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

Quite low down in this article Fry is mentioned lunching with convicted paedophile, Jonathon King. Could be hearsay or could be that he needs to choose his friends more carefully.
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/jonathan-king-my-books-an-online--hit-millions-click-on-my-videos-how-about-lifting-the-media-ban-on-me-6268884.html

Someone up thread mentioned the different culture of the seventies making it more difficult to convict. I remember being harrassed and wolf whistled as a twelve year old by 40 year old men outside the pub during the eighties. I hated walking past it. I think things are different now but just because attitudes were different then, it doesn't mean assaults were any less of a crime. It probably means people were more likely to get away with it and victims were more likely to be seen as making a fuss. As far as I know the crime is the same whether it was committed now or in the seventies.
Right, I've rambled on enough this morning.

Just wanted to add this link. Apologies that it is to the Daily Fail. Fry wrote a play about an 'affair' between a teacher and a pupil. Children's charities raised concerns. This, a possible frienship with Jonathon King and his 'concerns' over recent celeb arrests make me think he doesn't desrve national treasure status. Yes, his persona may seem all cuddly but we don't really know any of these celebs we revere. Perhaps many of us have been naive and he is a bit of a bellend.
www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-107854/Frys-comedy-comes-fire.html

Don't apologise for it being in the daily mail, it's a factual article so it makes no difference.

I used to like Fry but, like others, I've developed an aversion to him: he is very up himself. Twittering constantly. I think that this admonishment of Yewtree will be his downfall. Even the labour 'luvvies' were gobsmacked.

The trouble is is that he is a gay man; and it seems to me to be a worrying trend that gay men -gay women don't seem to be afforded the same privilege- cannot be criticised for cries of homophobia.

'It's because he is gay that you are criticising him!'

This is very dangerous as it means that society has now gone the other way in that any action a gay man carries out is beyond reproach. It needs to stop as, sadly, just like heterosexual men, they are not above abusing children.

Its illuminating that he is only interested in sexual crimes, as his criticism is one which can apply to all crimes ie its hardly only sexual crimes where there is a small percentile of false allegations and accusers remain unnamed while investigations go on.

I get the impression (and I may be wrong) that Stephen Fry is a very unhappy individual, suffering from a depressive illness, who does not perhaps view things in the same light as the consensus much of society chooses to live by. Which is fine as long as he doesn't meddle in the law, which is being enforced, not for his and his friends' benefit, but for the benefit of wider society.

The whole consensus behind Operation Yewtree is that past dubious practices are no longer acceptable and the excuses and authority that abusers hid behind in the past are no longer going to work. Obviously this will result in some dissention, but it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Its good that people are not afraid to express dissenting opinions, but Stephen Fry has led a privileged life which has been characterised by being forgiven for his many mistakes due to recognition of his talent. I think a little more self reflection on his own good fortune might give him some empathy for those who have suffered at the hands of abusers, but I doubt he has that sort of insight.

I don't see the homophobia, and I hope Nomama didn't take my comment about Stephen Fry not having an objective viewpoint as being based on whether he found men or women sexually attractive. It hadn't occurred to me his sexuality had a relevance.

I made that comment, because I actually like Stephen Fry a lot, and I've read quite a few of his books, from Making History to Moab is my Washpot. The impression I developed from all that is that Fry is very intelligent and eloquent, but he still has just as many sexual hang-ups as the next person, straight or gay. He's just brave enough to write about it, unlike the next person!

You know, it is a dangerous world in which we think that if someone has been accused of any crime they are automatically guilty. That is why we have a legal system. The legal system is of course not perfect and it can make mistakes.

Nevertheless, sometimes when people are not found guilty by the legal system it is because they are in fact not guilty. If this were not true, why would we bother with any form of legal system? We would just instead convict on the basis of accusation.

Sometimes, indeed, people are found guilty when they are actually innocent and their convictions are later overturned.

I'm not making any comment on the specifics of this thread and Stephen Fry's speech, just on some of the staggeringly worrying assumptions on here.

singers - I've said this on here and on other threads that the legal system in most countries is "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and that anyone who is found not guilty must, be necessity, be classed as innocent. Unless, as in Scotland, you have the option of "not proven".

Unfortunately, for some people, there is no smoke without fire and they are tarnished and forever concerned as "merely people who got away with it because there wasn't enough evidence". This happens more with sexual charges than other crime, of course.

