Main Edition
US
FR
Noel Clarke in 2019. Credit: David M. Benett/Dave Benett/Getty Images for dunhill
At the beginning of April, Noel Clarke — actor, director, producer, screenwriter, shortly to be honoured by Bafta for Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema — did one of those celebrity Q&As for the Guardian. You know the kind of thing: short questions, sharp answers, no psychological delving or difficult follow-ups, classic weekend supplement material.
“What is your favourite smell?” Pizza, he says. “What is your guiltiest pleasure?” Peanut butter crunch Häagen-Dazs ice-cream, he says. It’s fluff.
Then, last week, the paper published an extensive and detailed report of sexual harassment allegations against Clarke, based on the testimony of 20 women. Within 24 hours, ITV had pulled the finale of Clarke-starring primetime drama Viewpoint from its schedules. Sky had halted work on all projects with him. Bafta suspended both his membership and the award. Another six women came forward.
Clarke’s career is over, for the foreseeable future at least. A statement in which he expresses himself “deeply sorry” for the way his “actions have affected people” and promises to “[seek] professional help to educate myself and change for the better” suggests that he knows as much.
If Clarke were aware of the investigation when he did the Q&A, that might explain the strangely suspicious, embattled tone of some of his answers. Asked about the trait he most deplores in himself, he says: “I can’t help being a loyal person and I expect that back. When it doesn’t happen, it can upset or anger me.” Asked about the trait he most deplores in others, he says: “The inability to say what they mean.” The last question is: “What is the most important lesson life has taught you?” Clarke replies: “Don’t trust anyone.”
Does he feel let down that women were speaking out against him? If he does, he has no right to. The picture of his behaviour in the Guardian investigation is one of rampant entitlement to and casual degradation of women. But it’s the kind of rampant entitlement and casual degradation that can only happen in an industry which enables it.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeOne of the founding members of the flatulent metoo movement – actress Asia Argento – is alleged to have groomed a boy, raped him, and settled out of court to relieve herself of the burden of criminal prosecution. No “believe survivors” courtesy was offered to her victim. It was widely reported in the press, but her career has suffered no noticible impediment. When her texts proving her guilt were made public, the narrative then switched: the minor “attacked her” while she was laying topless in bed with him. Now, she is “a frail human, as prone to error as any”; her victim is “lucky”.
Feminism’s outlandish ideology is easily capable of taking such absurdity and double standards in its stride without missing a step, while contuinuing to churn out pap confecting the appearance of perpetual victimhood.
Yeah, if only we could expect women to behave as adults rather than narcissistic toddlers.
900 people in the industry have signed a letter deploring this ( as yet unproven ) behaviour.One interesting thing about internet is you can look at a person’s career & how some people only get work when they are the partner of someone-which then falls off when they part.A drama is made of a character described as small , blonde , sweet-faced , but strangely they decide to cast a tall , dark haired strong featured actress instead -obviously due to her great talent not because she was the girlfriend of the director.
I think they believe, really and seriously, that men cannot be harmed by women. Since they define “harm” as “those things that men do that we don’t like” they have a perpetual stream of evidence for this claim, and no cause to examine their own behavior. That is, if we are in the business of assessing unpleasant behaviour as some sort of group identity property in which we are all involuntarily implicated by others, rather than a matter of individual moral conduct.
Anyway as you point out, women do actually rape boys in a very straightforward way sometimes. There’s all kinds of ways to be unpleasant.
‘women do actually rape boys in a very straightforward way sometimes’.
Pray, how?
Were you not inpsired to read about Asia Argento? What do you call that?
I hadn’t, but I have now. I wouldn’t call it rape, the legal definition of which is intentional penetration of someone’s vag ina, a nus or mouth with a pen is.I don’t think she’s accused of doing any of those things. Sexual assault possibly.
The definition is designed to ensure that women can’t be accused.
Right. Because the justice system is so biased towards women. XD XD XD
https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/gender-disparities-in-sentencing
Or would such ‘facts’ be inconvenient to you?
Actually it is. Men are more likely to be found guilty, and to receive longer sentences for the same crimes as women. They serve their time in much worse conditions. Yet it is feminists who push for the elimination of prison- for women only.
Not sure why your assertion based on nothing gets three thumbs up while my statement of legal fact gets four minuses (as of 18.50 on May 3).
Yes (if you like), the definition is designed to ensure that women can’t be accused. In the same way that the laws against stabbing are designed to ensure that those not carrying knives can’t be accused. Without the weapon you can’t commit the crime.
