Actors are actors. They play people who they are not. Not the people they act. For God's sake!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41925767

BBC Agatha Christie drama removed from the schedules because Ed Westwick appears in it.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41941904

JK2006 wrote:
Actors are actors. They play people who they are not. Not the people they act. For God's sake!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41925767

They are replacing a man who has not even been charged with anything, let alone convicted?

We are definitely not in Kansas any more, Toto.

And another. It must be mass hysteria.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5070461...ence-rape-claim.html

The process which began with the removal of Gary Glitter and JK from screenings of Top Of The Pops, then the refusal to screen any episode featuring Jimmy Savile or Dave Lee Travis, has now led to people being removed from completed films, series being cancelled and screenings being abandoned, purely on the basis of an accusation which has never been tried in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty? - this concept would appear to have been abolished.

Andy wrote:
The process which began with the removal of Gary Glitter and JK from screenings of Top Of The Pops, then the refusal to screen any episode featuring Jimmy Savile or Dave Lee Travis, has now led to people being removed from completed films, series being cancelled and screenings being abandoned, purely on the basis of an accusation which has never been tried in a court of law. Innocent until proven guilty? - this concept would appear to have been abolished.

I thought DLT was cleared.

He was for all except a couple of undecided; bloody CPS decided on a new trial; police found a comedienne who made a further claim; in second trial he was acquitted on all charges except that one. Given a tiny community sentence but enough for the BBC to shit all over him and the costs not to be repaid. For me the single worst case of the broken system being vindictive as well as shattered.

YES - you've all gone mad !!!!


JK2006 wrote:
He was for all except a couple of undecided; bloody CPS decided on a new trial; police found a comedienne who made a further claim; in second trial he was acquitted on all charges except that one. Given a tiny community sentence but enough for the BBC to shit all over him and the costs not to be repaid. For me the single worst case of the broken system being vindictive as well as shattered.

so ... he's innocent - but he's not !!!!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

They are replacing a man who has not even been charged with anything, let alone convicted?

If you had sunk $30 million into a film would you wait and find blockades / demos at cinemas?

JK2006 wrote:
He was for all except a couple of undecided; bloody CPS decided on a new trial; police found a comedienne who made a further claim; in second trial he was acquitted on all charges except that one. Given a tiny community sentence but enough for the BBC to shit all over him and the costs not to be repaid. For me the single worst case of the broken system being vindictive as well as shattered.

Don't pay the TV tax.

DLT was innocent of all the false allegations except one new one - according to the odd jury. Yes ITK we are guilty of something and innocent of others. Even you.

But that one minor charge was considered enough to prevent any programme he appeared in being prevented from ever being seen again.

I hate the way DLT was treated (I say this as someone who thought he was a fool to often especially on Television)

I also hate that the 'victim'he was found guilty of used to use the alleged misdemeanour as part of her comedy routine.

Although I haven't seen her on Television for ages so hopefully her career has taken a backward step although not ruined like Mr Travis was.

Louis CK has had the release of his film cancelled after admitting masturbating in front of women - though he did always ask their permission first.

www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/news/a842788/...true-full-statement/

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

They are replacing a man who has not even been charged with anything, let alone convicted?

If you had sunk $30 million into a film would you wait and find blockades / demos at cinemas?

Rather than publicly accuse an innocent man? Yes. I would!

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

They are replacing a man who has not even been charged with anything, let alone convicted?

If you had sunk $30 million into a film would you wait and find blockades / demos at cinemas?

Rather than publicly accuse an innocent man? Yes. I would!

film scrapped after accused admits its all true !

American comedian Louis CK has said the allegations of sexual misconduct against him are true.

He issued a statement as his new film I Love You Daddy was scrapped by its distributor after five women made claims against the Emmy-winning performer.

news.sky.com/story/us-comedian-louis-ck-...ct-are-true-11121302

Indeed - just more proof of the total insanity that has at last infected our species.

In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
In The Know wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

They are replacing a man who has not even been charged with anything, let alone convicted?

If you had sunk $30 million into a film would you wait and find blockades / demos at cinemas?

Rather than publicly accuse an innocent man? Yes. I would!

film scrapped after accused admits its all true !

American comedian Louis CK has said the allegations of sexual misconduct against him are true.

He issued a statement as his new film I Love You Daddy was scrapped by its distributor after five women made claims against the Emmy-winning performer.

news.sky.com/story/us-comedian-louis-ck-...ct-are-true-11121302


As long as his penis is under control on the film, what difference does it make?

He already apologised nicely.

We've gone from films being withdrawn because of accusations of rape, to films being withdrawn because a man asked permission of women to expose himself. What next - will a film be withdrawn because somebody in the costume department had a sexual thought?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
As long as his penis is under control on the film, what difference does it make?

He already apologised nicely.

Why don't you test it out, honey!

Stump up $30 million to make a movie - starring Rolf Harris - and see how much profit you make ... lol !