entertainment

BAFTA suspends UK actor Clarke after groping and harassment allegations

20 Comments

The British Academy of Film and Television Arts has suspended actor and filmmaker Noel Clarke after the Guardian newspaper reported he had been accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women.

Clarke, 45, denied any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing and said he would defend himself against the "false allegations".

The Guardian said it had spoken to 20 women who accused Clarke of sexual harassment, unwanted touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behavior and comments on set, professional misconduct, taking and sharing sexually explicit pictures and videos without consent, and bullying between 2004 and 2019.

"In light of the allegations of serious misconduct regarding Noel Clarke in The Guardian, BAFTA has taken the decision to suspend his membership and the Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema award immediately and until further notice," BAFTA said in a statement.

Reuters was unable to independently verify the Guardian report.

"In a 20-year career, I have put inclusivity and diversity at the forefront of my work and never had a complaint made against me," Clarke said in a statement. "If anyone who has worked with me has ever felt uncomfortable or disrespected, I sincerely apologise.

"I vehemently deny any sexual misconduct or wrongdoing and intend to defend myself against these false allegations," he said.

Clarke is best known for "Kidulthood" (2006), "Adulthood"(2008) and "Brotherhood" (2016) which explore bullying, drug abuse and extreme violence among a group of young people growing up in London.

© Thomson Reuters 2021.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

The Guardian said it had spoken to 20 women who accused Clarke of sexual harassment, unwanted touching or groping, sexually inappropriate behavior and comments on set

When are people going to get it.

The workplace is not a place for finding a romantic partner.

Flirting at the office will eventually get you in trouble, no matter how Alpha you think you are.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Over 20 women complaining of ‘flirting’ seems highly unlikely. I think he’s ‘in trouble’ for more than that and there was probably little intent of ‘romance’.

It’s cute you think there was. Well at least pretend to think so whilst thinly veiling an attack on the women who came forward, again.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

From 2004 and only now? Seems he was protected for a long time.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

have any women complained to the police about this guy..... I have no idea who he is, but seems weird that this appears to come from a newspaper, not the cops......

Anybody know......

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

This is awful. But then, sometimes predators hide in plain sight. Clarke was a role model and this will ruin his career and reputation. But so what? Far more important is how the hell he got away with it for such a long time.

Flirting at the office will eventually get you in trouble, no matter how Alpha you think you are.

Bullying, harassment, groping and forcing actors to audition nude whilst secretly filming them is not flirting.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Burning Bush:

Flirting at the office will eventually get you in trouble, no matter how Alpha you think you are.

Asking a woman do get her 'private parts out' and start urinating in front of others is not called flirting. Well, that's my opinion. What's yours?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, but now that famous black men such as Deshaun Watson and Noel Clarke have been credibly accused of being sexual predators by literally dozens of women, suddenly the SJWs who infest organizations like BAFTA are now worried about quaint concepts like due process, innocence until proven guilty, and the unfairness of trial by media:

Meanwhile, it was reported that Bafta spent two weeks deciding how best to respond to allegations against Clarke prior to presenting him with one of its highest honours, the Outstanding British Contribution to Cinema Award.

In a statement, Bafta claimed it had acted 'as quickly and supportively as we could, even though we had only received the most generic of claims and no actual first-hand information to investigate allegations which were potentially of a criminal nature'. 

The Guardian said senior figures within the film academy were worried about the potential reputational damage to the organisation over its handling of the claims against Clarke. 

Bafta chair Krishnendu Majumdar was reportedly aware there could be as many as 12 women making allegations against Clarke on the eve of the awards ceremony.

He sought to speak to anyone with first-hand experience of Clarke's alleged misconduct and told an industry figure he was 'trying to do something about' the situation as it could 'destroy' Bafta 'in the court of public opinion', the newspaper said.

Majumdar is said to have described the allegations as a 'desperately difficult situation for us' as Bafta 'cannot act as judge and jury'.

Let's face it, a white quarterback might survive a single accusation, but the media storm would be relentless, as evidenced by the coverage of the Peyton Manning and Ben Rothlisberger situations. He'd be suspended proactively by the NFL by the time the third accusation was made. And can anyone imagine a white actor who was accused of sexual harassment by twelve women being presented a major cinematic award?

For all their incessant crying about racism, the simple fact is that some people simply aren't held to the same behavioral standards as others.

