FabSwingers.com > Forums > Scotland > Chris Hardwick
Chris Hardwick
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
  | |||
| |||
| |||
"I'm a huge supporter of until found guilty of any crime no names should be used. A woman can cry a false r..e claim and the guys name is out there straight away but the female is anonymous" Thing was here though, she didn’t post anonymously, posted the essay in her own name and didn’t actually name him, but it was as obvious as Ulrika not naming John Leslie al those years ago | |||
"I think you're correct in that there will be a lot of polarized opinion on this. I said this on another post but right now I am reading a fascinating book on human behaviour called Behave by Robert Sapolsky. A lot of it is about brain function and how hormones are involved in every action we make. It looks at social and moral issues in regard to this not only in big ways like why folk kill, take drugs etc but why we form family groups and so on too. It really does make you think and totally makes you rethink your opinions on lots of issues. He doesn't make allowances for morally wrong issues, just tries to explore the why and how... tickles the dusty corners of the brain to be sure "Sounds like an interesting read  | |||
"Unless there is 100% proof then they should be allowed to remain anonymous. Its a horrible thing for anyone to be accused of something they havent done and sadly once word is out it usually grows arms and legs !!!!" That’s my point, even if allegations found to be untrue, it’s the loss of reputation and poor chance of recovering it. Look at Matthew Kelly, and more recently Cliff Richard  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Has this thread been shut down?" what do you mean? | |||
| |||
"Sorry I just wrote a lengthy reply to Leila Organa but if was rejected based on the topic.. maybe it was a trigger word in my reply... I’ll try again "ah okay I see lol | |||
"I read her post, and I've also seen other people within the industry comment that they're not surprised by this coming out, so I would assume that it isn't just the lady in question. Abusers rarely just have one victim. The idea of named before proven guilty does not sit well with me, especially in criminal cases and something should be done about that. But this isn't a criminal case. This is an abused woman speaking out because now there is the chance she will be believed, that there is solidarity and support that wasn't there before, the chance of her career being shot to pieces for doing so is minimised by the #MeToo movement, and there are other women who could be in danger of the same thing happening to them. Until I have evidence otherwise, I will always believe the victim. " I read her essay too and parts of it made for very uncomfortable reading. I also saw some people posting in support of her as well, as have other exes of him in support of him. I don’t doubt that their break up was a very acrimonious one, and if his statement has any truth to it, there was a 30 odd day period where there were some ultimately unsuccessful attempts to salvage the relationship.who hasn’t been through a ugly break up where neither party has behaved in a way they’d be proud of later on. I’d afford her the same courtesy as him regarding the allegations, It’d would be equally premature to dismiss her story as that of a bitter ex However it was your last sentence that troubled me and is central to the broader point I was making. What you said is pretty much exactly the same as guilty until proven innocent in the case of the accused person (criminal or otherwise) Let me ask you hypothetically, what if it was you that had been accused of something online, some form of sexual misconduct, not anything criminal, but something that could cost you your job, many of your friends, your current relationship if you’re in one, and your reputation in the long term. Would you still hold to the same view that once your alleged victim points a finger at you, then we should believe her until you can prove your innocence? I think only two people really know what happened between them and once you strip away all the ‘evidence’ of supporting hearsay from both sides it boils down to her word against his for much of what she alleges. Is that enough to trash someone’s career and livelihood for? | |||
 | |||
"I read her post, and I've also seen other people within the industry comment that they're not surprised by this coming out, so I would assume that it isn't just the lady in question. Abusers rarely just have one victim. The idea of named before proven guilty does not sit well with me, especially in criminal cases and something should be done about that. But this isn't a criminal case. This is an abused woman speaking out because now there is the chance she will be believed, that there is solidarity and support that wasn't there before, the chance of her career being shot to pieces for doing so is minimised by the #MeToo movement, and there are other women who could be in danger of the same thing happening to them. Until I have evidence otherwise, I will always believe the victim. I read her essay too and parts of it made for very uncomfortable reading. I also saw some people posting in support of her as well, as have other exes of him in support of him. I don’t doubt that their break up was a very acrimonious one, and if his statement has any truth to it, there was a 30 odd day period where there were some ultimately unsuccessful attempts to salvage the relationship.who hasn’t been through a ugly break up where neither party has behaved in a way they’d be proud of later on. I’d afford her the same courtesy as him regarding the allegations, It’d would be equally premature to dismiss her story as that of a bitter ex However it was your last sentence that troubled me and is central to the broader point I was making. What you said is pretty much exactly the same as guilty until proven innocent in the case of the accused person (criminal or otherwise) Let me ask you hypothetically, what if it was you that had been accused of something online, some form of sexual misconduct, not anything criminal, but something that could cost you your job, many of your friends, your current relationship if you’re in one, and your reputation in the long term. Would you still hold to the same view that once your alleged victim