My reaction to the reaction of the filmmaking community to the Philip Bloom abuse scandel

[Emanuel]

​(...)

Am I a criminal psychologist with mountains of books and studying behind me?  No, I'm just a filmmaker and cinematographer.  Just another person.  Just one voice and one opinion.  Does that mean I don't have the credentials to have an opinion?  

(...)

 

Well, opinions are like the famous Dirty Harry's quote... And definitely away to be science or fact, especially when we are out (go figure if we'd rather type < off > instead :-)

[Emanuel]

​(...)

The third thread will talk about how you guys treated me from the 2nd thread.  But really, I'm not going to do that.  Because of 2 direct messages I received from two of you that showed the empathy I wanted to find.

(...)

 

 

​

There you can properly say, there's no "all of us", but "each one of us", multiple sides, even though, when apparently only two.

[Emanuel]

Last but not least, other than you Ed, I believe (my opinion) the reasons behind the women are not so strong, or the only facts strictly from one side of the events. Or the alleged victims would have material to also go straight to the Courts, if it was easy to identify some side as guilty.

 

The fact is that they are going to where is easy to produce loss to Philip. Without the trouble to face him and the full story before of a judge.

 

On the other hand, for same order of thinking, because it is a serious attack to the honour of an individual, if Philip is innocent of all these nasty accusations, I'd never hesitate to end in the last consequences against whoever had the chance to think twice and be decent, before going public. His/her/their own grief aside, from a private story. With the usual ups and downs and personal memories, once a (love) relationship. Pity

 

Accusations are a very serious matter and require burden of proof at any time from who claims the issue. No US Constitution First Amendment, if in US soil, could ever justify those grievous allegations towards someone's reputation. Our acquaintance or fellow geek/reviewer/photographer/internet personality/filmmaker or not.

Decency has no price. Dignity is boundless. This applies in cases of domestic violence. Defamation, as well. Let alone the damages in the career of a renown professional. How many? How much? To distort facts in order to achieve a goal --, if any in this case, it is whatever you want, but far to be innocent. From what I read, his name was a very clear target. I guess, it says a bit (?) on the source, amongst other.

 

Life is not that simple. Neither truth*.

 

*(s)

[hmcindie]

No guys unlike you think i will never cause domestic violence towards a person.

But you do cause emotional abuse. That's what you're basically doing to Bloom with all these threads (which also read like "Hey, I'm Ed and I'm a great guy on the internets!"). There's now THREE ED DAVID posts on Google when you type in Philip Bloom abuse (or is it just my google?). That's just absurd but I guess it goes to show how much some people crave attention. 

​You don't even know the extent of the alleged abuse. Saying something like "Shut up dear" can be considered "emotional abuse". I read her google post and the only violent thing there was when she herself broke a picture frame. She's constantly saying stuff like "how could he do this to me?" without specifying what this "this" is. Great that you are also there commenting her but lets keep an open mind on this one.

" +Ed David I appreciate so much what you've shared. This hasn't been easy and every once of support has made all of this easier to handle."

You'd really make a kick-ass judge who has already decided what's true and what's not. 

And just for the record, physical abuse is horrible and that's why WE SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS UNTIL THERE IS EVIDENCE. That's just how it goes, you can comfort her and go and talk to her but don't make a witch hunt until you are 100% sure of what happened. Of course in this social media age, there will thousands of Ed's in every case.

[Inazuma]

It seems like Ed has rationalised that the way he would theoretically respond to the situation should be how everyone should react to it.  Personally if an ex accused me of abuse, I don't think I'd immediately jump to stating that I'll be bringing the big guns (suing for defamation) out. I think that would make me seem more like a dick than anything. Also, the whole thing about you being on good terms with your ex's - That's great, Ed, but not very relevant to the situation. Bad relationships happen where two people try to stick it out and try to make it work for months or even years. Just because you haven't experienced or heard of this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that you should dismiss it. 

I really was astonished when you said "I will not condone taking the side of a person over two women who claim domestic abuse."

I really like your work Ed but this finger pointing game without evidence is a bit mad. Let the police and courts handle it.

