[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

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.

Bless you.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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.

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

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

I never said he was.

Hence why I said the conversation got muddled.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

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....

[Christmas Lights]

Originally Posted by Livia

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

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 .

[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.

[Kazanne]

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.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

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

[user104658]

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.

[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.

[Vicky.]

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.

Fantastic post.

I also agree with many of marshs points on this thread and find it depressing as **** when people find a way to blame the victims no matter what. Its not their fault that he did this to other people. Saying so removes the blame from him.

I am shocked with Freeman though, but I think thats because I expect celebs to be kind of similar to the characters they portray, plus I always view Freeman as 'God'.

[Parmy]

Dirty disgusting pervert..lock him up.

[Nicky91]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Dirty disgusting pervert..lock him up.

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

[Livia]

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.

[Northern Monkey]

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

[Parmy]

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

[ChristmasNeeve]

Not Morgan too

[Candy Annie Cane]

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.

[ChristmasNeeve]

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.