points a finger at you, then we should believe her until you can prove your innocence? I think only two people really know what happened between them and once you strip away all the ‘evidence’ of supporting hearsay from both sides it boils down to her word against his for much of what she alleges. Is that enough to trash someone’s career and livelihood for?" I think it's very hard for victims to come forward when they have been abused or attacked by someone, or even accept that they have been manipulated, hence trying to reconcile in this case. If it's a woman claiming to be the victim of assault she has to face questions in court such as what had she been drinking, what was she wearing at the time etc, as if the attacker's decision to behave the way he did was her fault. So why should she press forward when everything tells her she won't be believed? I say she because it most often is women who are the victims. The fact that Terry Crews is now also speaking out about being assaulted will hopefully lead to more male personalities showing that it happens to them too. In this case the accusation isn't a random act, it was a systematic assault on her confidence and her independence. One accusation against someone can be viewed as a 'he said she said', I agree. And in this case there is only one woman speaking out. The point that others within that industry are saying they're not surprised by this would make me consider that it's not just a one off and I would be wary of that person, to see if more details or victims emerge. It's a hard one to call, but I would always err on the side of the victim. Others may disagree with me but that's how I feel. I do wish that in court cases of assault that all parties were kept anonymous until the accused has been found guilty, I think that would only be fair. But I don't see that happening, and as we all know Hollywood is a whole different kettle of fish that can't keep anything private. I know I'm not articulating myself as well as I'd like to, other people are far more eloquent than me. | |||
| |||
"I read her post, and I've also seen other people within the industry comment that they're not surprised by this coming out, so I would assume that it isn't just the lady in question. Abusers rarely just have one victim. The idea of named before proven guilty does not sit well with me, especially in criminal cases and something should be done about that. But this isn't a criminal case. This is an abused woman speaking out because now there is the chance she will be believed, that there is solidarity and support that wasn't there before, the chance of her career being shot to pieces for doing so is minimised by the #MeToo movement, and there are other women who could be in danger of the same thing happening to them. Until I have evidence otherwise, I will always believe the victim. I read her essay too and parts of it made for very uncomfortable reading. I also saw some people posting in support of her as well, as have other exes of him in support of him. I don’t doubt that their break up was a very acrimonious one, and if his statement has any truth to it, there was a 30 odd day period where there were some ultimately unsuccessful attempts to salvage the relationship.who hasn’t been through a ugly break up where neither party has behaved in a way they’d be proud of later on. I’d afford her the same courtesy as him regarding the allegations, It’d would be equally premature to dismiss her story as that of a bitter ex However it was your last sentence that troubled me and is central to the broader point I was making. What you said is pretty much exactly the same as guilty until proven innocent in the case of the accused person (criminal or otherwise) Let me ask you hypothetically, what if it was you that had been accused of something online, some form of sexual misconduct, not anything criminal, but something that could cost you your job, many of your friends, your current relationship if you’re in one, and your reputation in the long term. Would you still hold to the same view that once your alleged victim points a finger at you, then we should believe her until you can prove your innocence? I think only two people really know what happened between them and once you strip away all the ‘evidence’ of supporting hearsay from both sides it boils down to her word against his for much of what she alleges. Is that enough to trash someone’s career and livelihood for? I think it's very hard for victims to come forward when they have been abused or attacked by someone, or even accept that they have been manipulated, hence trying to reconcile in this case. If it's a woman claiming to be the victim of assault she has to face questions in court such as what had she been drinking, what was she wearing at the time etc, as if the attacker's decision to behave the way he did was her fault. So why should she press forward when everything tells her she won't be believed? I say she because it most often is women who are the victims. The fact that Terry Crews is now also speaking out about being assaulted will hopefully lead to more male personalities showing that it happens to them too. In this case the accusation isn't a random act, it was a systematic assault on her confidence and her independence. One accusation against someone can be viewed as a 'he said she said', I agree. And in this case there is only one woman speaking out. The point that others within that industry are saying they're not surprised by this would make me consider that it's not just a one off and I would be wary of that person, to see if more details or victims emerge. It's a hard one to call, but I would always err on the side of the victim. Others may disagree with me but that's how I feel. I do wish that in court cases of assault that all parties were kept anonymous until the accused has been found guilty, I think that would only be fair. But I don't see that happening, and as we all know Hollywood is a whole different kettle of fish that can't keep anything private. I know I'm not articulating myself as well as I'd like to, other people are far more eloquent than me." I think you were quite eloquent, and its admirable to feel an empathy with the victim of any such behaviour if true My broader point is, and you swaying more towards the alleged victim in this case is that as a society, it feels like we are moving towards the court of public opinion, and getting to the facts of the matter dont seem to be that important any more. Theres a great clip of denzel washington being red carpeted, baited into responding to a fake news story about him and he makes a point about this. If you search for ‘denzel Washington speaks truth to thirsty media’ on YouTube you’ll see what I mean. IF what Chloe Dykstra says is true then Chris Hardwick needs to be accountable for that, but just putting it out there doesn’t mean it’s true. Whatever happened to due process? Washington says ‘doesn’t matter if it’s true any more so long as you get it out there first.. sell it’ I think that’s an example of what people are calling an era of ‘post truth’  | |||