 

[Emanuel]

Personally if an ex accused me of abuse, I don't think I'd immediately jump to stating that I'll be bringing the big guns (suing for defamation) out. I think that would make me seem more like a dick than anything. Also, the whole thing about you being on good terms with your ex's - That's great, Ed, but not very relevant to the situation. Bad relationships happen where two people try to stick it out and try to make it work for months or even years. Just because you haven't experienced or heard of this, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that you should dismiss it. 

 

​Exactly because we can't dismiss some stuff, in the same range of thinking and certain procedure codes. The point is our actions/reactions speak by ourselves. Our silence as absence of something is informally or even formally to the eyes of opinion public, a substantial deed, as well.

To add the fact that to be a public personality has his cost, v.g. Jim Jannard and his record of lawsuits (Arri, Sony and so on, even yet from Oakley period for sure :D). Those Industry matters opposed to this, because they're actually and only private affairs is perfectly irrelevant and even inaccurate. Kessler statement is there to prove it. Relevant is the fact their accusation is somehow a bomb in Philip's reputation. Once public, public became. On that, Ed has nailed the course.

[DayRaven]

Wrong post

[SleepyWill]

​Stories don't have two sides - they have thousands of sides.

​Exactly my point. It's you who has been pushing the "It's black and white, you must choose a side" agenda.

I have all the evidence I need to make a conclusion just as all of you have this as well.  As I stated before, I am a reactionary person and I trust my gut.  My gut tells me to believe his ex girlfriends over his own testimony.

This is an opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Your opinion is not truth, only your opinion. And are you claiming to have never been wrong about anything in your life, because I think that you, as a normal human being, get things wrong literally every day.

​Am I a criminal psychologist with mountains of books and studying behind me?  No, I'm just a filmmaker and cinematographer.  Just another person.  Just one voice and one opinion.  Does that mean I don't have the credentials to have an opinion?  

Unfortunately I don't believe in credentials meaning much.  I have a friend from college who is incredibly book smart but lacks emotional intelligence.  This does not always make her the best source to talk to about certain issues.  

One of the smartest people I interviewed on a doc about racism and mass transit in Atlanta was a homeless man.  He knew more about how to possibly remedy the problem than about 4 different professors I had interviewed.

I spent 8 years in school studying French, and I can't hold a single conversation with anyone in French.  I'm glad you have books - it is good to have good access to an understanding of psychology and criminal psychology but this is also a cultural issue and philosophical.  It's a wide ranging issue.  

​Firstly, it's sad that you let your expensive, privileged western education get pissed against the wall. 8 years studying something for nothing is a spit in the face to the less fortunate who struggle every day to access education.

Secondly, I bet you wouldn't let that homeless man perform a c-section on a loved one. I bet my last dollar you would insist on a qualified, experienced surgeon.

Thirdly, if you have such disdain for credentials, why are you looking for evidence and case reports created by people with the credentials. You can't have it both ways, you can't tell me that you do not respect my experience and education (though your lack of respect for education is apparently a thing with you) yet at the same time be relying on not being able to find a case report written by someone with credentials to back your opinion. It's one or the other. I'm sorry that your friend doesn't have emotional intelligence, but having the ability to empathise and emotionally connect with people is core to how a psychologist works. Not that I ever worked as a psychologist after my education - those skills were developed to supplement a different career, but thanks for stereotyping me - but I would not have passed my first year without having the skills you clearly want to assume I do not have.

We'll talk about your "credentials to have an opinion" in just a second. Spoiler: I'm going to call you a hypocrite.

 And as this thread is about, it's not about Philip so much for me anymore, it's about how all of you react to A) charges of domestic abuse and also a person coming on this forum asking a filmmaking forum to take a stand, not just "wait for more information to come in when there probably will be no more information coming in."  That is why I started a 2nd thread.

 

​But how can you expect people to take a stand when there is no more information coming in. Ed, if you do one thing, answer this question that you keep avoiding: Are you of the opinion that fake accusations are no big deal. Let's be clear, this is where you are going to struggle because you lack the emotional wisdom to seperate opinion from fact, you do not know if Philip Bloom abused those women or not.

