On the one hand we have a up until now well regarded author (Neil Gaiman) with a history of vocal public support for feminist, LGBT, and trans causes, on the other we have a podcast with little else of record but lead by close relative of vocally anti-trans/anti-feminist/anti-lgbt politician (the sister of Boris Johnson), where several of the victims in said podcast admit to their relationships being consensual other do not.
Said author was in a open marriage at the time, and several of the relationships have a concerning power imbalance.
Its hard to tell for sure in any he said she said situation with no physical proof, and while usually the multiple accusations with similar stories would lead credence to them, this situation however is complicated by the overtly political nature of the persons bringing the story forward. IN Boris Johnson previous career, before entering public office, as a journalist he was well noted for his works lack of rigorous truth telling and the spreading of known falsehoods. Whether his sister the creator of the podcast breaking this story is also unencumbered by journalist ethics is a open question as far as I can tell.
So who to believe? I don't know. But i believe personally that we should treat some one innocent until proven guilty and the preponderance of the evidence while disturbing in natures is not convincing enough to say he is guilty and he should treated as innocent for now until such a time that either the courts or failing that a better less compromised sources bring forward more evidence.
Said author was in a open marriage at the time, and several of the relationships have a concerning power imbalance.
Its hard to tell for sure in any he said she said situation with no physical proof, and while usually the multiple accusations with similar stories would lead credence to them, this situation however is complicated by the overtly political nature of the persons bringing the story forward. IN Boris Johnson previous career, before entering public office, as a journalist he was well noted for his works lack of rigorous truth telling and the spreading of known falsehoods. Whether his sister the creator of the podcast breaking this story is also unencumbered by journalist ethics is a open question as far as I can tell.
So who to believe? I don't know. But i believe personally that we should treat some one innocent until proven guilty and the preponderance of the evidence while disturbing in natures is not convincing enough to say he is guilty and he should treated as innocent for now until such a time that either the courts or failing that a better less compromised sources bring forward more evidence.