Reaction towards Weinstein et al

Before we start, I should perhaps state two things.

1. The obvious. Forcing yourself onto someone else, or abusing power, is wrong. We all know that. This article will not be condoning such behaviour; it simply examines the reaction of the public, media and film industry towards it all.
2. At the time this article was written, no accusation in what I will call the "Weinstein wave" (including US and UK incidences) of sexual allegations has yet gone to court. Louis CK has only just admitted his part in it. This article will still be relevant after it's all been cleared up in the courts, regardless of whether they were found innocent or guilty, although some of it may obviously be out of date.

Now then, to my point. My understanding was that, in civilised countries, people were innocent until proven guilty. There is no half way on that: Either you think the principle right, or you think it's always wrong, and it applies to everyone equally. The general consensus throughout history is that this principle is the right way to go, and I presume it's safe to say most people overwhelmingly adhere to it.

I can understand why certain US and UK TV programmes, and Hollywood films, are being withdrawn in light of accusations against the likes of Ed Westwick, Louis CK, Kevin Spacey et al: People would feel uneasy watching them under the circumstances, and they're unlikely either to be popular or to make the distributors popular.

The news media, on the other hand, have done much to make it look as if these people are guilty, and there's no excuse. As far as I can see, they've crossed way beyond the line of journalism (to report the facts as they honestly see them in an undetached way).

Let's ignore the fact that merely naming someone implicated in something condemns them straight away in the public eye, whether innocent or guilty. Just consider these sorts of recent headlines, which are created by news outlets and which seem to imply guilt from the outset:

• I woke up with Kevin Spacey lying on me
• To Kevin Spacey: Shame on you for what you did to my son
• Kevin Spacey groped me
• Kevin Spacey 'cuddles and massages' model half his age in LA park in newly-uncovered photos
• Harvey Weinstein timeline: How the scandal unfolded

People scan headlines. They haven't got time to read entire articles. What impression would you get from the ones above? News vendors know the likely reaction, and that surely makes it character assassination at best. Why not at least use the word "allegedly" once in a while?

Another thing to note is the use of the word "scandal" in the last news link above. A scandal is a discreditable action, offence, etc. The obvious question is - what scandal are they referring to? No discreditable action, offence, etc. has been proven yet. Is that not a slanderous statement? Or indeed a scandalous one?

Even then, the way the stories are presented, and told from one side of the story, does little in my mind to make it feel like actual news is being reported. Instead, it feels like a titillating entertainment article written at someone else's expense (who may or may not be guilty). Is that fair? Or even legal?

Let's move on to the Louis CK case. His statement, in which he admits the five allegations, makes a good point. From his explanation, I do not believe Louis CK is an intrinsically-bad person. Instead, he let his weakness get the better of him. The weakness, as he points out in a round-about way, is that his hormones kicked in, he spotted an opportunity to gain advantage over a situation in which he could get sexual gratification, and he succumbed to it. They did not complain at the time, and so he perhaps (again at the time) thought of it merely as harmless fun. Testosterone is a powerful force. Similar might be integral to the other cases, although they appear to be more serious in nature, and perhaps there were additional sinister things that came into play.

That's not to say the actions of these men were right, of course. It's merely to try to explain WHY it happened, which I would argue is one of the most positive, important things that can come out of these allegations. And I think most men would be capable of doing the same in the same situation. You might think, "OK, Alan, so you'd do the same?" My answer, which would be the same for other men, would be that there's no way of knowing unless we're in the same situation. I think it's safe to say that men cannot be trusted from the outset in that situation to do the right thing, without a strong system of regulation, openness and mutual self-checking. Being men, we have a strong enough sexuality that it may sometimes not be possible to resist and express sexuality in these ways.

I don't think it's fair to say men are the only humans that can't be trusted to avoid abusing power, given the opportunity. I think women are just as bad. It's just that women don't express sexuality in the same way, not because they are somehow better or more grown-up than men, but because either they are less sexual or their sexuality is expressed differently.

Ignoring sexuality for a moment, women have slipped under the radar so far because there have been far fewer acts of power abuse reported from them, but that may simply be because far more men have the power. It's an unfair test, and an abuse of statistics. From what I have seen, women just as ably abuse positions of power. I know male managers in companies can be just as bad, but I have rarely known a female manager not to be overbearing, difficult and spiteful. I have also rarely talked to anyone (male or female) who has experienced the contrary. It seems to me, in a very generalised sense, that women can't handle power, while men are too dominated by testosterones to be trusted with it.

