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

Nomama, what makes you think innocent people are being thrown to the lions? I don't believe in all the witchhunt nonsense. I find it hard to believe that people are investigated without credible evidence.I think it must be extremely unusual for people to simply be 'hounded' by accusations.
It seems Fry was ranting about his mate Paul Gambaccini, I wasn't aware it was about anyone else. Is it clear that no charges will be made against him? What I have read is that he remains on bail since his arrest.
There are further questions to ask about the conviction rate? Is it attitudes of the jury? Have the jury been influenced by myths or stereotypes surrounding abuse? Is it the evidence? Have the police done enough in gathering evidence for prosecutors? Fry pays no attention to these questions. Instead, he allegedly talks about tougher consequences for those who make up claims of abuse. That tiny proportion. Yes, he might be concerned about the treatment of his mate and have got emotional, but he seems to be asserting that something that is extremely rare is a wider problem than it is. By doing so, he doing seem to be saying that a lot of people are simply 'making it up.'
To be fair, in an emotional outburst connected to a friend you might not be your most logical, but it did disappoint me.
There are lots of men currently campaigning for the government to launch a serious and independent inquiry into the alleged historic abuse children in care homes. Stephen Fry doesn't represent the views of all gay men or men in general, it his own ill judged view.
Noone was arrested because they knew Savile. They were arrested because of the allegations made against them. It seems it was general knowledge at the BBC and noone did anything. That is terribly wrong and smacks of an appalling culture within the BBC. There are now calls for people to be prosecuted that don't report abuse.

Really, scandip?

You don't have to look very far... blue haired man in Bristol, peadiatrician in Portsmouth(?), Coronation Street actors.

You seem to hold a very high bar for someone to clear before you will consider what they say, all those questions to be answered before someone can have an opinion...

I have said a few times now, it is not impossible to want to see Yew Tree succeed and yet still want to avoid damaging other peoples lives. I'll go further and say it is imperative to avoid doing so, for justice's sake.

Too many here are making this an either / or scenario. Evidently it is not!

This is a good article that was in the Telegraph today...

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10966212/Does-Stephen-Fry-ever-think-before-he-opens-his-mouth.html

What archeryannie said about gay men interests me because I agree and disagree.

Gay men are generally given a free pass. Women, gay or straight, aren't.

Fry is entitled to his say. But as a very privileged person - celebrity, friend and sucker up to Establishment figures, generally accepted as a cerebral and urbane person - he gets more of his say than I do as a woman.

He's better educated than me but I'm not going to accept that he is smarter than me.

But more importantly I'd add that as a well-connected tame gay male celebrity and national treasure he gets more of a free pass than any woman does, whether straight or gay.

That's where I differ from ArcheryAnnie. I do think being gay, or rather a male gay, is significant and wouldn't happen for a gay woman.

That's four people Nomama. Weigh it against the rest and I am sure it is a tiny percentage.
If you have a brain as Fry does, I do think all those considerations come into play. It's not just about him and his friend. He has the intelligence to see past that but didn't.
All the things I mentioned affect whether someone is convicted or not. We have one of the lowest conviction rates in Europe for rape. If it is less than 50 per cent conviction for sex crimes across the board then questions need to be asked why. It doesn't take the most excellent deductive skills to work out it might be something to do with the judicial system rather than loads of people making it up. Do the countries with a higher conviction rate for this sort of crime have a better judicial system or just less liars?

This is an incredibly difficult topic; it is something which has challenged me personally in recent years, and now I just don't know what to think anymore.

What I do know is, I definitely do believe that the "witch hunt nonsense" happens, and innocent people can be thrown to the lions sometimes. It happened to a good friend four years ago, and it took two years for him to be found not guilty. His life was more or less destroyed in that time. The local paper published his name, profession and address straight from the offset. That was particularly awful. And the witch hunters came, so we spent two years celebrating special occasions in restaurants 70 miles away so he would be less recognisable (small towns). He told us all afterwards that he considered suicide.

