This article has pissed me off quite a lot.
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/theatre/2008/05/johnny_vegas.html
- Reviews: * The Verve at New York WaMu Theatre, Mon 28 Apr
- Reviews: * Mogwai at London Queen Elizabeth Hall, Mon 12 May
- Reviews: * Subtle - ExitingARM
- Features: * The Great Escape 2008: the DiS preview
- Reviews: * Pendulum - In Silico
- Reviews: * Tindersticks at London Royal Festival Hall, Sat 03 May
- Reviews: * Adam Green, Noah & The Whale at Manchester Club Academy (Cellar), Fri 11 Apr
- Reviews: * Effi Briest at London Camden Barfly, Tue 22 Apr
- Reviews: * Cut Copy at London King's Cross Scala, Wed 23 Apr
- Reviews: * Frightened Rabbit at London Bloomsbury Bowling Lanes, Thu 01 May
- Features: * Explosions In The Sky's guide to ATP
- Features: * Flight Of The Conchords: comedy Kiwis on their musical dabblings
- Reviews: * Late Of The Pier, The Displacements, A Place To Bury Strangers, Collapsing Cities at London Camden Barfly, Wed 07 May
- Reviews: * Bon Iver - For Emma, Forever Ago
- Features: * Crawling, talking: The Wave Pictures in conversation
- * Black Lips @ London 100 Club, 15/05
- * The National @ Dublin Olympia, 15/05
- * Jens Lekman @ Glasgow Oran Mor, 15/05
- * the pAper chAse, Black Mountain, Vessels @ Leeds Cockpit, 15/05
- * The Raconteurs @ Liverpool Academy (Liverpool University), 15/05
- * Frightened Rabbit @ Dunfermline Carnegie Hall, 15/05
- * Caribou, Born Ruffians, Wildbirds & Peacedrums @ London King's Cross Scala, 15/05
- * The Twilight Sad, Frightened Rabbit, Dirty Summer @ Dunfermline Carnegie Hall, 15/05
- * Glass Candy, Mike Simonetti @ Manchester Star & Garter, 15/05
- * Nasty Fest IX @ Leeds The Faversham, 17/05
- * Example, Bloodgroup, Christopher D. Ashley @ Brighton Pressure Point, 17/05
- * Semifinalists, Bunny Rabbit, Telepathe @ London Barden's Boudoir, 18/05
- * Animal Collective, Atlas Sound @ Dublin Tripod, 19/05
- * Xiu Xiu @ London ULU, 19/05
- * Telepathe @ London ULU, 19/05
I haven't read it yet
but how the hell can you sexually assault a newspaper group?
damn you!
he sexually assaulted a newspaper?
Meh
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.
My thoughts exactly
And fucking irresponsible of the Guardian to publish this really damaging horse shit.
It sounds absolutely horrible and disgusting
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.
Pretty much.
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.
I don't know,
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!?!'
Sure
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...
remember the first guy they questioned about the ipswich prostitute murders?
Precisely.
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.
And
John Leslie.
Its awful what happened to him.
ah, my
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!
Its up to them to decide whether or not
they like it as comedy or find it appropriate, not to spread slurs
Umm...
"The Guardian asked Vegas for a response to the reaction to his performance, but he was unavailable for comment. Lee's agent did not return our calls."
I had read that but discount it.
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.
Why not?
Especially now since the Express and the News of the World had to publicly retract statements about the McCanns. We're in an age of hieghtened awareness of these issues and still they print. I seems to me as if they felt secure in their claims and Vegas can always sue.
If I witnessed something terrible like sexual assualt, racist abuse or violence at a gig I was reviewing I'd feel duty bound to report it and I don't see why this isn't what the journalist here has done.
The story is written in an inflamatory style but why does this have to represent deciet and not conviction? This is an opinion piece afterall.
Mud sticks.
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.
^This.
You win at opinions.
Well I dissagree.
We do not know what happened at the gig. If a lesser of what was reported by the Guardian happened then obviously I think this would be wrong.
