Always creeped me out

June 14, 2007 4:58 AM

Told you Barrymore did it. A timeline.
posted by reklaw (45 comments total)

It didn't fit, so they must acquit.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 5:03 AM on June 14, 2007

Misleading editorialised newsfilter linksplooge. Nice.
posted by cillit bang at 5:04 AM on June 14, 2007

Are we still doing "innocent until proven guilty"? I forget.
posted by imperium at 5:04 AM on June 14, 2007

Yay, libel on the front page!
posted by grouse at 5:08 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

who?
posted by Muddler at 5:08 AM on June 14, 2007

are we citing the daily mail as a credible news source now? i *so* didn't get the memo...
posted by triv at 5:12 AM on June 14, 2007

The Daily Mail. Seriously?
posted by Aloysius Bear at 5:13 AM on June 14, 2007

Wait, wait-- Drew Barrymore killed somebody?
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:15 AM on June 14, 2007

Multiple Link Op-Ed. Shame, too. With just the right wording, it could'a been a contender.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:21 AM on June 14, 2007

Now Metafilter has decided, the time-consuming business of a trial can be dispensed with.
posted by WPW at 5:22 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

!
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:23 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Faint of Butt: "Wait, wait-- Drew Barrymore killed somebody?"

Incriminating photo of her leaving the crime scene.
posted by octothorpe at 5:24 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ha, pwnt!
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:24 AM on June 14, 2007

Damn!
posted by octothorpe at 5:25 AM on June 14, 2007

Does 'timeline' mean 'arbitrary historical events of a lurid nature' in the UK?
posted by boo_radley at 5:32 AM on June 14, 2007

It's amazing how even more uninteresting sensationalized celebrity scandals are when they occur in another country.
posted by noble_rot at 5:44 AM on June 14, 2007 [2 favorites]

He's like the UK's Michael Jackson. They both blatantly did it, but remain popular anyway. And, uh, they're both called Michael.

PS - The Daily Mail is just one source of many there. The point was to avoid linking to only one, maybe-dodgy news site.
posted by reklaw at 5:50 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

The point was to avoid linking to only one, maybe-dodgy news site.

And you accomplished this by linking to the Daily Mail?

I mean, Christ, Vernon Dursley reads the Daily Mail.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:55 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

So you linked to multiple newspapers that all carry the same basic PA wire copy? Awesome.
posted by flashboy at 5:59 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Even the Daily Mail, muckraking, prejudicial and prurient that it is, has stopped just short of saying Barrymore "did it" - because if they did say that, they would face an almighty libel suit, criminal charges for prejudicing an investigation, and would probably mean Barrymore could never be convicted of something he may or may not have done (unable to obtain fair trial).
posted by WPW at 6:00 AM on June 14, 2007

"A post-mortem examination found Stuart had suffered severe anal injuries. Barrymore believes these were the result of hospital procedures carried out by doctors trying to revive Stuart"

Remind me to never require medical attention in England.
posted by Billegible at 6:07 AM on June 14, 2007

Even the Daily Mail, muckraking, prejudicial and prurient that it is, has stopped just short of saying Barrymore "did it" - because if they did say that, they would face an almighty libel suit, criminal charges for prejudicing an investigation, and would probably mean Barrymore could never be convicted of something he may or may not have done (unable to obtain fair trial).

Yeah, but this is, like, the Internet, dude. Is Mefi seriously going to be held British libel laws (this would require Barrymore to sue the site himself)? Is this little bit of biased coverage on my part (cos I think he did it and have said so for years) likely to prejudice any trials? I doubt it.
posted by reklaw at 6:19 AM on June 14, 2007

Metafilter: Yeah, but this is, like, the Internet, dude.
posted by chillmost at 6:21 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Metafilter: Presumption of innocence? We don't need no stinkin' presumption of innocence!
posted by runningdogofcapitalism at 6:29 AM on June 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

Who did what to who, now?
posted by Dave Faris at 6:34 AM on June 14, 2007

Yeah, but this is, like, the Internet, dude. Is Mefi seriously going to be held British libel laws (this would require Barrymore to sue the site himself)? Is this little bit of biased coverage on my part (cos I think he did it and have said so for years) likely to prejudice any trials? I doubt it.