It makes me extremely angry that some poisonous person made him go through all that for two very long years. Of course I'm not trying to say that sexual abuse isn't a dreadful thing, it's abhorrent, and we need to listen and support those who are victims of it. But I am definitely conflicted personally in my opinion of this, so can understand SF's point of view. I think my opinion may be that allowing "the lions" to cripple someone so completely by an accusation which may prove to be false is NOT a sacrifice which should be made in case their guilt is proven. The fact is that people respond far more emotively to this kind of accusation, which can make for dangerous and violent reactionary groups.

As a straight woman, sometimes I feel at the bottom of the pile,

I think the notion of a 'witch hunt' is not credible. Your friend's case is awful but it is one case. If the case went to court, then it would not have been pursued if the victim had not been considered credible. If a victim is seen as credible it is then considered in their interest and the public innterest to go ahead with the case. It would take the pursuit of many innocent people for Yewtree to be equated with a witch hunt. It is not a witch hunt.

Archery Annie, '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 couldn't agree more.
It is a myth that false allegations are widespread. Notions of a witchhunt, where a large number of men are 'thrown to the lions' by wild allegations is ludicrous.
Fry allegedly pointed at Keir Stamer when he had his rant. Keir Stamer has highlighted the vulnerabilty of victims, that many of the most vulnerable won't be considered credible enough to get the case to court. He is currently working at overhauling the rights of victims and trying to change the way they are treated in court. I would be applauding this man, not pointing the finger.

Being investigated when you've done nothing wrong is also traumatic.

Yes Stephen fry makes errors in judgment .

He suffers with terrible bipolar.

Usually when makes a gaff like this this it indicates that he's not too well.

People with bipolar do not have any control over thoughts or behaviour. Neither do they have any insight into it.

That's four people Nomama.

So what do you want? An exhaustive list since the beginning of time?

They are recent examples, examples. As with the death sentence, 1 miscarriage of justice is too many - or are you another who doesn't care about the collateral damage, as it is only one person?

That makes any sensible discussion about this (and many other subjects impossible) it makes the burden of proof unattainable, so no other point of view can gain any credence.

I shall hide the thread now...

I worked for the CPS for the first ten years of this millennium. In my role, every case committed or sent to Crown Court in the area came to me to allocate to a lawyer and caseworker, as did every pre-charge advice case (the files where someone has been arrested and bailed while the strength of the evidence is considered) involving rape or sexual abuse.

In those ten years, two women were prosecuted for making a false allegation of rape. Two. What happened to the two men involved was horrendous and I have huge sympathy for them. However I have equally huge sympathy for the literally hundreds of women whose cases were discontinued or did not even get as far as a court, not because the prosecutor didn't believe there was some credibility behind the claim but because they couldn't say there was a reasonable prospect of conviction, which is the evidential test all cases have to pass before they can be prosecuted. I saw sexual abuse and rape cases discontinued (pre- and post-charge at a rate probably higher than two every week. I lost count of the number of times I heard the specialist sexual offences lawyers on the phone to the investigating officer saying "I'm sorry, she almost certainly is telling the truth but a jury won't convict on this evidence so I'm having to discontinue it."

I was the caseworker in a child abuse case once. The evidence was compelling - medical evidence, opportunity, defendant with previous convictions with a very similar MO. The child was five :( Unfortunately, on the day of trial, even with her statement given in the form of a video and her in a separate room away from her abuser connected via video link, she clammed up completely when it came to cross-examination. It is a basic tenet of our adversarial court system that a defendant must be able to cross-examine the witnesses called against him, and as she refused to make a sound due to being overawed, shy, whatever, the case had to be discontinued and a formal verdict of NG entered.

So you can flame me and condemn me as much as you like, but my professional experience is that in the case of an acquittal or discontinuance in a rape or sexual assault case, the odds are vastly more indicative of the defendant/accused having been involved in some way than they are that the victim is making it up.

Signyourname. Thank you for that, really helpful.

