To be put off watching anything by Neil Gaiman

Prince Andrew didn’t have a trial. So he’s innocent, right?

It is a difficult question isn’t it. Can you separate art from artist? There is a movie called Tar that you may like since it is asking the same question.

I would not compare his work with those you mentioned above though. He is a good writer, but hardly an original, heavily inspired by a lot of other fantasy writers.

That. It always astonishes me how eager MNers are to declare an opinion & believe they "know" the truth, based on limited facts in public domain.

As a previous poster said, the things Gaiman has admitted to are incredibly damning. We can’t say he committed a crime yet because he’s had no trial. But the things he admitted to show that he’s not a good guy because of the grotesque imbalance of power.

He admitted to canoodling with his young nanny within hours of meeting her. She was his employee, nearly 40 years his junior, she was alone, vulnerable, a lesbian, and she certainly hadn’t set out that day to get sexually intimate with an old man. She was there to look after his young son.

A good guy would have done his best to make his young employee feel welcome and safe - and it wouldn’t even cross his mind to try it on with her.

The blackout on this story from the likes of the Guardian and BBC means that few people are even aware of these allegations. And the fewer who know, the less likely it is that more women will be emboldened to come forward. They will think no one will believe them.

As Gaiman himself once said, we should believe women. But if they make allegations against him, they must have false memory syndrome! 🙄

'@AyrshireTryer
Perhaps a little early with judgement.
Innocence until proven guilt and all that.'

The point is even if he ends up not guilty of sexual assault, he still thought it was appropriate to engage in sexual contact with a woman he had just hired to look after his kids and who was only in her 20s.

All his nonsense about open relationships has also put me off.

To me that is already enough to stop reading or watching anything he is associated with as he just comes across as a creep.

It is a shame as I was such a fan of the Sandman comics.

Beginning to deeply distrust all male feminists.

I've enjoyed some of his work, but I've had an awareness he was a very selfish and self indulgent person since he left his wife, and more importantly, 4 year old son, in New Zealand and travelled to Skye at the beginning of the pandemic. Imagine deserting your little son in the middle of a world emergency because you've had some kind of argument with their mother. My impression was the break up was somethings to do with their open marriage.

About as surprising as finding out Marilyn Manson was a wrong-un

Sure, in the legal system. But there is a huge range of morally and socially unacceptable behaviour before an act gets to the point of being potentially illegal and therefore tried in court.

For me, the parts of the allegations he has willingly admitted fall into the morally repugnant category and that is enough to change my opinion of the man. Whether the legal side has legs, we shall see

I'm not into cancel culture. If people want to read or watch his stuff, that's fine by me.

I just think this story needs to be told everywhere because it exposes coercive control in relationships and how perpetrators use the idea of "consent" against their victims. Ideally I'd like to see Neil Gaiman prosecuted in court. But apparently he has a huge PR and legal team working overtime to try to kill the story. Still no coverage in the guardian or BBC.

Fair enough. Maybe not all artists are unpleasant, but I'd hazard that most are. And have to be

• a high degree of self belief
• willing to focus almost exclusively on oneself

Certainly your choice @Sausagenbacon but I don't agree they " have to be unpleasant". I do agree that most idols have feet of clay. Alice Munro, for one.

All men should be banished from this earth. Absolute disgrace.

You are claiming that a discussion forum is a țrial. He's not on trial here ffs, he's being discussed. Would you rather that we'd just shut up, know our place and all that?

Tbh I don't get invested in the personal lives of artists whose work I admire, to the extent that it effects how I see their work.
Most artists have to be unpleasant to some degree or other, in order to focus on what they do.
I can't see the point in seeing their work through the filter of their personality.

What? It's a reasonable sentiment.
No need to read more in to it.

Neil Gaimen is 63 not 45. Creepy and into violent sex with a young woman employed to mind his child, living in- nowhere to escape to.

Eh? I am not accusing him of assault. I am accusing him of an act he has admitted to, namely a 'consensual relationship' with very young women a few hours after they entered his house, when he was in a position of power over them. That is not consent by any definition. Or a relationship
That is plenty to be going on without having to prove assault

Not on social media.
That goes double for Mumsnet.

I used to love his books. Can’t read him anymore. Arsehole. Just a complete creep.

Thank you, this nails the whole attitude.

I just realised that the journalist who exposed him appears to be the son of Daphne Galizia, the Maltese journalist who was killed when investigating the Panama Papers.