Originally Posted by Kazanne (Post 10006266)

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.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 10006557)

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 .

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 10006557)

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 .

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10006616)

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.

Originally Posted by kirklancaster (Post 10006388)

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.

Originally Posted by Nicky91 (Post 10006625)

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

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10006636)

:suspect:


:umm2:

Originally Posted by Nicky91 (Post 10006640)

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

Originally Posted by AnnieK (Post 10006721)

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.

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10006401)

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

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10006730)

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.

Originally Posted by Shaun (Post 10006740)

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.

Originally Posted by Shaun (Post 10006740)

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.

Originally Posted by Shaun (Post 10006740)

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.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 10006730)

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.

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 10006799)

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 :facepalm: .

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 ! .

Originally Posted by GoldHeart (Post 10006799)

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 :facepalm: .

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 ! .

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 10006812)

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

Originally Posted by Northern Monkey (Post 10006812)

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

Originally Posted by Marsh. (Post 10006817)

Who are these women rubbing their butts on you all the time? :umm2: