Stan Lee accused of sexual harassment

[JackDaw]

He could always use the Kevin Spacey defense maneuver

Blimey, I really hope it doesn’t come to that. (“I’m not sure if I did anything, but if I did I must have been completely drunk, and apologise profusely”. )

[Drops Of Venus]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-masseuse.html

Ah Hell, This is going to be another one of those times that Twitter goes all 'Guilty until proven Guilty' isnt it...

The chief source of the allegations were people in contact with Nancy Grace's Crime Stories co-producer Alan Duke

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/01...e-allegations/

There's also a disturbing account of what might have "really" happened to Joan Lee

ANOTHER accusation. This time from an anonymous comic pro and his wife.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/01...tor-last-year/

The one way this could've gotten worse was if other accusations proceeded the first one. I guess we've reached that point. I hate that this is happening.

That first BleedingCool article is very disturbing. Do we know how reliable this Alan Duke person is? He claims to know the Lee family well enough and seems to have an awful lot of details about the story, and if any of that is true, this whole thing is worse than I thought. That attempted rape accusation against Lee's employee is just sickening.

About the second BC article, I'm being more skeptical because there are zero sources whatsoever. There are people in the comments claiming the allegations indeed happened at the social media of those creators, but then again, I just don't know if that's true since they're keeping it anonymous (not that I'm blaming any alleged victims for being anonymous, btw. As a matter of fact, I understand completely, considering how the internet can be). The story itself doesn't seem to be as bad as the actual sexual harassment accusations, but it shines a new light at the situation, if true.

[JKtheMac]

Wait, when you say "mainstream news agency", are you refering to the Daily Mail, or the Nancy Grace show? Because all you need is background check on both to find just how many times their "news" ended up being completely unreliable, sensationalistic (in a very bad way leading to very, bad results), or just filled with mistruths and rumors, and embellishment. Both Daily Mail, and Nancy Grace have a long history of being in a #$%storm of legal and moral issues because how sleazy their "reporting" is. Even Wikipedia has banned Daily Mail as a citing source because of how unreliable they are.

The accusations can be real and shouldn't be so easily dismissed, and if proven true my heart will break, but with all of this coming from such unreliable news sources, I just can't help but have some doubts about some these stories. And I do think its also very plausible that such behavior, if true, can be the result of dementia or some other form of mental degradation. But whether wrong doing has been done or not, simply pointing a finger is not enough, the next proper step must be taken and this will have to go to court.

I really don't recognise your characterisation of the Daily Mail. I am guessing you are not British and don't actually read it. I try not to read it but it is a hugely successful newspaper that a great number of people trust. It is not a gossip rag, or a sensationalist paper, it is tabloid but there is a grand tradition of tabloids in the UK. Having complaints upheld against you is just part of the territory when you are one of the largest newspapers in the world with a huge circulation. I have no idea who Nancy Grace is which may put that all in perspective.

P.S. The wikipedia policy is a joke. Most people in the UK would consider this either baffling (if they read the Mail) or something to poke fun at an otherwise successful ‘Black Top’. i.e. a newspaper that takes the middle ground between a purely news focused paper and a ‘Red Top’ sensationalist newspaper. There are very few genuine comparisons with the British Newspaper industry in other countries so it may be difficult to explain exactly how important the Daily Mail is here. It is one of the biggest persuaders and influencers of the British Public. It and the even more successful Red Top paper The Sun have been variously cited as swaying general elections. They are not easily dismissed no matter how much some of us would like to.

[Alan2099]

Do we know how reliable this Alan Duke person is?

As Co-Producer of Nancy Grant's stuff, I'd put him about as reliable as the Daily mail. Not very.

View Post
ANOTHER accusation. This time from an anonymous comic pro and his wife.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2018/01...tor-last-year/

How is this even a story? Something happened at a con and everybody was cool with it at the time.

[comicscollector]

I believe in this news in the Daily Mail as much as i believed the news about a real living Bat Boy found years ago that was reported in a newspaper years ago.

[JackDaw]

P.S. The wikipedia policy is a joke. Most people in the UK would consider this either baffling (if they read the Mail) or something to poke fun at an otherwise successful ‘Black Top’. i.e. a newspaper that takes the middle ground between a purely news focused paper and a ‘Red Top’ sensationalist newspaper. There are very few genuine comparisons with the British Newspaper industry in other countries so it may be difficult to explain exactly how important the Daily Mail is here. It is one of the biggest persuaders and influencers of the British Public. It and the even more successful Red Top paper The Sun have been variously cited as swaying general elections. They are not easily dismissed no matter how much some of us would like to.

One factor (influencing way Mail is regarded) is that it’s got a clear and consistent political bias. It favours the right wing.

Clearly (and understandably) that irritates many on the left wing...and it’s useful to have a general strategy to weaken its influence. Part of that strategy is to use a mantra “If it’s in the Mail it’s probably not true”. There are times when that’s a lot easier than proving that a specific story they report on is factually incorrect. Many times.