Rape should be defined as sexual intercourse against someone’s will, or with a person unable to give consent, such as drunk, underage or those lacking cognitive ability. Such a definition would include women having sex with underage boys.
Its a legal fiction that a 15 year old boy (or even older) can’t willingly and freely have sex with an older woman.
However many of the sex case charges in the film industry seem more about using imbalances of power to get sex than actual rape.
Right, so that’s a defence of paedophilia. Gotcha.
Out of curiosity, would you argue using the same logic with the genders reversed?
It’s not clear what your point is. Are you claiming that there are circumstances in which rape of boys by women can be decriminalised, in which case are you claiming that there are circumstances in which rape of girls by men can also be decriminalised? Or are you claiming that girls are uniquely deficient in this capability, and must therefore be accorded special treatment in law?
It seems that both claims are worrying.
What you call it is not relevant. “Unlawful sexual intercouse” accommodates the mechanics of the act in all four male/female permutations. “Nonconsensual” accommodates the definition, recognising that minors cannot in law give consent.
Having sex with a minor is considered rape. There are currently over 400 cases of teachers raping young boys in their care in the US alone.
I think the US has a slightly different legal definition, which includes unconsented penetration by any object, not just a body part. That definition doesn’t currently apply in the UK.
As I said, a definition deliberately designed to exclude women.
I suppose these cases vary case to case, but loads of boys would be delighted to be seduced by an attractive teacher in their 20s.Some of these boys look back fondly on the experience for decades probably.
They might at the time just as those underage girls were excited and flattered to be “chosen” by celebrities and pop stars in the 70’s. The trauma may come later.
Jesus this is such a bad take.
Minors cannot consent to sex. This is a ludicrous position.
Not under the law they can’t, unless it is with someone their own age. But adults having sex with minors is rape. The law was initially designed to stop men from having sex with young girls, even when the girls wanted it. Now that it turns out that adult women will have sex with young boys, somehow it’s not a problem?
In the UK rape requires penile penetration.
But plain old paedophilia and sexual abuse doesn’t.
Epic whataboutery – respect
Name five more women who have been accused of similar, without googling, off the top of your head. I could name thirty men off the top of mine.
No one is disputing that only men are accused.
Since there are fewer or no instruments in law with which a woman can be accused of rape, that is precisely the outcome you would expect. We only know of this one because the victim had the financial means to procure a settlement out of court. Meanwhile, although the proportion of women who rape may be lower then the proportion of men, it is not as low as is reported in our gynocentric society.
You make my point effectively.
Do some reading. In the States, over 400 women have been charged with having sex with underage boys.
I wonder what Mr Clarke has done to offend? Do I think this is normal behaviour in the entertainment business-yes , the casting couch could have its own branch of John Lewis , but suddenly someone is chosen as the ‘baddie’ why? I liked the idea of an acting career when a teenager & got involved in the local theatre-it was the actress ( ‘I’m an actor’!) who loudly proclaimed their women’s lib most who would then let any actor ( sometimes someone they didn’t know) put their hands straight down their behind & they never complained.I decided I like watching plays but didn’t want to appear in them-which is lucky as there would probably been a few actors with ‘facial disfigurements’.
It’s the lies she told that are more shocking than the sex.She seems hardly ‘simpatico’ having been proximate cause of one boyfriend’s suicide ,and her former child co-star (she played his mother) would hardly have complained had the experience been pleasant.
… “a filmmaker’s betrayal of duty of care to women he employs”… I am a 76 year old woman with my full faculties and nobody owes me a duty of care and, as an adult, never did – I owe that to myself.
What is happening to women today; instead of empowering themselves they are turning into whining spineless helpless creatures incapable of taking responsibility for themselves. I well remember when boys/men were inappropriate, I dealt with the situation immediately myself – usually humour did the trick but, if necessary, with an acceleration of my disapproval, e,g., a firm No, stamping on their foot, a dig in the ribs and finally a kick in the gullies (seldom needed!). Men’s (or women’s) inappropriate behaviour seldom degenerates into rape, which is obviously to be abhorred.
How come people love Gordon Ramsey with his bad language and bullying behaviour on screen?
Nowadays it seems that zero tolerance equals intolerance + what about being innocent until proven guilty.
Bravo Eleanor. I wish adult women like you could rub some of that in the pathetic narcissist crowds of today!
