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

Yes the irony is that Oscar Wilde (who I believe is a hero of Stephen Fry) would be punished MORE harshly today. He had sex with trafficked underage schoolboys, and like many of his peers his interest was in slight, pubescent boys, rather than men.

The trend with his heterosexual peers, such as Lewis Carroll, is to look at their sexual proclivities with a more critical eye, with Oscar Wilde it has gone the other way.

Okay, this thread took a new turn!

I thought this was all going to be sorted after page 8. I evidently over-estimated my own genius. Again.

Hakluyt
I didn't read that as a diagnosis. I think it sounds like an educated person formed an opinion based on observations of a public persona.

taxi4ballet Probably they have forgotten all about it by now. Does that make them a paedophile?

Point of order: a paedophile is someone attracted to children between 2 and 12. I am rather doubtful there are huge numbers of 12 year olds that pass for 16. Some, yes, because humans are all very varied. But lots, no. I'll happily throw the book at any celebrity found to have been having sex with twelve-year-olds.

TinklyLittleLaugh Was it about pederasty in particular?

Well, I think my first post on here is a realistic and not unsympathetic discussion of, as you say, a public persona. I also think that by weighing into the topic of Yewtree, Stephen Fry has almost invited this sort of discussion. And there is something quite honest about that. However, if Mumsnet would like to delete any of these posts for sailing to close to the wind, however you'd like to put it, then that's fine by me.

Limited Period Only. I thought you meant me as I linked to a number of articles. I still think your tone was buyllying. What's all the covering yourself in glory about? I didn't get the impression that was the Op's intention. They never said he should be silenced either.
Still don't like 'mimsy.'

taxi4ballet Firstly "paedophilia" and having sex with someone under the age of consent (which is a social construct) are two different things.

Secondly yes, anyone who did the latter is at fault (even if not technically a paedophile, depending on the pubertal status of their victim(s). We have an age of consent for a reason, because we as society have decided that children are not capable of giving informed consent. If the prevailing attitude was such that groupies, including under-age ones, was a common phenomenon then it isn't unreasonable to expect the adults in the situation to ensure the recipients of their attention were both consenting and capable of giving consent.

Having crushes on celebrities is part of growing up. Children and teenagers aren't expected to always behave rationally or with considered maturity. That's why it's vital that the adults do, and that they don't take advantage of the vulnerability of children.

Tilly
No not pederasty. According to Wiki, at his trial Oscar Wilde talked about the love of an older man for a younger man.

"Hakluyt exactly why I am going to ask Mumsnet to remove the posts."

Having sown seeds of doubt in people's minds and stirred up speculation. Great.

herecomes invited discussion on his thoughts about Yewtree yes, but not invited discussion based on nasty third party conjecture. Entirely different.

I appreciate some of you won't care, but some people might be interested to know that Stephen Fry has just tweeted the following:

"So flooded with kind messages from people who, like me, hate paedophilia AND injustice. Good to be understood! xxx"

whatever - Presumption of innocence is the basis and tenet of our whole legal system. Someone has to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and if there is doubt, the accused is entitled to that doubt. It isn't perfect but we can't pick and choose which cases we apply it to and which we don't.

I think you misunderstand. I am not suggesting that anyone should be found guilty of rape in court if it hasn't been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I am just explaining why people don't assume that the person is innocent because they have been found "not guilty". That wouldn't be fair to the person who accused them (unless they were found guilty of perjury obviously).

Hakluyt what are you trying to achieve? I've apologised and asked MN to remove the comments. Just leave it.

There are many, many posts and opinions on MN about contentious issues. Day-to-day conversation is full of throwaway comments. It is pointless getting irate about them.

I can say someone's tone is bullying when they're making grandiose assertions about why someone posted a particular article, saying they covered themself in glory. I thought it was aimed at me anyway didn't I? Plus 'mimsy'. Picking away in a bolshy tone without really engaging in a discussion, eg saying an article had lots of holes in it without pinpointing what the holes are etc. If Owe wants to make sweeping assertions about posters covering themselves in glory and being mimsy then I would have thought they were tough enough to take someone saying they are a bully. There are levels of bullying. It was small scale bullying, a bit nasty.
Taxi 4 Ballet. Have a word with yourself. No excuses. If there's any doubt, the men don't go there. It's not that hard. They can control themselves you know. If you're a decent bloke you tend to find a lady your own age. Young girls under 16 are pretty obvious even with make up. Doesn't matter how much they appear to adulate the stars. They are still kids and must be treated as such.

If you go beyond that and say "well it's not proven, but I still think he's guilty" where do we go from there? Do we distrust every person who was ever charged with anything because they weren't "proven innocent".

In cases of rape I wouldn't say that it's not proven but he's still guilty. I might say that it's not proven so we just don't know what happened though. If you decide that the man is definitely innocent then you are saying that the woman guilty of lying.

scandip, I agree with you. There aren't any excuses, and I wasn't making any. The point I was making however, is - how are we to judge, when the only evidence is someone's word is against another's, about something decades ago. As others have said, 'not guilty' can mean many things. We have to leave it to the courts don't we?

whatever - actually, no you are NOT automatically saying the woman is lying. She could genuinely be mistaken.

Can someone can be found 'not guilty' because they genuinely didn't know that the other person was under-age? Or would they be found 'guilty'?

whatever - actually, no you are NOT automatically saying the woman is lying. She could genuinely be mistaken.

I would think it very rare that a woman makes a mistake about whether or not she was raped

However, if Mumsnet would like to delete any of these posts for sailing to close to the wind, however you'd like to put it, then that's fine by me.

I think that there are a number of posts that are over the wind tbh.