"Not a fan of #metoo and other such things its nothing more than naming and shaming and so open to abuse (many cases of that campaign have been proven to be false allegations) if you have a complaint of abuse take it to the authoritys" My point exactly, no one remembers the bitter ex partner of Matthew Kelly who falsely alleged he had child porn on his computer. Everyone remembers the cops arresting him, taking all devices in his house away for forensic examination. Look at the coverage the raid on Cliff Richard’s house got. All charges dropped no evidence found, but the accuser gets to walk away with no accountability. The system is open to abuse, to enact revenge. Real victims shouldn’t feel afraid to speak out somewhere but the Hardwick/Dykstra one just feels off to me | |||
"I read her post, and I've also seen other people within the industry comment that they're not surprised by this coming out, so I would assume that it isn't just the lady in question. Abusers rarely just have one victim. The idea of named before proven guilty does not sit well with me, especially in criminal cases and something should be done about that. But this isn't a criminal case. This is an abused woman speaking out because now there is the chance she will be believed, that there is solidarity and support that wasn't there before, the chance of her career being shot to pieces for doing so is minimised by the #MeToo movement, and there are other women who could be in danger of the same thing happening to them. Until I have evidence otherwise, I will always believe the victim. I read her essay too and parts of it made for very uncomfortable reading. I also saw some people posting in support of her as well, as have other exes of him in support of him. I don’t doubt that their break up was a very acrimonious one, and if his statement has any truth to it, there was a 30 odd day period where there were some ultimately unsuccessful attempts to salvage the relationship.who hasn’t been through a ugly break up where neither party has behaved in a way they’d be proud of later on. I’d afford her the same courtesy as him regarding the allegations, It’d would be equally premature to dismiss her story as that of a bitter ex However it was your last sentence that troubled me and is central to the broader point I was making. What you said is pretty much exactly the same as guilty until proven innocent in the case of the accused person (criminal or otherwise) Let me ask you hypothetically, what if it was you that had been accused of something online, some form of sexual misconduct, not anything criminal, but something that could cost you your job, many of your friends, your current relationship if you’re in one, and your reputation in the long term. Would you still hold to the same view that once your alleged victim points a finger at you, then we should believe her until you can prove your innocence? I think only two people really know what happened between them and once you strip away all the ‘evidence’ of supporting hearsay from both sides it boils down to her word against his for much of what she alleges. Is that enough to trash someone’s career and livelihood for? I think it's very hard for victims to come forward when they have been abused or attacked by someone, or even accept that they have been manipulated, hence trying to reconcile in this case. If it's a woman claiming to be the victim of assault she has to face questions in court such as what had she been drinking, what was she wearing at the time etc, as if the attacker's decision to behave the way he did was her fault. So why should she press forward when everything tells her she won't be believed? I say she because it most often is women who are the victims. The fact that Terry Crews is now also speaking out about being assaulted will hopefully lead to more male personalities showing that it happens to them too. In this case the accusation isn't a random act, it was a systematic assault on her confidence and her independence. One accusation against someone can be viewed as a 'he said she said', I agree. And in this case there is only one woman speaking out. The point that others within that industry are saying they're not surprised by this would make me consider that it's not just a one off and I would be wary of that person, to see if more details or victims emerge. It's a hard one to call, but I would always err on the side of the victim. Others may disagree with me but that's how I feel. I do wish that in court cases of assault that all parties were kept anonymous until the accused has been found guilty, I think that would only be fair. But I don't see that happening, and as we all know Hollywood is a whole different kettle of fish that can't keep anything private. I know I'm not articulating myself as well as I'd like to, other people are far more eloquent than me. I think you were quite eloquent, and its admirable to feel an empathy with the victim of any such behaviour if true My broader point is, and you swaying more towards the alleged victim in this case is that as a society, it feels like we are moving towards the court of public opinion, and getting to the facts of the matter dont seem to be that important any more. Theres a great clip of denzel washington being red carpeted, baited into responding to a fake news story about him and he makes a point about this. If you search for ‘denzel Washington speaks truth to thirsty media’ on YouTube you’ll see what I mean. IF what Chloe Dykstra says is true then Chris Hardwick needs to be accountable for that, but just putting it out there doesn’t mean it’s true. Whatever happened to due process? Washington says ‘doesn’t matter if it’s true any more so long as you get it out there first.. sell it’ I think that’s an example of what people are calling an era of ‘post truth’ "Perhaps, but sadly that's the culture we live in, not sure what can be done about that. The media will do anything to be the first to get viewers/readers on all subjects, from celebrities on holiday to people being murdered on film. I choose what to read/view and what not to, what to believe and what to take with a pinch of salt. Doesn't mean I'm right every time but I do my best to just be a decent person. | |||