Isn’t it ironic how the arc of feminism went from opportunity and ‘hear me roar’ to perpetual victimhood and ‘hear me whine.’ You sound like my first boss, who happened to be a woman but was not solely defined by that fact. She was the boss through work and experience, and she was easy to work for.
I grew up in sixties and seventies Ireland when a woman had to give up work when she married. After my violent and philandering husband left me to rear our daughters as a single parent (with no financial support from him), I was taxed as a single person, while male single parents were taxed as being married + received a housekeeper allowance because, of course, they needed help while he was out working! I, together with many other single female parents, was out working.
I was on the front line protesting and petitioning the government for equal treatment, until we got it.
Women’s behaviour today is an insult to my integrity.
I know what you mean. I’m almost your age. I spent my working life in the entertainment industry. In the 70s and 80s, it was an absolute hotbed of sex. The men had almost invariably married straight out of university. Their wives and children were a safe commute away. It was easy to miss the last train home. Yes, like you, I “dealt with” the various inappropriate attempts – once going so far as to slap a guy. But I am glad that men are no longer safe seeing us simply as fodder, rather than people in our own right, equally talented, hard working and deserving of being listened to. It was the fact that everything else about us was invisible, except our sexual potential that was so demeaning. Right up until I left the ITV company where I worked, I received the same invite to Christmas drinks, year after year: “The Chairman invites you and your wife….etc” When I left, I gave him an edited version of the letter as a goodbye present. “The Chairman invites you and your partner to Christmas drinks..” Perhaps it has swung a little too far the other way nowadays. But a healthier balance did need to be found. I think ITV are daft pulling the final episode of a series, because accusations have been made against the lead. No one should leap to judgment, till the evidence can be properly and publicly weighed. The haste with which Clarke was cancelled did feel unseemly. But… if he used his position to derive sexual satisfaction from and exploit women, then he deserves his punishment. The key point here is the abuse of power. Nothing wrong with men and women in our business having sex, provided its entered into freely on both sides. But when either partner uses their power of hire and fire to coerce another, a serious line has been crossed. That is what Clarke is accused of.
Are women in general and in the entertainment industry in particular such delicate flowers that they cannot stand up/take care of themselves… bad behaviour nipped in the bud usually does not escalate
It’s about the attitude that underpins that “bad behaviour”. We shouldn’t have to “nip” that behaviour “in the bud”, because it shouldn’t occur in the first place. And wouldn’t, if young men could come to see us as something other than prey. And it’s not about “delicacy” in the women. How you responded to your male colleagues could influence your job, your promotion opportunities. Back then, it was perfectly possible to get frozen out for being a “prude”. Or “no fun”. And equally it was possible to use such approaches as one of the few ways of getting a foot on the career ladder. (See “Mad Men”) Like most things in life, Eleanor, it was complicated. So please don’t disparage the women involved!
I do not disparage the women involved, rather I question the MeToo movement which seems to conflate sleazy behaviour with rape… I abhor such behaviour but perhaps it continues because it goes unchecked??? Furthermore, I do not think men should be losing their livelihood as a result of these incidents.
Also, I have questioned authority since age 6, when I was taught that all non Roman Catholics went to hell, which was patently untrue. Constantly swimming against the tide has made my personal life difficult but it never stopped me progressing in my work. In fact, only for Unherd I would have been unable to cope with the Lockdown debacle.
“We shouldn’t have to “nip” that behaviour “in the bud”, because it shouldn’t occur in the first place.”
ah everyone should behave perfectly? Yes, utopia. The fantasy land of the immature. We have to live with reality, not in some fantasy world. We are not living in the 1950s.
Well, you were lucky. My tutor at Oxford propositioned me in a one to one tutorial. When I complained to my college authorities, I was told not to make a fuss about it, as his wife was one of the college dons: nice, eh?
I only managed to stop this harassment by transferring to another college. Neither humour or physical assault would have ‘done the trick’ , as you blithely describe it.
so yes, people in authority do have a ‘duty of care’ to behave civilly and kindly to those below them in the hierarchy, and the rest of the hierarchy have a duty to enforce civil and courteous behaviour.
That’s interesting. I’ve been both a student and a researcher there, 20 years apart. You don’t have to answer, but I wonder when that was and what exactly he did. Did he suggest a date, or was it explicitly about physicality? Did he seem emotional, or crude?
