Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

~Blue

New member
It's funny - she has her own forum and is on every existing social media platform. Who wants to find her, finds her.
She is such a grifter!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
About the boyfriend: I think it was just such an other-wordly weird situation that she was in contact with a mega celebrity, that neither she nor the boyfriend could probably make heads of tails of it. And I think she genuinely did think he was someone to chat to - mentor/friend, she didn't want anything more and she thought he didn't either. But he took what he gave her and slowly moved her boundaries. He also treated her horribly, it really illustrates who he really is. The quote about "I don't know why I spend time talking to you. I am an award-winning, famous, best-selling author, and you...". He also cut off all contact when she said no to his advances (and when she said no, he said "I am used to getting what I want") - these many, subtle things are part of what make her situation with him so hard for her to understand at the time, and what made what he did so harmful. You all victim blaming on here really should read up on power imbalances and coercive relationships.

Imo, it's absolutely fair that she took his money - he gave her trauma that she has had to work through for over 20 years in therapy - he should pay for that, and it's not like he's strapped for cash, anyway.

Also, him paying shows that he's willing to SA and groom young, vulnerable women as long as he can write a cheque and pretend to himself his conscience is clear now. He also lied a lot to them all and said to Claire that this had never happened before or since, that he'd never got close to fans/young women like that, but the same year he spoke to her, he had just done the exact same to Scarlet. Fucking vile.
I am not victim blaming at all.
And NG denied that he said what you had quoted from the podcast.
This is her account and she might not remember everything 100% correctly.

She said that she was in therapy for 10 years, not 20, and she told him that she was expecting and that she had additional expenses and then he offered to give her money.
This seems strange as she also went to the media, and asked a number of outlets to publish her story.

It does seem as if there is a pattern and giving money to young women obviously does not hurt him financially, yet there is also another power dynamic at play:
these women have the power to ruin his reputation, which they now did, and them seeking out large media outlets to publish their stories shows that they were very aware of this power.
Claire did not just go to therapy and ask NG to pay for it. She also went to the media.
Scarlet did not just ask him to pay her rent and give her money (her being skint was unrelated to the abuse). She also went to the media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

ElpisWept

Active member
Is there a thread about Neil Gaiman on this site, please? I've tried looking, but to no avail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

CallMeHollywood

VIP Member
There were blinds about him and Katie Stanic having major issues on Castle but all blinds should be taken with a pinch of salt I guess

I read this and came to the conclusion that Katic is a pain in the arse 😆
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2

ElpisWept

Active member

The happy couple.

They're apparently still together. A friend of mine reckons he looks unhappy, like he's forcing himself to be with her.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2
The police not taking on a case of coercion and SA isn't an indicator that there was nothing to it - coercion and SA can be difficult cases and the police are notorious for not taking women seriously on such issues.

Scarlet said what happened after the initial penetration in the bath was consensual. Meaning what he did to her in the bath was not consensual. And she told him that. And he didn't care, of course.

You claim another woman was "living in his house rent free" while "having an affair" with him. You just grossly misinterpreted what happened. Neil Gaiman used the fact that this woman was dependent on him for housing (she was living on his property) to force BJs and other sexual favours from her. Whenever she said no to sex with him, he would say she would have to move out. He groomed her and used her like he groomed and used the other women, and there are likely many others who have not spoken out (yet).

You really should read up on the fawn trauma response - just because victims keep in touch with abusers and seem infatuated, does not mean they have not been violated and deserve justice. They have a right to an apology and simultaneously have a right to tell the world about the violations that were committed against them. Just because he said "sorry" he didn't mean, and claimed he would give money to an SA charity (which Neil Gaiman lied to Claire about, btw - he said he would give money to a charity of her choice, but he did not), does not mean the victims are not allowed to go to the media with what happened to them.

The fact that you are nitpicking and picking apart their stories shows you are victims blaming, because you are judging them for not being the "perfect victims".

Tortoise Media is small, yes - but that's not the only reason this story is not bigger in the mainstream media. He's burying it, and his connections are emailing people they know with the personal emails of the victims, trying to paint them in a bad light. Gaiman is feeding his friends the personal emails he got from vulnerable women he SA'd so they can use them and twist them to try to discredit them. That is absolutely disgusting.

And you mention Tortoise Media are "not problem-free" - it's of course unfortunate that TERF Johnson is involved, no one is disputing that, but the other reporter of the podcast, Paul Caruana Galizia (son of Daphne Caruana Galizia, who broke the Panama Papers story & was then assassinated) is not a TERF: good journalist, does a thorough job. And Johnson's involved because one of the victims contacted her directly.

I didn't say a rich white male has all the power only because he's a rich white man. I said he is a world famous celebrity writer who was beloved and famous for his feminist views, who specifically prayed on his very young, vulnerable fans. That's the power imbalance.

Brand, Depp and Spacey lost opportunities because they were guilty - not because of wrongful accusations. Fake accusations are extremely rare - they almost never happen, because victims gain nothing from speaking out and women gain nothing from faking a story. And these men also still have careers. They have had some minor consequences, but this type of perpetrators are usually allowed by society to resurface and keep their careers, unfortunately. There is not some huge threat to men from fake SA accusations.
You are twisting my words and not answering my questions.

Firstly, the police did not investigate because there was not enough evidence.
The police did investigate Brand and Spacey, as well as other known predators.
Are you saying that there was enough evidence for the police to investigate?

Secondly, I said that larger media outlets did not report the story because of the lack of evidence.
The Times broke the Brand story, and basically all media reported on Depp, Spacey, Brand, Prince Andrew and other predators (like Hugh Edwards).
Are you saying that NG has more power than these people? He is a writer, successful and rich, but pales in comparison to these other men (apart from Brand).
His "power and influence" is not the reason that the allegations were not reported and if you say that this is the case, then please provide evidence.