You are correct, this is not about him anyway, it's about whether you can be labelled as guilty without being proven so. We are saying no. You are saying yes. I have tried to engage you in a number of ways to give you a flavour of what it feels like to be falsely accused and judged for doing nothing wrong. You have deflected like a pro, squirmed and tried to verbosely talk your way out of answering the questions I have been asking of you.  We could have done the interview it in the time you spent writing all the posts you have made since you made the offer, especially as you have coopted my gear and my studio to do it all for you. Have you ever actually given a professional interview before? Did you not know it is rather rude to request an interview for a production that will forward your career, then refuse to arrange transport, ask the person to do your setup for you, use their own gear etc. If you want to go into this journalistic style of filmmaking, please understand that you need to have respect for people willing to give up their time for your career, especially when you have made it clear that you have an agenda you will push, which the person is arguing against. Why am I busting my ass, giving you free use of my resources, free use of my time for nothing? I'll tell you why, because I haven't given up on you, not yet.

Even Philip Bloom if he did physically and mentally abuse these women.

​Look, "If he did". IF. Yes, welcome to where everyone else was 24 hours ago, even IF he did those things, he is still a human being, well done. I will take that as a victory for the point I made about punitive vs rehabilitation measures in the Clarkson threads, it only took you a fortnight to get it. But what is interesting here is that you won't state as fact that he did those things, even though you have told us to do exactly that. Why Ed. Think long and hard about why you used the word if there. That is all we have ever been asking of you, to acknowledge that your opinion is not necessarily the facts.

He has done something terrible

​Eeesh, and back to the Ed who cannot tell fact from internal narrative. Interestingly, if Phillip Bloom had lawyered up, as you suggested would be the actions of an innocent man, you would now be in a lot of trouble - you have put your true identity to that statement and if PB turns out to be innocent, he can take you to the cleaners over this. Fortunately for you, PB doesn't seem interested in using the threat of legal action to close down discussion on the matter, which is a clue to his confidence in the validity of his argument.

I will forever answer any questions you have about my character, I am fine with that.

​Well, then answer the ones I asked, otherwise these words continue to be hollow and false.

​until one day I don't have to "become the cop and jury" as you guys said.

​How would you respond to a cop arresting someone without evidence, but opinion? How would you react if a jury convicted a man on gut instinct. Remember, that jury could be anyone, including the people writing vile messages to the two women, would you be happy for those unpleasant individuals using their gut instinct on a jury in the trial of Phillip Bloom? If you want to act as "cop and jury", that's OK, that's not our problem. Our problem is you reacting as "corrupt cop and bent jury". If you will act as cop, then apply the same standards of excellence you wish to see from the police to yourself when you act, if you must act as jury, then you must act to the standards you expect of any jury. Do that and you will be doing the same as the rest of us. 

 

Now I did say we were going to get back to tour "credentials to have an opinion". You are inherently hypocritical, no-one minds that you have an opinion, no-one minds that you are telling us what it is. What people mind is that you are telling other people that their opinions based on the precise same information you have is wrong. That is arrogance in the extreme, and hypocritical because you are attempting to take away our "credentials to an opinion". For what it's worth, my opinion matches yours. But it's not worth a damn thing to anyone else other than myself, sure we could have had a nice little circlejerk where we congratulated each other on having matching opinions BUT it would have achieved nothing. By asking you difficult questions, by playing devils advocate, by challenging you views, I have achieved a lot more than if we had sat around and gave each others epeens a boner.

[MJF]

That was a rather brilliant and surgical closing argument. Bravo SleepyWill. 

[Ed_David]

The trial of ed david continues. I havent caused emotional abuse towards the subject bloom. I can easily argue that what i caused is frustration And probably duress. Do you guys know what emotional abuse means in a domestic partnership?

I havent said one false thIng. I havent even insulted him or called him a name. 

The only ones who resorted to name calling have been some lf you. I believe one lf you called him the green river killer. Thats not nice.

[Ed_David]

​Exactly my point. It's you who has been pushing the "It's black and white, you must choose a side" agenda.

This is an opinion, there is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Your opinion is not truth, only your opinion. And are you claiming to have never been wrong about anything in your life, because I think that you, as a normal human being, get things wrong literally every day.

​Firstly, it's sad that you let your expensive, privileged western education get pissed against the wall. 8 years studying something for nothing is a spit in the face to the less fortunate who struggle every day to access education.

Secondly, I bet you wouldn't let that homeless man perform a c-section on a loved one. I bet my last dollar you would insist on a qualified, experienced surgeon.