Clearly he’s done something wrong. He should not be surprised to lose his job. This is especially true in the current climate, but it’s also been true in general. He has a parental role in that situation. You were an undergraduate, he was a tutor. I’m still in touch with my tutor socially. She’s female. There’s a maternal aspect I’d say.
I think specifics and intention both matter in cases like this in moral terms. If he found himself with inappropriate emotions, that’s different to just exploitative desire. He’s done something wrong in expressing either. Actually, it’s not absolutely clear which is worse, but one is a more complex moral matter than the other in my opinion.
Niobe, denouncing your tutor should have been a no-brainer. And woe of the university if you had gone as far as denouncing their veiled threat as well. I assume you could easily have got hold of recordings of the “proposition(s)”, so your case seems fool-proof to me.
And so you didn’t make a fuss? Yet you want society to “enforce courtesy”?
I don’t understand why a person’s (alleged at this point) misbehaviour means thas their work has to be removed and they become unpersoned. Those watching “viewpoint” on itv this week will have invested 4 hours in a drama then be deprived of the finale on the basis that some people said one of the actors in it was a bit pervy.
Yes I thought it a bit unfair on the viewer who wants to find out ‘what happened’ and its now wiped off the cv of any actor in it.
Agree it was a hasty PR-led decision, but the last ep was still made available on ITV Hub for those masochists who could be arsed to sit through the rest.
ITV were quick to jump on the cancel bandwagon by pulling the last episode of Viewpoint from the schedules but carefully left it on ITV hub so all us hypocrites with the right sort of tech could see it. Words like ‘cake’ and ‘eat it ‘ spring to mind.
Sounds like gesture politics and face-saving PR to me.
In the interests of equality I wonder if Sarah Ditum would be happy to have her career ruined on the basis of unproven accusations?
Perhaps she doesn’t have such a great career now and the accusations might actually help.
She doesn’t need to worry about that, because she’s never sexually abused anyone. Unlike Noel Clark.
In the UK, one is innocent until PROVEN guilty.
That still applies in a situation like this.
I find it very interesting how many women ‘put up’ with unacceptable behaviour as long as they think they will benefit in the end.
Exactly. “Interesting” as in “filthy”.
Nitpicking slightly, but it’s actually “unless” proven guilty. The world “until” presumes that the guilt isn’t in doubt and its only a question of time until the formality of a trial confirms this.
I’m a bit old fashioned and would rather wait for a guilty verdict in a court of law before declaring someone guilty. I wonder how you’d feel to be declared guilty of something without your day in court?
Waiting for the result of a “day in court” would take years of patience. Public shaming for someone who deserves it–as this cad without remorse seems to have–provides far better and quicker punishment. A person genuinely holding your principles would not have read a word of these articles.
I hope one day you’re accused of something and declared guilty without the annoyance of a trial.
So do I.
Presumably you felt the same about Liam Allan accused of rape. Life ruined by your ‘public shaming’ only for the accusation to be proven false. PROVEN false.
There are dozens of such cases. Which is why I prefer the court of law, rather than the court of public opinion.
Yep, until, god forbid, anyone of us might find ourselves in a similar position, guilty or not, the proper procedure of the law must be allowed to run its course and those who are accused of something, no matter its nature, deserve nothing less.
Chuck that very long established, righteous principle away and what have you got?
And who are you to judge this man, Jerry? Where you a witness?
You do know people who are accused have killed themselves? One was a young man who told his ‘friend’ that he liked a girl in their class-this ‘friend’ told the tutor , fearing the worse the young man hanged himself . Some of the cases that the CPS decided to take to court have been bizarre-in one case a girl didn’t like a boy touching her elbow! Of course all the men are named so even if found not guilty , people will remember they were accused.
Noel Clarke : successful actor, writer and director; this, in terms of other people, means hundreds of women and men having had regular work and career success as a result of his talent and abilities, + the end result of the entertaining films which thousands of people have presumably enjoyed.
The man behind all that creativity has not done anything illegal as far as I know, but is wiped out by spite on the one hand, and radical feminist politics on the other.
Totalitarianism always makes use of the very worst of human behaviour : jealousy, anger and hate.
Wow you really hate women. Your comment implies you believe men should be able to treats us like disposable dirt and suffer no consequences. Right?
I think they should complain at the time-put up or shut up. When I got a Saturday job at aged 14 I was so naive I did not know what one of the managers was doing until a regular staff member told me. I then held the till back and ( accidently ) let it swing back in his face-certainly broke his glasses and possibly his nose. He never went near me again!
