If you are staying silent about Neil Gaiman "because there isn't enough to go on" other than audio of two, in-depth, uneditorialised victim statements and an mea culpa statement from the man himself, what else are you waiting for? His head to fucking light up and start flashing?
At no point do you think that a reputation management agency, helped along by one or more of the Church of Scientology, Netflix & Amazon, might be behind him declaring himself "autistic" in April, the legal threats to newspapers and other journalists attempting to follow it up,
the weeks of obsessive bleaching of Wikipedia, his disappearance from Twitter, and the astroturfing of social media and comments sections to push the "Boris Johnson's sister!" and "in PODCAST form?!" angles? Because you 'like his work'? Really, you're that *easy*?
I could also bring in here the legions of people who have worked or still regularly work with or for him, all of whom have previously been very vocal about their support for sexual assault victims. I will not name them here, but are you quiet (a) because you don't want to lose
profitable employment, (b) because him or his team have given you a friendly warning against opening your mouth, or (c) because the NDAs in your contracts include the kind of watertight non-disparagement clauses the lawyers of a prolific sex offender would insist upon including?
Because whenever I see one of you on here now, all I see is 'person willingly doing PR work for a rapist', soon to become 'person keeping their head down in shame after it escalates and doesn't have an answer as to why they helped him that doesn't make them sound like a coward'.
Also, because the word seems to have latched itself to the story, this is not a "complex" case. Complex would be like the Woody Allen case with a confusion of credible witness statements both condemnatory and exonerating. This one's as clear-cut as Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
