Sexual Abuse and Prominent People

[jeremyp]

It reads to me that you have. I don't see the point in raising an incident where someone didn't feel assaualted to someone who did and ask 'what about that then?'.

It's relevant to my point that sometimes an apology is enough for the victim. Rhiannon seemed to be claiming that it is never enough and i find her argument compelling. However, there are edge cases where bringing the perpetrator to trial might be problematic. I simply want to explore the edges.

Anyway, I hove just read Rhiannon's opinion about knee touching on another thread, so I already have her answer on that question.

[Sebastian Toe]

I was married at 19 and a mother at 20, my husband was 22 when we wed, and a father on his 23rd birthday. Our first home was a few hundred miles away from our family, so we had to be responsible, or our child would have suffered.

Do either or both of you celebrate you respective birthdays quite soon after your wedding anniversary? 

[Nearly Sane]

But surely you see using s false equivalency such as Humph on kidding different people is trivialising it?

[jeremyp]

But surely you see using s false equivalency such as Humph on kidding different people is trivialising it?

Sorry, I fail to see what I have equated to what.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

OK let me say what we have fought shy of.

The kid was a rent boy.

[jeremyp]

OK let me say what we have fought shy of.

The kid was a rent boy.

That doesn't mean he wasn't assaulted.

[Nearly Sane]

OK let me say what we have fought shy of.

The kid was a rent boy.

and your evidence for this claim about Anthony Rapp is? And your justification that even if he was he can be treated as having no consent?

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry, I fail to see what I have equated to what.

what happened to Claire Foy with what happened to Rhiannon. Just as Humph has used missing different people as equivalent to the various claims of assault.

[Shaker]

OK let me say what we have fought shy of.

The kid was a rent boy.

Would it be relevant?

I don't know who's "fighting shy" of the idea; it never even occurred to me.

Or are you edging toward the opinion that sex workers can't be sexually assaulted up to and including rape?

[Rhiannon]

OK let me say what we have fought shy of.

The kid was a rent boy.

He was and is an actor. They were both on Broadway at the time.

Not that it makes a blind bit of difference.

[Gordon]

OK let me say what we have fought shy of.

The kid was a rent boy.

He was a 14 year old child, irrespective of anything else.

[Rhiannon]

You were saying that you suffered a sexual assault. You were the victim in that assault. Calling you the victim is a statement of fact and casts no aspersions on how you dealt with it nor is it meant as a criticism.
Would you compel a rape victim to testify against a rapist if she didn't want to, bearing in mind that it would be for the good of society - especially women - for the rapist to not be in a position to do it again?

What about Adam Sandler putting his hand on Claire Foy's knee? In some people's eyes that was a sexual assault, but not apparently Claire Foy.

The courts re-traumatise and re-abuse those who are on the receiving end of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence...the issue isn't that women or men should be compelled to give evidence; first we have to address the way in which those that speak up are treated, in the courts, in the media, in society. Otherwise the risks on speaking out remain too great. Already we are seeing a shift here from Weinstein's rapes and the sexual assault of a teenage boy to a spot of flirty knee touching. Before long women and men will be silenced again; Me Too will just be another hashtag, people will try and remember whether that was the one about whether they thought the dress was blue or white.

[floo]

You cannot make sexual assault and harassment ok by apologising. Especially given that we're talking about a victim who was a teenager at the time.

Exactly.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Exactly.

Ok Floo, Rhi, and everybody else,,,,

Kevin Spacey has apologised for something which may or may not have taken place.

I received some slagging here for alleging that some things took place forty years ago (even though I was there at the time)

Do you not see now the connection?

[Nearly Sane]

Ok Floo, Rhi, and everybody else,,,,

Kevin Spacey has apologised for something which may or may not have taken place.

I received some slagging here for alleging that some things took place forty years ago (even though I was there at the time)

Do you not see now the connection?

No, because you (a) trivialised the claims and (b) made an irrelevant, possibly libellous accusation about Anthony Rapp being a rent boy.

[Harrowby Hall]

Apologising for something you might have done, can't remember doing but are sorry for just in case you actually did do it after all is ... well, peculiar hardly does it justice.

What Spacey did is so much worse. Assuming it to be true, no apology helps.

I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?

Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.

We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.