Wrong.
I think it is barbaric and dangerous to put someone on trial in the public realm and have institutions cancel the accused on the basis of alleged incidents.
It took this country hundreds of years to build the British legal system, which was so good and just it was adopted around the world.
We are now punishing people on the basis of accusation alone, not one I grant you, but with social media there is contagion, one accusation can very quickly grow to many, and this can be mistaken as a sign that they are all significant and true. That is mob justice and it is dangerous, and wrong.
I don’t know. It’s important that people be allowed to make public allegations against people who have a public role. If there is evidence it is ok to report that evidence, and 20 different accounts is reportable evidence.
The problem is the public response. This guy is accused of being a lech. Not of rape as far as I know. He has not helped himself with some of his public behavior.
Your very first sentence was correct, Colin – you don’t know.
And parroting in public anything you don’t know to be true under the guise of “freedom” has a legal definition – it is called libel.
Social media has freely encroached on libel territory for longer than sanity should have allowed.
Right but this was a newspaper article written by professional journalists who are legally accountable. I myself very rarely look at social media. I occasionally comment here, on unherd, which I think is a bad habit, but in fact I’m fairly sure this comment is subject to UK libel laws with Unherd as a publisher who may remove it.
So social media has nothing to do with it.
Perhaps you are relying on the notions of “professional journalists” and “legally accountable” more than current evidence warrants…
And social media is the most common platform for both authoring and circulating libel these days, so I disagree with your opinion that it has nothing to do with the uptick in shameless libel.
I’m not. The claims were published by a newspaper with a legal team who think they are safe. Clarke is not accused of a crime at the moment so there’s no court outcome to wait for.
It’s perfectly valid journalism. You’re not correct. It’s not related to social media in this case. The evidence against him is actually very strong. That is why it has been published.
Have you read it? I suspect not.
Colin, we’re not understanding each other: it should not matter if I read it, as evidence is something that a court is expected to read & identify as such – and before that, it is people’s speculation, with the attending danger of bias.
You are still playing down just how destructive and unfair such public speculation can be, and would perhaps realize it if you were ever to be on the wrong side of it. But it is OK if we disagree.
He’s not accused of a crime, at the moment. So that means the courts are irrelevant. We are not awaiting a verdict.
But: he may have done immoral things. We have newspapers to inform us when people do immoral things. Newspapers are an essential part of a free society.
A journalist gathered evidence and published it. The publisher (which is “the guardian”) is legally reponsible for doing that and can be sued if the information is false. Because of that, competant publishers retain lawyers to assess the legal risk. We have quite strict libel laws in the UK.
That’s how we handle free speech in the UK. The guardian published because they felt they had evidence. They are absolutely within their rights. Clarke may sue them.
Now, I may not agree with the editorial position of “the guardian” on all issues. But I recognise their right to gather and present evidence of wrongdoing as essential to a free society, and moreover I think they are a competent newspaper. I think they’ve presented good evidence for what they are saying, and I don’t think Noel Clarke would prevail in court against them. For that reason, I don’t think he will sue them.
Maybe another day I will want to publish evidence of someone’s immoral behavior. So I recognise that this is how things have to work to ensure we have free speech and public accountability in the UK.
Social media undermines this system because they cannot be sued in the way a newspaper can. But social media wasn’t especially important in the case of Noel Clarke, it was done via traditonal newspaper journalism. They found evidence, for example, that he’d asked an acting class to strip down to their underwear. They found more than 20 women who claimed he’d behaved inappropriately towards them. They all gave their names in public.
The issue is whether the public should be as outraged as they are by Clarke’s behavior, to the extent he will lose his livelihood and public reputation. The issue is not whether it should have been reported.
I am not really sure he did anything that terrible. Clearly one should not go around fondling female employees in elevators, and he should be prevented from doing that, but I don’t think this public scandal is in proportion to the actual harm he’s done to others. I don’t think his accusers were that helpless. I do think he is a bully, on the evidence I saw. I do think newspapers should report bullies to the public.
“the guardian” reports what its readers want to read. They aren’t limited to reporting the findings of court proceedings, nor should they be.
I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said there, except the implication that by going public with their accusations and being named somehow adds veracity to these women’s allegations.
Once this would have been true perhaps, but these days when there is so much acclaim from feminists supporting them – “you’re so brave” etc, combined with their attempt to make all men culpable, eg, “everyman”(blatantly unjust), that has been undermined.
