SARAH VINE: EVEN CREEPS ARE INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY
WHEN I saw pictures of Sir Keir Starmer examining DIY supplies in John Lewis, at first I thought it was some deep fake internet prank. But no, it was just a desperate man clutching at wallpaper.
ON THE face of it, the actor Noel Clarke certainly seems like an obnoxious creep. More than 20 women, many former colleagues, have come forward to accuse him of a variety of sexual improprieties, ranging in seriousness from a pat on the bottom to recording and sharing explicit images.
We all know t he kind. Lord knows I’ve come cross a few in my time. Good-looking, charismatic, confident, successful men who think they’re God’s gift to women. The idea that anyone might find t heir advances unwelcome rarely, if ever, crosses their mind.
The more successful they become, the more invincible they feel. They start to believe that the normal rules don’t apply to them. It’s not just a problem in the movie industry – it exists in all walks of life, from politics to business and beyond.
It’s not exclusive to the male sex either. I’ve seen plenty of predatory female behaviour towards younger or more junior colleagues. Often, it’s not so much about sex, as power.
That said, how do we know that Clarke really is this person? How do we know he is actually guilty of the charges against him? That these accusations are not exaggerated or embellished or motivated by jealousy or resentment?
The answer is, we don’t. Because so far, the only court this man has been convicted in is the one of public opinion. The only trial he has been subjected to is one by social media. And the only testimony – apart from a short statement from his lawyers denying the allegations – we have heard is that of those who accuse him.
The 45-year-old is just the latest in a long line of individuals – including the late TV presenter Caroline Flack, who tragically took her own life because of the pressures of her situation – who have been obliterated by serious accusations of misconduct before they’ve been afforded the basic human right of having their day in a court of law. I have absolutely no idea whether Clarke is guilty or not, since so far the only evidence I’ve read has been one-sided. Compelling as that evidence may be, it is not proof.
An d ruining a man’ s life and career on that basis is not justice either. A person should be innocent until proven guilty, and that is that. Any responsible organisation should know that. Or so one would hope. And yet increasingly this is not the case.
ITV – which, let’s not forget, behaved so spinelessly towards Piers Morgan after he voiced his opinion on the Duchess of Sussex’s Oprah interview – responded to the accusations by pulling the final episode of the drama Viewpoint, in which Clarke stars, saying it had ‘a zero tolerance policy to bullying, harassment and victimisation’.
Meanwhile, in a statement Sky said it had ‘halted’ its work with Clarke, who was due to front a fourth series of crime drama Bulletproof.
Most devastatingly of all, Bafta has suspended hi s a ward for outstanding British contribution to cinema, which he received just a few weeks ago.
For Clarke, who grew up on a tough council estate in West London, that must feel like an especially bitter blow. After all, where he comes from there are no handy family connections to smooth your passage through life, no old school ties to open doors.
None of which, of course, is any justification for the sort of behaviour he stands accused of.
But just because he comes across as a cocky chancer – and has carved out a career playing such roles – does that mean he actually is?
Let’s find out the old-fashioned way, shall we?
In a court of law, in front of judge and jury, and with due process in place.
Anything else is just speculation.
WHENEVER people want to justify their actions these days, they reach for a clever-sounding word. Take Willow Smith, the 21-year-old daughter of actor Will Smith, who solemnly declared she is ‘polyamorous’. Oh come on, dear. Doesn’t that just mean you like to have a bit of fun?