"I read her post, and I've also seen other people within the industry comment that they're not surprised by this coming out, so I would assume that it isn't just the lady in question. Abusers rarely just have one victim. The idea of named before proven guilty does not sit well with me, especially in criminal cases and something should be done about that. But this isn't a criminal case. This is an abused woman speaking out because now there is the chance she will be believed, that there is solidarity and support that wasn't there before, the chance of her career being shot to pieces for doing so is minimised by the #MeToo movement, and there are other women who could be in danger of the same thing happening to them. Until I have evidence otherwise, I will always believe the victim. I read her essay too and parts of it made for very uncomfortable reading. I also saw some people posting in support of her as well, as have other exes of him in support of him. I don’t doubt that their break up was a very acrimonious one, and if his statement has any truth to it, there was a 30 odd day period where there were some ultimately unsuccessful attempts to salvage the relationship.who hasn’t been through a ugly break up where neither party has behaved in a way they’d be proud of later on. I’d afford her the same courtesy as him regarding the allegations, It’d would be equally premature to dismiss her story as that of a bitter ex However it was your last sentence that troubled me and is central to the broader point I was making. What you said is pretty much exactly the same as guilty until proven innocent in the case of the accused person (criminal or otherwise) Let me ask you hypothetically, what if it was you that had been accused of something online, some form of sexual misconduct, not anything criminal, but something that could cost you your job, many of your friends, your current relationship if you’re in one, and your reputation in the long term. Would you still hold to the same view that once your alleged victim points a finger at you, then we should believe her until you can prove your innocence? I think only two people really know what happened between them and once you strip away all the ‘evidence’ of supporting hearsay from both sides it boils down to her word against his for much of what she alleges. Is that enough to trash someone’s career and livelihood for? I think it's very hard for victims to come forward when they have been abused or attacked by someone, or even accept that they have been manipulated, hence trying to reconcile in this case. If it's a woman claiming to be the victim of assault she has to face questions in court such as what had she been drinking, what was she wearing at the time etc, as if the attacker's decision to behave the way he did was her fault. So why should she press forward when everything tells her she won't be believed? I say she because it most often is women who are the victims. The fact that Terry Crews is now also speaking out about being assaulted will hopefully lead to more male personalities showing that it happens to them too. In this case the accusation isn't a random act, it was a systematic assault on her confidence and her independence. One accusation against someone can be viewed as a 'he said she said', I agree. And in this case there is only one woman speaking out. The point that others within that industry are saying they're not surprised by this would make me consider that it's not just a one off and I would be wary of that person, to see if more details or victims emerge. It's a hard one to call, but I would always err on the side of the victim. Others may disagree with me but that's how I feel. I do wish that in court cases of assault that all parties were kept anonymous until the accused has been found guilty, I think that would only be fair. But I don't see that happening, and as we all know Hollywood is a whole different kettle of fish that can't keep anything private. I know I'm not articulating myself as well as I'd like to, other people are far more eloquent than me. I think you were quite eloquent, and its admirable to feel an empathy with the victim of any such behaviour if true My broader point is, and you swaying more towards the alleged victim in this case is that as a society, it feels like we are moving towards the court of public opinion, and getting to the facts of the matter dont seem to be that important any more. Theres a great clip of denzel washington being red carpeted, baited into responding to a fake news story about him and he makes a point about this. If you search for ‘denzel Washington speaks truth to thirsty media’ on YouTube you’ll see what I mean. IF what Chloe Dykstra says is true then Chris Hardwick needs to be accountable for that, but just putting it out there doesn’t mean it’s true. Whatever happened to due process? Washington says ‘doesn’t matter if it’s true any more so long as you get it out there first.. sell it’ I think that’s an example of what people are calling an era of ‘post truth’
Perhaps, but sadly that's the culture we live in, not sure what can be done about that. The media will do anything to be the first to get viewers/readers on all subjects, from celebrities on holiday to people being murdered on film. I choose what to read/view and what not to, what to believe and what to take with a pinch of salt. Doesn't mean I'm right every time but I do my best to just be a decent person. "My point precisely, bugger the facts, best storyteller wins and the public decide..... its why pish like Love Island is so popular. I sincerely hope he’s not guilty of any and all the things she’s accused him of, but if he is i’ll hold up my hands and admit I’m wrong. | |||
| |||
