Yep, he's contradicting himself. But in terms of his stance on the accusations he's still maintaining denial of the vast majority of it.

I've no idea who 'Gemma' is , I didn't watch any of it . But I would of liked the option of it all being available as I was curious about the show. So it's unfair how they've stopped people having access to the last episode.

sky & ITV want to say they're stepping away from a possible bully & pervert,but there's no consistency with these things :bored: .

My wife is watching the last episode.. episode 5 as we speak so I’m not sure what the issue is .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Apparently after Sunday the episode is gone

Noel Clarke is suspended by Bafta after 20 women accused him of sexual harassment
 

Ah ..


Even if recorded / downloaded ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Noel Clarke is suspended by Bafta after 20 women accused him of sexual harassment
 

Cancelling shows in hindsight is ****ing daft to be honest. Is iPlayer going to pull the Tennant-Piper era of Doctor Who? :think:

Netflix and Prime to remove all movies that feature someone who turned out to be a dodgy bastard? There’ll be none left.

By all means, refuse to work with the guy in future, his behaviour is disgusting but removing content that has already been made - and no doubt involved hard work from COUNTLESS others - is in no way right or fair.

You know I didn’t mean you bots :hee:

yeah, the argument was going around Spacey at that time too. People are free to choose not to watch something if they dislike the actor, but Spacey didn't suddenly become a bad actor over night. The right of individual choice is being taken away from people. A body of work that other actors, producers and directors were involved in is being withdrawn when they are blameless. Like it or not it is cancel culture that is the catalyst for this because the media distributers think they will get blacklisted if they don't comply with the demands of the warriors

...I think it’s a difficult one tbh...(...I’m not fully decided on it...)...the whole labelling thing is so bad...if it’s negatively labelled with cancel culture then it becomes wrong to do so but if it’s more labelled in a positive of being supportive toward potential victims to put a hold on for the moment...it’s the exact same thing but it’s presented entirely differently...

So many inconsistencies like I said .

They never stopped showing Glee when one of the actor's vile paedophilic background was revealed ( yes I know he committed suicide ) but still.

Amber Heard still gets work despite her being a horrible person.

And people seem to forget Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist , even catchphrase used his face for a game phrase :facepalm:.

...I agree about absence of consistency, GoldHeart...as I say I’m quite undecided...isn’t it more or less the equivalent to being suspended from a job while accusations/incidents are ongoing ...and that’s fairly widely done and reasonable to do so....

It's one thing to stop hiring someone, but to try and erase/ limit projects they've been in is just stupid and unfair to other actors involved.

Yes, good point, it does seem unfair to everyone else involved

...there is always inevitably going to be ‘unfair’ though if something is suspended or someone is suspended in their work/job while serious allegations have been made and while it’s an ongoing thing...I mean, that’s not a ‘cancel cultures’ that’s new, surely...


...anyways, I’ll leave you all to the debate, as I say...I’m very undecided atm, I can see many layers to this...

SIR – Why should we ever watch an ITV serial again if, on a virtue-signalling whim, it can cancel the final episode of Viewpoint staring Noel Clarke on the day it was scheduled to be broadcast (report, May 1)? What is the point of a serial without its finale?

While the allegations against the actor may be serious, they are, as yet, unproved. Has ITV never heard of “innocent until proved guilty”?

Dr Roger Litton
Harrogate, North Yorkshire

SIR – As a youngster I was taught that I would be innocent until proved guilty.

Some years ago, the then Director of Public Prosecutions told the Crown Prosecution Service that those alleging crime should be called victims and believed by the police. This resulted in senior members of the public being charged on the word of a fantasist.

We now have progressed to guilty as alleged until proved innocent. The Royal family and our Prime Minister are examples of this reversal of the presumption to guilty until proved innocent. When will we revert to innocent until proved guilty?

His Honour Lord Parmoor
High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire



SIR – What has happened to our world‑renowned legal system? We used to presume innocence until proved guilty. Now users of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram instantly make their minds up about rights or wrongs, with each subsequent post getting more hysterical.

