Well based on this, and the fact that he helped Clarke ring round people trying to intimidate them into silence, Maza is coming out of this very badly too. He obviously knew what Clarke was like and didn’t do anything about it.Sky news just said they spoke to a number of actors who didn’t want to be named and they all said they’re not surprised by the allegations. I also saw a clip on bbc news with one of the actresses who spoke out. This clip was taken during filming with Clarke screaming at the actress on set, ordering her to urinate on Jason Maza during a scene(fucked up creepy scumbags) then the pair of them started laughing and pretending it was just a practical joke, the girl looked distressed. Then there’s all the sex scenes Clarke wrote for himself in his own productions
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It doesn’t give them any protection at all. What protection?
You haven’t been talking about the women at all. You’re talking about how Noel Clarke should be protected from trial by media and his guilt shouldn’t be assumed. It’s nothing to do with the women and you know it.
Real talk Noel was out to ruin Adam from long time ago and he bullied all them while making and filming Kidulthood. Noel is a big head who is full of himself!
Some revelations on this thread
I don’t believe anyone’s guilt should be assumed without solid proof you are correct.
I wondered why the police weren’t involved because the allegations are so serious it seems to be that it should warrant the police.
I think the women are very brave and correct for speaking out but I don’t think ‘trial by media’ is the right way to go about it. Whilst it seems very much like this guy has done some awful awful things, what if it’s not true, or part of it’s not true? I don’t think that it should just be assumed every single detail is true based on what people have said. So, my opinion is just that it should be fully and formally investigated.
I really think people on here seem to think I’m sticking up for him and not the women, it’s not that, I’ve said several times I think the guy seems like an worse... I just think before someone is crucified by the media and public, it should be absolutely solidly proven to be true and surely anyone here would want that wouldn’t they if allegations were publicly made about them?
I find it interesting that Clarke is part of the Soho House set - that place has fingers in sooo many pies.
As @Kinvarra rightly pointed out, anybody who is using the 'trial by media' line is confusing tabloid harassment with what this story is, investigative journalism. The Guardian aren't covering their front page with pictures of a scowling Clarke next to a headline like VILE BEAST! Like some of the red tops are wont to. The journalists have undertaken a thorough and no doubt lengthy investigation into the claims made against him. It was stated in the article that they've seen evidence (emails, texts, the dick pic) and there's no way they would have gone to print without having the guidance of a legal team all the way through. Clarke and Maza clearly (according to the article) knew there was a piece coming from the G and allegedly they tried to scramble round to find out who was saying what about Clarke and to quash it if they could. The article is slanted towards the side of the women because they're the ones being interviewed and their statements are, imho, compelling and authentic. This isn't meant to be a puff piece that shows Clarke in a rosy light. The writers followed the trail of claims, witnesses and evidence and this is where it's led. Clarke's voice is in the article via the responses from his legal team.
This is all very, very different to, for example, a recent event of trial by media which was the Caroline Flack case. That was doorstopping her family/going through the bins/unflattering close-ups type stuff. We'll never know what went on that night, the reporting seemed to be based on speculations and assumptions and of course that photo of the bloody bed seemed to have been obtained in an underhand way. It was blown up over the front page to provoke a negative reaction and make CF look like a demon.
Noel Clarke isn't receiving that kind of treatment at the moment, and the Guardian wasn't skewering anything like the papers did with CF to make him look bad. The evidence and statements from the women does that by itself.
This is all very, very different to, for example, a recent event of trial by media which was the Caroline Flack case. That was doorstopping her family/going through the bins/unflattering close-ups type stuff. We'll never know what went on that night, the reporting seemed to be based on speculations and assumptions and of course that photo of the bloody bed seemed to have been obtained in an underhand way. It was blown up over the front page to provoke a negative reaction and make CF look like a demon.
Noel Clarke isn't receiving that kind of treatment at the moment, and the Guardian wasn't skewering anything like the papers did with CF to make him look bad. The evidence and statements from the women does that by itself.
Last edited:
Solid proof? How do you get proof of being groped? Do you wear a go pro camera at all times?
This is why abusers do it because they know that they can get away with it.
I know its a bit of a whataboutery but if my daughter or any individual came to me and said they had been groped or raped or sexually assaulted I cannot imagine me thinking what proof do you have of this? It just doesnt cross my mind at all.
This is why abusers do it because they know that they can get away with it.
I know its a bit of a whataboutery but if my daughter or any individual came to me and said they had been groped or raped or sexually assaulted I cannot imagine me thinking what proof do you have of this? It just doesnt cross my mind at all.
