Noel Clarke - surprised he lost the libel case against The Guardian?

Why did you need to believe Adam Deacon when twenty women had testified?

He used to take the spin class at the gym I used 30 years ago. I thought he was a very nice, friendly guy. I'm now confident to say I was wrong.

I’d like to know why the roughly 6 people think that this thread was unreasonable.

Of course, like so many cowards, they never come forward to say why they have voted that way.

Yes, she seems to have clung to her husband and swallowed his account hook, line and sinker. I don't doubt he is extremely manipulative and she is probably unable to look the truth in the face given what it would mean for her life and their marriage.

Unsurprised as I followed the trial and it was pretty obvious he was tying himself in knots with his lies that kept being exposed by the documentary evidence (that he had seen!).

I also know several people who worked with him, and some of the stories are wild. Apparently, he sent a pic of his d**k to one actress' phone during filming, and when she rejected him, he sent a big black dildo to her hotel room, then banged on the door for ages asking to be let in while she had double locked it!

The guardian says his wife spoke for him and claims that one of the women accusing him was ‘infatuated’ with him. Asking for it, basically.
i mean, it may be true that she was infatuated. But the power balance was clearly in his favour, so if that was the case then the responsible thing for him to do would be to discourage it, not take advantage.
I guess his wife either genuinely believes, as he does, that the world has changed in a bad way and he’s a victim, or she just doesn’t see another/a better option for herself.

That’s just devastating, as a summary of his attitude.
But my god, it’s so fucking common! Every day there’s some tv bloke up before the beak for similar infractions, and every one of them defends it all as merely misunderstood, misapprehended. Pouting entitlement as in this case, or bleating a getout excuse (ADHD, mixing 2 Nurofen Plus with half a shandy, it being a weekday, etc etc 🤬)

The thing is, we ought not to be in this sexual politics mire any more. How can a man under 60 not have absorbed anything at all relating to R.E.S.P.E.C.T?
I swear, every damn step forward that had been made by around 1983 suddenly began to be rolled back, even erased from the record, and once again there was rekindled emnity and alienation between men and women, as a general strategy. Forty years later we find ourselves in a poisoned recreation of the 1950s, a social façade desiderating the supply of comfort and support to men, through the crushing of the status of women. By any means necessary.
Gerry Adams’ old sound bite fits well here, applied to the constantly plotting patriarchy: ‘They haven’t gone away, you know’.

It all reinforces what our sisters in Feminism stated from the start, which is that the movement would be a boon to men as well, freeing them from those gender expectations which perverted their fulfilment. That was by and large a casualty of 1980s reactionary pressure too, just like our own progress beyond performative femininity.
We’ve still got oblivious (and worse) predatory men, and cartoon womanhood as an aspiration, and it’s 2025! The dark side has regained far too much ground.
(I think it’s time for Dr Greer to descend from the dark heights above the stage, and in a blaze of outraged majesty reignite the embers of a fire lit over fifty years ago.)

I met him once when he was on the brink of fame, a young man going places. He was lovely. He was smart and cheeky in a pleasant way. Respectful. He has obviously developed a very big head and a sense of entitlement over the years. In the wrong hands fame is incredibly toxic.

No, what’s surprising to me is that he thought the lawsuit was a good idea to proceed with. He’s finished, of course, and I can’t say I’m sorry, but I do feel for his four kids. He won’t have the money to fund an appeal, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s back living with his mum.

“The world has just changed” he said when giving evidence. Thank fuck for that.

Yes indeed. When the chips are down, thank gawd for the Guardian in campaign mode (and Private Eye, ditto). Heart of oak still, despite so many changes all around.

Oh, well said. The Grauniad broke my heart with its caving to the readership Ms Viner pursues so strenuously.
These days I just avert my eyes to a lot of its content, (the Heat magazine type of crap) and worse, far worse than anything I’d have predicted for myself, I also take the Torygraph now, in order to read those staunch Feminist writers Viner booted out of the G. (Well, also for the Diana Henry food columns) Naturally in this case, I avert my eyes from most of the paper’s content!

The Guardian isn’t the only lifelong alignment that’s been seriously injured on account of this confounded ‘trans first, women last’ ethos.
I wonder if the time will come when this matter is revealed as the error in judgement it surely was, and the paper will regain its vision (though they’ve yet to admit to their part in banjaxing the heart of the Labour Party, so who knows whether admitting fault is on the cards)
It’s still the best paper out there as far as I’m concerned though, and…nobody’s perfect. 🤷🏼‍♀️

He's be mad to appeal given how unequivocal the judgement was. But then his behaviour and tactics during the trial show he's the type that would. Interesting that the judge did say that they believed that he really didn't think he was hurting anyone and wasn't doing so intentionally, although that doesn't excuse the behaviour. There's a page on the Guardian outlining the key findings in the case where this comes up.

“Even when his actions have been calculated and deliberate, Mr Clarke has tended to be oblivious to their impact, regarding his own behaviour as merely being ‘naughty’, ‘cheeky’, ‘teasing’ or within his rights as a director or producer.

This.

Huge victory for women and journalism, achieved by the guardian's excellent investigation and principled bravery. Good to see how principled they can be in some areas of journalism, despite their abject failure to cover women's rights effectively in relation to trans issues.

I agree but assuming she did divorce him I can't imagine it would be easy to get much child support once he's paid all these legal costs.

This is such a brilliant verdict for the journalist and all the many women who've suffered this man. But as ever there are always going to be innocent people still suffering.

Crumbs, I didn't realise he was married with kids.

I can't imagine living with a serial sex abuser is a walk in the park for her anyway. Let's hope she divorces the revolting man.

It's so reassuring for all the women who spoke out against him. Great to see the judge saying we should believe them.

Also great to see proper, investigative journalism being displayed. The lengths that decent media outlets must go through before publishing claims like this. It's rigorous, as it should be. All those people who really distrust 'mainstream media's should take note. Anyone can say any old shite on social media but this is journalism.

The wife may have been in denial about his antics and now the details are out there for the world to see.

Also, I assume the family is going to take a huge financial hit as he will have to pay The Guardian’s legal costs, won’t he?

He's nauseating. On the upside, the case was presided over by an impressive woman, Mrs Justice Steyn. My DH, who is a legal nerd, is a huge fan of her father, Lord Justice Steyn - the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.

Must be awful for his wife and children.