^^^Doctor Who producer Julie Gardner stated that in 2008 she spoke to Barrowman regarding a complaint about his conduct on the set of Torchwood. "I met with John and reprimanded him," Gardner recalled, adding that she " made it clear to both John and his agent that behaviour of this kind would not be tolerated... To my knowledge, John’s inappropriate behaviour stopped thereafter.".....as she slapped his wrist and sent him back to work as the star of Torchwood with the money the BBC was spending on it and him, and tolerated this kind of behaviour. Can you imagine being the person/s who reported this and then seeing nothing happen other than what a naughty boy you are exposing yourself in the workplace, now back to work with you, what a fantastic place to work if you keep your mouth shut, the old BBC culture in full swing in her reply.
Indeed. Barrowman's currently in trouble over a radio interview he did in November 2008 in which he hauled his pants down in front of a webcam, which BBC reprimanded him for and he issued a public apology the day after. I'm not sure how it can be interpreted that BBC ignored the matter or didn't hold him accountable. And all this overlooks the matter that the only reason Barrowman dropped his pants in that interview to begin with was because the hosts of that radio interview kept begging him to. If Barrowman has to face consequences for this thirteen years later, why aren't those hosts?
because he should have been a grown up? also we kept hunting Mengele for decades and didnt say time had run out to punish.
I can't imagine it will sit in the vault forever. I don't know how much the production cost Big Finish, but that's probably an expense they can't eat. Not to mention refunding preorders, having CDs pressed, etc. Six or eight months from now, "after a careful review," and it will be released.
I've known actual psychological boss-to-employee bullying get less of a slap on the wrist than Barrowman, so I'm not surprised. But given there was no sexual element to Barrowman's antics, this response was actually pretty level-headed. What do you consider fitting? Immediate termination? Can't dock him pay as contracts don't legally allow that. Can tell him if he does it again he's out on his ear, which apparently Gardner did. Can force him to issue an apology. We don't know if that happened, but he issued one. Sensitivity training might be mandated in some workplaces. They recommended the bully I mentioned above take a management course. He didn't go.
Its a tough spot, the BBC can put out a statement saying they already handled the issue internally but since no job was lost, it will feel light. You have to have a no tolerance policy with this kind of stuff and frankly, its much easier to discard him now since he's not in a high profile position anymore.. doesn't have a contract that they have to work around etc. It also doesn't mean that he will never work again.
Cancelation MUST occur! It's the only way. Right, so at one point will he have paid enough to the people who've heard second-hand accounts of what happened? One cancelation, two? A year, two?
There is not much that can be done about it now by the BBC as they had their chance at the time and because this was pre-Savile the BBC cesspit culture was as you saw in Gardners reply still in full swing, and as for Barrowman i would say it's too late to do anything about this grade A clown who seems to have thought as a grown adult that this behaviour was acceptable at that time in that work place, no excuses, a clown pure and simple, but i doubt it will do any real lasting damage and he will be back at some point, and as for the BBC and after reading Gardners statmement it seems to me they are still steeped in their cesspit culture.
The differences are that a) Clarke is a sexual predator and while Barrowman's behaviour was juvenile, creepy and offensive it wasn't that, b) Barrowman has already been reprimanded and subsequently behaved himself on Doctor Who.
Could be done later with an "All profits to charity", at least covering their production costs. Or put it in a Torchwood box set as a bonus, the cost swallowed up in the box costs.
I what will probably be the ruiner for Barrowman is he didn't stop in 2008 even when it reached serious disciplinary level (even sticking to Who circles, he was doing it on Miracle Day). Pre-Who, but apparently there's now someone talking about issues they had with him on the set of Titans, so again, it's not the case everyone was laughing it off as a joke. He only actually stopped fairly recently, and only because he felt he was getting to old for it. Fandom has jumped through a lot of hoops at each stage of the Barrowman story. The reactions (to copy something I wrote on another forum) basically being... [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]Everyone was fine with it![/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]*someone from Hotel Babylon says they weren't fine with it and felt unable to say so*[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]Well, they didn't work on Doctor Who. No one complained on that.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]*turns out the complaints about it on Who were so serious that it became a top level disciplinary matter (in contrast to Clarke, the complaints against whom never made it to the producers)*[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]Well, that was 2008, he was told to stop and he did. This is a witch hunt.[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]*Evidence, including quotes from the man himself, that's he only stopped doing it in the last couple of years and only because he felt he was too old for it*[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]Err... was he flashing his ¤¤¤¤ though? Just his bum maybe?[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]*That Miracle Day rubbing it on a car window story*[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]That could be actors exaggerating for a funny convention story though. Who can say?[/FONT][/SIZE] [SIZE=4][FONT=Segoe UI]Anyway, some actors thought it was funny so that means it's all good and we should move on and ignore anyone who didn't like it. Edit: and just copying has created some odd formating. Hoist by my own laziness...[/FONT][/SIZE]
...and somehow there's no sexual element to that, according to some. Incredible. People have been fired for showing sexually explicit photos to co-workers on their phones, as it was considered--among several things--sexual harassment. So to say a man touching people with his penis had no sexual element is on the opposite side of accuracy. Barrowman was committing sexual harassment and abuse.
Word. Yes, Eve Myles was hilarious telling the story of Barrowman patting her head with "his todger" and seemed to find it amusing herself, but doesn't make it at all appropriate. I'm trying to think of a circumstance where someone patting a coworker's head with his todger without permission would be appropriate, and I'm utterly failing.
I phrased that badly - there was no sexual element inasfar as Barrowman expected anyone to service him. Whilst Clarke's allegations are very much focused on him using his position to extort sexual favours from others. But regardless, it seems the Clarke Twitter machine has successfully refocused the argument away from the guy who allegedly forced women to pose naked while he filmed them and may have exhorted them for sex, to the guy who flashed his dick a few times because he's an immature prat, apologized for it when told off, never did it again and is now being punished again because reasons.
That may be true but patting someone on the head with their dick is still sexual assault in the eyes of the law, depending on what country you are in.
John Barrowman was still invading people's personal space with his genitals he put on display, without permission, even though most people felt less threatened than with Noel Clarke. It's still deeply odd and domineering behaviour. I'm still going to re-watch Season 1, etc, since I always had a fairly high opinion of Christopher Eccleston as a honest and vulnerable guy, despite his faults (and mostly pleasantly surprised about David Tennant in trying to enforce a more friendly and safe behind the scenes environment than in the chaotic, stressed, and dreary sounding Season 1).