David Walliams #2

[AllSeeingEye123]

I can only imagine, I have witnessed male/female co-workers cheating on their partner in public..Which is something that I could never do, but I have never witnessed a sexual assault myself...

There was a married guy who loved to enthusiasticly hug female co-workers, but these married women were fine with it & never pulled away.

People live in a different world to me. My work place us males are probably 1 in every 5. We are really outnumbered. It used to be a bigger ratio. Like any work place you get on better with some more than others, but everyone is OK.

The only things I know ever bothered a few co workers was when one or two would innocently compliment they have had their hair done or a new item of clothing they are wearing. Where if a female colleague said the same they wouldn't see it as a little creepy. It was all innocent but they are entitled to feel that way.

 

[RebelRebel]

I can't tell if you're trolling this thread or you're actually this clueless? Co-workers cheating has zero to do with grooming or sexual assault.

They were on the Russell Brand thread spewing rit about how anally raping someone was just a silly mistake to make or something horrendous like that. I wouldn't bother engaging with them any further.

 

[kittycatkitty]

That Graham poster was in the Brand thread too, constantly derailing it, definitely a man who enjoys rage baiting women and make excuses for sexual predators. I think he stopped commenting when everyone just ignored him. He’s not even worth debating!

 

[IndominusRex]

This thread is moving too quickly for me to keep up but Alan Carr has liked posts about Lucy B whistleblowing.

 

[invisobelt]

I might get a bit of stick for this but I honestly think there's a bit of perspective missing from some of these discussions.

I'm seeing all the comments about David Walliams, Russell Brand and now Chris Evans and Billie Piper, with people questioning whether he groomed her. I'm also seeing people suggesting age gaps should be limited and I just think we're in danger of labelling absolutely everything as grooming or abuse without actually looking at the circumstances.

I'm not saying inappropriate behaviour should be excused or that just because something was considered normal at the time it automatically makes it right. But surely we have to acknowledge that attitudes, expectations and what was considered acceptable were very different 20 or 30 years ago.

I'm talking about relationships involving people aged 16 and over here, not children or underage situations. There's a distinction. Not every relationship with an age gap is grooming. You can think an age gap is strange, you can disagree with it, but that doesn't automatically mean someone has been abused or manipulated.

I'm also not suggesting every woman involved in these situations had the same experience. Some will have been exploited, some won't. We shouldn't dismiss anyone's experience, but equally I don't think we should automatically assume someone was groomed purely because of an age difference.

If we go far enough back in history there are countless things that were considered acceptable that we'd rightly challenge today. Society moves on, we learn and our expectations change. That's a good thing.

But surely the point is that we learn from it and apply what we know now going forward, rather than retrospectively trying to judge every person and every relationship from decades ago purely by today's standards.

I'm not defending anyone or saying nobody should be held accountable. I just think there's room for a bit more common sense and nuance. Not everything is black and white and not every age-gap relationship is automatically a scandal.

Sure, okay...but I think we're also talking the difference between legal and moral. What's legal isn't always moral and what's moral isn't always legal. The age gap plus celebrity means a lot of these vulnerable girls and young women could be easily coerced, cajoled, have their normal common sense overrun with the glitz and glamor and seeing a face they thought was a friend they knew from tv.

So while it doesn't automatically mean someone was abused or manipulated, it means that it's likely higher that something really crappy has happened and they invite the court of public opinion upon their actions as they are public figures. No one is a saint, but it's not wrong to suspect someone who looks like a pon of being a pon (or pon adjacent) or at the very least an unsavory character who should be looked upon with derision because they played outside of the bounds of what they should have done.

 

[TheMiceInTheShed]

Room on the broom is the current topic in my kids nursery, they've been making little brooms and painting pictures etc so not sure what the school will do now. Hoping they move on quickly. As for watching it, my kid loves it but is only 3 so im sure I can divert them to something else. Whilst I am annoyed its been pulled as its such a good little film I respect them for doing so. Hopefully they can just remove his voice and add someone else?

BIB - |I was hoping this, too - that they could dub him.

 

[Bobbleowl90]

Sure, okay...but I think we're also talking the difference between legal and moral. What's legal isn't always moral and what's moral isn't always legal. The age gap plus celebrity means a lot of these vulnerable girls and young women could be easily coerced, cajoled, have their normal common sense overrun with the glitz and glamor and seeing a face they thought was a friend they knew from tv.

So while it doesn't automatically mean someone was abused or manipulated, it means that it's likely higher that something really crappy has happened and they invite the court of public opinion upon their actions as they are public figures. No one is a saint, but it's not wrong to suspect someone who looks like a pon of being a pon (or pon adjacent) or at the very least an unsavory character who should be looked upon with derision because they played outside of the bounds of what they should have done.

Yeah, I actually agree with quite a bit of what you've said. I absolutely accept that there's a difference between what's legal and what's morally right, and that power imbalances, particularly when someone is famous or in a position of influence, can make situations quite uncomfortable.

I've actually experienced something similar myself. I was 19 and at uni, doing work experience on a well known TV show. Two men on the show, who were considerably older than me, asked me to have a threesome with them. Entirely legal, obviously, but I felt really uncomfortable and never went back.

So I do understand that just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it appropriate or mean the younger person is comfortable with it.

I suppose I just think every situation deserves to be looked at individually. I'm not defending anyone or dismissing anyone else's experiences. I just don't think every age gap relationship automatically means grooming or exploitation

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

" I suppose I just think every situation deserves to be looked at individually. I'm not defending anyone or dismissing anyone else's experiences. I just don't think every age gap relationship automatically means grooming or exploitation "

We're not talking about normal relationships though are we, we're talking about ones where there is a significant age gap AND a massive power imbalance. Whatever type of power - physical, financial, celebrity etc

 

[Bobbleowl90]

" I suppose I just think every situation deserves to be looked at individually. I'm not defending anyone or dismissing anyone else's experiences. I just don't think every age gap relationship automatically means grooming or exploitation "

We're not talking about normal relationships though are we, we're talking about ones where there is a significant age gap AND a massive power imbalance. Whatever type of power - physical, financial, celebrity etc

But there have been mentions in regards to the law being changed to prevent these age gaps which is what I’m referring to.