Thirdly, if you have such disdain for credentials, why are you looking for evidence and case reports created by people with the credentials. You can't have it both ways, you can't tell me that you do not respect my experience and education (though your lack of respect for education is apparently a thing with you) yet at the same time be relying on not being able to find a case report written by someone with credentials to back your opinion. It's one or the other. I'm sorry that your friend doesn't have emotional intelligence, but having the ability to empathise and emotionally connect with people is core to how a psychologist works. Not that I ever worked as a psychologist after my education - those skills were developed to supplement a different career, but thanks for stereotyping me - but I would not have passed my first year without having the skills you clearly want to assume I do not have.

We'll talk about your "credentials to have an opinion" in just a second. Spoiler: I'm going to call you a hypocrite.

​But how can you expect people to take a stand when there is no more information coming in. Ed, if you do one thing, answer this question that you keep avoiding: Are you of the opinion that fake accusations are no big deal. Let's be clear, this is where you are going to struggle because you lack the emotional wisdom to seperate opinion from fact, you do not know if Philip Bloom abused those women or not.

You are correct, this is not about him anyway, it's about whether you can be labelled as guilty without being proven so. We are saying no. You are saying yes. I have tried to engage you in a number of ways to give you a flavour of what it feels like to be falsely accused and judged for doing nothing wrong. You have deflected like a pro, squirmed and tried to verbosely talk your way out of answering the questions I have been asking of you.  We could have done the interview it in the time you spent writing all the posts you have made since you made the offer, especially as you have coopted my gear and my studio to do it all for you. Have you ever actually given a professional interview before? Did you not know it is rather rude to request an interview for a production that will forward your career, then refuse to arrange transport, ask the person to do your setup for you, use their own gear etc. If you want to go into this journalistic style of filmmaking, please understand that you need to have respect for people willing to give up their time for your career, especially when you have made it clear that you have an agenda you will push, which the person is arguing against. Why am I busting my ass, giving you free use of my resources, free use of my time for nothing? I'll tell you why, because I haven't given up on you, not yet.

​Look, "If he did". IF. Yes, welcome to where everyone else was 24 hours ago, even IF he did those things, he is still a human being, well done. I will take that as a victory for the point I made about punitive vs rehabilitation measures in the Clarkson threads, it only took you a fortnight to get it. But what is interesting here is that you won't state as fact that he did those things, even though you have told us to do exactly that. Why Ed. Think long and hard about why you used the word if there. That is all we have ever been asking of you, to acknowledge that your opinion is not necessarily the facts.

​Eeesh, and back to the Ed who cannot tell fact from internal narrative. Interestingly, if Phillip Bloom had lawyered up, as you suggested would be the actions of an innocent man, you would now be in a lot of trouble - you have put your true identity to that statement and if PB turns out to be innocent, he can take you to the cleaners over this. Fortunately for you, PB doesn't seem interested in using the threat of legal action to close down discussion on the matter, which is a clue to his confidence in the validity of his argument.

​Well, then answer the ones I asked, otherwise these words continue to be hollow and false.

​How would you respond to a cop arresting someone without evidence, but opinion? How would you react if a jury convicted a man on gut instinct. Remember, that jury could be anyone, including the people writing vile messages to the two women, would you be happy for those unpleasant individuals using their gut instinct on a jury in the trial of Phillip Bloom? If you want to act as "cop and jury", that's OK, that's not our problem. Our problem is you reacting as "corrupt cop and bent jury". If you will act as cop, then apply the same standards of excellence you wish to see from the police to yourself when you act, if you must act as jury, then you must act to the standards you expect of any jury. Do that and you will be doing the same as the rest of us. 

 

Now I did say we were going to get back to tour "credentials to have an opinion". You are inherently hypocritical, no-one minds that you have an opinion, no-one minds that you are telling us what it is. What people mind is that you are telling other people that their opinions based on the precise same information you have is wrong. That is arrogance in the extreme, and hypocritical because you are attempting to take away our "credentials to an opinion". For what it's worth, my opinion matches yours. But it's not worth a damn thing to anyone else other than myself, sure we could have had a nice little circlejerk where we congratulated each other on having matching opinions BUT it would have achieved nothing. By asking you difficult questions, by playing devils advocate, by challenging you views, I have achieved a lot more than if we had sat around and gave each others epeens a boner.

