it's very simplistic to say that victims should have come forward. Woman are raped every day and don't report it with (to them) very valid reasons. Rather than demonizing them and making it even more difficult for people to come forward in the future, they should be respected and listened to. If there is a case for the perpetrators to answer, then get them in front of a judge. Do something about it rather than having a trial by media

and if he wasnt rich and famous...

nothing


pathetic

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.

Can we just take a second to point out here; no one has accused him of sexual assault. He's been accused of leering / being pervy / making comments / potentially abusing his position of power / occasional unwanted touching (but not groping).

Now while these things are not OK and there should be a definite drive to stamp them out... Can we please stop referring to them as "sexual assault" or making out that someone doing these things is a "sexual predator" rather than just, sadly, a dirty old man?

At the most basic; it's just damn offensive to the victims of actual sexual assault.

Yes all true TS.

when Matt Damon suggested in an interview that there should be a spectrum involved rather than one or two words he was attacked

"I do believe there's a spectrum of behavior. … You know, there's a difference between, you know, patting someone on the butt and rape or child molestation, right? Both of those behaviors need to be confronted and eradicated without question, but they shouldn't be conflated."

Didn't one woman say he touched her inappropriately ? this is why the media isn't helpful sometimes, they put things in peoples heads that are probably unnecessary, people should only be named if and when they are found guilty imo.

yeah, the most infuriating thing is the trial by media with keyboard warriors defining who is guilty and what constitutes guilt. These cases should by processed promptly by authorities so that it can be determined quickly and concisely if there is a case to answer or not.

I totally agree with you T.S. but let's hope that your post is directed at Marsh who is the only member guilty on this thread of labelling Morgan Freeman in such a manner:

"He's publicly apologising for sexual assault"

"People like Freeman not being predatory"

In addition to terms such as 'Pervert' etc.

Dirty disgusting pervert..lock him up.

:nono:


for me he is a acting legend, sorry but i can't really believe this from him


:hmph:

Spot on.
He sounds like a right letch, but I think the phrase sexual assault is thrown about far too much these days.

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.

You write what you mean and mean what you write. It's your opinion. Yeah, I get that Kirk.

You're still shifting the blame and it's really rather sad in this day and age.

Well tbf I wasn't the one to bring Weinstein, Michael Jackson and Bill Cosby into the discussion. So the conversation has gotten a little muddled in discussing the victims in these types of cases.

:joker: Bless you.

No one on here knows Morgan Freeman, nor the women accusing him. What's more, if there is a shred of evidence, none of us have access to it. And yet some people have already made up their mind. Makes me worry about trial by jury.

... and of course, Michael Jackson was never convicted of anything.

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

I never said he was.

Hence why I said the conversation got muddled.

Don't you take that tone with me Marshy, I'll come over there....

Disappointed in Morgan but i agree with Toy Soldier and Matt Damon.

:hmph:

Im assuming bb housemate bear would be found guilty on here if it were him.

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

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 .