By Ben Pensant
From inventing a racism epidemic by pretending hate crime reports are the same as convictions to demanding heads roll because a researcher claims an MP once leered at her while she ate a Pepperami, modern progressives love nothing more than taking a huge shit on due process. Luckily, while our legal system stubbornly refuses to imprison people just because Twitter tells them to, the rest of us have marched on towards a bright future in which the power to determine guilt rests with hysterical leftists rather than coffin-dodging judges.
But there’s still work to be done. Because while reports of hate crime have risen, prosecutions have dropped. Nightmare. Predictably, Tory trolls argued this proved the spike was due to lily-livered liberals contacting the police because they overheard a schoolboy call his mate queer, when any idiot knows it’s clearly because racist cops refuse to take hatred seriously. Despite the fact that they’ve gone out of their way to re-define everything from Nigel Farage tweets to knock-knock jokes as violent assaults on par with a knife in the cheek.
So it’s left to us to act as judge and jury. (And executioner if needed. Just sayin’.) Sadly, some still don’t get it. So for every brave Labour MP who reacts to being accused of an unspecified crime by doing the decent thing and hanging himself, there are millions of privileged white males rubbing their victims’ noses in it, whining about their ‘right’ to a fair trial. And few are as privileged as four-eyed kiddy-fiddler Woody Allen.
For 25 years sick Allen has avoided prison just because there is virtually no evidence to back up the claim that he molested his 7-year-old daughter. Indeed, anyone with an hour to spare can easily find a wealth of information supporting the misogynist theory that Mia Farrow made the whole thing up. Needless to say, these heinous sources should be avoided like a plague of Blairites.
As those familiar with the narrative know, the only articles you need to read are those written by Ronan Farrow, the only legal mind whose opinion is worth a dime is Frank S. Maco, and the only victim you should ever believe is Dylan Farrow. Exposing yourself to anything that contradicts the ‘Woody Is A Paedo’ meme is highly dangerous. Luckily, few of us do. Indeed, most of social media is convinced that in 1992, while visiting the home of the woman he had just acrimoniously split up with, Allen suddenly decided to throw caution to the wind and drag his daughter upstairs to sexually assault her. In full view of several children, nannies and people who hated him.
But it’s not just the Mary Whitehouse mob who are determined to see a man they know nothing about spend his remaining years presumed guilty of one of the worst crimes imaginable. Brilliantly, a raft of movie stars and Moira Sorvino have put their careers on the line and vowed never to work with Allen. Even the ones who already have.
Several steely journalists joined in too, gleefully sticking two fingers up at the same libel law they lauded when it cost Katie Hopkirk 25 grand for getting one non-binary gobshite mixed up with another. And while searching for Woody-related articles telling me what I wanted to hear I stumbled upon an extraordinary piece in the most unlikely place: evil Murdoch rag The Sun. Yes, really.
I was initially devastated to see something this full of love in a paper literally bursting with hate. But last month’s column by Lorraine Kelly was so downright virtuous it could’ve been from The New European. ‘If Woody Allen Wasn’t Film Royalty Sex Abuse Claims From His Daughter Would Have Ruined His Career’, screamed the subheading, slyly ignoring the fact that if Mia Farrow wasn’t film royalty no-one would have given her story the time of day.
But the article’s refusal to engage with the considerable evidence casting doubt on its entire premise earmarked Lorraine as one to watch. If she keeps it up she may even earn herself a job at The Canary come the Jezolution, just as soon as she’s finished five years of hard labour plus weekly lashes for sucking Murdoch’s cock. (Though more columns like this and her sentence may be reduced to 18 months and the odd gang-rape.)
Diving straight in, she did what most people convinced of Allen’s depravity do and presented the fact that he was never charged as proof that he should have been: ‘Allen was investigated back then but although the prosecutor declared there was “probable cause” he was never charged with anything’ she wrote, sidestepping the awkward question of why someone strongly suspected of child abuse wouldn’t be tried for it.
Thankfully the prosecutor (Frank S.Maco), covered this in 1993 when he stated he didn’t want to put Dylan through a trial. A compassionate and highly illogical claim but one that ends all discussion instantly. Because when it comes to Maco, that ‘probable cause’ line is all you need. In fact, other than doing what Lorraine did and casually quoting him without a shred of context you should avoid reading about or mentioning him at all.
Because some light research could reveal he earned a ‘stern rebuke’ from an ethics panel for making the ‘probable cause’ statement. Or that years later he modified it to ‘arguable probable cause’. Or that his reluctance to put Dylan through questioning only arose after she’d already endured months of interviews and evaluations approved by him and Mia. The same Mia who had already filmed the child for several days explaining exactly how her father had assaulted her. Is it any wonder Maco deduced the last thing she should do is give another interview to put away the monster responsible?
