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 haven't said otherwise CaptChaos. I was originally explaining why I don't automatically assume that the accused in definitely innocent if found "not guilty" of rape. In my opinion to do that would be to assume the the woman was guilty of lying (I think it is stretching it a bit to think that anyone would think she made a genuine mistake).

Tilly, I know what you mean about people overestimating his intelligence. But don't you also think there always seemed about him a kind of gentleness and humanity though which most other celebs lack? I think he has shown a lot of sensitivity to people suffering from depression. Sort of seemd a bit more 'one of us'. But then he makes ill judged comments about stuff like mps expenses, minimising the huge shafting and two fingers to the public that it was.

To be precise, I would say people overestimate the breadth of his expertise. That's the issue, really. The humanity is there, the intelligence is there, the wish to do what is right, instead of what is easy, is there, but sometimes he won't be able to step outside of his own life experiences to say what I want him to say other points of view.

Just like us all.

Do you mean, Tilly, that some people don't know about the IQ Elves speaking in his ear? They think he knows all of that on his ownesome?

There's Elves? He doesn't do all the research on his own?

I will be writing to Points of View about this!

I don't doubt he's clever. And I like him.
But on the subject of "yew tree" and child abuse/ sexual assault in general mystrong feelings are that false allegations are exceptionally unusual and many ppl get away with abusing children. The suggestion that Tougher laws against false allegations are required, is not the point I'd want to rant about in relation to operation yew tree. It's contrary to the stance of "I believe you" and when someone I admire says things (if he did, I didn't hear his speech) that are so at odds with my own sympathies it's very disappointing.

Self-elevated, sadly. I got bored with just hoping someone would shout royalty in a post that was definitely directed at me.

I used to adore Stephen Fry (and I still love his books), but he seems more and more to be one of those men who values other men and really doesn't rate women at all. (And I don't mean by virtue of him being gay, I mean by virtue of him being a misogynistic arse.)

So - not suprised at what he did here, although still horrified. I'm glad he was met with resounding silence.

I think you need to see Jo Brand take him apart with a look and thunk veiled suggestion to see that he may not be misogenistic, just bemused: terrified: bemused : terrified... of women.

It's not an unusual viewpoint, nor is the other version, women who are bemused: terrified: bemused : terrified... of men!

I am quite happy he chose that venue and now to say exactly what he did. High profile times and people to get across the very unpopular, politically leprous viewpoint that, in the current zeal to be seen to put right horrendous wrongs, some innocent people are being thrown to the lions.

We are a grown up enough society to be able to see that there is no problem wanting to see justice done and peadophiles prosecuted and wanting to ensure that innocent people are not hounded by malicious accusations or long drawn out police procedures. Those 2 thoughts are not mutually exclusive. Believing the second does not make you a peadophile or mean you are making excuses for one.

Fry's personal involvement with Yew Tree includes people who have been left in limbo, whose careers have been destroyed before any charges have been laid against them. That is his viewpoint, he is absolutely entitled to defend them, to demand action on their behalf without being called names, having not so veiled accusation (not quite) laid against him. Without it being suggested that as he is gay he cannot possibly understand women and what they go through. That he must not care about rape victims as he is only interested in getting the men off....

... I appreciate this will be unpopular, but some posters here need to stop and think about why, in cases such as this, they are so happy, so quick, to leap for the jugular of a man, a gay man, who speaks out for people he cares for - is it just because he espouses a male viewpoint?

Well, men are allowed to exist, they are allowed speak on subjects such as rape, even to have opinions contrary to (what seems to be) a loud and angry sisterhood who are not listening. And tarring them all with the same brush is sexist behaviour....

involvement with Yew Tree includes people who have been left in limbo, whose careers have been destroyed before any charges have been laid against them.

Then they should have spoken out as soon as they gained knowledge of the abuses. They didn't because they were concerned about their reputations and businesses, just like those braver souls whose lives were, indeed, destroyed. Silence is complicity and the silent are responsible for terrible things happening to others.

I don't feel sorry for them.

Mine is not a "female" viewpoint, by the way. It's a morally humane one.

What on Earth are you referring to Garlic?