There is too much of a sense of a shadow battle going on between the feminists and men, including a sort of guerrilla warfare, to take what we read at face value, in my opinion.
I can see that point of view, I may be naive about the current situation.
However accusations against a public figure are then publicized world-wide , wheras Jim the butcher might have a difficult time in his village , but millions of people won’t know Sharon isn’t happy with him.
Oddly when they hold a comment back , if its ok it is dated later which makes no sense of the thread. I merely said they should complain at the time. Women have also had a long time to organize themselves as writers etc who are in control-think Mae West- which stops this behaviour as its a power-game
You want to be very very careful, because while at the moment people YOU think ought to be punished are being cancelled, the tables can be turned very quickly and it could be you or someone you care about being destroyed further down the line.
Trial and retribution by a mob is not the way to go.
Please could you explain why the accusing women have chosen now, just after this man received a BAFTA, to come out with their accusations ?
Can you not see that there is a strong possibility that this was a scandal set up by the Guardian.
Why did these accusing women not complain at the time of the alleged incidents ? If they had it might have saved other women unpleasant experiences later on.
You should ask yourself what have these women to gain by speaking out now.
I would suggest, fame, praise from their feminist peers and revenge.
They kind of wrote about that actually. It’s interesting to think about what is real. I don’t think it was “set up” by them. But it was very much to do with BAFTA, and with careers.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/apr/30/how-bafta-spent-two-weeks-grappling-with-noel-clarke-dilemma
Noel Clarke is alleged to be pretty slimy and to behave in a way that I find distasteful and depressing. But not horrifying.
It’s also true, in a sense, that he’s a powerful person who has been successfully ganged up on by people who have spme power themselves.
It all depends on quite fine moral distinctions. For example he’s accused of “allegedly showed colleagues sexually explicit photos and videos of women”
And really, has the guardian never done anything like that to ge ahead? I mean never ever?
Thanks Colin, my mistake.
It’s like trying to unravel some knitting that the cat’s been playing with.
Yeah, it’s the Guardian involvement that is mystifying. They are the last paper you would expect to take this accusation seriously (victim hierarchies, say no more). But although I am a believer in people in glasshouses, it doesn’t mean that every cause they espouse is necessarily wrong.
I think, at the end of the day, the guardian are interested because it’s a prurient story that will generate outrage. A generation ago it would have been the mail, and the story would have been slightly different but still about a related moral transgression. Going to a dominatrix or whatever.
I don’t think either paper are interested in actual morality, which is very complex. They are both just interested in stoking moral outrage. That is how they make money. Which is fine. As far as I can see it’s not claimed that any of those women were really badly harmed. Elsewhere that day, among the 10 bllion people on Earth, both men and women endured far worse that went unreported.
Noel Clarke was, it is alleged, feeling up women. They didn’t like it. At the moment, that’s something they can publically shame him over, so they did.
It’s not a tragedy is it.
You are incorrect. At least one of them wrote to BAFTA before the award, Notifying them of the behaviour. Guess what? It was ignored, because it was inconvenient. That was when several of them ( because in most industries, people’s proclivities are not a secret) contacted a journalist to help with an investigation.
Perhaps you did’nt notice that I asked a question about the BAFTA situation, I did’nt make a statement, or do you mean I am “incorrect” to have asked the question ?
Should have notified police. Not BAFTA.
Have you seen the video of this chap pretending his microphone was a male appendage ( will this get past the mods?) and shoving it in the face and body of the woman on the platform with him? And that was at a Doctor Who event, yes Doctor Who, you know, the children’s programme.
Cue sycophantic laughter from the rest of the platform…..sheesh. So no cries of surely not, I never would have thought it from this quarter.
I am not defending this man’s (evidence based) behaviour, however legal it may be.
I am objecting to the media mob trial and the response from the public institutions which have cancelled him so completely on testimonies alone, some of them petty, some of them from fifteen years ago.
As I have already said this is a barbaric way to treat people accused of behaviour that is not even criminal as far as we know.
There are some obnoxious people in the world, men and women, who, if they achieve power will use it to get whatever it is they think they deserve, s e x, money, or more power.
It is up to us as adults to deal with these individuals when we come across them, as you did when you were at Oxford according to your anecdote above. If they break the law you go to the police, if they overstep the mark personally in work or education you report them. Sometimes you just have to walk away.
If you read these particular women’s testimonies in the G you will find that several of them put up with NC’s alleged uncouth behaviour, even requesting a chance to spend more time with him in work or play.
