Rolfe
Adult human female
Honestly, I have no idea whether he committed a criminal offence or not, but his behaviour was sleazebag+++ and he deserves all the cancellaiton he's getting.
Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?
- Thread starter Orphia Nay
- Start date
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
This is what I feel about it too. Even if everything Gaiman says is true, he's still someone I no longer have any respect for.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I agree that he is a scumbag. Any 60+ person getting it on with a 25 year old is a disgusting individual in my book, but it is NOT a criminal offence to do so, and does not automatically indicate a lack of consent in either direction.
We also only have her word that there was a lack of consent, and the only DOCUMENTARY evidence we see i.e. the messages, directly indicate that she was a willing participant in everything that happened.
Names of the other two.... they are not named in the complaint. Who are they?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Who cares who they are? You already have Gaiman and Palmer.
In any case they'll be named if and when either side introduces their testimony at trial*.
*Technically they'd be named during discovery, but that's not usually made public.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Although this is the second time smartcooky has said she was 25, news reports I have seen say she was 22. Maybe not a major distinction but the age of 25 was previously brought up by smartcooky to say she was hardly that young, dismissing the idea that her youth could be exploited by not paying her for her nanny services…
“FFS, she was 25 when all this was alleged to have happened!!”
The complaint says she was 22, and though smartcooky claims to have read it, he keeps saying she was 25.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Oh dear Orphia Nay. Its seem like it is YOU who hasn't read the complaint.
A. Palmer Targets Scarlett
18. Scarlett met Palmer in Auckland, New Zealand, in 2020
19. Scarlett met Palmer in and around the time of the COVID pandemic outbreak.
20. At the time, Scarlett was 22 years old
21. The two became acquaintances.
22. Scarlett would occasionally visit Palmer at Palmer’s house on Waiheke Island
The Covid19 pandemic outbreak was 2019, but in NZ it really started to hit hard in February of 2020
So Pavlovich was 22 at the time she met Palmer in 2020
B. A Promise of Employment
36. On February 1, 2022, Palmer asked Scarlett if Scarlett could babysit for the weekend.
This makes Pavlovich 24 years old before she ever met Gaiman.
The sex between Pavlovich and Gaiman, which IMO appears to be fully consensual (at least according to the messages) goes on until at least
December 30, 2022 (the date of the last message I have seen). It could have gone beyond that time.
Pavlovich would either have turned 25 by then, or be very close to it, so I stand by my statement.
Care to walk back your bull-◊◊◊◊ claim now?
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Both of whom deny the allegations.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
Don't be silly. If you don't know their names, they don't exist.
"Maybe not a major distinction" as was said earlier if you'd like to engage in the discussion.
Gaiman denies it was non-consensual. As far as anyone knows, he has not denied the acts.
angrysoba
Philosophile
If that is the case, then she is still younger than smartcooky claimed.Oh dear Orphia Nay. Its seem like it is YOU who hasn't read the complaint.
A. Palmer Targets Scarlett18. Scarlett met Palmer in Auckland, New Zealand, in 202019. Scarlett met Palmer in and around the time of the COVID pandemic outbreak.20. At the time, Scarlett was 22 years old21. The two became acquaintances.22. Scarlett would occasionally visit Palmer at Palmer’s house on Waiheke Island
The Covid19 pandemic outbreak was 2019, but in NZ it really started to hit hard in February of 2020
So Pavlovich was 22 at the time she met Palmer in 2020
B. A Promise of Employment36. On February 1, 2022, Palmer asked Scarlett if Scarlett could babysit for the weekend.
This makes Pavlovich 24 years old before she ever met Gaiman.
The sex between Pavlovich and Gaiman, which IMO appears to be fully consensual (at least according to the messages) goes on until at least
December 30, 2022 (the date of the last message I have seen). It could have gone beyond that time.
Pavlovich would either have turned 25 by then, or be very close to it, so I stand by my statement.
Care to walk back your bull-◊◊◊◊ claim now?
Some of the reports say, incorrectly, that Pavlovich first met the couple in 2020, when it was just Palmer, so that could be the source of some of the confusion.
That said, 'around the time of the COVID pandemic' is a bit vague. I don't know about NZ, but we didn't get lockdowns here until late March 2020. If she was just 22 in March or April 2020, she would be only 23 in February 2022.
That's also consistent with this Daily Fail article, from February 2025 which quotes her age then (the time of publication) as being 26, so 23 in February 2022.
Neil Gaiman accuser said relationship was 'consensual' in messages
Scarlett Pavlovich, 26, filed lawsuits accusing Gaiman and his estranged wife Amanda Palmer of rape and human trafficking earlier this month.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Correct, and I never said or implied that. Its why I think he's a cradle-snatching scumbag, but not necessarily a rapist.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Both of whom corroborate pretty much her entire story.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong The entire basis of her story, and for the lawsuit, is that it was all non-consensual, and that Palmer procured her for Gaiman.
