Assault at The Oscars

There's an added challenge in trying to restrict material, because some of the celebs talk about things themselves. They sell their stories to magazines, or use their private life to boost followers on social media and keep themselves in the public eye beyond what they do for work. There are some celebs who clearly do draw a line between their public and private lives, but some just want to have their cake and eat it. At least Leonardo di Caprio has the sense to laugh at the frequent jokes about him having much younger girlfriends.

IMO, if there's a problem with Hollywood, it's that it promotes a totally unhealthy idea of what is attractive. A movie star is expected to appear perfect, in crazily expensive outfits, with the women especially routinely spending hours with a team of people doing hair and make-up before every big event. That's going to take a bigger toll on their long-term mental health than the awards shows themselves not being sycophantic enough.

You were not the butt of the remark. Only one person on earth was the butt of that remark, made to humiliate her in front of millions, and she was visibly upset. And the fact that that remark was delivered so casually in such a glitzy setting makes it worse. It means that it has been normalised.

It's not normal, it's nasty and cruel.

You have made many posts of how appalling the physical violence was, which mostly everyone on here agrees with. But you say nothing on how bad the verbal insult was. It was a nasty reprehensible comment, that wasn’t funny.

He should certainly be banned from ever attending again, at the very least. Unfortunately, it's a business where his name means money, so will the Academy have the guts to properly do it?

What is the line of what is acceptable to whom? Moreover, where is the line where I'm entitled to get up and hit somebody?

Another thought: having been on the receiving end of both physical assault and vicious online abuse, I found the mental scars from the latter took longer to heal than the bruises and cuts from the former.

Clearly if I'd been beaten harder, that equation would change, but my point is that there is a different standard used to sanction physical attacks compared to something hurtful said publicly, and I don't think that's always appropriate.

I've lost count of the times I've seen two people -- sometimes two blokes, often two women -- on a night out and the worst for wear. They're clearly good mates, then they have an altercation, punches are thrown, it's over in less than a minute, they're shocked at what they've just done, and, within minutes, they're best pals again. Drink (and sometimes cocaine) does that to people. No way do I think the criminal law should be brought to bear in these cases. The courts would be swamped many times over what they already are.

Unless there is a pattern of behaviour, or serious injury, let people sort these things out among themselves. Outside of rarefied society, that's always how the world has worked anyway.

In some communities, most famously the Traveller, there is encouragement to settle disputes via a quick 'punch up'.

That's a very prevalent thought process in many working class and other communities too.

As I said, not a black and white argument at any point and too much moralising from some who are keen to normally express how much they embrace diversity except, when it seems, when that diversity doesn't suit them.

If you can point out where I said Will Smith may or may not be a Traveller I would appreciate that.

My point, if you re-read, is that some communities see a quick fight as an acceptable way to settle a dispute and my post was clearly in relation to a post saying about friends having a quick violent exchange.

Thank you.

The point about women is interesting, the majority in the office yesterday supported Smith and said they'd want their Husband to do the same.

It was a joke, can you ask Ricky if he would have approved?

The on stage bit is relevant. It was in front of an international audience, not the pub after a few drinks.

If Will had gone up to Chris at an after-party and it ended in a slap then people wouldn't have cared as much. It was that he was allowed to stay and the herd mentality of excusing one of their own, and the standing ovation that made it a more troubling incident.

We've reached the situation where the people 'sticking up' for Will are the ones making it worse for him. Perhaps if people had been less sycophantic to him on the night he'd have more quickly reflected on what he did wrong and his apology would sound sincere and not something written by his PR attempting damage limitation. Perhaps if people had been less sycophantic in general prior to Sunday night he'd have been in a better position to take everything in his stride and not thought it was OK to turn the Oscar's stage into a backdrop for his own drama.

Despite that, I think in the medium to longer term the desire amongst his peers for him to be forgiven will be the dominant feeling, and I'd say the same amongst the public. As scathing as I am of the action and those who attempt to justify if, I see this is one of those times when a good person does a bad thing. I'm not going to stop watching his films as a result, but there still has to be consequences. I don't think they should remove his Oscar, but he shouldn't present the prize to the winner of Best Actress next year as is tradition. He probably shouldn't attend at all. Not as punishment, but to stop his presence over-shadowing the event.

Griff Rhys Jones had a bad reputation in the industry for anger-related issues. After therapy he managed to profit nicely from this by becoming a go-to celebrity expert on the topic, being praised for his bravery in admitting it, and being commissioned by the BBC to make TV programmes about it. He has not just been forgiven but his status has been enhanced. This is how it will go for Smith, a few contrite appearances with Oprah should do the trick.  

I say unto you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, [more] than over ninety and nine righteous persons, who need no repentance.