Formally investigated in what way? This isn’t a criminal case where the bar for conviction is set very high i.e beyond a reasonable doubt. People are allowed to form an opinion based on the information available and that includes individuals and organisations with ties to Clarke who are now distancing themselves from him at a very speedy rate. They are perfectly entitled to form an opinion based on the balance of probability and act upon their conclusions. Much in the same way an employer would investigate allegations made about you in the workplace. They don’t have to “prove” the allegations are true, they only have to weigh up the evidence and reach a conclusion based on their findings. If this were not the case, every time anyone was fired for gross misconduct there would have to be a court case. In any case, many of the things Clarke is accused of are not criminal acts. It’s not illegal to be intimidating and a bully but these are things that could and should get you fired in any place of work that took the welfare of its employees seriously
Yes and that’s totally a valid point from a mother’s point of view... I would feel exactly the same if it were my daughter. You cannot prove being groped, but there are others ways, did you tell anyone at the time? Are there witnesses? Etc. That’s all I’m saying.
However... continuing the whataboutery. What if it were my son being accused? I’d want the proof and all I’ve said here is that I think before the media blows this up, it should be investigated more than just taking the statements from the women.
As to sack someone there has to be absolute reason to believe someone has committed gross misconduct. This is normally put together through evidence, statements, emails, records... it’s not as simple as everyone says it so it must be true.
However... continuing the whataboutery. What if it were my son being accused? I’d want the proof and all I’ve said here is that I think before the media blows this up, it should be investigated more than just taking the statements from the women.
You do know, that when someone is fired for gross misconduct, they can appeal, and it can go to employment tribunal, which is in a court room?
As to sack someone there has to be absolute reason to believe someone has committed gross misconduct. This is normally put together through evidence, statements, emails, records... it’s not as simple as everyone says it so it must be true.
I also have a son. If my son was accused by 20 women with corroborating stories and evidence then the liklihood is he did it.
It has been investigated thoroughly by the Guardian imo. They didnt just take statements, theyve been shown texts, photos etc. They will have fact checked all they can and had lawyers check what they are printing.
It was one investigative article and hasnt been sensationalised at all like the red tops would have.
An employment tribunal is not a criminal court. The threshold for proof is very different
Oooh, good point.
I noticed this co star and love interest from season 1 bulletproof has been reposting all of the abuse allegations on her story.
Attachments
Yes but it is still a court of law.
I can see a lot of people in this thread are very angry/triggered by what has happened and that’s absolutely your right and this subject is so serious.
My point has always been, these allegations are so serious I don’t believe that it should be a purely settled and believed based on a newspaper investigation and their statements alone. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but I respect others may not have that viewpoint on this.
A healthy debate is a good one, I just hope if these allegations are indeed true, that justice is served for all these women and this man can not be in such a powerful position again, I think we can all agree on that?
still not a criminal court
Women wouldn't go on record and w
Be willing to give their name if they weren't telling the truth. Have a think about that.
Be willing to give their name if they weren't telling the truth. Have a think about that.
Catherine Tyldesley (who was in Viewpoint) was on Martin & Roman’s Weekend Best this morning on ITV which is a chat show hosted by Martin & Roman Kemp. Catherine was there with another guest. The programme is pre-recorded and I noticed some jumps in the conversation Martin & Roman were having with Catherine.
A little later Martin, Roman and Rosie, who was the other guest, each in turn gave a recommendation of a TV show that they’ve been watching/binge watching recently and then they showed a clip of that show. They never asked Catherine what her recommendation was. Again there was a noticeable jump.
I can only draw the conclusion that she mentioned Viewpoint and/or Noel Clarke as I’m guessing this show was recorded earlier in the week and ITV got the scissors out and cut out any mention of the show and it’s star. Catherine was on This Morning earlier in the week so I presume she recorded Weekend Best the same day
A little later Martin, Roman and Rosie, who was the other guest, each in turn gave a recommendation of a TV show that they’ve been watching/binge watching recently and then they showed a clip of that show. They never asked Catherine what her recommendation was. Again there was a noticeable jump.
I can only draw the conclusion that she mentioned Viewpoint and/or Noel Clarke as I’m guessing this show was recorded earlier in the week and ITV got the scissors out and cut out any mention of the show and it’s star. Catherine was on This Morning earlier in the week so I presume she recorded Weekend Best the same day
I wonder if these allegations and accusations were from parents and children and he was exposed as a child abuser people would still be so supportive of there are 2 sides arguement.
Is it simply because women aren't believed
Why shouldn't stories be exposed by journalists
Is it simply because women aren't believed
Why shouldn't stories be exposed by journalists
What these women are saying is very serious.
Again Roxanne Pallet what if there were no cameras there? She would have been believed, but she wasn’t telling the truth. And I know that’s just one example but it can happen!
Which is why I’m saying, it needs a full investigation before it can be decided it’s all the absolute truth.
If I was making an allegation I’d want to prove it in any way I could.
Again Roxanne Pallet what if there were no cameras there? She would have been believed, but she wasn’t telling the truth. And I know that’s just one example but it can happen!
Which is why I’m saying, it needs a full investigation before it can be decided it’s all the absolute truth.
If I was making an allegation I’d want to prove it in any way I could.