That is what is called Hypocrisy.
My father would have said he sounds like a cad
The main problem here is the adulation of “transgressive” art.
When an artist is rewarded for transgression, sooner or later they move from offending the “wrong” people to offending the “right” people (or the “right-thinking” views shift such that previously edgy behaviour is now deemed creepy or worse).
The whole mess could have been avoided if early on in his career older and wiser people had said “no” to exploitative scenes or challenged him on his treatment of women.
Aside: I’m starting to think that the UK version of cancel culture is just a socialisation of mass media practices in which people are built up and then torn down.
To be honest I’m (almost) starting to miss the Cold War, when the possibility of getting nuked out of existing helped put everything else in perspective…
Not to excuse in any way this gentleman’s thus far alleged behaviour, but the business that is ‘show’ has always been a tawdry one, despite the necessary veneer, and as Douglas Murray recently said in reference to the #MeToo movement that if Hollywood with its long history of the infamous casting couch, naked ambition, endemic narcissism and all round shameless sexual shenanigans is to be the Petri dish by which the whole of the rest of society is to be judged by then, yes, we’re all in trouble.
‘Clarke was a star, and his kind of stardom is a contract of love. It does not make much material difference to most people if their favourite actor or singer turns out to be a bad person; except it does make a difference, because choosing a favourite is a statement of faith that they are a good person, and more than that, that you are a good person by implication of your taste. It feels like being cheated on to be contradicted.’
All I can say to those people who do that to that extent then is more fool you and for the love of God get a life.
One of the few shards of faint light I’ve seen as a result of these horrendous lockdowns is that it seems as if some people are indeed starting to get a little more perspective in relation to the significance of these things, hopefully reflected in the recent Oscars US viewing figures of less than 10m, down from 24m last year and an eye watering high of nigh on 44m in 2014.
He may well be guilty but we used to have a standard of no punishment until guilt admitted or proven.
And even if he is guilty then removing stuff already filmed is quite pathetic. What about the investors and the other actors in that programme; should they all be punished as well.
What about all his patients Harold Shipman didn’t kill who lost an otherwise excellent GP? And give over with that you innocent until proved guilty guff – this isn’t a court and you’re not.a judge.
No he’s not a judge. Only the self-righteous feminist mob are allowed to have that privilege.
Would you be happy to lose your job over an allegation?
Neither are you or the Guardian.
I don’t think that’s quite fair. If you’ve been really badly harmed in an episode of interpersonal or sexual violence etc, then that is a complicated thing. It’s not as simple as going to the police. It might take the victim some time to figure things out.
That’s the reality of serious abuse. People are not robots. They need a lot of medical attention to recover.
I think in the case of Noel Clarke the issue is whether he’s actually done anything that has left anyone genuinely traumatised. Honestly I’m just not sure being groped in a lift is that bad. Stuff like that has happenned to me actually, though not often. It did not leave me traumatised to my core. Sorry but it didn’t.
If you are unable to decide whether you were assaulted or not, you should not be allowed to decide much of the basic stuff in everyday life. From buying an item on Amazon to crossing a street without a chaperone.
If there is nuance in your accusation of assault, then we are opening a very different can of worms – and these retro-dated assault accusations that keep sprouting never disclose any nuance: the man is a monster, the woman a helpless victim.
“Metoo” would have a bit more credibility if it were consistent. For every Clarke, there are multiple Andrew Cuomos who due to political reasons, have their alleged transgressions quietly swept aside. That a tv show is pulled over allegations is the flaccid yet predictable response of a company bowing to the twitter mob. The article allows for “if, as alleged,” but it seems society has left that quaint thought behind. Due process cannot only be for the people we like.
Famous? I’d never heard of him. Everything I have read suggests that he was capable of some creepy behaviour, but as far as I can tell no evidence of criminality has been presented to the police. Pulling the last episode of a series was just dim obeisance to the twitterati lynch mob. It seems there were plenty of people who were quite happy to work with him, and then join the chorus of disapproval after the event. I don’t see anyone emerging from this story with much credit.
Am I the only one who had never heard of him until this week?
No, me neither….
I thought I hadn’t but then saw a picture of him and realised that he was in Auf Wiedersehen Pet many years ago.
I doubt this is the same guy. He probably wasn’t born when auf wiedersehen pet was on telly. He was micky in Doctor Who.
