The police not taking on a case of coercion and SA isn't an indicator that there was nothing to it - coercion and SA can be difficult cases and the police are notorious for not taking women seriously on such issues.
Scarlet said what happened after the initial penetration in the bath was consensual. Meaning what he did to her in the bath was not consensual. And she told him that. And he didn't care, of course.
You claim another woman was "living in his house rent free" while "having an affair" with him. You just grossly misinterpreted what happened. Neil Gaiman used the fact that this woman was dependent on him for housing (she was living on his property) to force BJs and other sexual favours from her. Whenever she said no to sex with him, he would say she would have to move out. He groomed her and used her like he groomed and used the other women, and there are likely many others who have not spoken out (yet).
You really should read up on the fawn trauma response - just because victims keep in touch with abusers and seem infatuated, does not mean they have not been violated and deserve justice. They have a right to an apology and simultaneously have a right to tell the world about the violations that were committed against them. Just because he said "sorry" he didn't mean, and claimed he would give money to an SA charity (which Neil Gaiman lied to Claire about, btw - he said he would give money to a charity of her choice, but he did not), does not mean the victims are not allowed to go to the media with what happened to them.
The fact that you are nitpicking and picking apart their stories shows you are victims blaming, because you are judging them for not being the "perfect victims".
Tortoise Media is small, yes - but that's not the only reason this story is not bigger in the mainstream media. He's burying it, and his connections are emailing people they know with the personal emails of the victims, trying to paint them in a bad light. Gaiman is feeding his friends the personal emails he got from vulnerable women he SA'd so they can use them and twist them to try to discredit them. That is absolutely disgusting.
And you mention Tortoise Media are "not problem-free" - it's of course unfortunate that TERF Johnson is involved, no one is disputing that, but the other reporter of the podcast, Paul Caruana Galizia (son of Daphne Caruana Galizia, who broke the Panama Papers story & was then assassinated) is not a TERF: good journalist, does a thorough job. And Johnson's involved because one of the victims contacted her directly.
I didn't say a rich white male has all the power only because he's a rich white man. I said he is a world famous celebrity writer who was beloved and famous for his feminist views, who specifically prayed on his very young, vulnerable fans. That's the power imbalance.
Brand, Depp and Spacey lost opportunities because they were guilty - not because of wrongful accusations. Fake accusations are extremely rare - they almost never happen, because victims gain nothing from speaking out and women gain nothing from faking a story. And these men also still have careers. They have had some minor consequences, but this type of perpetrators are usually allowed by society to resurface and keep their careers, unfortunately. There is not some huge threat to men from fake SA accusations.
You are twisting my words and not answering my questions.
Firstly, the police did not investigate because there was not enough evidence.
The police did investigate Brand and Spacey, as well as other known predators.
Are you saying that there was enough evidence for the police to investigate?
Secondly, I said that larger media outlets did not report the story because of the lack of evidence.
The Times broke the Brand story, and basically all media reported on Depp, Spacey, Brand, Prince Andrew and other predators (like Hugh Edwards).
Are you saying that NG has more power than these people? He is a writer, successful and rich, but pales in comparison to these other men (apart from Brand).
His "power and influence" is not the reason that the allegations were not reported and if you say that this is the case, then please provide evidence.
Thirdly, I attended professional training in relation to sexual misconduct and dealt with 2 cases of reported sexual misconduct in the workplace (international corporate).
Both involved a power imbalance (white male director vs more junior female employee, one a person of color) and both were essentially let go immediately, although in once case it was the female employee flirting and being turned down and everyone knows it. But because his reaction was not perfect he had to pay the price. (The female employees did not ask for money or an apology by the way.)
So please do not act as if I would not know anything.
Fourthly, Tortoise media is somewhat problematic and not just because of Rachel Johnson and if you pay attention to how they reported it you will see that they protected themselves very well (to the detriment of the journalistic quality). Essentially, it is not really journalism but an interview with the occasional text and recoding from NG thrown in (did he consent to the recording, I wonder?)
Fifthly, Depp (despite the UK defamation verdict) and Spacey were cleared in a court of law. As far as I know Brand is still being investigated by the police?
If you call them "guilty" then I hope you are aware that you are essentially defaming them.
It might be your opinion, but it is not true and not right to say it.
You should clearly state it as your opinion if you feel you need to state this.
In that regard, they lost opportunities because of the accusations (bearing in mind they also lost them prior to the court cases even starting!).
Again, how do you think the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski situation would have played out today?
Finally, I am not victim blaming because I am questioning why they asked for money.
Where is the blame there? Do you know what victim blaming is?
Victim blaming means that the victim is being held responsible for the crime committed. When and where did I do that?
What you say is simply incorrect.
You seem to throw a "trendy term" at me, just because I am sharing an observation that is not in praise of all of the victim's actions.
To re-iterate: I do not doubt that NG's behaviour was wrong, and if alone because of the age difference and because some of the women were fans and other employees. And the women consistently say that he overstepped the mark and acted without their consent (at times).
But I also observed that all of them asked him for money, at least two of them after the relationships had long ended.
Without having had a relationship they would not be able to ask him for money.
So is this a power-imbalance? What could he do to them if they would have said no? Nothing, they would not have lost jobs or anything else, they could have turned him down without consequences and I would imagine that some women did.
So where is his "power"? Power over what?
If they were simply in awe of him and therefore wanted to please him, then why did they ask him for money?
If women are more inclined to have sexual relationships with rich men rather than poor men, who holds the power?
I think it is important to be allowed to discuss all aspects of a situation, and not be accused of "victim blaming" (without even any substance to it) etc.
And how do you know this:
He's burying it, and his connections are emailing people they know with the personal emails of the victims, trying to paint them in a bad light. Gaiman is feeding his friends the personal emails he got from vulnerable women he SA'd so they can use them and twist them to try to discredit them. That is absolutely disgusting.
I did not hear this when listening to the podcast. It was his voice and his texts that were published.
