AIBU to feel sorry for Wynne Evans?

[whackamole666]

He has NO clue.

Watched his interview on breakfast tv, explaining away all the misunderstandings, jokes and social experiments he was involved in which resulted in his BBC contract 'not being renewed '.

He played all the cards, mental health, dead brother, context, editing.

Of course he was in the studio to promote his latest venture, hoping to drum up interest.

Why do so many people ruin the amazing chances they're given? Baffling.

The comments and gestures he has made in a work environment are absolutely in line with the legal definition of sexual harassment. Saying stupid (sexually charged) things is well within the definition, and we all saw the Strictly groping.

There is plenty of evidence, including video evidence and personal testimony. That's enough. We are not trying him in a court of law. We don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

The only person he put a hand on the stomach of has publicly said she's got not problem with Wynne and that she missed him when he left.

It's absolutely stupid nonsense that he came out with, but making juvenile quips to unoffended people is not the same as sexual harassment. For it to be harassment there has to be a victim who feels oppressed by the situation. The BBC stated that no complaints were made before the video came out.

It's not a court of law of course, but claims have been made on here that are unfounded and given that this site is popular enough to come up if you Google his name then people need to be careful not to libel him. You can't just publicly claim someone to be a sexual predator, there are laws against that. It was just a reminder to people walking that line, it's too easy to forget when normally we are dealing with the anonymous and can say whatever we think.

You don't seem to know the legislation. There don't have to be complaints or objections to the behaviour to sanction someone for sexual harassment. And it's not relevant who comments are made to.

@TheWonderhorse Why are you so desperate to defend him? I am assuming you must know him.
The reality is, the BBC could see him for what he is and has got rid of him, you can’t argue with that. The rest of us can’t stand him and most people didn’t even know who he was until he was on Strictly.

I'm not desperate to defend him. I've criticised him. Read back what I've written, I've been pretty clear. I just don't see the need to leap to the language being used on here. I find it ridiculous that nobody can have a view that's not extreme, if I'm not baying for blood then I must know him. No, I've never met the man, and I don't really care to. But calling someone a predator when there's no predatory behaviour in any of the evidence is just stupid.

Surely harassment requires a person being harassed? If it's wanted attention or within accepted boundaries of friendship then it's not harassment.

The amount of times you’ve posted, you clearly do care about defending him. I’ve read all of your posts on this thread - I stick by what I say. The main tone of your posts is defending this vulgar man.

But you then also go on to say there's no evidence of sexual harassment when there's lots of evidence of sexual harassment. You minimise his behaviour as "juvenile quips".

If your partner or son was accused by seven women at work of inappropriate behaviour, I imagine you would be extremely concerned by it. Why is it different for Evans?

@TheWonderhorse Ive never called him a predator by the way. Infact I’m not entirely sure I’ve read that word outside of your posts, it’s just you saying we’ve all used that word.

he is a manipulative

and you have been taken in his manipulation

common with this type of disgusting creep

It can be overheard or observed behaviour. Employers must make proactive efforts to create a workplace free from harassment, so shouldn't only be acting on complaints.

Yes, there certainly can be times when it is part of a mutually agreed "give and take" friendship, but employers should not simply take someone's word that "it was all a joke" as an excuse to do nothing about creepy men with wandering hands, for instance.

No I'm calling out nonsense. I'm fine with Wynne being sacked, it doesn't bother me one bit, but I don't see the need to exaggerate everything. People are posting nonsense with the aim of persuading people he's done more than he's accused of. That's wrong in principle, and nothing to do with the man in question. If we start calling all idiots predators then we water the term down until it becomes meaningless.

I think maybe one poster on this tread has used that term, apart from @TheWonderhorse.

Ah, so @TheWonderhorse is exaggerating.

But the perceived victim has stated that it was a joke between them, and even after he stepped away from the show she was speaking affectionately about him on her social media. She's been as clear as she can be that she didn't feel victimised by him.

Nobody is posting nonsense, they are posting the reasons the BBC sacked him. The KNOWN and PUBLICISED reasons.

Or, the media has manipulated the narrative to suit.

His 'sins' have been a (pre-agreed) hand on a waist and a nickname taken out of context; also a stupid toy purchased for a mate - dumb, god yes.

Contract not being renewed? Possibly also correct, people in the public eye should be held to high standards and be accountable for mistakes.

But being labelled a disgusting creep, and article after article negatively attacking him - a bit much.

@TwoBakedOnes nothing was manipulated by the media, all of his behaviour was caught on camera! It’s undeniable.

Oh yes that’s right

women should just have to put up with wondering hands and feeling uncomfortable and laugh along to grotesque sexual degrading remarks just smile sweetly and play along

of course this was all set up he is such an influential person it was the only way to drag him down

disgusting creeps now are being called out and facing consequences boo fucking hoo

But the perceived victim has stated that it was a joke between them,

You have no way of knowing what conversations she has had with her employer about this incident.

"But she said on Instagram..." is not a good indicator.

We've had a discussion about celebrity perv off, he's been called a sex pest and a predator.

People are declaring that Katya is lying to cover up for him, so that she keeps her job.

People are accusing him of cheating on his girlfriend, of keeping his money from his ex-wife.

He hasn't been sacked by the BBC, he's not had his contract renewed. I don't care if he can't work for the BBC any more, that's proportional to what he's done.

All I'm saying is let's criticise the things we do know, and not try to fill in the blanks. Partly because those statements are legally questionable on a public forum, and partly because it's morally dubious. People kill themselves over things like this, and people need to bear that in mind.

Yes as of the BBC have not tried to protect their predatory employees before

we all saw her face we all heard him

many of us have had to deal with these disgusting creeps, we see them

he was on one of the most highly viewed shows and he still felt it was ok to behave this way what arrogance

So we don't believe the words that came out of her mouth, as standard?

That's a reach and a patronising one at that. The BBC themselves said nobody complained until the video came out.

If she has said differently to her employers then we don't know, so we shouldn't be making assumptions.

No I will not stop calling someone what they are

his actions are sexually predatory

he is a disgusting creeps who got caught out

if he wants to keep trying to gain public sympathy by using manipulation I shall keep repeating myself too

You believe statements the BBC make to defend themselves

i don’t and for very good reason