BAFTA suspends Noel Clarke

Pamela_E

administrator
LV
0
 
Messages
372
Reaction score
294
Awards
3
Member Since
August 1998
This is really tragic, Noel Clarke suspended over allegations of harassment.

I have followed this career closely and really rate his movies and talent behind the camera. It is really sad to read these accusations.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
It's both sad and hugely shocking. I've been a fan of Noel's for many years, from Auf Wiedersehen, Pet through to Bulletproof. He has worked so hard to rise up in the world of TV & Cinema, not least the Kidulthood series, which was ground breaking.

And as a huge Doctor Who fan I loved him as Mickey Smith.

But this news is truly shocking and the reports of the abuse from him utterly heartbreaking and indefensible - and by all accounts well researched. The 20 women who have come forward and made accusations should stand proud because unless these abusers are named and shamed it will go on and on and more will suffer.

What also caught my eye is that BAFTA were aware of the accusations before giving him and outstanding contribution to cinema award last week and STILL went ahead only to suspend it, and him from BAFTA whilst investigations continue.

The longer these big organisations and big bosses take such accusations within their stride, the more people will see cover ups. Even now Oprah stays silent about Harvey Weinstein because he's her friend yet she still goes after people like Michael Jackson where there has been zero proof of any allegations whatsoever - even the Leaving Neverland cases have now BOTH been thrown out of court, but they still continue to go after him.

The world of TV & cinema needs to sort itself out, it's becoming a yearly event seeing a new predator revealed!
 
Last edited:

Brian Kinney

Telly Talk Fan
LV
0
 
Messages
345
Reaction score
452
Awards
3
Location
Berlin, Germany
And your comment about Oprah is based on which gossip site?

The British Academy of Film and Television is not the proper address to accuse anyone of something that hasn't addressed before. Also they were made only aware of "several allegations", not 20 accusers and it happened 13 days before the awards show. Get real! There is a reason why 'The Guardian' published the story. The author had the time and is paid for exactly this kind of research which I don't think is a part of the activities for a film and television academy. But nevertheless they've tried and reacted as fast as possible.

The predator Michael Jackson was accused by almost a dozen men and you write:

"The longer these big organisations and big bosses take such accusations within their stride, the more people will see cover ups."

But you don't believe the Neverland accusers and you don't get it that Michael Jackson was a big boss! A lot of even crazier things with much more evidence were thrown out of court in the US.
 
Last edited:

Sarah

Super Moderator
Staff Member
LV
2
 
Messages
7,629
Reaction score
7,730
Awards
12
Location
Ireland
Member Since
1998
Favourite Movie
Silence of the Lambs
I have to take it seriously having been a victim of assault by my previous acting agent. I just find it tragic that unlike him, you have to be very famous for anything serious to happen. I do feel bad for all those who worked on Viewpoint, very sad for them that the final episode has been pulled tonight.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
And your comment about Oprah is based on which gossip site?

The British Academy of Film and Television is not the proper address to accuse anyone of something that hasn't addressed before. Also they were made only aware of "several allegations", not 20 accusers and it happened 13 days before the awards show. Get real! There is a reason why 'The Guardian' published the story. The author had the time and is paid for exactly this kind of research which I don't think is a part of the activities for a film and television academy. But nevertheless they've tried and reacted as fast as possible.

The predator Michael Jackson was accused by almost a dozen men and you write:

"The longer these big organisations and big bosses take such accusations within their stride, the more people will see cover ups."

But you don't believe the Neverland accusers and you don't get it that Michael Jackson was a big boss! A lot of even crazier things with much more evidence were thrown out of court in the US.
You will not find anyone on here that has researched all the allegations against Michael Jackson, nor read the court papers and taken a seriously indepth look at everything against him and his accusers. I had no reason to disbelieve the media circus around him, who waited with baited breath for guilty verdicts and were left gutted when he was acquitted on all charges.

It was only when Leaving Neverland aired that I went and researched everything I could and the more I did, the less evidence there was, Convoluted lies, blackmail plots, taped conversations against him. And yet 3 police investigations, 2 FBI investigations and one huge court case and everything was thrown out.