Thirdly, I attended professional training in relation to sexual misconduct and dealt with 2 cases of reported sexual misconduct in the workplace (international corporate).
Both involved a power imbalance (white male director vs more junior female employee, one a person of color) and both were essentially let go immediately, although in once case it was the female employee flirting and being turned down and everyone knows it. But because his reaction was not perfect he had to pay the price. (The female employees did not ask for money or an apology by the way.)
So please do not act as if I would not know anything.

Fourthly, Tortoise media is somewhat problematic and not just because of Rachel Johnson and if you pay attention to how they reported it you will see that they protected themselves very well (to the detriment of the journalistic quality). Essentially, it is not really journalism but an interview with the occasional text and recoding from NG thrown in (did he consent to the recording, I wonder?)

Fifthly, Depp (despite the UK defamation verdict) and Spacey were cleared in a court of law. As far as I know Brand is still being investigated by the police?
If you call them "guilty" then I hope you are aware that you are essentially defaming them.
It might be your opinion, but it is not true and not right to say it.
You should clearly state it as your opinion if you feel you need to state this.
In that regard, they lost opportunities because of the accusations (bearing in mind they also lost them prior to the court cases even starting!).

Again, how do you think the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski situation would have played out today?

Finally, I am not victim blaming because I am questioning why they asked for money.
Where is the blame there? Do you know what victim blaming is?
Victim blaming means that the victim is being held responsible for the crime committed. When and where did I do that?
What you say is simply incorrect.
You seem to throw a "trendy term" at me, just because I am sharing an observation that is not in praise of all of the victim's actions.

To re-iterate: I do not doubt that NG's behaviour was wrong, and if alone because of the age difference and because some of the women were fans and other employees. And the women consistently say that he overstepped the mark and acted without their consent (at times).

But I also observed that all of them asked him for money, at least two of them after the relationships had long ended.
Without having had a relationship they would not be able to ask him for money.
So is this a power-imbalance? What could he do to them if they would have said no? Nothing, they would not have lost jobs or anything else, they could have turned him down without consequences and I would imagine that some women did.
So where is his "power"? Power over what?
If they were simply in awe of him and therefore wanted to please him, then why did they ask him for money?

If women are more inclined to have sexual relationships with rich men rather than poor men, who holds the power?

I think it is important to be allowed to discuss all aspects of a situation, and not be accused of "victim blaming" (without even any substance to it) etc.

And how do you know this:
He's burying it, and his connections are emailing people they know with the personal emails of the victims, trying to paint them in a bad light. Gaiman is feeding his friends the personal emails he got from vulnerable women he SA'd so they can use them and twist them to try to discredit them. That is absolutely disgusting.

I did not hear this when listening to the podcast. It was his voice and his texts that were published.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I adore Kate Bush too. I think Amanda is going for the Weimar Republic sort of thing - where vocal & musical talent don't matter as long as you have style and attitude and plucked eyebrows. But as the Isherwood character says to an exasperating Sally Bowles, the American wannabe in Cabaret, "you're about as fatale as an after dinner mint!"
Oh, I ❤ Cabaret, Goodbye to Berlin, Babylon Berlin, anything good set in that era. The original Sally Bowles in the novel was eEnglish, based on a real woman called Jean Ross, and boy was she pissed at Isherwood's portrayal of her as an apolitical ditz! Don't think she minded the meagre talent bit, but she was a committed Communist and Sally, well, sally barely notices the SA waltzing by ...

I definitely understand what you mean about her trying to reference Weimar and certainly she does use chutzpah instead of having talent, but god. Aside from a couple of catchier tunes, she's fairly unbearable to listen to tbqh. You need SOMETHING else, given it's not actually the 1920s anymore ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2

~Blue

New member
But you don't understand...

She is the only women to have ever have had a child or raise a child without a partner. It is special and unique and so much worse than how it was for everyone else....

:p

I can remember seeing all her NZ pictures, and then suddenly realising that there must have been someone else taking the pictures.

What is funny, is I am sure that until she had her kid, her and her artsy hipster pals would probably mock anyone who started a sentence with 'speaking as a mother....'.

But now every other story out of her mouth starts with explaining how she was left NZ with a kid.

Yes, I am sure it was hard. But unlike most of her audience, she only had a couple of weeks in lockdown and spent most of the time writing songs, wandering around naked, playing concerts etc.
Absolutely!
I find her pathetic and a money grabber. "Join my Patreon!" That's all she can come up with nowadays, and her imaginary hardships in an English-speaking country with good measures during Covid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

CallMeHollywood

VIP Member
If you’ve not seen her Amoeba what’s in my bag interview with him, that’s very interesting. They both come off horribly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

WinterSolstice

VIP Member
I’ve heard Nathan fillion is a good egg and definitely worth a follow on insta.
There were blinds about him and Katie Stanic having major issues on Castle but all blinds should be taken with a pinch of salt I guess

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1

griftalo

VIP Member
Someone on fb posted how shes definitely not a grifter as “artists deserve to get paid for their work”, then radio silence after the payment in pints and high five thing was posted 🤣

Message seems to be that some artists deserve paying more than others okay?!! What a clown.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I saw her make an apology for something on Facebook the other day, and absolutely no idea for what. None of the cult mentioned it in their comments. Any ideas?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: 1

AX808

Member
Her husband is in the UK, for the premiere of The Sandman series, and she's in America with their son. Still think their marriage is either over, or getting there. A gut feeling, but I could be very wrong.
I think I remember Amanda saying that they were getting a divorce. 2 years ago? I forget.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1