Nomama, have the cases you mentioned been proved to be false allegations? Were the witnesses prosecuted for perjury? If not, then it may be that they were innocent or that they walked free because of the reasons I mentioned, such as attitudes of the jury who may have been influenced by myths or stereotypes surrounding abuse or a failure by the police to gather evidence adequately for prosecutors.
There are already laws in place to prosecute those that fabricate allegation. They can be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time. Fabricating allegations is a crime. However, calling for stronger laws for what is a very rare crime seems somewhat hysterical to me.
Please read what signyourname says if you find me too annoying. The system MUST change.
Signyourname, thanks for sharing your experience. I wonder how high the suicide rate is for those poor people. The case of the five year old is heartbreaking. She must have been terrified.

I should add too that there is a misconception that if a case comes to trial and the defendant is acquitted, then the prosecution has "failed" or the victim must have been lying.

If a case makes it to the jury, no matter what the outcome, the prosecution was justified. You may not be aware that there is a point in every trial, after the prosecution has finished presenting its evidence, when the defence may make a submission that the evidence is so weak there is "no case to answer" (known as a half-time submission). If any case gets as far as the jury making their decision, then you can rest assured that the defence and/or the judge also considered that there was sufficient evidence to justify the case being brought because if not, it would be thrown out at half-time and never get to jury deliberations.

Nannyplumismymum I think most people know that Fry has periods of not being well, but however unwell he was or wasn't, it's not going to change his opinions of things, possibly just how he presents them.

It's also pretty insulting to people with MH issues to say that their illness absolves them of being an arse. It doesn't. Lots and lots of people with MH issues amazingly restrain themselves from ranting against the first glimmer of justice for women and girls there has been in a long time.

Archery as a mental health nurse I can tell you that many people with BPD say many things they don't mean.

As I said people with people with BPD DONOT have control over their thoughts or behaviour - it's not about absolving - but the fact that they literally do not have the control.

Often they may not remember saying those things , or when they do they feel ashamed.

And just note to having "mental health issues" is very different to having the most serious mental illness there is (along with schizophrenia).

And yes Archery having BPD would change his opinions of things whilst he is having a relapse.

If you are going to make statements about mental illness please know what you are talking about.

But Nannyplum, there is a strong possibility that he wasn't having a relapse and simply said something horribly wrong and rather stupid.
Was he also 'not well¨when he said that the furore over the expenses scandal was just um not terribly important, as he had fiddled his own expenses and it was just a petty bourjois concern? Or is he gaining a rep for speaking from his own somewhat privileged perspective without giving a rat's arse for those that don't fall into that category?

I think the issue for me is the announcing of names of suspects right from the beginning - "so & so has been arrested, is answering questions". There should be a ban on publication of names until at least an outline case has been put together. Not necessarily before charging because you need to get to the people who are too afraid to speak up initially but will come forward if they feel they are not alone.

Maybe (probably) I'm being naive but I do feel it's very harsh that names are announced right from the beginning. What also annoys me is that when charges are dropped the publicity surrounding that is reduced to a teeny paragraph, comment in the bottom left corner of the paper. I know that's an issue with the press rather than the law, but between them there must be a better way.

If you are going to make statements about mental illness please know what you are talking about.

Yes, Nannyplum, you are clearly the only person here who has any experience of mental illness.

As I said people with people with BPD DONOT have control over their thoughts or behaviour - it's not about absolving - but the fact that they literally do not have the control

Gosh, I'd better tell that to my DH, who has had bipolar II for 25 years. Despite having to be hospitalised on more than one occasion, being in the grip of suicidal ideation more times than is comfortable and ultimately being medically retired, he manages not to make stupid pronouncements on matters of law and justice. Or indeed, anything. (He does frequently rant about Iain Duncan Smith and what an odious excuse for a human being he is, but that seems both logical and justified to me.)

As a mental health nurse, I would hope that you can understand that different people present with different manifestations of their condition and that generalising about such conditions is not particularly helpful to those people who may not present in classic or orthodox ways.

Frosty, I don't think Paul Gambaccini's charges have been dropped. He is on bail? Possibly ongoing case? I could be wrong. That is reputedly the friend he was so fired up about.