Wade & James have changed their stories so many times judges laughed them out of court.

As for BAFTA, they knew the allegations weeks before the ceremony and still gave Noel the award when it clearly should have been suspended there and then whilst they sought further information.

As for Oprah, i don't watch or read gossip sites, I watch and read news information, all kinds, and Oprah distorts these stories to her advantage, much like the Harry & Meghan interview, lies have been proved, but she ignores them. She also ignores everything about her friend Harvey.
 

Angela Channing

World Cup of Soaps Moderator
LV
4
 
Messages
9,691
Reaction score
12,654
Awards
23
Member Since
1999
You will not find anyone on here that has researched all the allegations against Michael Jackson, nor read the court papers and taken a seriously indepth look at everything against him and his accusers. I had no reason to disbelieve the media circus around him, who waited with baited breath for guilty verdicts and were left gutted when he was acquitted on all charges.

It was only when Leaving Neverland aired that I went and researched everything I could and the more I did, the less evidence there was, Convoluted lies, blackmail plots, taped conversations against him. And yet 3 police investigations, 2 FBI investigations and one huge court case and everything was thrown out.

Wade & James have changed their stories so many times judges laughed them out of court.

As for BAFTA, they knew the allegations weeks before the ceremony and still gave Noel the award when it clearly should have been suspended there and then whilst they sought further information.

As for Oprah, i don't watch or read gossip sites, I watch and read news information, all kinds, and Oprah distorts these stories to her advantage, much like the Harry & Meghan interview, lies have been proved, but she ignores them. She also ignores everything about her friend Harvey.
You're correct. The Michael Jackson cases were investigated by the police, tried in court and he was found not guilty. The jury who had all the evidence were in a better position to determine his guilt or innocence than anyone else so we should accept that judgement.

Although we shouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that the allegations against Noel Clarke are true, the fact that as many as 20 women have come forward does give a level or credence to the claims. It's also not clear what they all could gain from lying.
 

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
You're correct. The Michael Jackson cases were investigated by the police, tried in court and he was found not guilty. The jury who had all the evidence were in a better position to determine his guilt or innocence than anyone else so we should accept that judgement.

Although we shouldn't immediately jump to the conclusion that the allegations against Noel Clarke are true, the fact that as many as 20 women have come forward does give a level or credence to the claims. It's also not clear what they all could gain from lying.
I've seen so many posts and messages throughout the day from people very disheartened as Noel was someone who inspired so many people. They admired him and he gave them hope in achieving their goals. It's all very sad.
 

Barbara Fan

Dallas Moderator
Staff Member
LV
2
 
Messages
6,801
Reaction score
13,080
Awards
14
Location
Scotland
Member Since
2000
Favourite Movie
Witness, Vertigo, Spellbound
20 people coming forwards is a lot of accusations and if thats the case - well its shameful behaviour

BUT what happened to Innocent until proven guilty

He has already been tried, judged and hung out to dry on social media which is poisonous - and in the past the same has happened to other actors who were found innocent in a court = Corrie stars in particular stand out for me
 

Rove

Telly Talk Winner
LV
0
 
Messages
3,507
Reaction score
3,616
Awards
5
Location
Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia
He has already been tried, judged and hung out to dry on social media which is poisonous - and in the past the same has happened to other actors who were found innocent in a court = Corrie stars in particular stand out for me
Here in Australia Geoffrey Rush is a case in point. I won't get into the details here as they are available to read on his Wikipedia page but I will say this. If you have a legitimate complaint against someone, go to the police. It's their job to follow through on such allegations and if enough evidence is presented then the matter is heard in a court of law. That is what our democracy should be built on...NOT TRIAL BY MEDIA.
 

Biggie

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
554
Reaction score
926
Awards
6
Location
Hampshire
Favourite Movie
Happy Gilmore
Trial by media is something that doesn't exist. Only a court of law can execute a trial. If lesser mind choose to lap up what appears in the press or social media, there is little value to be found among them.