You're probably right - that's why this sort of thing happens so much on the internet. And then every now and then someone uses this reasoning and it does go all Rumpole-of-the-Bailey. Possible outcome: no more Metafilter.

To recap: I really don't care about Barrymore one way or the other. Free, in jail, successful, unsuccessful, happy, unhappy, it makes no difference to me. I do care about Metafilter somewhat, so it's at least worth mentioning the risks here once in a while. Metafilter is liable under British libel laws, because they're so absurdly plaintiff-friendly. Worth remembering.

(Also, I think that perhaps we should aspire to higher standards than the British tabloids. But that's just my opinion.)
posted by WPW at 6:38 AM on June 14, 2007

What, exactly, do you claim Mr. Barrymore did? Someone full of alcohol and sundry drugs was found dead in a pool. Now there is indication of "injuries" suggesting sexual "assault". What is your personal direct knowledge of such things as the sexual assault of drunken, drugged men?

I find the facts as presented (rather thin) are plenty suggestive of accidental death. Possibly an attempt to hide the circumstances of that death, but that's quite speculative. The drugged man, having had his totally consensual wild time (that appears to have been more wild than healthy) stumbled into the pool while in a drugged-out stupor.

While I know nothing of the alleged victim, I do know that some people get overly fond of 'things' being rammed up their rectums. You don't think the goatse man was born that way, do you? Such people sometimes become quite obsessed with new goals of how much , how big, and how far, they can get something up there. Add drugs to the picture, and it is quite easy to see how this could result in serious injury.
posted by Goofyy at 6:39 AM on June 14, 2007

Such people sometimes become quite obsessed with new goals of how much , how big, and how far, they can get something up there. Add drugs to the picture, and it is quite easy to see how this could result in serious injury.

Sshe looked over at me with a glazed eye and some bovine perspiration on her upper lip area.
posted by three blind mice at 6:48 AM on June 14, 2007

The fact that MeFi probably won't be the subject of legal action over this (though it theoretically could be) doesn't disguise the fact that linking to essentially the same cruddy breaking news article five times over makes for a bloody awful post.
posted by flashboy at 6:49 AM on June 14, 2007

God damn, I hate libel laws. But on second thought, this whole post is a bit crap, especially when 90% of the audience here is Americans who've never heard of the guy. So you know, do with it what you will.
posted by reklaw at 6:56 AM on June 14, 2007

This is way before innocent until proven guilty. This is innocent until charged and then subsequently proven guilty. At this point he is merely arrested.

British Media is notorious for gun jumping. Just last week they finally cleared up the "OMG somebody is tampering with oxygen tanks at hospitals!!11" scare story that even the BBC ran for a couple of weeks in the midlands with a largely buried stories that no evidence of tampering was found. Then there was the whole Bob Woolmer murder/heart attack thing.

The articles are filled with all the typical equivocators that point to no new news - things like "suggesting" "may have" that point to somebody not actually getting charged.

He may be found guilty someday. Not today though.
posted by srboisvert at 6:59 AM on June 14, 2007

I hate libel laws.

Even if it weren't actionable under libel laws, announcing that someone is a murderer when it has yet to be proven would still be wrong.

But on second thought, this whole post is a bit crap,

I agree entirely.

especially when 90% of the audience here is Americans who've never heard of the guy.

I've lived in Britain for years and have never heard of him.
posted by grouse at 7:05 AM on June 14, 2007

I've lived in Britain for years and have never heard of him.

Oh, come off it.
posted by reklaw at 7:09 AM on June 14, 2007

Come off what? I've never heard of him.
posted by grouse at 7:11 AM on June 14, 2007

Come off what? I've never heard of him.

