Sometimes the Courts are not enough for justice, also why its relevant to discuss this

[Lammy]

I don't think this should be locked. Ed has been quite consistently reasonable and it would have ended on Page 2 if you guys didn't constantly attack the guy's character and stance!  

If Ed is going to sympathise with the allegations from victims of domestic abuse, fine. If he wants to encourage both parties to file a lawsuit, no matter the cost I'm sure either party can find funding and donations, fine. For every dozen of so cases of genuine abuse it will help. It might be shitty if someone is wrongly accused or justice is not solved in the court, but hey, that was one of his original points.

That's exactly why you SHOULDN'T take a side.

Not picking a side is saying "I don't have enough facts or evidence to make a decision".

It is the sensible default.

​I read it as not to be indifferent and wishy washy. Ed is clearly full measure! Clearly nothing is going to stop him unless there is undeniable proof that both Sara and Sarah are totally lying. And that's going to be difficult when dealing with complicated matters like this.

 

[Andrew Reid]

Vincent gafney on twitter just dropped a 13 tweet summary of why kessler did the right thing and everyone else close to kessler. 

Trust me Ed you shouldn't be taking abuse condemnations from guys like Vincent Gafney and Salah Baker on twitter.

Highly abusive themselves all the time on social media, often to me.

[Ed_David]

Trust me Ed you shouldn't be taking abuse condemnations from guys like Vincent Gafney and Salah Baker on twitter.

Highly abusive themselves all the time on social media, often to me.

Yes im begininng to be introduced to some mighty eccentric personalities and also weird possible sock puppets and others pretending to be lawyers etc. Its getting really fascinating seeing who comes out of the woodworks. One account was a fake female account to sound more legitimate in defaming the two womens character.

The comments on reddit are pretty interesting too. Discrediting sara as crazy and overexageratting because women are crazee and person had an ex who was crazee so all women must be crazee!  And no way a man can be abusive especially someone who does charity work. Also juvenile views of mental health issues. I.e. "if you thought of suicide you must be crazee!!"

The fact that sara thought of suicide i would think would make more people sad about this. But no the internet and our little democratic filmmaking community dealt with this far less rationally than the conedic world dealt with bill cosby. That saddens me. A bunch of comedians outclassed us. But then again conedians are highly sensitive and intelligent people. 

The reaction to bloom reminds me of gamersgate. We are no better than a bunch of online video game nerds. And that makes sense. I am a gamer. And im sure if you guys admit it many of you are too. I loved the last of us On ps3. Gamers are immature. We spend hours playing games vs going out into the world developing emotional connections with people.

[Lammy]

Definitely one is a fake. We always see those returnofkings/meninist/redpill characters over and over again whenever women's rights pop up. Urggh. If they had the balls (lol) they wouldn't have to resort to such trickery. 

[Ed_David]

This guy also suggests that people who post parts of the experience and lives on blogs should lose their rights to 100% of their privacy and private life.

 

Andrew unfortunately i have to agree with the author. You live by the internet you die by the internet. It sucks but as soon as you put your name and face and make a brand your private life is now public.

So just be a good person to others and know that whatever you write on the internet  will be recorded forever.

It sucks right?  Because i get scared too of what i write. i was super scared after occupy videos i did my commercial prod companies would never hire me again.

But guess what i got 2 super giant jobs because of my occupy video!

So be kind and follow your gut.

respect everyone like you are a public figure even if you dont want to be. When you meet fans in public or via phone or email be kind to them. You never know who will try to mess with you later. oh well. Thats the rub of our modern twitter era. Youll be fine.

[Andrew Reid]

We broadly control how much we put out onto the internet.

That's our right.

If someone takes that away from you and posts carte blanche a ton of the uttermost private info, I don't agree that.

[agolex]

Wow - well this thread is a load of bollocks. 

Enjoy the process of getting it locked guys! 

But wait, we're all good people and filmmakers.

[Lammy]

 

This guy also suggests that people who post parts of the experience and lives on blogs should lose their rights to 100% of their privacy and private life.

​I think David was very careful with his words - he said "It could be argued that we all have our right to privacy"  and "'internet stars' seem to give up that right.". His point was about reputation, not exactly about losing any rights per say.

The accused isn't forced to divulge further information to the media. That's why there's advice to lawyer up before putting the foot in the mouth and why the statement was originally privately emailed.

The tabloids like the Sun and Daily Mail are always getting sued left and right by celebrities that do not wish to indulge in any more press and media speculation.

[Andrew Reid]

It takes a certain mild tempered person to get on with cats (who on the whole are very selfish creatures).

​O rly?

[Neumann Films]

What does shame mean?

Shaming someone for saying something.

Shaming the shamer the shame its all the shame.

​A childish retort to some pretty honest questions Ed.

[Damphousse]

So be kind and follow your gut.

​If "following your gut" is what made you start this thread then that is terrible advice.  15% of my fellow Americans "follow their gut" and believe the president wasn't born in America and isn't the legitimate leader of the country.  Everyone's gut tells them something different.  That is why before we lock someone up or destroy their career we demand objective evidence.

 

I believe in the Constitution of the United States.  The 14th amendment ensures all people (male, female, black, white, etc) receive due process and equal protection.  Meaning just because you have a Y chromosome any woman anywhere can't just accuse you of abuse with no objective proof and you are convicted without a trial.  There is a reason people have fought and died for the Constitution.  Without it we are nothing more than animals forming lynch mobs based on our "gut feelings" at any given moment.

 

Sometimes you have to accept that you simply cannot reach the burden of proof to convict.  There is a reason the hurdle is high.  Circumnavigate that hurdle at your own risk.

 

Your time would be better spent working on proven methods to reduce domestic abuse.  Working on better pay for women, more education for women, a better social safety net, more and better mental health services, educating young people about how to treat people with respect and have respect for themselves, etc.  I guess doing those things is a lot harder and a lot less sexy than picking out one internet psuedocelebrity and forming a lynch mob to go after him.  Have the courage to admit you don't have all the FACTS and then get to work on the difficult challenges you can actually do something about.

[Jed I. Clampett]

In the original article it fails to mention that she broke into his home and threatened to kill him with a knife and said she would commit suicide.

It also fails to mention it was Phillip that called police and reported her in the incident.

In terms of what is matter of record, she did threaten to KILL Philip with a knife after breaking into his home and calls it domestic violence when he took knife away from her for both their safety.

She is the one that got in trouble with the law.

She has broken several laws with her pursuit and obsession with Philip Bloom, now those are undisputed facts on record.

Seems to me there is a victim, but not Sarah.