In this case..the bare bones of the story (a vey elderly guy is in dispute with his ex-care company) don’t seem all that unlikely. And it doesn’t “feel” like the sort of story the Mail would run without backing up sources, etc. Stan is actually the sort of guy..rich successful, etc...the Mail admires. And also influential with access to good lawyers...they would have to be mindful about prospects of being sued.

[Captain M]

Welp. Worst part is the toxic part of the fandom won't care or believe the accusations one bit.

[Vegan Daddy]

Hopefully this will stop obnoxious fans from fetishizing the man.

[JKtheMac]

One factor (influencing way Mail is regarded) is that it’s got a clear and consistent political bias. It favours the right wing.

Clearly (and understandably) that irritates many on the left wing...and it’s useful to have a general strategy to weaken its influence. Part of that strategy is to use a mantra “If it’s in the Mail it’s probably not true”. There are times when that’s a lot easier than proving that a specific story they report on is factually incorrect. Many times.

In this case..the bare bones of the story (a vey elderly guy is in dispute with his ex-care company) don’t seem all that unlikely. And it doesn’t “feel” like the sort of story the Mail would run without backing up sources, etc. Stan is actually the sort of guy..rich successful, etc...the Mail admires. And also influential with access to good lawyers...they would have to be mindful about prospects of being sued.

Indeed the term 'virtue signalling' was coined to describe the phenomenon of people on social media using the phrase "I don't like the Daily Mail" as a way of telling everyone where they stood politically without really getting into detail. As if standing in opposition to a newspaper is a badge of honour and will make ones views more virtuous and unimpeachable.

I can't tell you how much I have had to resist using the phrase every time I have tried to explain the Daily Mail on this thread, for fear of virtue signalling.

Also, here is the reality check. In January 2015 Star Wars #1 boosted the Direct Market for comics (when including UK sales and Feb reorders) to over 1 Million comics sold in the month. Fanfares heralded a modern peak for comics, and rightly so.

In January 2015 the average DAILY circulation for the Daily Mail was 1 Million 688 Thousand. That's over fifty times more issues than the entire Direct Market. This simple fact should give context to those not in the UK as to why I describe it as mainstream media.

[SpiderClops]

I usually don't say anything on these subjects. But this is Stan Lee, and the freaking "guilty until proven innocent" mentality some people have in this thread...

You know what, all these stories sound utter BS. Literally decades working in the industry and nothing. Now suddenly, at 95 years old, some anonymous nurses are saying he sexually harassed them? By the way, they using the term "sexual harassment" very loosely here.

I don’t know this to be true. I’m telling you what witnesses told me.

No ****.

Ah man. I only believe this because the last time I saw Stan, he gave my wife a little grope and an extended kiss. I thought it was funny at first because he’s Stan Lee, he was 94 at the time and while strange, I thought harmless. My wife even cracked up. But reading this story, makes it a lot less funny.

Oh really? Didn't findd anything problematic then, but now all of a sudden it was sexual harassment.

[frizb]

Welp. Worst part is the toxic part of the fandom won't care or believe the accusations one bit.

On the other hand, we have the toxic readers that believe every person accused is guilty until proven otherwise. Goes both ways.

[JackDaw]

In January 2015 the average DAILY circulation for the Daily Mail was 1 Million 688 Thousand. That's over fifty times more issues than the entire Direct Market. This simple fact should give context to those not in the UK as to why I describe it as mainstream media.

One thing I considered as I walked into town was whether many of our non U.K. colleagues base their opinion of the Daily Mail paper on the Daily Mail on line, rather than reading the paper itself.

It’s understandable (I think) to believe those two are near identical, but my own guess (based on reading a neighbour’s paper quite often, and skimming website occasionally) is that the two are substantially different.

I feel that the paper is substantially more “sedate” and cautious, and actually usually steers away from stories where main interest is prurient. The Stan Lee story is far from a typical article for the paper.

[Captain M]

On the other hand, we have the toxic readers that believe every person accused is guilty until proven otherwise. Goes both ways.

Nah that's not toxicism, some people won't believe even if we get a hard proof or will stand behind the person accused even if they admit it themselves. That's toxicsm.

It's not unreasonable to believe these accusations in our current place and time with everything that's going on.

[SpiderClops]

Nah that's not toxicism, some people won't believe even if we get a hard proof or will stand behind the person accused even if they admit it themselves. That's toxicsm.

It's not unreasonable to believe these accusations in our current place and time with everything that's going on.

Guilty until proven innocent, I see.

[Captain M]

Guilty until proven innocent, I see.

No I don't really care.

I'm just bothered by people who completely write the accusations off like they don't matter , like there is no possibility of them being true, or that even if they are they wouldn't care.