Neil Gaiman consequences

yeah, i CBA looking up anything Tenant says. Because while i understand the stance he takes, given his circs, the aggressive way he says/lives it really puts me off.

Michael Sheen doesn't say much about anything (except politics) IME unless he is asked directly. Again, i CBA looking it out.

Not a sausage AFAIK.

And given the wokey blokey/TWAW pronouncements/abuser of women Venn diagram we've seen so often, you'd think they'd be very keen to distance themselves.

But either the lure of the pay cheque or the need to look 'progressive' <eyeroll> is apparently far stronger than simple decency.

One of the last times I checked social media like twitter, a few months back, someone asked if renowned Nice Guys (TM) Michael Sheen and David Tennant from Gaiman-penned Good Omens would say anything about the allegations which were already outlined by the Tortoise 🐢 podcast.

What with them being allies and that, and ppl who declare themselves allies normally holding forth on topics of note as that appears to be the informal job description to prove their allyship.

Anything?

oh "wah wah Gaiman has been cancelled" my fanny. Kathleen Stock was cancelled, as was that dancer, and that writer (?) who is now a lorry driver.

Men like Neil TWAW Gaiman don't get cancelled.

I am FURIOUS. I was looking forward to the sequel to Neverwhere. Now i need to find a 2nd hand copy so i know he gets no more of my hard earned dosh.

It's anyone who is actively seeking a Teflon coating. It's a clear red flag.

It's really astounding that so many of the uber-progressive, anti-terf wokey blokeys have turned out to have, at best, a real problem seeing women as proper people in their own right and at worst, a very dodgy attitude to women's consent and bodily autonomy.

According to the latest BBC article:

Gaiman's representative's previously told Tortoise that "sexual degradation, bondage, domination, sadism and masochism may not be to everyone's taste, but between consenting adults, BDSM is lawful".

i don’t particularly want to rehearse the reported details. They are pretty gross, you can find them online here: https://archive.ph/O1s0J

it is pretty clear that there was a significant age and power disparity. The dispute appears to be around consent, with a significant number of women saying no/no proper consent was given. Role model, hero and feminist he is not, either way.

Also Vulture behind a paywall that is shared here.

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.is/2025.01.13-144917/www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://archive.is/2025.01.13-144917/www.vulture.com/article/neil-gaiman-allegations-controversy-amanda-palmer-sandman-madoc.html

A pretty sadistic narcissist who carries on like that in front of his 5 year old child too

This came out in the states:
nymag.com/press/article/on-the-cover-the-side-of-neil-gaiman-his-fans-never-saw.html

I don't know why you're being so hostile towards me? I've been on the NG threads from the beginning and am still taking part in the discussion there. I stated I don't give a shit if NG is cancelled. I want to see him taken to court. I want the matter to be brought into the open.

As far as the "complaining" comment, perhaps I misunderstood your tone. If so, I apologise.

I agree, of course, it's not the same. One is illegal and should be prosecuted as such. Being cancelled is not an appropriate consequence for breaking the law. It should be a public sacking because of gross misconduct and the matter prosecuted in court.

Cancelling people for their opinions is utterly anti-democratic but the same applies when it's cancelling people for their actions. Crimes should be dealt with as crimes. Misconduct should be dealt with as misconduct. It shouldn't be swept under the carpet with a quiet cancellation.

It's all cancel culture. I don't think that you can say it's only cancel culture when it's happening to one side.

But I'm not saying that. Suppose JKR had been accused of sexual impropriety, then you can understand that a business might want to disassociate itself from her, even if the claims hadn't been tested in court. But all JKR has done is express an opinion some people don't like. Same with Jenny Lindsey.

Just to spell it out:

Having an opinion some people don't like is not the same as having allegations of sexual misconduct made against you.

Hollywood used to have a pretty good way of dealing with scandal. It's often called the doghouse.