However I don't believe this journalist is lying as it was viewed by a number of people. She is clearly expressing how she felt and why shouldn't see? She believes that the girl would have a case for sexual assault.
The Standard article says that Johnny 'went to far' and thats all I need. The article's written style does not affect the issue. This is sexual assualt, an issue that is extremely serious, damaging and so very hard to prosecute.
And, I am now repeting my self, but if Vegas wants to get on stage and 'fake' sexual assult for the LOLz then what harm is this article to him?
This journalist feels she witnessed a crime and wanted to speak out on it. It is unbalanced but she mentions that some people felt that the show was fine. She is clearly writing an opinion piece.
If I saw something that I thought was very wrong I would publicly condemn it and be prepared to have the debate on the event.
I would challenge anyone who said I should not write or talk about it as an attack on my rights.
I've stated my opinion.
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.
Individuals in this country
have much more defence from trial by media comapred to many others in the west.
Personally I think we as a country are not aware about the issues surrounding violence against women.
If I saw something I thought could be classed as sexual assault (even if it only came close) I would want it reported to let it be known its not acceptable and certainly to use it as part of a comedy act is pretty abhorrent.
Nobody is saying it isn't abhorrent.
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'm not saying we know what happend.
I'm saying someone who saw what happened should be allowed to say what they saw in anyway they like.
I know full well what you're saying.
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...
But I don't understand
how you can priorotise freedom from the press over condemnation of sexual assualt in a country that has very strong tradition of protection from slander and a gross lack of awareness of how acceptable and prevelant sexual assualt is in our society.
I really don't agree with that attitude.
While I beleive how the girl felt is relevant to this case I think that witnesses have a right to object and kick up a fuss because there is no gaurentee that everytime Johnny Vegas were to do this the girl would be happy with it.
By the sounds of it Vegas did some things that came seriously close to sexual assualt. If witnesses were silent they would in affect be condoning a comedian to risk infliciting pyschological damage on young women.
There is also a common trend in these situations who undergo un upsetting ordeal to remain quiet so they can just move passed the incident and not have to relive it. I'm not saying this is definitely the case here but always leaving it up to the 'victim' to complain is not a sensible policy.
Thats just it though isn't it?
It isn't the audience who kicked up a fuss. It was a journalist with an agenda.
The journalist is reporting
a discussion on another website where many participants saw the event. This was a contraversial incident before this journalist wrote about it. The were a fuss before hand.
Also what could this guy from the gaurdian's agenda be? The same as this guys from the evening standard? http://dessau.thisislondon.co.uk/2008/04/johnny-vegas-a.html
Cos the Standard and the Grauniad have decided to forget the deep ideological differences and come together to destroy Johnny Vegas?
Maybe there agenda is just that they thought it went too far and as journalists both there to review this show they saying exactly what they thought. What else would you expect of them?
Personally I've no problem with the second article.
It's well-written, considered and appropriate.
Exactly this.
I wouldn't expect anything less from any journalist
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.
You seem a little confused.
While I'm not sure what point you are making I shall make mine.
The journalist who saw this event should feel free to write about this in anyway they want.
I don't think this woman's opinion on the event matters. A woman who is beaten by her husband but stays with him should not be used as evidence that the man has done nothing wrong. We can be more objective than this. If the incident was one that all normal women would deem as acceptable then there is no problem however if this woman was a member of the audience who was subjigated to an act that some women, even a small minority, would find distressing then this needs to be reported as this act should not continue.
We have checks on the media in the UK that are rigourous compared many other in the west. Unsubstantiated statements often get condemned.
If this girl was a plant this will no doubt come to light. Having worked in the Edinburg fringe and been to numerous comedy performance I know for a fact that plants are incredibly rare and when used quickly outed by journalists.
If she was a plant then he is intending to derive humour from sexual assualt even more cynically and then the journalist has a write to condemn this as do you and I.
No doubt there will be reprocussions from this article, perhaps even an police investigation. At the very least Vegas may rein in his act.