It’s called ‘putting the needs of the victim first’, people. But to listen to Allen’s lackies you’d think Maco realised if he went to trial his case would be exposed as having more holes than an M. Night Shalamar script. They laughably claim he only delivered his ‘probable cause’ parting shot to titilate the ‘no smoke without fire’ mob after bottling a trial he was nailed on to lose. Paranoid much?
Thankfully that same mob are all over social media, confidently asserting Allen’s guilt despite knowing as much about the case as I do about animal husbandry. And Lorraine has bought into this subculture with gusto, even citing a second legal expert as proof that the abuse took place:
‘A judge also declared Allen’s behaviour towards Dylan “grossly inappropriate” and that “measures must be taken” to protect her’. He certainly did. Not the judge at the child abuse trial, mind. That would be impossible as there was no child abuse trial. But as demonstrated by the way The Guardian shoehorn phrases like ‘alt-right’ into every single piece about professor of misogyny Jordan B. Henderson, if you mention two unrelated things in the same breath often enough they stick like glue. Likewise every social media thread about Allen is ram-packed with people who think the judge at his trial believed the director’s relationship with Dylan was ‘grossly inappropriate’ but decided to let him off anyway.
And with that it becomes part of the narrative, much like Professor Jordan’s alt-rightism, despite the fact that he couldn’t be less alt-right if he had Obama’s face tattooed on his chest. That the judge quoted by Lorraine only presided over the couple’s custody hearing is irrelevant, as is the fact that he never read the notes from the two child services investigations which concluded no abuse took place. His description of Allen’s ‘inappropriate behaviour’ meanwhile, referred to the director’s shortcomings as a parent rather than a penchant for child abuse. And his judgement that ‘steps must be taken to protect Dylan’ was seemingly informed not by concrete evidence against Allen but Mia’s unverified version of events.
All of which Lorraine expertly ignored: ‘I’m amazed anyone could hear themselves over the sound of those alarm bells ringing’ she raged, alarm bells which she neglects to mention were rung after police, doctors and social workers agreed there was no evidence any abuse had happened.
Which only emphasises how loud those bells were. Because two individuals – one who decided not to prosecute Allen and one with little knowledge of the case – are clearly more reliable than the various professionals who carried out extensive investigations. Or the other children, nannies and friends of Mia’s who were present that day and provided zero evidence that when no-one was looking Allen dragged Dylan upstairs and molested her.
Though the biggest alarm of all was Allen’s ‘sordid’ relationship with his wife. As Loraine put it: ‘Let’s not forget, Woody’s relationship with Farrow ended when she discovered explicit photos of 21-year-old Soon Yi, another of their adopted daughters, and realised Allen was having an affair with her’. Game, set and match as they say at Lord’s.
The fact that Soon Yi was actually Andre Previn’s daughter, was never adopted by Allen nor lived under the same roof, and according to Mia herself was ignored by Woody while growing up was wisely omitted. As was the fact that the affair didn’t begin until Soon Yi was 20. Because as we know, cheating on someone and being attracted to younger women is stone cold proof of rampant noncery.
Loraine also swerved the fact that Woody and Soon Yi have been married for 21 years and have two children, no doubt terrified of the backlash she’d receive from the Zionist lobby if she’d dared ask why New York child services allowed a paedophile to adopt a pair of vulnerable babies. It couldn’t possibly be because Soon Yi and her kids’ entire existence contradicts the popular belief that she is merely another of Allen’s victims.
Indeed the image of Soon Yi chained up in Allen’s basement and beaten regularly by her depraved stepfather is one that endures no matter how often she smiles in public: the brainwashed girl and her retarded kids, wheeled out to make their captor look respectable. He even forced her to go to university and learn several languages to maintain the illusion that she’s a perfectly normal, intelligent woman. Sick.
As is the fact that no-one other than Dylan has ever accused Allen of abuse. You think that sinister lobby I mentioned earlier would allow news of multiple allegations to get out? Dream on. Next you’ll be telling me it’s highly unlikely that a child-molester would choose that particular day to pop his paedo-cherry. As if it isn’t blatantly obvious that all the other memories of abuse were erased by one of those flashy torch things Tommy Lee Smith uses in Independence Day.
No, Allen’s unchecked power is what enabled his evil life of Riley. ‘I can’t think of anyone whose career wouldn’t have been destroyed by revelations that he’d cheated on his partner with her adopted daughter’. Me neither. And I’m also struggling to think of anyone other than a Hollywood actress whose wafer-thin story would have been easily believed by so many people.