And it is a very dangerous mindset and I find it worrying that it seems to be becoming more prevalent on MN of all places.

What it shows me is not gay vs straight, but male privilege. Forget the sexuality, Fry is a man -doubt this kind of comment would come from a lesbian as women get the same treatment off men as regards leering behaviour-or worse as straight women.

Yanbu. I've never thought of him as a national treasure at all (see threads passim).

I quite like SF on QI - up to a point anyway, but I don't think he's smoulderingly intelligent. His limited understanding of scientific process and logic often creeps through I find.

On this I guess it's OK to call for balance and fairness but it's only right to assume those reporting allegations are being honest whilst also going on to make a judgement using due legal process.

(Hope that gives an idea of where I stand on this - haven't read article just yet - might do so now ...)

Yes its disappointing I really like him but his comments make me wonder if he is aware of background stuff..

I wuold have thought he would be speaking out to encourage people to come forward..why isnt he?

Unfortunately, for some people, there is no smoke without fire and they are tarnished and forever concerned as "merely people who got away with it because there wasn't enough evidence". This happens more with sexual charges than other crime, of course.

The difference between sexual abuse/rape and other crimes though is that if you assume that everyone found "not guilty" is definitely innocent then you are also assuming that the person who reported the rape was guilty of lying about crime.

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.

One of the main arguments for not reintroducing the death penalty that many people mention is that it is better than a guilty person goes free than an innocent person is killed.

Is there an argument for introducing the Scottish "no proven" into other courts? Am not sure, I think it's more likely to cause tensions in such cases and people potentially taking the law into their own hands.

Is there an argument for historical cases to be treated differently? These days, with DNA evidence, CCTV, it is certainly much easier than it once was to prove guilt. Some countries have statute of limitation on certain crimes because it is so hard to prove it 40 years after the event.

No, I don't know what the answer is. Wish I did.

Barnard said the play "does include graphic conversations" about the affair between teacher and pupil, though it does not depict the sex acts themselves.

He added: "It describes the fact they had sex together. But we're not talking pornography or top shelf here. It's about love.

"A century ago Oscar Wilde was put on trial by a strict Victorian regime for exactly the same thing - the 'love that dare not speak its name'."

interesting

WILL PEOPLE STOP APOLOGISING ABOUT dm LINKS, EITHER LINK OR DONT LINK.

Don't apologise for it being in the daily mail, it's a factual article so it makes no difference.

To be honest, if it's in the Mail, I really wouldn't put money on it's being either factual or accurate.

Fair enough, however, the play mentioned in the dm link DOES exist.

Stephen Fry has led a privileged life

Do you really think someone with bipolar disorder is leading a privileged life?

You can lead a privileged life and still have bi polar- being a member of the affluent upper middle classes and having a degree from Cambridge doesn't protect you from mental health issues!

I think we need to have the Scottish system where a jury can return a verdict of "unproven" which means they think the person did it, but the evidence wasn't enough - this would be a huge help.

Out of interest, would not "unproven" really be the same as guilty in a majority of peoples' eyes?

He is revolting. Absolutely revolting.

Yes! Of course it would, in England. We don't have a history of 'proven or not proven' so we wouldn't have an historical/social understanding of it. We would be with Scott in calling it the 'bastard decision' and it would indeed leave people in limbo - presumably, in England, also being open to a 2nd trial at some point in the future - whenever! Scotland does not, no Double Jeopardy allowed if 'not proven', but who knows what an English court would do?

setting- that's why I am in two minds about "not proven". And I think there will be a small section of people who now might think "they probably got away with it" to "the definitely got away with it" and a tiny proportion of that small section are the sorts that would probably go and do that person over.

I think the Crown Prosecution Service have a difficult job but they have certainly gone to court in some cases with the most ridiculously flimsy evidence and those do more harm than good. I thought Bill Roache's comment that there were no winners when he was cleared was absolutely spot on.

The world was a different place in the 70s. These men never expected to be called to account for their actions (nor did anyone else expect it) but times have changed and the bottom line, imo, is that they knew what they did was wrong, probably didn't think about whether they were breaking the law, but knew it was wrong.

It is bad that some are being wrongly accused but when those that have broken the law have done so so spectacularly, J Saville etc, then sadly these apparently innocent people will run the risk that their lives are blighted by accusations.

However there are a miniscule amount of them compared to those thousands of abused victims whose abusers will never be convicted. So this is an acceptable fall out imo.