If someone accused you without providing supporting evidence, would you expect to suffer immediate sanction from all around you?

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?

Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.

We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.

If someone accused you without providing supporting evidence, would you expect to suffer immediate sanction from all around you?

Spot on.

[Nearly Sane]

I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?

Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.

We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.

If someone accused you without providing supporting evidence, would you expect to suffer immediate sanction from all around you?

No, and neither of the quotes you use show that. Indeed I would suggest they show the opposite and your quote of Rhiannon is about her discussing the seriousness of charges. You representing as the above is so far from what you quote that I suggest you owe her an apology.

Further as the opening posts on this covered, while you cannot and should not assume guilt, then that doesn't stop a consideration of accusations in not awarding someone. It's like being suspended at work. Doesn't mean you are guilt but having an employee of the year award while you ate under investigation is also problematic.

[Shaker]

I am I alone in finding the way comments on this thread are developing to be disturbing?

Irrespective of whether the allegation made against Kevin Spacey is accurate or not, aren't we beginning to indulge in mob rule? Aren't we forgetting that an important principle of Common Law systems - which apply in England and Wales and in most states in the USA - the presumption of innocence unless proven otherwise? We appear to be advocating sanctions/punishments on the basis of unproven allegation.

... which is why I was careful to word the OP as I did.

We appear to be approving assumption of guilt unless proven otherwise. It would seem that we do not offer to others the safeguards we expect ourselves.

Not as far as I can see. Any statements about Spacey's guilt have been qualified - including, strangely, in the two examples you quoted from me and from Rhiannon - because we don't know that he is. The Emmy people seemed to have decided otherwise (to my mind anyway, though I agree it's a complex area), which is precisely why I started this thread.

[Nearly Sane]

Spot on.

So is that your justification for the what appears to be libellous, and yet irrelevant, claim that Anthony Rapp was a rent boy?

[floo]

Ok Floo, Rhi, and everybody else,,,,

Kevin Spacey has apologised for something which may or may not have taken place.

I received some slagging here for alleging that some things took place forty years ago (even though I was there at the time)

Do you not see now the connection?

No I don't!

[Rhiannon]

HH, you can see I qualified my post (‘assuming it to be true’) because we don’t know if it was true or not - and unless Spacey admits it or one party takes the other to court then we probably never will.

So why misrepresent me? Where in my posts suggests a ‘mob rule’ mentality where Spacey is concerned? I haven’t expressed an opinion about his Emmy award thing because I don’t have an answer. He can’t get the award as things stand, clearly, yet he may never be found guilty or cleared, and I don’t like that.

[Harrowby Hall]

No, Rhiannon, you made an assertion:

What Spacey did is so much worse.

A statement, terminated with a full stop. An unqualified assertion. An acceptance of the claim made by the accuser.

Assuming it to be true, no apology helps.

Your choice of words here, and their syntax, continue the assertion, suggesting that you considered the statement might be untrue but then discounted that interpretation.

I have not misrepresented you, I have taken your words and the way you have expressed them at their face value. I have no paralinguistic or semantic or  syntactical cues which might cause me to do otherwise.

[Rhiannon]

No, Rhiannon, you made an assertion:

A statement, terminated with a full stop. An unqualified assertion. An acceptance of the claim made by the accuser.

Your choice of words here, and their syntax, continue the assertion, suggesting that you considered the statement might be untrue but then discounted that interpretation.

I have not misrepresented you, I have taken your words and the way you have expressed them at their face value. I have no paralinguistic or semantic or  syntactical cues which might cause me to do otherwise.

Then you are wrong to do so and I find your assertion (I have no reason to call it otherwise) that I am a liar offensive. I’ve clarified my position. You ignore it.

If you can’t see why I feel so strongly about this then that says more about you than me. And point out where I have joined in ‘mob rule’ or apologise.

[Harrowby Hall]

I have no intention of falling out with you. I have not called you a liar, I have said that the way you used English - in the absence of any additional linguistic information - leaves me with only one interpretation of your two sentences. It may well not have been your intended message.

And anyway, I wasn't attacking you, I was attempting to make a philosophical point about the direction in which this whole thread appears to be moving: a general assumption that sanctions against Kevin Spacey are justified given the accusation made against him. I was merely asking whether people supporting this assumption would be happy if they were in an equivalent situation.