…….you never know, you might even, eventually, find some senior film, or TV, personalities who feel shame ( hmmmmm, I suppose I could just leave it there) at the uncritical, or mealy mouthed, support of Roman Polanski. Being a celebrity should NOT absolve people from behaving like normal, decent , law abiding adults, or indeed those parasites who enable, cover up or protect them with their silence, yes Jimmy, I am thinking about you, am I not, Aunty !
I find it quite disturbing to read comments here and elsewhere where people seem to think it’s perfectly OK for a person to have a career ruined or reputation destroyed on the basis of unproven allegations. I do hope such people find themselves on the receiving end of such an allegation themselves – then see how keen they are on people being punished without having their day in court.
Is calling him an ‘everyman’ Ms Ditum’s way of saying he’s a typical man
He’s not an everyman, he’s a very naughty boy. Possibly.
I believe its called a dog-whistle… “every man” is apparently assumed to be a s*x criminal in waiting
That’s showbiz!
One of these women is complaining that she did a cartwheel at a party, her dress flew up and he took a picture of her underwear which he then shared with other people.
I know from multiple people who have worked with him that this guy is a massive a$$hole. However, in 2020, if one is going to flash ones pants at a party one should probably bear in mind that everyone has a camera phone and some people are a$$holes.
Was this an adult doing a cartwheel at a party in a dress?
Innocent until proven guilty Some of us wanted to watch the end of Viewpoint.
Unless proven guilty. Its a subtle but important difference, but your point is well taken.
The presumption of innocence is…innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. It is enshrined in Article 11 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
All this raises the question I have long asked, and never got an answer – how is it that Rolf Harris is in the cooler, and Mick Jagger gets a knighthood?
“It does not make much material difference to most people if their favourite actor or singer turns out to be a bad person; except it does make a difference, because choosing a favourite is a statement of faith that they are a good person, and more than that, that you are a good person by implication of your taste.”
Load of tosh. Liking Mick Jagger means someone thinks he is a good person? How would anyone even know that? Has everyone who likes him met him and knows for a fact that he is a good person and not a randy, drug addled womanizer? How about you just like his music? Diego Rivera is my favorite artist. Does that mean I have to think he was a good person?
“When someone is famous in the way Clarke is, it’s because people like him.”
no, mostly they don’t know him. They like his work.
I can’t help but wonder if Clarke political opinions aren’t “suspect” ie he isn’t woke enough.
I take Sarah Ditum’s articles with a pinch of salt but I think this is fair. What I read is a criticism of the TV companies who seem to have clearly know that Clarke behaved badly hence the haste with which the removed him.
Gosh, the misogynists are out in force today.
this bloke can’t be tried in a court of law, because he has not ( as far as we know) committed a crime; that is what the police told one of the women he filmed secretly, when she went to complain about it. He seems to have skirted ( pun intended) just on the right side of legally punishable behaviour.
One of the women involved wrote to BAFTA informing them about his behaviour. They did not investigate it at all, they just steamed ahead with giving him a ‘lifetime award’ ( at 45) because you know, diversity : their words, not mine.
The fact that all his accusers have forfeited anonymity gave me pause for thought, because in a witch hunt, they tend to be very adverse from showing themselves. Don’t think that many of them won’t pay for their temerity in objecting to being groped, harassed and humiliated, because the comments BTL show what they can expect.
I never realised that believing in the rule of law made me a hater of women.
Sorry Niobe, you lost me on the part that “the bloke” filmed the victim secretly, yet the police did not have a case. I suspect that if you elaborate on the circumstance of the alleged transgression, most people would agree with the police’s decision.
Perhaps you are letting emotion (your dislike for the apparently tasteless “bloke”) impair you judgement of whether it is right to destroy “the bloke’s” career over your perception of what should be legally punishable.
Last but not least, accusing everyone that disagrees with you of misogyny is not doing any favour to how you come across over here.
Andre you appear to believe that everything people do is either a criminal offense, or else entirely acceptable to everyone. That’s a very extreme position, and it clearly isn’t true, about sexual or any other area of human conduct.
Colin, you remain locked in the perception that the handling if Clarke was OK, and to make your case you are now feeling entitled to judge me. Who are you to do so? I certainly have an opinion about your positions, but am not here to educate you on the basics of civility. Get a grip.
I do have a grip, I think you conflate “illegal” and “immoral” to a degree.
I do also think the handling of Clarke was ok, in the sense the press did their jobs ok. That’s not to say public morality is ok at the moment. It isn’t.