Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
This article has pissed me off quite a lot.
but how the hell can you sexually assault a newspaper group?
Too long for me to bother reading. Does the woman he 'assualted' feel that she was taken advantage of? If she doesn't care, The Guardian can fuck off.
And fucking irresponsible of the Guardian to publish this really damaging horse shit.
and of course wholly devoid of humour. She'd have every right to feel take advantage of. But given the circumstances of the event, such accusations should really be left up to her.
I think it's entirely reasonable of the Guardian to publish a review of the gig and whether it was in good taste but it crosses the line to publicly accuse him of what would be a criminal offence.
there was an entire audience they're watching it, and surely its also up to them to decide whether what they watched was 'entertainment' or someone being completely taken advantage of, who hasn't necessarily got the power to stop it. She was probably too much in shock to actually say 'what the hell are you doing you awful man!?!'
But for me it's more a question of whether it's appropriate for a newspaper to publicly accuse someone of a crime without them really being given a recourse to defend themselves...
And the first guy re the Maddie McCann case. Ultimately the newspapers raked up a whole load of shit on them and publicly tore apart their reputations and subsequently (to date at least) neither has been charged with any kind of offence.
I mean these kind of stories stick and from now on it'll be in the public domain that Johnny Vegas sexually assaults women, regardless of whether that's true.
Its awful what happened to him.
point was more in reference to DK's point about the accusations being up to her rather than the audience.... but yes its all very confusing!
they like it as comedy or find it appropriate, not to spread slurs
It doesn't change the fact the Guardian were planning to write a public accusation with a cursory statement from JV at the bottom, as these things tend to go.
I wouldn't describe that as giving him a proper chance to defend himself. Whilst I agree with your view that the witnesses do have as much right to make a complaint as well as the victim, it is not a newpaper's place to publicly accuse someone of a crime and it is deeply unethical of them to do so.
One someone's accused the damage is done. Until Madeleine McCann is found and someone is charged there'll always be rumours that it was the parents or it was Robert Murat.
It would be wrong of any newspaper to ignore something like this but, whereas the ThisisLondon article reported what happened, gave an opinion but didn't make any inflammatory or direct accusations leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions, the Guardian article drew its own conclusions and published them with no regard to the damage they might do (including to the girl herself who they publically stated got "fingered" by Johnny Vegas). People believe what they read in newspapers which is why newspapers should be incredibly careful about what they print.
You win at opinions.
I'm not going to re-do it as we could go round in circles and there's no point but I feel your line on this has worrying implications in terms of an individual's freedom from press persecution.
As far as I am concerned the article goes much, much, much too far.
Nobody is saying it is acceptable. But this still doesn't change the fact we don't actually know what happens and the entire fact we're wildly speculating on what Johnny Vegas did in this manner without seeing the footage and (so far) without an actual criminal investigation pretty much proves my point.
I presume by now you know full well what I'm saying. I still think I'm right on this but neither of us is going to convince the other...
It isn't the audience who kicked up a fuss. It was a journalist with an agenda.
It's well-written, considered and appropriate.
Their agenda is to get a story. I made no reference to a political agenda.
Is the massive fuss from the audience why the event has been unreported for so long? Or why the victim doesn't appear to have said anything? Or why we don't know anything about the victim, like for example, whether ot not she was a plant?
Johnny Vegas may well have acted inappropriately and if he has, I hope he recieves the condemnation and punishment he would deserve. The simple fact of the matter is though that there is no proof a sexual assault has been committed and yet he has publicly been brandished.
and can see no reason why you would think that.
My point remains that he has indeed been brandished as sexually assaulting a young woman in public when there is no real evidence (as of yet anyway, that may well change) that is the case at all. You can't escape that fact.
Of course the woman's opinion matters. Either she felt she was part of a routine she had no objection or she felt violated. That will be the difference between this being inappropriate (which I believe it to be) and criminal.
What you need to realise is the difference in the context and environment between this event and those that you've compared it to, such as domestic violence and drink-driving. The difference should be obvious really.
As already said to you, mud sticks. Even if it turns out none of this ever happened, the Guardian prints a retraction and he wins a squillion pounds in damages, he'll still be 'that comedian that molests women'.
That would explain all the previous allegations and his list of convictions!
but to sexually assault an entire newspaper is quite some feat.
This was clearly such a serious incident it's taken nearly a week for anyone to report on it.
but i bet the author is some 95 year old catholic or something, and he was only pissed off cos he didnt get to see a boy fingered
I should probably report to my local police station. Again.
what happened does sound pretty horrid though - I've never found JV funny, hes just comes across a bit of a tediously over-offensive fatty. Its seems a little over the top pretty much claiming that hes a sex offender, but is must has been awful for the girl involved.
and as others have said, if the writer feels this they should really take it up with the police, but I'd said that Vegas does seem to have crossed a line.
I'm loath to say too much though - it does sound like you need to see this yourself to judge rather than go on reviews and the like.