A series of celebrities have been suspended, sacked, vilified, and on Friday night the finale of a popular series was pulled because of alleged activities of the lead actor.

Did anyone give thought to how the rest of the cast felt – or the viewing public? It was reported that ITV’s decision followed “media pressure”. Had Noel Clarke been charged and found guilty after due process, this could be understood, but there was no more than a kangaroo court.

Doug Prewer
Yateley, Hampshire



SIR – I, like many people, had been enjoying Viewpoint – although, for full disclosure, I did fall asleep for a few minutes during three of the four episodes, so was not totally sure what was going on. (I made plans to watch last night’s finale of Line of Duty standing up.)

It is good that the finale of Viewpoint was put on the ITV Hub for 48 hours. However, nothing sums up the strange world that we now live in better than its press statement that said it was available “for a limited time for any viewers who wish to seek it out, and watch its conclusion”. Why use such pompous language?

James Sneath
Eastbourne, East Sussex

(Letters, DT)

...as I say, it’s effectively a suspension while serious charges are ongoing...when it’s said to be a cancel culture thing that can be very disingenuous and an applying of a label from those who appear to oppose labelling...being suspended in a job when a serious allegation has been laid against is something that’s always been, it’s not a new thing at all and is completely appropriate to the situation ongoing...


...a similar thing in a school would be...a teacher had had serious allegations made against them...but though, they’ve taught your child for much of the year so we feel they should continue until absolute proof of guilt...or we suspend them, we understand the impact on your child’s learning but we feel we have no choice atm and that’s for the best...I think we all know the ‘acceptable’...SIR...

but what itv did was basically suspend the whole school, that can only be described as cancel culture

fear of blame

...because its a structure that doesn’t operate the same...nothing is identical and one size fits all in the exact same way...they can’t apply a suspension that would only apply to a few people and that wouldn’t make sense anyway...it doesn’t change that it’s very commonplace and always has been to apply suspensions for very serious accusations in a workplace even when something hasn’t yet ‘been proven’... and to apply a ‘cancel culture’ term/label...is IMO, quite disingenuous in its accuracy...we can describe it as cancel culture, of course...but for me that would not show accuracy as I say...and feeding into something by people who would usually oppose that very thing of ‘labelling’...

but they can stop him from doing further work until the matter is sorted, that is the equivalent. Stopping the the last episode of a series was cancel culture at it's finest

...or as I say, it was making a decision to suspend for the moment...which putting that episode or whatever out wouldn’t have done...and that’s always been a very commonplace thing in any workplace with such serious accusations ...you can keep throwing cancel culture at me from every which way but I’m just not catching it, sorry...I’m not grabbing these society damaging ‘labels’ until and unless I’m sure they apply...

...’they’ can only make a decision within their control over that programme and they did, that’s exactly what they’ve done...they’ve suspended for the moment because of the severity...whether proven or not, this is very serious and action was felt necessary...

taking away people freedom to make their own decisions on what they can and cannot do based on social media pressure couldn't be a better example of cancel culture. We will have to agree to disagree because I think it is totally inappropriate action for itv to take and is a very slippery slope

...I don’t think that ‘social media pressure’ applies for this particular instance...it’s a decision made within a workplace because of some very serious accusations and an ongoing case and that’s something that has always been commonplace...there is no slippery slope for this and if there was..?...I would say that in trying to apply a label here that doesn’t entirely accurately fit...that in itself could be termed the slippery slope...

Whether or not some of the more serious accusations are proven to be true is largely irrelevant in this case to be honest; some of the stuff that is definitely true (because it was all over his own Twitter) is justification to not want to be involved with him professionally. No court of law needed. It was right there (and fairly recent, not historic).

For example, possibly (probably) filming or at the very least sharing footage without consent of people having sex, taken through their window, for comments/“jokes” on social media.

That alone would be enough to warrant refusal to work with him again.

But again all that said; not working with him again is one thing, cancelling projects that are already complete from airing, or removing old projects, is just daft.