It wasn't called out because people didn't want to be accused of being homophobic. DW knew this.This is what I don’t understand. Why it’s not called out. It doesn’t make sense.
The tide has turned. Assault is assault, whatever the gender.
It wasn't called out because people didn't want to be accused of being homophobic. DW knew this.This is what I don’t understand. Why it’s not called out. It doesn’t make sense.
I think because it's happening on stage, the audience must have assumed it was scripted fun, backed up by everyone else cheering.I hadn't seen that until today either, and what strikes me is the audience who are egging him on. He's disgusting for doing it, but pack mentality of the crowd is equally disgusting. It shows what happens when people are caught up in the evil acts of another. This was (relatively) small scale, but exactly the same thing is going on in the US with the orange pumpkin in the Whitehouse.
That's sickening.I think because it's happening on stage, the audience must have assumed it was scripted fun, backed up by everyone else cheering.
I've just seen it, Mark Robson was smiling at first, then when it became clear Walliams was really trying to pull them down, he was not smiling at all. You can see him saying "stop, stop" at the end. Even at the end when Walliams was saying no, that's too far, he still had his hands on Mark Robson's crotch and waistband to keep the threat and domination there.
He would have been inhibited from defending himself because in those days, he would have been treated like he's silly and can't take a joke. And probably has a tiny pen. He had a whole concert hall of people cheering on his attacker like it was some big joke. It must have been very hard to know how to play this public humiliation.
(*Just noted my phone had autocorrected to Robson. I know it's Ronson, no disrespect intended!)I think because it's happening on stage, the audience must have assumed it was scripted fun, backed up by everyone else cheering.
I've just seen it, Mark Robson was smiling at first, then when it became clear Walliams was really trying to pull them down, he was not smiling at all. You can see him saying "stop, stop" at the end. Even at the end when Walliams was saying no, that's too far, he still had his hands on Mark Robson's crotch and waistband to keep the threat and domination there.
He would have been inhibited from defending himself because in those days, he would have been treated like he's silly and can't take a joke. And probably has a tiny pen. He had a whole concert hall of people cheering on his attacker like it was some big joke. It must have been very hard to know how to play this public humiliation.
Her little angel couldn't possibly have done anything wrongHis mum must be so proud....![]()
I think the biggest problem is that a lot of the wronguns won't risk being inappropriate in situations when they're likely to face consequences. They'll typically target someone of a lower status who doesn't have as much power, someone younger.Also, I tell you what annoys me with the whole celeb circle, not just in relation to Walliams.
You see clips of various podcasts where they mention “people in the industry talk, if somebody’s rude to staff, we all know about it” etc.
Except those SAME people were happy to sycophantically fawn over Edwards, Schofield, Mills, Wallace, Walliams etc.
I believe it may have been Richard Osman on RIE who really stuck up for Gregg Wallace when he felt the press were giving him a hard time over some sort of day in his life feature. Lots of “everyone who worked on House of Games said he was lovely, never a bad word about him”. This was weeks before he was officially exposed.. so much for “everyone in this industry talks- we know who the wronguns are”. Definitely made me side eye Richard’s own conduct because much like Walliams, Wallace’s conduct had been an open secret for years. And if you're a production runner who feels really uncomfortable with the behaviour of a wealthy celebrity, are you REALLY going to go to Richard Osman about it? Someone who always defends the status quo? It's bull.
There was one of the Radio DJs who said the same about Scott Mills earlier in the year too… I can’t tell you who so don’t quote me on that though. I get that the details are a bit less clearcut on that one but come on…
The cynic in me sees this as deflection but I do hope she is receiving the best care.Lara Stone has just announced she has been diagnosed with breast cancer and is undergoing treatment. I hope their son has good support from her side of the extended family.
No she hates him.She basically called him evil in an interview a few years ago.The cynic in me sees this as deflection but I do hope she is receiving the best care.
He once said that it would probably do him good going with a strong older woman but so far as I know this didn't happen..at least publicly.I think the biggest problem is that a lot of the wronguns won't risk being inappropriate in situations when they're likely to face consequences. They'll typically target someone of a lower status who doesn't have as much power, someone younger.
For Gregg Wallace, it was mainly inappropriate/sexual comments disguised as 'bawdy' humour which he did apparently direct at 'middle aged women'. But all his inappropriate physical advances seemed to involve staff members/assistants.
He might have been lovely on House Of Games because that's not his show and he's just another guest. He'll know to rein it and be family friendly because it's a teatime show.
Walliams very rarely reined his inappropriate humour in but instead he (and Brand). It's very telling that it was specifically junior staff members at Harper Collins that were warned against Walliams, which is as much about power as it is their age. Same goes for younger fangirls.
Same goes for Russell Brand - many of the accusations against him that took place at work were younger staff members and assistants. For a guy who declared he'd bag any woman between 18-80, isn't it funny that he seemingly never got inappropriate with an older woman on set, like a producer or an executive? It's almost like he didn't go after someone who could actually fire him if they wanted to.
And that's why the whole 'open secret' thing isn't helpful either. If the industry won't do anything tangible to prevent known predators because that 'talent' makes them money, how does that encourage someone to speak out when something happens with a celebrity that "nobody ever says a bad word about"? All because they know not to attack the hand that feeds them?