They both deny those allegations.
Neil Gaiman calls his accuser a ‘fantasist’
The writer says WhatsApp messages show his relationship with a former nanny was consensual
www.tortoisemedia.com
Amanda Palmer, Neil Gaiman’s former partner, denies claims of human trafficking
Palmer rejects allegations made in lawsuit filed by the former couple’s nanny accusing her of trafficking and negligence
www.theguardian.com
The rest of her story is merely the surrounding cicumstances.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Right, so when you said her story hadn't been corroborated, what you meant was all of the decisions and actions Gaiman is accused of taking have been corroborated by Gaiman himself, and the only point of dispute is his victim's state of mind.Wrong The entire basis of her story, and for the lawsuit, is that it was all non-consensual, and that Palmer procured her for Gaiman.
They both deny those allegations.
Neil Gaiman calls his accuser a ‘fantasist’
The writer says WhatsApp messages show his relationship with a former nanny was consensual
Amanda Palmer, Neil Gaiman’s former partner, denies claims of human trafficking
Palmer rejects allegations made in lawsuit filed by the former couple’s nanny accusing her of trafficking and negligence
The rest of her story is merely the surrounding cicumstances.
Also, non consent to sexual acts is not the basis of the trafficking suit.
But do you think he assaulted and beat her, if he has not denied the acts?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Well, this is your claim, not mine... but I don't expect your back that up at all any time soon.
Its is if the claim is she was trafficked for sex.
There's several witnesses Pavlovich told about Gaiman in this Document in Support of Gaiman's Motion to Dismiss:
MA, her friend
K, MA's partner
PBG, the lecturer mentioned earlier
ES, MA's friend.
MA, her friend
K, MA's partner
PBG, the lecturer mentioned earlier
ES, MA's friend.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Yeah, very odd that Gaiman "anticipates" a number of witnesses being called, whereas smartcooky has categorically denied any such witnesses exist and has declared that Pavlovich's complaint is so lacking given that no witnesses were named in it.
Yet Gaiman even points out that Pavlovich was hired as a babysitter and seems to agree that they took a bath together, presumably on the first day they met.
I have to wonder what role will be played by records of payment.
Yes, it seems like an own goal for Gaiman to name witnesses against himself.
And I too have to wonder what his records of payment will reveal. Evidence of absence perhaps?
Let's now watch as smartcooky spins or denies the named witnesses even though they're named in Gaiman's document.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Since I've never seen this "Gaiman's document", there's nothing to spin or deny.
The fact that Gaiman himself has named witnesses (and Pavlovich didn't) is... errm... interesting to say the least!!
ETA.
5. In or around February 2022, while living in New Zealand, my wife, hired
Scarlett Pavlovich a.k.a. Scarlett Wynter a.k.a. Molly Pavlovich (“Pavlovich”) to assist
as a part-time babysitter for our son.
Hmmm... Pavlovich uses multiple aliases.... very interesting!
10. I have read the Complaint in this case. I anticipate that the following individuals could be called witnesses if this case were to proceed to trial, all of whom, upon information and belief, reside in New Zealand or elsewhere outside of the United States:
a. M.A., friend of Pavlovich, who allegedly perpetuated Pavlovich’s false claims;
b. R.C., my assistant during the relevant time period, who has information about Pavlovich’s false allegations;
c. H.H., neighbor on Waiheke, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;
d. E.A., neighbor on Waiheke, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;
e. S.E.B., realtor, who can testify regarding the property referenced in Pavlovich’s Complaint;
f. X.O., personal assistant who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;
g. E.B., personal assistant who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;
h. V.S., son’s nanny during the relevant time period, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;
i. L.B., housekeeper, who can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims;
j. D.C., friend of Pavlovich, whose mother was Pavlovich’s landlord; she can dispute Pavlovich’s false claims.
k. K, M.A.’s partner, who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A. about me;
l. P.B.G., M.A.’s friend and purported expert, who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A. about me
m. E.S., M.A.’s friend who allegedly spoke with Pavlovich and M.A about me.
I see a list of witnesses who seem likely to be able to tear Pavlovich's claims to shreds. No wonder she didn't name them!!
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
It is the document linked to by Orphia Nay in #500.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Not only that they took a bath together:
He says that they "made out" (vague) in the bath, and later engaged in "other sexual activity" (also vague) but did not "have sex".
He may be using a very narrow definition for "have sex" here as it excludes "making out" and "other sexual activity".