It's right and proper that allegations, all allegations, are investigated by the authorities and if warranted evidence put before the Crown. So far a number of women have made claims that are yet to be substantiated and withstand scrutiny in court.

Have the accusers been identified? Noel Clark's name is being mentioned everywhere. If the claim are found to be without merit following the investigation or he is exonerated following a trial, his name is still pinned to these allegations while because of anonymity laws lets the accusers slip back into there life incognito.

False allegations of rape or sexual misconduct are common, I understand by comment I heard on the radio made by a Chief Constable, and hinder the detection and prosecution of offenders. But also devalues legitimate claims, and ruins lives and hard won reputed good character.

I recall a football player being jailed by a liar making untrue claims. Retained her anonymity by court order. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I don't follow the read around of sport.
 
Last edited:

pete lashmar

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,080
Awards
4
Location
Portugal
This is why Trial by Media is so dangerous yet continues at a pace.

The media drop a name, an incident and let the readers spread it, before you know it someone's name has been pulled through the mud within hours - careers are ended and their name is synonymous with that crime/rumour for ever.

Alternatively, when their name is cleared, rarely does it make a difference to the public perception.

Trial by media is lose lose for everyone but the media giants.
 

Biggie

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
554
Reaction score
926
Awards
6
Location
Hampshire
Favourite Movie
Happy Gilmore
...of course they'll hide behind "Freedom of the Press." I believe if a defendant is found not guilty then that journalist should be stripped of their credentials or in a worse case scenario face the courts themselves.
The media are bound by enforceable restrictions when reporting on allegations of wrong doing. I understand that alleged perpetrator is named so that other potential victims are afforded the opportunity to come forward, and so that those with knowledge contradicting the allegation are also given the same opportunity

The press cannot hold court and convict/acquit anyone. If some people choose to jump to conclusions prior to the trial or decide to still believe someone guilty following their acquittal that is surly down to the individual concerned.

I do however believe that if the accused in a rape or sexual misconduct trial is exonerated, the anonymity of the accuser should be revoked and that person(s) publicly named. .
 

Barbara Fan

Dallas Moderator
Staff Member
LV
2
 
Messages
6,801
Reaction score
13,080
Awards
14
Location
Scotland
Member Since
2000
Favourite Movie
Witness, Vertigo, Spellbound
This is why Trial by Media is so dangerous yet continues at a pace.

The media drop a name, an incident and let the readers spread it, before you know it someone's name has been pulled through the mud within hours - careers are ended and their name is synonymous with that crime/rumour for ever.

Alternatively, when their name is cleared, rarely does it make a difference to the public perception.

Trial by media is lose lose for everyone but the media giants.
Or worse still the Police inform the BBC who have helicopters and a camera crew to film it all as was the case with Cliff Richard, shocking behaviour - it cost the Beeb over 2 million in damages - but a career and reputation tainted forever

Im sure there are a lot of people who think No smoke without fire!
 

Biggie

Telly Talk Well-Known Member
LV
0
 
Messages
554
Reaction score
926
Awards
6
Location
Hampshire
Favourite Movie
Happy Gilmore
Or worse still the Police inform the BBC who have helicopters and a camera crew to film it all as was the case with Cliff Richard, shocking behaviour - it cost the Beeb over 2 million in damages - but a career and reputation tainted forever

Im sure there are a lot of people who think No smoke without fire!
I'm curious, are you implying the entity that is the Police Force tasked with investigating the allegations made against Cliff Richard took a collective decision to inform the broadcaster that's the BBC that they were intending to swoop on an address looking for evidence pertaining to an ongoing investigation wholly serious in nature?

That make no sense. The police are guilty of collective failures, Ricky Reel, Stephen Lawrence, Rachel Nickell, M25 Three to name a few. If an individual officer with prior knowledge tipped off the BBC for reward, that is a failure of oversite by force. Could it have been foreseen at the time, clearly not.

I'm going to suggest that his reputation was bolstered by how well the subsequent litigation was stage managed.
 
Top