Don't you feel that your life is richer now that you have?
posted by WPW at 7:13 AM on June 14, 2007

Please! This post sux. It seeks to corroborate by repetition: Four of the six links are the same wire story in different newspapers. That story is very simple:

1. Barrymore's been arrested for questioning.
2. The investigation was re-opened in December.
2. The father of the victim has a book coming out.

The last two links are from the Daily Mail. One seeks to stir the pot with something about tapes which Simon Cowell's (Simon Cowell's!) brother says are relevant and with police. Because it's in the Daily Mail, we can safely assume it's a load of shite. The other Daily Mail piece is pure newsprint filler.

And Barrymore is NOT the Michael Jackson of the U.K.
People like him, and don't think he's guilty of murder. The tabs have it in for him, though. The "reasoning" goes 'Hmmm, Someone dies at celebrity's party - therefore, celebrity must have murdered him. Especially cos he's gay - Yeah! He was murdered by GAY SEX!'
posted by tiny crocodile at 7:16 AM on June 14, 2007

The overwhelming case against this post's continued life is:

1. It's the five lots of wire copy telling us the same thing.
2. Claiming that his arrest proves he did it is well below Metafilter standards.

I sentence this post to drowning in a swimming pool. With or without anal intrusion.
posted by imperium at 7:20 AM on June 14, 2007

He had a table leg stuck in his anus.
posted by fire&wings at 7:31 AM on June 14, 2007

Metafilter is liable under British libel laws, because they're so absurdly plaintiff-friendly. Worth remembering.

Should we stop posting stories about the Chinese government because of their censorship rules? Unless Mefi has some UK business assets, people can sue all they want too and nothing will happen. The internet doesn't mean you get to export censorship.
posted by delmoi at 7:41 AM on June 14, 2007

Should we stop posting stories about the Chinese government because of their censorship rules? Unless Mefi has some UK business assets, people can sue all they want too and nothing will happen. The internet doesn't mean you get to export censorship.

If there was a risk that the Chinese government might shut down Metafilter, then posting about its censorship laws should at least give us a little pause for thought. And there is a slender risk that MeFi could be sued in the UK under the UK's - I say again - VERY plaintiff-friendly libel laws. Something that is worth remembering. And I did not say that anybody should stop posting anything - I said that it was worth remembering the risks and that I think we should be aspiring to higher standards.
posted by WPW at 7:46 AM on June 14, 2007

Shades of Fatty Arbuckle.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:46 AM on June 14, 2007

I don't care about the suing. It's not real. It's the rush to judgement that bothers me. Oh, and the crappiness of the post.

Barrymore is not Michael Jackson. He hasn't dangled gay men off balconies, or shown any previous (AFAIK) violent tendencies. Only those at the party that night know what happened. Someone probably murdered this guy, but it may or may not have been Barrymore. He's always denied the charges, and I would like the courts to establish his guilt or innocence. Not reklaw.
posted by imperium at 7:54 AM on June 14, 2007

Reklaw, your posts don't have to appeal to the 90% here (the 90% take care of that themselves). I'd prefer it if there was even a slight bit of worth in it though.

But this is crap. You've admitted it's crap. It's also libelous against (formerly) one of the UKs favourite comedians. To quote the title of a previous FPP of yours "uh-oh, prejudicin' trials".
posted by Shave at 7:54 AM on June 14, 2007

And that FPP was about my frustration with government control over what the media can and can't say. Which pretty much goes along with hating libel laws.

Sure, innocent until proven guilty, totally - but if I think someone is guilty, even if they are "one of the UK's favourite comedians", I should be allowed to say so without fearing the long arm of the law.

Whether anyone will be interested when I do, of course, is apparently another matter entirely.
posted by reklaw at 8:04 AM on June 14, 2007

Here's a Top Tip I recently read on the Viz site:

DAILY Mail editors. Underline important words in your headlines just to make sure that your readers are clear about what it is you want them to think.

H Barrow, Tooting

Ha ha ha
posted by forallmankind at 8:05 AM on June 14, 2007