Clearly, we know very little about the nature of human sexuality in men and women, and the huge differences between them. As I've said, testosterone is a powerful force. It's understandably misunderstood by women, who possess nowhere near the same levels. What isn't so acceptable is that men don't speak up about something that is a natural part of them, and that women seem to choose to look down on men (ego) for it, rather than seeing that it's something beyond their comprehension (humility).

So what is to be done about all this? Understanding is the key to solving these problems and making the world safer and better for everyone. Understanding the nature of sexuality, and particularly the potency of testosterone, is essential for both men and women.

Otherwise, if children can't be trusted to look after their toys, the best thing to do is to take them away. It's part punishment, part rational act to avoid the inevitable tears. "Adults" are just children who have been told they've grown up. The more power they're given -- and the more they think they can get away with -- the more they revert to a selfish, child-like state. So the solutions seem to be:

1. Regulate, police and monitor what people in power can do
2. Limit the amount of power any one person can have
3. Find a superior, moral (but not equally power-crazed) alien race to take over the job of regulating humans.

Personally, I for one would embrace our alien overlords. In the meantime, let's hope we don't continue to keep quiet about addressing the subject for fear of being labelled scandalously by the media. By that, I don't just mean victims speaking out when abuse occurs. I also mean addressing why it occurs, in a mature, non-knee-jerk, unbiased and measured way. Understanding is the key, and the only way to resolve problems. Now is not the time for female chauvinism to flourish.

People who refuse to say "Lake Windermere"

Lake Windermere is one of the most peaceful, scenic and relaxing places I have ever been to. It even (finally) gained Unesco World Heritage status recently. The only thing that spoils it, is the people there who insist on saying, "It isn't 'Lake Windermere'. It's just 'Windermere.' The 'mere' bit means 'lake', so you don't say it."

Wrong. That's not how English works.

Windermere is also a town resides near the lake. You can call it "Windermere Town" if you like. For some reason, no-one minds you doing that.

"Mere" is an Old English word meaning "lake". The Old English equivalent of "town" is tun (from which we get the -ton suffix in place-names such as Longton, Boston and Ashton). So using the inane pseudo-logic of people who insist on dropping the "lake" bit when referring to Lake Windermere, you would have to call the town Winderton. But you don't, because that would be stupid. Embellishing the name with a description like "lake", or "town", or "bus service" helps distinguish things with the same name. Anyone with a basic grasp of English or even just common sense can tell you that.

And what of Pendle Hill, one of which is in Lancashire? "Pen" and "-dle" both originate from words meaning "hill", so literally it means "hill of the hill hill". So do we 'correct' the situation and start calling it Pen? Or perhaps just Hill? No, because Pendle is the name of the area, and Pendle Hill is a hill in that area. That's how place-names work. There are many other examples.

Lakes across the world follow the same pattern, which just shows up the madness even more. In Scotland, you have Loch Lomond and Loch Ness. In England, you have Haweswater Reservoir and Chew Valley Lake. Further afield we have Lake Ontario and Bear Lake in the US, and Reindeer Lake in Canada. I'm sure they were named that way because it made sense.

It's always interesting to note the psychology of people, and a prime target group is those who live in a particular area and insist on some oddity, such as pronouncing their place-names in a weird way. "No, it isn't that, it's this". Some of the time, this is useful: Getting things right avoids ambiguities and complexities in communication that cause avoidable misunderstanding. A while back, I was called a "grammar Nazi" for pointing out that someone meant "e.g.", although they had said "i.e.". But this wasn't me being a stickler for the sake of it. He was giving an example of something, not describing the only possibility. The two words have very different meanings, and consequently, the reasult was that various people thought he was saying something different. However, in the case of place-names, it seems that people who believe they own them change them just to appear to be different.

Humans like to belong to clubs, whether it's societies, sports, guilds, mobs, whatever. While for a few this is all about a feeling of belonging, or dedicating themselves to something they believe in, the underlying reason is usually one of ego: "I'm better than you". And changing something arbitrarily, so that you can put yourself in a position to correct others, is one (childish and pathetic) way of putting on a display to this effect.

But in the end, it's just a meaningless pretence. You'd have thought the inhabitants would be content enough to live near such an idillic spot. The same goes for Buttermere and Grasmere. (The towns, that is, not the lakes. If only there were some way of distinguishing the two, so that you know what I'm talking about...) As far as I can tell, all these arbitrary rule-breakers are in Cumbria... perhaps the area just attracts that type of mentality?

Go ahead, call it "Lake Windermere" next time you're there. Annoy the locals. They deserve no less.