"I was at the gig and found johnny hilarious, other friends found him less so, but more because they felt he was ill-prepared and not because of any sexually untoward behaviour. Any person who is dragged on stage or is the main butt of a comedy set is bound to appear embarassed and scared. It is the nature of the beast. Which is exactly why, the majority of the ticket buying public with half a sense prefer not to sit in the front row. I feel incredibly sorry for the lady in question, not because she was dragged on stage and 'molested' by johnny vegas. I'm sure, that she has enjoyed a certain 'cause celebre' up to this point being able to recount from her own standpoint the events of Friday night to friends and colleagues. I feel incredibly sorry for her because the Guardian chose to dedicate a double page spread to Mary O'Hara's very personal and one-sided take on the events of Friday night. She didn't like it, we get that. But exactly how professionally responsible is it to quote one poster, from a messageboard, saying the girl was 'fingered' on stage. Hideous, partial journalism at it's very worst. You should be very ashamed of yourselves."
If this girl was sexually assaulted then publicly detailing it in the manner they have would be humiliating and horrible for her.
she was hardly in a position to give informed consent
but then none of us really know if it exactly happened as is detailed here...
it's impossible to know whether she was a plant or not too.
The story as told is unpleasant, but so are some of the comments along the lines of "prudish middle-class people can't take a joke", when the commentators seem to accept this version of the events as basically true.
are every bit as retarded as the BBC HYS crew.
Johnny Vegas is bereft of any comedy talent anyway in my opinion.
and it made me feel a bit sick.
"I too was at the show on Friday and from my vantage point in the second row, I can honestly say that the female audience member in question appeared to thoroughly enjoy the experience. Coming off stage she looked as if she had just won the lottery. I have seen Johnny Vegas perform many times and yes he does sail close to the wind but I firmly believe that if he had felt the individual concerned was in any way intimidated or uncomfortable he would readily have changed tack."
"I WAS IN THE FRONT ROW TOO!!"
corrections and clarifications section (the only truly unmissable part of the newspaper) at some stage.
Maybe the girl felt she had to go along with it in order not to be seen as some sort of killjoy. She's quite young (18/19 acc to article) and certainly at that age I wouldn't have had the confidence to tell a famous comedian to "do one" in front of an audience.
I think that Vegas took the act too far by the sounds of it. Okay, I wasn't there but looking at the comments it sounded uncomfortable for the girl and uncomfortable for the audience. Edgy humour can electrify an audience, but pawing someone's boobs and hoisting their skirt up is an invasion of personal privacy.
It just shows the length Vegas has to go now to get a rise from the audience as he obviously feels the usual stuff isn't up to scratch. Sad.
she was a plant? He couldn't even be arsed to write any material, why would he go to the trouble of arranging a plant?
Take Andy Kaufman. Seriously, I don't think it's likely, but you can't absolutely discount the posibility out of hand. Tbh, even if she was, I'd suggest he still overstepped the mark of what a stand-up should do when interacting with their audience.
I didn't see the performance and thus can't comment.
I saw a review of this gig in the Times. Their critic's view of proceedings was that everyone found it hilarious. Which wasn't hard for me to accept because it's Johnny Vegas - who is hilarious.
The Guardian's legal team is going to be buried by a shit storm. To make the accusation that Vegas committed sexual molestation/statutory assault/ or an incriminating misdeed is both slanderous and very, very silly (considering there has been no intervention from the police).
From a legal standpoint, the paper has well and truly buggered the budgerigar on this one. Let the wrangling commence!
P.s. This post got deleted off the Guardians Arts blog by the moderating team. I feel they are trying to hide there indiscretion. A hiccup it aint.
What does your dirty little 'V'' stand for? And why did my post elicit that response?
Apparently a complaint has been lodged to the police, with Mr. Vegas, Stewart Lee (event organiser) and an unnamed Ms.X under interrogation.
Professor X is going to be pissed. He could probably use Cerebero to psychically bum Jonny Vegas.
No...because Mr. Lee is the one running the ship. Therefore, he's liable for any sort of screwball rape going on.
Pennington may very well have been questioned...my mate Mr.Paxton has been brought into the proceedings.
Plants tend to be green and have leaves and flowers and things...
and no watering was observed.
>SELF BAN REQUEST<
Thanks, I'm here all week, try the steak!
If you slip in a cheeky finger, it aint no harm.
Consent is only a word, innit.
I agree with the sentiment that JV is in a position of power. It's really horrible in fact.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the comedy police should have arrested him long long ago.
The act he committed was clearly a devious way of getting his jollies.
By which I mean there aren't many people on this thread justifying or defending what happened if it was as reported, more just pointing out that we don't know for sure exactly what happened and how far it went...
The reason people are reiterating that we don't know exactly what went on is because that’s true. We don't.
Which has been my point all along...
ok. we are on the same wavelength now.
BU-UT...I can actually say from experience that Vegas is accustomed to the old force fuck.
I saw his looming belly block out the sun and smother my face...he than persisted to angry wank right into my eye.
And it was not as this dick of a reporter reported.
I've written plenty on the matter and can't be bothere to repeat it here.