If an actor had a scandal, the way it worked was that they'd have a brief period of humiliation. They'd lose some work - maybe their next project would be cancelled or recast - they'd have some bad headlines, Jay Leno would crack jokes about them for a week or two.

And there was a way back. If your scandal was substance related you'd check into the Betty Ford clinic. If it was racism related you'd contact Jesse Jackson and he would give you something to do. And after about 12 to 18 months your career would get back on track.

Obviously some people would be impacted more than others, and some careers never really recovered. But it would take a huge scandal like OJ Simpson being accused of murder to make someone permanently unemployable. Short of that, there was a path to redemption.

The problem I have with recent year cancel culture is that it tries to make people permanently unemployable for having the wrong opinions. JKR is probably too big to fail, but you can see the way it's hit someone like Glinner.

One reason why I don't give a fuck about NG is that he loved cancel culture as long as he thought it would never come for him.

It's not really cancel culture so much as large businesses making a tactical decision not to be associated with someone potentially toxic.

Isn't that exactly the argument people use when JK's name is taken off Harry Potter stuff?

It's all cancel culture. I don't think that you can say it's only cancel culture when it's happening to one side.

I have to admit to finding it difficult to stick to principle here, because I don't give a shit if NG is cancelled. But I don't believe it's the right way to deal with illegal behaviour. It needs to be prosecuted. Obviously he may lose a job/jobs for the equivalent of gross misconduct. I think that's reasonable. But it should be clear that this is what's happening, rather than quietly swept under the carpet.

He’s admitted to something that is clearly sexual
assault - he just doesn’t think it is.

It's not really cancel culture so much as large businesses making a tactical decision not to be associated with someone potentially toxic. (Remember when Ridley Scott made a whole film starring Kevin Spacey, then reshot it with Christopher Plummer when Spacey was accused of molesting young men?) It might not be very nice, or very fair, but it's how capitalism works.

Cancel culture is much more to do with banning people for holding views you don't agree with: literary festivals disinviting them, bookshops refusing to stock their books, agents dropping their clients. It's what happened to people like Graham Linehan and Jenny Lindsey, with consequences that were devastating for both of them.

No, I don't agree people should be punished for "legal but harmful" speech or behaviour. Who decides what this covers?

What "grossly immoral" behaviours are legal, anyway? When they are, like child gender experiments, we campaign for them to be made illegal, don't we?

Neil Gaiman should be prosecuted for the sexual assaults he's committed, which are against the law.

There are grossly immoral behaviours which are not illegal, and people who engage in such behaviours should not be making millions of pounds off TV shows.

Gaiman has presumably built up enough money over his long and successful career to have a comfortable retirement. We don't need to shed tears for the man.

Yes, that's something that concerns me, too. You'd hope the crews will be put on other shows but I don't know how it works.

I don't think just taking his name off is the answer either (in fact I would be delighted to see his name broadcast far and wide with the details of what he felt was reasonable conduct attached to it, never mind what the women are saying).

I have no issues with Neil Gaiman facing consequences.
I do worry about all the individuals employed by the cancelled productions who are also suffering the consequences of NGs actions.
I'm not sure what can be done to square that circle.

We're at cross purposes. Sexual misconduct is not just illegal activity: it includes behaviour like, say, engaging in sexual activity with your employee within hours of meeting her, behaviour to which NG has admitted.

I've got no idea what happened,

You could, if you wanted to. The podcasts by Tortoise and the Am I Broken podcast investigate the claims.

Fwiw I'm not a fan of cancel culture either and I think he has broken the law and should see court.

I haven't read any interviews where Gaiman admits to sexual assault. As far as I know he's denied the allegations.

Whether or not he's done anything unlawful is a different matter which we need not go into.

Well sexual assault, rape, coercive sex are all unlawful. I see it as the same matter.

If Gaiman admits to sexual assault then he's obviously a fucking prick.

We're not going to agree. I detest cancel culture and I am not comfortable with trial by social media. I've got no idea what happened, others are obviously certain enough to condemn him and obviously that's their prerogative.