to think Stephen Fry is a shit

[AgaPanthers]

Apparently he thinks Operation Yewtree is a sham and we need tougher laws against people making up sexual abuse allegations.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/stephen-fry-criticises-operation-yewtree-in-dinner-party-rant-calling-for-tougher-laws-to-deter-false-sex-abuse-allegations-9602686.html

I thought he was supposed to be intelligent? Surely he realises that

I think he's an utter knob. He's another one who has been elevated to "national treasure" status by the media.

If someone makes a false accusation, and it's proven that it's false, what is the usual level of punishment?

Just wondering - am not being provocative here, I just want to know.

'Not guilty' and 'no charge' doesn't necessarily mean 'guilty but can't prove it after all this time'.

They might actually mean 'innocent'.

it the cps feels you have lied about an assault you can be charged with perjury, as you would for any crime

it is helpful to note here that a not guilty verdict can be understood as evidence not meeting the burden of proof rather than 'someone made up an assault'

I've always thought that SF is a bit of a twat. Insufferably smug and so far up his own backside he's wearing himself as a hat

I think there should be more distinction made between a 'not guilty due to no reasonable evidence' verdict and 'not guilty due to proven innocence' verdict - think there are some countries who do make this distinction? It might help.

Good to read that his rant was greeted with silence.

Did you read the article and understand the context?

He has a really good point and it should be made more often. Prosecuting anyone in Yew Tree is hard enough without idiots trying to make themselves some money, a bit of fame or just get someone else into trouble.

He had a rant, he had a good audience for that rant. Pity they are too busy being ultra PC to have listened to what he really was saying and why.

Or do you think it is right that people like Paul Gambaccini have been left devastated by someone's idea of fun? Or do you think that he will be found guilty at some point, they just haven't got enough evidence yet?

THAT perfidious thinking is what Fry was decrying.

If people are proven to have made up allegations they need to be punished severely for it. But SF is full of shit here. He's probably worried about chickens possibly coming home for a lot of people many of whom are his peers.

He may be intelligent, but my impression has always been that Stephen Fry doesn't necessarily have an objective viewpoint on human sexual behaviour.

Ah! I see. In the posts I crossed with it is definitely asserted that some are guilty just not proven yet!

Fry has a point. We need to do more. MUCH more.

YABVU.

Stephen Fry is a national treasure. He doesn't always get everything right and he wouldn't claim to.

He's still Mr Wonderful to me.

God but the homophobia SCREAMS in some of those posts - demonisation by reason of homosexuality. Very naice.

I think that he's a solipsist.OMG.I've wanted to use that word for ages.Now I have.It may translate as Twat < which is easier to spell >

Bubblybox, in Scotland we have "Guilty", "Not Guilty" and "Not Proven". The effects of "Not Guilty" and "Not Proven" are the same, the accused walks free, but the two verdicts do show a difference in the thought processes of the jurors.

In Norway, you can't buried for something 25-30 years after the crime has been committed. It makes sense to me.

Buried??

How can anyone make any sort of judgement based on that? Does anyone have a transcript of what he actually said?

Nomama where is the homophobia? I can't see it.

I agree with the OP, I've always liked Stephen Fry but after reading that article he sounds like a complete twat! When will people start to get it through their thick skulls that vast majority of people who accuse others of rape and sexual abuse/assault are telling the truth? It must be less than 1% of accusations that are actually false. (Disclaimer; not real statistics).

I knew there would be some knee jerk reaction to this. I think he has some valid point if people actually stopped to think about it rather than just get outraged because he's talking about sexual crime and therefore anyone who isn't 100% backing every possible move on alleged sexual crime is a bad person.

He is completely right that there is a huge disparity between the coverage of someone's arrest and then the minimal coverage and apology to those whose lives go into limbo for a year or more and then no charges are brought (Tarbuck springs to mind, Gambaccini is still waiting).

Yes, to have suffered any sort of sexual abuse is appalling. No rational person should feel otherwise.

Unfortunately, out there in the real world - and, I'm afraid on MN - there are considerable numbers of people who think there is never any smoke without fire and regard anyone even having been arrested for questioning in Yewtree is guilty, they just can't prove it. I've seen threads on MN even fairly recently where people have clearly said this.

So, on that point, Fry is right.

He didn't say that Yewtree was a sham so please get your facts right.

I fully agree with him and I didn't know there was such a low number of people being found guilty.

Mud sticks, sadly, and I feel very sorry for P.G and all other victims.

SiennaBlake he was. I did used to like him,

Really? Read it back...

And he appeared to be commenting on Yew Tree, famous people and the bandwagonners, not ordinary people.

He has got a point. But it is easier to infer that he is angry because he fears that some of his chums may be next on the list.

THAT is inexcusable given that he was directly defending Paul Gambaccini... who he spoken out for before, as have other who are not gay, if that helps anyone!