I have no doubt the UK film academy was worried about reputational damage if they didn't give the 12x-accused (now 27x) sexual predator the award. The only thing they fear more than being called "racist" is being called "anti-semitic". But it's hard to see what the problem is. After all, if the Hellmouth didn't give awards to sexual predators, they couldn't give out awards.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

> Let's face it

Why is this short phrase almost always followed by a bunch of premises?

Checklist: I’m sure, let’s face it, the simple fact, I have no doubt.

Yep, Bingo. You used them all.

This article is about an accused black sexual predator. Twisting it into a defense of white sexual predators is well... ‘let’s face it, I’m sure and I have no doubt, the simple fact is all sexual predators are wrong and you are off topic’

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Many of the women’s claims have been verified by witnesses, a couple of incidents were filmed, yet still people doubt the women.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

And can anyone imagine a white actor who was accused of sexual harassment by twelve women being presented a major cinematic award?

I can imagine him becoming President of the USA.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

This trial by media has to stop. He maybe everything these women say he is but it's up to the court to judge

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Never blame the victims.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Never blame the victims...

... of unproven allegations until they're found guilty in court of law after due process.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Agreed @zichi 4:21p

- “Never blame the victims.” -

Also of some concern, this article is ‘just’ about “*an accused sexual predator*” @2:27pm & @3:57pm.

- “This article is about an accused black sexual predator.” -

The article states nothing about this Mr. Clarke’s race, heritage, skin tone or any other aspects you may be trying to introduce into this conversation.

- “the simple fact is all sexual predators are wrong...

Agreed:

and ‘anything else’ may be “off topic”(ie. @3:59pm) and detracts from the victims’ claims.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The article states nothing about this Mr. Clarke’s race, heritage, skin tone or any other aspects you may be trying to introduce into this conversation.

If you ‘did’ some background reading, or even read the whole ‘thread’, specifically @ 2:27 you’d maybe have a little more ‘grasp’ on the situation.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The accusations of vulgarity are repulsive, lewd behavior, inappropriate sexual intimidation, pestering, coercion under duress to accept/allow unwanted groping.

Reading above, my diction and tone, I have without any proof condemned Noel Clarke future career to the dustbin of history. In a single sentence

I am not for one moment condoning or suggesting Noel Clarke alleged transgressions are or should ever be deemed acceptable.

Guilt/Innocence has to be a matter for jurisprudence, and left for the auspiciousness of UK Justice System.

Not, the tabloid press.

Evidence has been openly published in the media.

Open to sensationalist interpretation.   

The original guardian exposé.

‘Sexual predator’: actor Noel Clarke accused of groping, harassment and bullying by 20 women

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/apr/29/actor-noel-clarke-accused-of-groping-harassment-and-bullying-by-20-women

Met police receive report of sexual offence claims after allegations against Noel Clarke

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/01/met-police-receive-report-of-sexual-offence-claims-after-allegations-against-noel-clarke

3 ( +3 / -0 )

and ‘anything else’ may be “off topic”(ie. @3:59pm) and detracts from the victims’ claims.

Again ‘context’ is crucial. Don’t look at just my response. Look at the question I was answering.

@2:27pm ‘is’ let’s say ‘detracting’ from the news ‘article’. See, we’re speaking the same ‘Language’

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That was ‘read’ and was ‘addressed’ as well @BobFosse 5:56pm. We agreed with Your latter comment:

- “the simple fact is all sexual predators are wrong...

and amended with ours -

- “Agreed: ...and ‘anything else’ may be “off topic”(ie. @3:59pm) and detracts from The Victims’ Claims.” -

To conclude, people should be more focused on these victims and their “Rights to be Heard” not other detracting points to argue. Don’t you agree? (A simple “ + ” will signal your agreement and we can all ‘return to the topic at hand.)

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

To conclude, people should be more focused on these victims and their “Rights to be Heard” not other detracting points to argue.

I believe my first post in this thread (@7:56am, if you like) was making that point.

No need for you to distract further from that. Apologies for the plain fonts.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Your BobFosse@7:56am post appeared to be more about amusing oneself by coyly engaging the previous commenter with some kind of ‘witty repartee’ by using their own insincere and indirect wordage -

*- “It’s cute you think there was. Well, at least pretend to think so, whilst thinly veiling an attack on the women who came forward, again.” -*

rather than directly addressing their issues with the victims’ allegations against the accused.

Flippant speech such as “Cute” and “at least pretend...” may be in Your repertoire for other, non-sexual or power-abuse issues, but here, given the specific subject matter, it diminishes and detracts from the seriousness of the victims’ harassment allegations against the accused.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites