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 thought he was fairly up front about it after his disappearing act and attempted suicide in Belgium? I thought that was why he was unprepared for his sudden behaviour change caused by the stage fright. He was diagnosed bi polar after that (only 17 years ago despite very eccentric, often self destructive behaviours for many years prior).

I think, but cannot be sure I remember correctly, that this was discussed in the documentary he did, Secret Life of a Manic Depressive. I have heard him discuss it in his official capacity for MIND, where he also explains that he does take meds, when necessary - that being 'the trick of it'.

"I think it was once remarked about Fry that he was a really stupid person's idea of someone clever!"

Julie Burchill. And a typically shallow, glib aperçu- if I may say so.

Maryz Would it be reassuring if I told you that lots of his writing, both fictional and non-fictional, had me convinced he had enough hang-ups to suspend a bridge? Tis true.

I had actually forgotten about the play until someone else mentioned it on this thread.

The problem is, if we start prosecuting victims over an abuse case just because the defendant wasn't found guilty, it punishes and lets the abuser victimize the person twice. It also heavily discourages reports so that these people have an easier time getting away with it.

However, I do think that they should keep names out of the media until they are found guilty. It's innocent until proven guilty. Then when they are found guilty, yeah smear their names all over the headlines.

But go after the press, not the actual victims.

Difficult not to sympathise with Stephen Fry, I felt. He was so.. undefensive and honest about his actions as a teenager in the first volume of his autobiography. I always compare the way he admits to credit card fraud to the way a relative does. Stephen Fry comes out of that comparison very well.

Amaryz, as I already stated, it is depicted as a consensual loving relationship, not as the deluded ravings of a child molester.

Sarah Dempster writes in the Metro. 'Penned when Fry was a public school stripling, it’s a toast to love and life and an honest – if misguided – effort to justify the sexual relationship between a 26-year-old teacher and a teenage boy.' I think writing it as a loving relationship, rather than the groomer and the groomed is a bit dodgy. Not quite the same as someone portraying the sinister mind of a serial killing cannibal is it?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/14/tatler-flirting-creepiness-advising-teens-flirt-parents-posh-mag

And this is present day not the 70s.

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!

Precisely. But the mental health issues do tend to mean that your life is rather less privileged than many's, especially when they lead you down a path whereby you end up in prison.

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.

But surely that doesn't mean we should do nothing to minimise that fall-out? If I or a friend of mine were on the receiving end I would feel somewhat strongly that false accusations need to be deterred.

"I think writing it as a loving relationship, rather than the groomer and the groomed is a bit dodgy."

You do grasp the concept of fiction, don't you? Of writing stuff from another person'a point of view?

Funny, Garlic. I know two people who were charged with financial irregularity but never prosecuted. They got jobs immediately and no one seemed to think ill of them at all. Unlike the person I know who was cleared of rape but was still spat on, ignored, beaten up.

So my experience differs from your opinion.

And how sad that so much of this thread seems to be whether what someone has written means they must be a certain type of person.

OP I neither like or dislike Stephen Fry. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't and most times I don't have an opinion one way or the other.

I sigh whenever someone trots out his trite saying about people claiming to being offended, like he's a cross between Confucius, Jesus and Nelson Mandela (who was also quite flawed).

But it would be terrible if someone was silenced for expressing a view that you think is unpalatable, particularly on the strength of a badly-written article.

That piece is a complete hash but one which, because it's in the Independent, you appear to think is great and covers you in glory. On the flip side, I agree with another poster's frustration about mimsy apologies for linking to the Daily Mail.

Just link. We can work it out for ourselves.

I read your link. That article has more holes than my mum's doilies at her nice tea parties.

I think he is pretty explicit about his illness, vicmackie

I didn't say he wasn't explicit about his illness. Every fucker knows he has bipolar disorder. I said he wasn't explicit about THE FORM OF THE ILLNESS HE HAS, which is relevant when it comes to how it's managed.

The problem is, if we start prosecuting victims over an abuse case just because the defendant wasn't found guilty, it punishes and lets the abuser victimize the person twice. It also heavily discourages reports so that these people have an easier time getting away with it.

I'm sure no-one envisages this. It would obviously be absolutely wrong, and indeed absurd, to say that, just because a jury decided that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, all the prosecution witnesses must be lying.

I imagine that what would be needed is the kind of assessment that is done in rape cases. So far as I can see, accusers are only prosecuted in those cases where it is alleged that they have deliberately made it all up, e.g. to get an ex into trouble or to account for being pregnant. If it's reasonably clear that an alleged victim in an abuse case is making an accusation purely to jump on a bandwagon or with an eye to publicity and/or money, that would probably be an appropriate case for prosecution.

Vicmackie, there's not much point in his going into great detail about the form of his illness, is there? How many of the Great British Public would stand a hope of understanding it properly?

The OP originally said: I thought he was supposed to be intelligent?

Well, after eight pages, does anyone disagree with the following summation?

"Yes, he is intelligent. However, he is not a fount of wisdom on all subjects, and outside his specialisms, he is just as fallible as anyone else. For example, I believe he failed his O-level Physics. He can be wrong and right about various differetn subjects. All at the same time."

YY tilly

I like SF and have extended family who know him quite well.I think he is funny and know he is extremely clever.
What about Sting? do we all think he is a kiddy fiddler/apologist too?

I never said he should be silenced.
The one from the Independent mentions him lunching with Jonathon King, not his play. Why would that cover me in glory? Weird. It's MUmsnet, not Newsnight. The two articles mentioning the play are the Daily Mail and The Metro.
'Mimsy'? Sounds like the kind of word used to put someone down. I have one for you. Bully.

If you copy-and-paste his song lyrics, I'm sure I'll find something to abuse him over (other than the fact you can identify any Police song by counting how many times the singer repeats one line).

I mean, you only wrote two lines, comprising 38 words (if i have counted correctly), and I noticed two words I find extremely tacky. I refer to "kiddy fiddler".