Are you suggesting that all of those people arrested in Yew Tree who have not been charged, knew about Savile etc way back when and chose not to say anything thus making it OK by you if they have had their lives turned upside down?

That is not a morally human viewpoint. To be honest, I am not sure what it is...

Innocent people like these, you mean? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yewtree#Arrests I'm sure they're delighted to have you on their side, Nomama.

Garlic - what a stupid thing to say. As some of those have been told they are not to be prosecuted then they are legally innocent and there is no suggestion some of them even knew anything and so wouldn't necessarily be guilty even by remaining silent

I may be wrong, but I think Garlic might be alluding to the conspiracy of silence which protected and continues to protect these powerful men.

People knew, lots of people knew, and yet they said nothing while it was happening and continue to keep silent now. It doesn't cover them with glory.

I have no fingers to point, but, from evidence that has already come out, these people didn't exactly hide their offending.

I have no opinion either way as to whether or not SF knew anything about anything.

I understand the difference between legally innocent and morally guilty.

Sorry but Garlic is making nasty insinuations which is precisely why some of us have said there is a real issue over people thinking there is no smoke without fire and anyone arrested, even if not charged, are still guilty.

God help anyone who ends up in court with someone as open minded and reasonable as Garlic on their jury.

Perfect example of what Fry was talking about, quite frankly.

Then I apologise for putting my more tolerant slant on things

its not clear to me what the problem here is. of course people need to be believed. but it is not unheard of, although unusual for people to make a false claim. and that ruins life's.

So does being raped. Apologies for stating the bleeding obvious.

Fry is entitled to his thoughts, and nothing he said contravened his right to free speech. But while we're discussing juries, let us remember that people with personal connections to defendants, witnesses or accusers aren't allowed to serve on juries, either.

What Fry thinks about the innocence of his friends and acquaintances is far less relevant than what the CPS have decided or will decide. I am not making any aspersions on the character of anyone arrested by operation Yewtree- merely stating the fact that loyal friends and family mostly take the side of the person they know, whether that is the person accused, or the person making the allegations. This applies whether it's a row about paying for concert tickets over facebook, or something far more serious.

Garlic might be alluding to the conspiracy of silence which protected and continues to protect these powerful men.

Garlic was alluding to that.

are you suggesting that all of those people arrested in Yew Tree who have not been charged, knew about Savile etc way back when and chose not to say anything?

Yes. This was not a tiny cabal of people, the Yewtree team didn't need to arrest anyone with feebly tenuous connections. I've no reason to suspect that is what they did. The police arrested people they had good cause to believe were heavily implicated. That they weren't charged means there wasn't sufficient evidence against them to secure a conviction. It doesn't mean they weren't involved. They are innocent in law, as are we all until prove guilty.

The current system is entirely weighted on favour of rapists and abusers. Most women and children who get raped will never see justice, and there is very little noise made about their right to justice from people like Fry. A tiny, tiny handful of men have false allegations (or mistaken allegations, or unproven allegations, or allegations where the weight of available evidence is unlikely to lead to a conviction - all are possible) and Fry is there trumpeting the injustice from a platform.

I have absolutely no problem putting on my judgeypants for this, as it's very clear what Fry is prepared to speak out about. And it ain't women.

Again Garlic, you circumvent the law, evidence, etc, and give free rein to your imagination!

Archery, I think the point is that 2 wrongs don't make a right. Sprinting to make right what was wrongly done should not involve trampling over the rights and lives of others.

But if your judgeypants are big enough to accommodate miscarriages of justice for some in order to bring justice for others....

And, as an aside... what, if anything, would you want anyone speaking out about anything to do to ensure they aren't seen as partisan? When someone chooses to speak up for someone they usually only speak for one side, it wouldn't make sense otherwise. They also usually speak on something they know, are involved with (and we all know Fry is not involved with women).

Should Fry have said? "I am speaking for the men (but equally would also speak out for women, children, cats, dogs, sunflowers, caterpillars, ancient monuments, cars, mopeds, cross channel ferries, Argentinians, remote controls, dishwashers, carpets, bookmakers, pools winners, vintage cars, stately homes, galaxy maxipads... if I perceived an injustice) ...