me that the "other side" are so willing to commit fully to the idea that they've "now figured out what happened" which is clearly risking the same.

For what it's worth, it looks like the original story is absolutely full of holes but there's probably more to it than what has come out so far.

It's a fascinating story if you look at it from a detached standpoint but a LOT of people seem to have some sort of vested interest in this... on "both sides"... for various reasons which are *ahem* open to speculation :hee:. It's become a tense battle between opposing circlejerking factions who are each desperate to shout "HAH! Told u so!!!" and the actual details are mattering less and less. No matter what the outcome, no one is winning here, except of course sensible chaps like you and me NM who are only here for the show.


[edit] Oh, also, Alf took the "it's all BS" stance immediately and was proven (it seems) right after there had already been a lot of battling about it... but then in his vindication, made an utter spectacle of himself and got a week long ban. And Becs is Alf on an alt, OR maybe Brillo, OR a friend of Alf's, OR a new member but no one cares. That should be you up to date.

It's disgusting if it's true as he has made light of racism and homophobia to profit from it but I just can't see it being true, it just doesn't make sense. He's got a steady gig that would have likely led to other opportunities given Empire's success and he could have easily become a spokesperson through normal means given his position.

I'll be very interested to see how this turns out.

Well that's my thinking. His version doesn't seem to fit with the evidence (that we know of), but the alternative narrative seems insane in terms of motive. Waiting for secret option C to drop is the only real choice.

There'll probably be a Netflix documentary about it in a couple of years. We should just wait for that :think:

maybe he's doing some sort of method acting for a new role or something? :unsure:

Listen there were plenty of us abused by members for daring to doubt a gay black man who was supposed to have been attacked by trump fans

The thread was incorrectly opened and worded from the start

All the bigotry and preducise came from members in ivory towers thinking that they had to be right

Naturally there is no sight of them now

In my opinion, the argument was entirely between people with agenda-driven opinions, and no one at all would have been "abused" if (yes) the story had been reported impartially in the first place, or if the response had been a healthy detached scepticism rather than driven by incredulity.

It's the difference between;

"I'm not sure if this entirely adds up, let's wait and see how it unfolds"

and

"You're 'avin a larf aintcher??? What a load of NONSENSE!!! Definitely untrue!"

An alleged attack victim should be given the benefit of the doubt until there IS evidence that contradicts it... and as it turns out, it wouldn't have required much patience to wait for this one to start unravelling.

And I have to stand by the opinion that Alf got the ban for the spectacle he made once vindicated / the additional things he said, and not because "people couldn't handle being wrong".

I do agree though that there are certain names suddenly missing from the thread now that the narrative has changed but I don't know that there's much point harping on about that or making it a character flaw... I mean not to be too patronising but we all had to learn at some point, and there's nothing inherently WRONG with wanting to believe the best in people when they say something has happened to them.

Thanks for the update TS :thumbs:

I wouldn’t like to take a side on this as I don’t know much about it.(same reason I generally stay out of the McCann threads).
It seems very strange though from everything i’ve read on here.The original story seems to get weaker as time goes by.

Maybe more evidence will come about later or if not one of those unsolved mysteries shows will tackle it.

People’s instant reaction these days especially when it comes to minorities or women is ‘always believe the victim’ which I don’t agree with.It seems like people wanting to be with the ‘In crowd’ or ‘woke brigade’ as leaning left is the current trend,Or pay the ultimate price of being left out in the cold on Twitter.
Opinions are the latest fasion accessories.

Modern politics has a part to play in this.
People are either on one side or the other.Left or Right.Choose a side.
No room for good old fence sitting anymore.

It's quite petty to demand apologies from people for believing the best in others. A bigger person would have let it go.

There was the unharmed sandwich tbf :hehe:

don't you mean the unhamed sandwich :hee:

To me, it seems more likely someone would be telling the truth about being attacked than making it up though? It just seems a much more likely scenario. It's bad that if a victim comes to the police or whoever that they would be instantly be viewed with cynical eyes imo

Circumstantial; the sandwich may have been immediately dropped and not involved in the scuffle, and picked up afterwards. Which is a bit grubby but each to their own! Or the incident might have been over very quickly, so the legally binding 5-second-rule could be implemented.

Sheer conjecture :nono:

If that’s true then using ‘hate crime’ to get publicity is some fecked up shiz.

I agree but I guess that's where I'd draw a distinction between "benefit of the doubt" and "automatically believe" where there's a subtle difference. The police don't automatically believe the accuser, but would never disbelieve them or say "that doesn't sound true to me". Likewise, when they question the alleged attacker they don't walk in and shout "Hey! You attacked this man!"... the accused also gets the benefit of the doubt until questions have been answered and evidence / witnesses gathered.

The motivation for setting the whole thing up is pretty obvious to me, if thats how it all turns out. It was a political stunt to discredit Trump and his supporters. Which is just so very very stupid given the amount of 100% genuine crap that trump and his supporters have done.

oh lettuce alone will you :fist:

But it seems like SUCH a stupid idea that this doesn't ring true either; and you could go right down the rabbit hole and suggest that the fallout from this is that genuine anti-Trump/MAGA stories are now easier to dismiss as nothing or "fake news"... and thus, you could speculate that someone else set ALL of this up to discredit people who are attempting to discredit Trump and his supporters.

Like... Racehatecrimeception.

I think the police should be viewing it with critical eyes.Not critical as in the negative sense but as in ‘critical thinking’ like is used in university projects.

They should show sympathy while mentally staying firmly on the fence until they the evidence is there.

Anybody can say they’ve been a victim of a hate crime now to use as an aggravating factor or even if no crime is committed.

I mean, in my experience this generally is what the police (at least in the UK) do. And my experience of the various US police forces mainly comes from TV and films so I'm hoping the truth is more similar to how our police work than the dramatised version :joker:.

I mean I've sadly witnessed the police attend a number of "assaults" that were more accurately mutual fights that escalated, and they definitely don't barge in pointing fingers until they've asked bystanders what actually happened. It's usually us they ask because the shop has a good view of the area and we're nosy / bored AF and gather round the windows when there's drama outside :hehe:.

there is so much disinformation floating about now that it does get difficult to look past the noise

Best way to kill actual stories