I also don't think you can accuse the Gaurdian of brandishing a man who got up in front of hundreds of people and 'pretended' to be drunk and sexually assult a young girl. Thats obviously the image he is actively cultivating. If this is seriously part of his legitamate act then this article reinforces his image. If he went off script and took it too far this needs to be reported as the sexual assault it was.
I'm not at all confused
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.
Ok I'm back
Firstly - He is pretending to sexually assault somone so if you say, "He is sexually assaulting someone" then how is that 'brandishing'?
If he kicks up a fuss saying, "How dare you say that about me" he is a hypocrite as he is deriving humour from sexual assault. If he doesn't dissagree with the charge he is inappropriate.
Your point that it is the woman's opinion that matters to make something a crime is wrong and there is much precedence in law that refutes this arguement. Battered wives and statutory rape for example are instinces where someone can be prosecuted despite the person the law is designed to protect declining to press charges.
Your arguement could be extended to drink driving. If an accident happens but the victim was fine and decided not to complain about it then can we say that the driver is meerly inappropriate and not criminal?
Would you extend your arguement to a rape case? Is a woman only truly raped if she goes to the police afterwards? If she tells her friends she was raped once should the scould her for lying because she has no crime number as proof of a genuine rape?
That isn't my argument at all
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'.
He is that "that comedian that (sic) moelsts women"
THATS HIS ACT!!!
Oh
That would explain all the previous allegations and his list of convictions!
I am not sure whether he has these things or not.
My point is he gets up on stage and molests women. Even the people who say it was a funny show do not dispute that.
So how can an article saying he molests women be defamation if thats a large part of his act?
I know he's a big chap,
but to sexually assault an entire newspaper is quite some feat.
He sexually assaulted a newspaper?!?!
This was clearly such a serious incident it's taken nearly a week for anyone to report on it.
sounds a bit weird
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
Did he roll it up and poke his knob in it?
I should probably report to my local police station. Again.
Hmm
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.
The article probably goes a bit far
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 found this comment interesting:
"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."
Actually that's a hell of a good point I hadn't considered.
If this girl was sexually assaulted then publicly detailing it in the manner they have would be humiliating and horrible for her.
even if she went on her own volition
she was hardly in a position to give informed consent
I do agree and do think it sounds rather unpleasant
but then none of us really know if it exactly happened as is detailed here...
Also worth remembering
it's impossible to know whether she was a plant or not too.
I find it really upseting that peope on DiS
rush to some celebrities defence just because they are well liked.
While I beleive in innocent until proven guilty this is a serious charge and people here seem very quick to dismiss it.
Johnny Vegas is well liked?
well
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.
Jaded Guardianista blog comment cunts...
are every bit as retarded as the BBC HYS crew.
^ QF-f'in-T
?
Yeah, this sounds wrong
Johnny Vegas is bereft of any comedy talent anyway in my opinion.
i read that
and it made me feel a bit sick.
In your pants?
Comment from the Standard:
"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."
maybe she's just jealous cos they didn't pick her
"I WAS IN THE FRONT ROW TOO!!"
(comment from a poster on the Standard's website)
but a valid opinion
Doubtless they'll be posting a tiny retraction in their
corrections and clarifications section (the only truly unmissable part of the newspaper) at some stage.
why doubtless?
Have you read the guardian before?!
Tuppenceworth ahoy
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.
This is speculation
but this is my point. The girl could have been very upset. She could have been fine with it. We don't know and personally I'd rather Vegas err on the side of caution when it comes to this issue as potentially it could be extremely damaging just for a few lolz.
unpleasent
he sounded like he's turning into a bully, and I thought the guardian opinion was actually measured and represented someone who was dismayed at the way Johnny vegas has gone, the reviewer sounded as if they had some fondness for his self effacing act in the past.
People can overstep the mark, if they have big reputation and power then they can overstep the mark by a long way and people often feel they cant point this out.
I think the guardian article is fine, it gives an insight into how his peformances really might offend others or upset some.
Poor girl :(
Johnny Vegas is still relevant?
What makes anyone think
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?
People have done stranger things
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.