But Lorraine had even more evidence for those too privileged to accept the truth: ‘It’s very telling that Allen’s biological son Ronan cut ties with his father’. Almost as telling as Mia’s adopted son Moses cutting ties with his mother and claiming she physically and mentally abused him. But Lorraine would rather not think about him. Because as the saying goes, believe victims. Just, y’know, believe some more than others.
So while Dylan’s tale of one implausible incident corroborated by no-one is treated as incontestable truth, Moses’s allegations – supported by witnesses – are dismissed out of hand. In fact, he’s been so thoroughly airbrushed from the story that most people don’t even know he exists. (That flashy torch thing hasn’t half been getting a hammering.)
He truly is The Boy Who Must Not Be Mentioned. And despite being the oldest child present that fateful day and repeatedly stating that no assault could have taken place he is Not To Be Believed either. No, the only siblings worth listening too are Dylan and Ronan.
Ronan, of course, is the handsome, blue-eyed reporter who was coincidentally conceived during a period when Mia admits she was still sleeping with Frank Sinatra, whom she claims she ‘never really split up’ with. Commendably, while Lorraine refers to Allen’s two-year affair as ‘selfish’ and ‘reprehensible’ she has nothing to say about Mia’s, which spanned a couple of decades. Which makes sense: if you’re going to assign diabolical motives to a man in his fifties dating a 20-year-old it’s best not to remind yourself that the woman you’re championing married a man in his fifties when she was a 20-year-old.
But Mia’s greatest gift is her cognitive dissonance, a badge of honour on the modern left. Indeed, Lorraine even praised Mia’s wonky, contradictory behaviour when paying tribute to those brave stars who vowed never to appear in Allen’s films again. (Despite the fact that there is as much – or rather, as little – evidence against the director now than there was when they all worked with him.)
‘I sincerely hope they will also stop lionising child rapist Roman Polanski, who shamefully fled the US and cowered in Europe instead of going to jail’ she wrote, cleverly forgetting that the person who has lionised Polanski most is Mia Farrow, who remained friends with the pervy Pole long after he pleaded guilty to drugging and raping a 13-year-old, even appearing as a character witness for him during a 2005 libel trial.
Of course, the fact that Polanski confessed to drugging and raping a 13-year-old is what sets him apart from liars like Allen, who shamefully protested his innocence rather than admit he’d made a daft mistake. Indeed, if Allen had only spilt the beans then gone on the run he could have spent the rest of his career receiving standing ovations from leading tinseltown feminists like Whoopie Goldblum and Dame Meryl Streep.
Mia, of course, cleverly capitalised on her friendship with Polanski recently by contacting his now middle-aged victim Samantha Geimer and apologising via social media. Clearly this selfless public gesture was all about solidarity and not at all a transparently cynical attempt to silence the critics pondering how someone whose child was sexually assaulted by a film director could spend decades supporting a film director who sexually assaulted a child.
A question which should be avoided at all costs. And it’s a measure of the internet left’s integrity that I’ve not came across one social media liberal outraged that The Sun would publish such speculative, misleading and downright false information in an attempt to smear an innocent man.
No, progressives are too busy raging against the Murdoch press for printing demonstrably true stories about 38-year-olds impersonating children or pointing out that the ubiquity of Muslim grooming gangs might just indicate the Muslim community has a problem with grooming gangs. Because any fool can see these are far worse than suggesting someone is a child abuser simply because three people say so.
And any gutless sycophant who dares suggest Allen’s guilt may not be as clear-cut as we thought is to be derided and disbelieved at all costs. Indeed, TV producer Bob Weide has written numerous pieces brimming with basic but largely unknown facts about the case, and as a result is commonly regarded as a dangerous loon.
Unsurprisingly, Weide worked on Curb My Enthusiasm starring unfunny Islamophobe Jerry David. Y’know, the other neurotic, four-eyed Zio with a penchant for younger women. Hmm, just how did a race notorious for drinking the blood of babies produce so many men who prey on vulnerable children? I wonder. Anyone unsure why Allen got away with his crimes for so long need only read up on the relentless smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn.
What you should categorically NOT read up on is anything even remotely doubting that Woody Allen is a paedophile. In fact, once you’ve read this you should borrow that flashy memory torch and erase it immediately. Then set your laptop on fire. Anything to avoid learning that everything you believe about a man whose only crime was to have an affair is about as convincing as Ewen Farrell’s mockney accent in Allen’s creepy incest drama Cassandra & Rodney.
Because that really would be a crime.