Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

bedlam breakout

questions raised by the michael le vell case

59 posts in this topic

Yeah but I base that on talking to many feminists. Not just hearing a debate on 5 Live or something.

I had no real opinion on radical feminists and didn't really believe that many existed until recently. There is a loose community of atheists/skeptics on the internet and this has been completely torn apart by feminists. As they look at everything through their narrow lens they unsurprisingly found the skeptic community was deeply misogynistic and used evidence such as internet comments as proof.

There is really no discussing with these people. Many people including myself think that there is nothing different about the skeptic community than any other and any problems, especially those on the internet, are representative of wider society. They have even attempted a breakaway atheism-plus, forcing atheists (with their one point of agreement) to accept a whole host of social issues including all the feminist jargon around patriarchy and privilege. The witch hunts are incredible, disagree with them and you face a ban and cries of misogynist. They have even created a block bot on twitter that automatically blocks swathes of people for 'trolling.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if it would have gone to court if he hadn't been a high profile actor.

why qouldn't it? are you suggesting people only get taken to court on rape charges if they are famous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it strange that Le Vell has over riding support from all areas yet, Barrymore is vilified. Townsend and Kelly were never proven guilty and it keeps on cropping up as if they were paedohiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it strange that Le Vell has over riding support from all areas yet, Barrymore is vilified. Townsend and Kelly were never proven guilty and it keeps on cropping up as if they were paedohiles.

 

This is a very good point, I must admit I've found it a bit strange that he is now being portrayed as some sort of a hard done to hero. He hasn't after all been proven innocent.

 

However, I think there are differences between the 3 that you mentioned. Even though all were cleared there was still some uncomfortable details about the cases that still create suspicion to this day.

 

A person died at Barrymore's house even if he wasn't involved in it. Townsend admitted to downloading child porn but claimed it was research and Kelly had a holiday home in a notorious area frequented by western paedophiles. Le Vell faced an accusation but there hasn't really been anything aside from that to put suspicion on him, it was one person's word against another and almost no other details have made it into the press.

 

All 3 may be innocent and MLV might be the only guilty one but I think those extra details have led to a reluctance to consider them fully innocent. I also think that personality and a little bit of homophobia comes into it especially in the circumstances of Barrymore and the fact that Kelly is camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why qouldn't it? are you suggesting people only get taken to court on rape charges if they are famous?

No I'm suggesting a added pressure would have be put onto the CPS for the case to go to court because of his high profile status.

 

 

Jails are full of rule 43 none famous people who have been convicted of such crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very good point, I must admit I've found it a bit strange that he is now being portrayed as some sort of a hard done to hero. He hasn't after all been proven innocent.

 

However, I think there are differences between the 3 that you mentioned. Even though all were cleared there was still some uncomfortable details about the cases that still create suspicion to this day.

 

A person died at Barrymore's house even if he wasn't involved in it. Townsend admitted to downloading child porn but claimed it was research and Kelly had a holiday home in a notorious area frequented by western paedophiles. Le Vell faced an accusation but there hasn't really been anything aside from that to put suspicion on him, it was one person's word against another and almost no other details have made it into the press.

 

All 3 may be innocent and MLV might be the only guilty one but I think those extra details have led to a reluctance to consider them fully innocent. I also think that personality and a little bit of homophobia comes into it especially in the circumstances of Barrymore and the fact that Kelly is camp.

With Barrymore, the added factor is that he has been less than helpful to the police inquiry and generally rather casual about the whole thing "So yeah someone died in my pool but what about my career!?! I'm a victim too".

He may not have been found guilty of anything (or even charged) but he came out of looking really scummy. Not really a good thing in a "family entertainer". Nobody really wants to laugh any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No I'm suggesting a added pressure would have be put onto the CPS for the case to go to court because of his high profile status.

Or maybe it was because of the circumstances and who the accuser was (although we aren't allowed to talk about who she was even though it is widely known) ? It appeared at face value that she had very little to gain from making such accusations if they weren't true, I can completely understand why the CPS saw fit to charge him under the circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or maybe it was because of the circumstances and who the accuser was (although we aren't allowed to talk about who she was even though it is widely known) ? 

 

Well, it wasn't by me but the later pages of google do help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I’ve been thinking about in the whole “defendant has anonymity” situation; if that had been applied in this case, do you think once they got wind of it, the tabloids would risk contempt of court regardless of the consequences for the risk of a sales boost? In fact if anyone got wind it was someone who was well known, it would soon spread sharpish regardless as things tend to do these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017