Okay now threats of weird sexual issues towards me?  And agressive behavior towards me. wow.

Have you been on a jury before?  In the us its not as perfect as you think. People convict based on emotional response and lawyers performance.

Have you listened to serial at least?

[Geoff CB]

 

Now I did say we were going to get back to tour "credentials to have an opinion". You are inherently hypocritical, no-one minds that you have an opinion, no-one minds that you are telling us what it is. What people mind is that you are telling other people that their opinions based on the precise same information you have is wrong.

​This. Ed, this is what people are getting angry with you over.

[Ed_David]

Last but not least, other than you Ed, I believe (my opinion) the reasons behind the women are not so strong, or the only facts strictly from one side of the events. Or the alleged victims would have material to also go straight to the Courts, if it was easy to identify some side as guilty.

 

The fact is that they are going to where is easy to produce loss to Philip. Without the trouble to face him and the full story before of a judge.

 

On the other hand, for same order of thinking, because it is a serious attack to the honour of an individual, if Philip is innocent of all these nasty accusations, I'd never hesitate to end in the last consequences against whoever had the chance to think twice and be decent, before going public. His/her/their own grief aside, from a private story. With the usual ups and downs and personal memories, once a (love) relationship. Pity

 

Accusations are a very serious matter and require burden of proof at any time from who claims the issue. No US Constitution First Amendment, if in US soil, could ever justify those grievous allegations towards someone's reputation. Our acquaintance or fellow geek/reviewer/photographer/internet personality/filmmaker or not.

Decency has no price. Dignity is boundless. This applies in cases of domestic violence. Defamation, as well. Let alone the damages in the career of a renown professional. How many? How much? To distort facts in order to achieve a goal --, if any in this case, it is whatever you want, but far to be innocent. From what I read, his name was a very clear target. I guess, it says a bit (?) on the source, amongst other.

 

Life is not that simple. Neither truth*.

 

*(s)

Their testimony holds up as evidence in a court of law. But thats the thing. They arent going for a lawsuit. They have moved on. Sarah merely wanted to show the world that her ex was abusive towards her and a hypocrit for calling out physical abuse  on set of top gear where the star punched a producer and most people were quick to defend the star. 

And i am protected to say all this because i am not making anything up and havent lied once. We are all free in the us and the uk to draw conclusions about any matter in the world based on available public evidence. This isnt based on rumors. This is based on publically available documents. 

Did anyone here see alex gibneys film om scientology? Its similar in that hes just cultivating facts and interviews. They had 110 lawyers approve his cut. 

This is unfortunately what it looks like to be a filmmaker. You ruffle feathers. Interesting right?

Maybe this will encourage some of you to make a few fipms or try something controversial in life or maybe you guys would be too scared to be in my position?  Also these anonymous filmmakers judging me...oh my!  Scary!

[Emanuel]

Well, these threads around this case have become in a comedy, actually. A tragicomedy, to be more precise.

 

No one knows what exactly happened there between them, except the characters who lived THEIR lives ; ) Even them, to each his/her own perspective on facts. Remember Citizen Kane or Rashomon.

 

Once public, is there room for judgement outside? Sure, as same as for misjudgement too ;-)

 

Facts are made of a different kind.

[mtheory]

They arent going for a lawsuit. They have moved on.

There is no proof that any abuse took place until it is confirmed by courts or police. The only things actually confirmed so far  is the mental/emotional/professional damage these two women are causing Philip and the fact that they are ( so far ) avoiding a legal process where their accusations can be independently verified.

It is because of naive and emotional people like you who takes sides before truth is established that rumours get spread and lives get destroyed.

[SleepyWill]

Okay now threats of weird sexual issues towards me?  And agressive behavior towards me. wow.

Have you been on a jury before?  In the us its not as perfect as you think. People convict based on emotional response and lawyers performance.

Have you listened to serial at least

1) I have no sexual feelings towards you, and if, by chance I did, what exactly would be weird about it? Are gay people weird? Are people who fancy others of different skin colour weird? Perhaps you find it weird that a disabled person may be interested in a fully able bodied person. 

2) Please highlight exactly what you perceived as aggression, there was no aggressive intent of any kind behind any of my words.

