Unfounded allegations

[MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack]

With the news about Russell Brand and David Walliams at the top of people's minds, it is perhaps quite natural that people want to talk about these cases, and to talk about the wider culture, especially within the entertainment industry, which has seemingly allowed these men to hide in plain sight while engaging in terrible and sometimes criminal behaviour. This is of course a valid and important discussion.

But inspired by this, we now seem to have unfounded allegations popping up all over the site against other celebrities. It is in danger of becoming a witch hunt and MNHQ really needs to take action to nip this in the bud.

If anyone has any evidence of actual wrongdoing by any celebrity (or indeed by anyone), then please, please go to the police and report your concerns.

If it's just a gut feeling that someone feels a bit sleazy or gives you the ick, please remember that they are an actual human being that does not deserve to have allegations thrown at them on the basis of gut feelings alone.

Pointing the finger at anyone and everyone without any actual evidence trivialises the problem and undermines the testimony of women who have genuinely experienced harm.

Can everyone please stop speculating?

Sending threatening legal letters and pursuing injunctions would probably be more damaging publicity at this point than letting a gossip thread fade into obscurity.

Bit of revisionism there. In the case of the famous Salem trials, it was mainly women who were the accusers. From memory though. Happy to be corrected.

Anyway, I would say it potentially is a witch hunt, using the colloquial meaning rather than the litteral.

Gone again. I’m out in out shake it all about.

Yet, I have just had a very curt message saying it does not break talk guidelines and will not be removed.

Felt like I’d had a slap on the wrist.

MN response and moderation very disappointing! Obviously clickbait and revenue more important than truth and moral compass.

One day, a celebrity will challenge MN.

Yes I have a son. Thankfully he’s neither a predator nor a rapist, so I don’t have to worry about that.

I think you're right. I've seen individual posts on less salacious threads get deleted for nothing in comparison with some of the posts on the Fry thread that are being allowed to stand.

It would do MN good to be subject to some form of legal threat for something. This isn't some small forum but a very large MODERATED one.

Thanks @MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack . I totally believe that RB was guilty as charged (and it remains to be seen if more) and am glad DW's 2 tier justice attempt collapsed. I don't agree with people turning this into a witchhunt against those they don't like for whatever reason, including having a much younger (adult) partner.

Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta Jones were mentioned in all this. Yes, he was much older but she was 28 years old when she met him and a well known actress. She was not a child, a teen or in anyway vulnerable and they've had their Silver Wedding anniversary. Ridiculous comparisons with real abuse.

Ron Brand more or less said the same yesterday.

You mean as far as you're aware your son is neither of those things. You may well feel totally sure he isn't. And he probably isn't. But many mothers have said that and discovered their sons had secret lives.

Can you explain why it breaks MN guidelines ?

I can't.

Yes. I suspect it is homophobic. I suspect there is bigotry at play. Maybe undertones of anti atheist. But I can't see a clear cut reason to censor it.

That's all right then. Let's hope no one ever accuses him of being one. Because, if MN is to believed, his version of events will be utterly irrelevant because he's a man.

RB was found guilty but a court and therefore we don’t need his side

OOP! It’s gone again!

Fourth time. This is quite ridiculous. Moderated forum my arse.

Talk guidelines:

"We'll remove posts we consider to contain personal attacks, to break the law and/or to be obscene, racist, sexist, disablist, ageist, homophobic or transphobic, once they are brought to our attention."

Even if the thread is considered ok, there are clearly homophobic posts on there that should be deleted.

Also Talk Guidelines:

"We do have a few forum rules to make sure we keep Talk a good place to hang out:

No personal attacks
No posts that break the law, including hate speech of any kind
No trolling, misleading or deliberately inflammatory behaviour"

Is MNHQ really saying that thread is not deliberately inflammatory? If so, I have a bridge to sell them.

This is not on

Agree re the individual posts. And I suspect the whole thread is a dog whistle to the homophobes. But how to prove that re the thread ?

The one referred to is a totally horrible thread and I really feel like people have got the burning torches lit with no evidence or even rumour whatever.

I tried to post (strangely I couldn't) that Dame Diana Rigg played Medea but she didn't actually murder the lovely and very much with us Rachael.

We're not talking about RB. We're talking about the allegations being thrown around about, from memory, Jonathan Ross, Stephen Fry, Noel Fielding and others mentioned in passing on various threads.
RB had his chance in court and a jury found against him. That's fair justice. Pointing a finger at someone without any proof other than you don't like him or he looks a bit like RB is what we are talking about.

What I said there is at least wholly factual. Unlike many posts on the Stephen Fry thread (not to mention a few others today).

I'm fascinated to see if my post is deleted while the vile posts on the Fry thread continue to be looked at and "approved of" by MNHQ.

I didn’t report it

You did post it, it's there. And it was well said.

AAAAND it’s back up again

It wouldn’t be the first time. For years we had swsnbm (or a similar acronym) for someone who took legal action.

Thanks! It must be on the Incredible Disappearing Thread