3) Why are you talking about US law? Philip Bloom is British. The women involve are both British. The alleged abuse occured while they were living in Britain. I live in England. This is a forum owed and run by a british man. I couldn't give a fiddle about US law. It's not relevant. Zimbabwean legal process is literally more relevant to the discussion than the US justice system. The British criminal justice system is beyond doubt the finest in the world. Note Criminal, not Civil.

4) I can't help but to notice that you have avoided my questions again. You did make it clear that you were happy to answer them, so why have you not?

5) What is this strange obsession with "being on trial". We have formed opinions about you, sure, but there are no consequences of our opinions. We are giving you the opportunity to speak about an issue that is apparently important to you. If you don't like people expressing their opinions about you, then why do you feel ok to so aggressively speak your opinions about others, why do you feel OK to tell others that their opinions are wrong, directly if you can't take even the presence of another who does not agree with you.

6) It's 2pm GMT. I await this interview.

 

[Andrew Reid]

There is no proof that any abuse took place until it is confirmed by courts or police. The only things actually confirmed so far  is the mental/emotional/professional damage these two women are causing Philip and the fact that they are ( so far ) avoiding a legal process where their accusations can be independently verified.

​I am starting to feel more and more uneasy about all this.

First of all, Facebook is not the place for such a serious accusation of criminality. If Sara and Sarah have a case, then take it to the police and sort it out correctly. This is a situation where the evidence needs to be professionally analysed and witness statements taken. Are any of us witnesses? No!

Victims deserve to have a voice and both sides of this rather vicious argument have a point - I agree with some of what Ed says and some of what SleepyWill says. I also respect you both and your contribution to the forum all these months, so it is horrible to see you guys fight like this... like watching friends go for the jugular.

What people have perhaps forgotten is although myself and Philip Bloom have had our fallings out online, in real life we are actually friends. I am watching a mate's life and livelihood disappear here. Also we have mutual friends and no matter whose side you take, it is bound to divide real life friendships. I don't want that.

The same goes for you guys here.

It is poisonous. What should be friendships based on filmmaking and cameras are turning into a bitter hatred for one another. If you don't want to be enemies for life you need to find some common ground on this and agree to disagree.

I admire Ed's stance for being so sensitive to what he believes are the victims. It's principled and well meaning and flies against the grain, takes guts to not stay silent. If the victims in this have a case, they need people like Ed to take a stand.

I admire SleepyWill's intelligent counter argument and agree with him on one fundamental principal and that is we can never really know the facts of the matter so we shouldn't act as a jury, let alone executioner.

I don't want to lock the thread and censor but it is bad for the overall atmosphere of the forum now... and our friendships.

So I encourage de-escelation and for you all to put your attention into NAB instead.

[Andrew Reid]

The women involve are both British.

​Actually that shows how much we think we know but don't. I think they're Canadian and Australian!!

But really, it shouldn't matter if they are green with antlers and from planet zog. It's none of our business.

[SleepyWill]

​Actually that shows how much we think we know but don't. I think they're Canadian and Australian!!

But really, it shouldn't matter if they are green with antlers and from planet zog. It's none of our business.

​Ha, thanks for that! 

please don't worry about me and Ed, I think he is worked up right now but I am not and there is no ill will between us from my side. I still have a great deal of respect and admiration for him and it further highlights a point I made in my Clarkson posts - Literally every person in this world holds views and does things that we do not like. I have already said enough about it and this absolutely will be all I have to say on the matter now, but while I do not like this aspect of Ed's opinions, it changes nothing about my positivity and support for him. I know that I can be a real sod to deal with while debating, I can keep personal feeling out of it and I reiterate, I am only doing this to challenge and inspire thought - not just in Ed, but in others who read this later.

From where I st, we're good, and I'm sure we are from where Ed sits as well  Debate mode off now for me, back to friendly sleepywill who is really interested in supporting my friend, a new filmaker who took huge step yesterday of displaying his first piece of work in public, who is a deep admirer of Ed, and many others on this board, and is really interested in those new black magic cameras!

[Christina Ava]

andrew & mods this thread is unnapropriate and has nothing to do with eoshd 

its all based on specula, and we should really not be involved in personal grievances of people.

my humble opinion.