So he concedes that he engaged in "sexual activity" with a young woman hired to babysit his son, although he maintains that it was all consensual and he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined". Perhaps we should consider the fact that he was her employer when judging this. If a young woman was hired at a company and on her first day, her boss invited her to take a bath and engaged in "sexual activity" (but not "sex") with her at his own admission, but that everything was all consensual and that he didn't "pressure her to do so, and she could have declined", would we accept that this is all just fine and he didn't abuse his seniority over her?
Maybe it's not rape, but it does at least seem to fall under workplace sexual harassment.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
OK, I never saw that - my bad. But I wish I had seen that earlier, because it is very, very interesting - especially this bit...
12. When Pavlovich agreed to babysit for us, I had her sign an Independent Contractor Agreement (“Agreement”). A true and correct copy of the Agreement signed by Pavlovich is attached as Exhibit C. At the time that Pavlovich signed the agreement, we were both residing in New Zealand.
She signed an ICA? Oh dear!
If she signed that as a contractor, then under NZ Tax Law she must register with the IRD as a Self-Employed Resident Contractor, as well as signing up for her own ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) account. That means she is solely responsible for her own tax affairs. If she has taken any money that Gaiman has given her, and not declared it to IRD, that is tax evasion - she is going to be in deep poodoo because the IRD take tax evasion very seriously.
Given that Gaiman has submitted a copy of a signed ICA, it is very unlikely that her claims that he didn't pay her are true - if they are, then he has shot himself in the foot by providing evidence against his own interests. He has people such as assistants (initials named in the document) who will be responsible for keeping records, and those records will come out, - and when they do, there goes any claim she was an unpaid, indentured slave.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Nope. For that to be the case, she would have needed to sign and EA (Employment Agreement). But she signed ICA, that would make her a contractor, NOT an employee. There is no employer/employee relationship when it involves a contractor
Employee or contractor? | Employment New Zealand
Contractors are not employees and as such are not covered by the same laws, rights and obligations as employees. Learn the difference between these two types of workers.
www.employment.govt.nz
angrysoba
Philosophile
Also, those of us who listened to the podcast will have heard the actual voice of Neil Gaiman apologizing to a young woman for putting her in therapy following an encounter with him. We also saw how he apparently misremembers what happened, and heard from him that he should never have allowed himself to be seduced by a woman thirty years his junior (when the evidence of course suggests it was the other way round), only for him to get into a relationship with another young woman, forty years his junior ten years later.
At the very least, something is misfiring with Gaiman. If truly believes what he has been saying, then it seems madness to me that on the first day he meets a new nanny for his child and he invites her to take a bath with him and engages in sexual activity with a woman he has just contracted for babysitting!
Again, the emphasized part is exactly how he characterizes it in his own document.
smartcooky won't know this, but Neil Gaiman has already paid out another woman for therapy long before this.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Why? Gaiman says he "anticipates" such witnesses. In other words, he assumes Pavlovich will make use of witnesses, unlike smartcooky's earlier, repeated claims that there are no witnesses and Pavlovich never told anyone, which again, according to his own made-up ideas about sexual assault means that she was a lying gold-digger.
Why do I get the impression smartcooky sees himself puffing on a pipe like he's Sherlock Holmes?
I see smartcooky taking Gaiman at his word once again and assuming that just because he will have his own witnesses that means Pavlovich must be lying.
angrysoba
Philosophile
No doubt all of this will come out one way or another, but it is strange to me to see someone getting excited about the idea that she didn't follow the tax laws.
In a way, this makes Gaiman seem worse in my opinion.Nope. For that to be the case, she would have needed to sign and EA (Employment Agreement). But she signed ICA, that would make her a contractor, NOT an employee. There is no employer/employee relationship when it involves a contractor
Employee or contractor? | Employment New Zealand
Contractors are not employees and as such are not covered by the same laws, rights and obligations as employees. Learn the difference between these two types of workers.
Maybe smartcooky knows all about this, and Gaiman knows all about this. Maybe employers in their sixties know about tax codes and contracts and small prints.
To me it looks almost like a greater abuse of power to be able to give them a document that they may or may not understand, get them to sign it, make them responsible for their tax affairs and then literally and figuratively screw them.
For some reason smartcooky is fine with this and not only that but wants to see Pavlovich raked over the coals.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
You're splitting hairs over the distinction in my opinion, but I will concede the point that she was a contractor rather than an employee. As such, she would have fewer rights in the situation. I still maintain that the relationship should be a professional one, and that "workplace sexual harassment" may apply even to contractors who are not formal employees.
If it's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ claim that Pavlovich was 22, then it's even more of one to claim that she was 25. See my earlier post which establishes that she was 23 when she met Gaiman. Would you care to walk your claim back now?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Nope your maths is flawed. Read the bloody Lawsuit document not the misreporting in British newspaper articles.
FACT: Pavlovich's date of birth is April 5, 1997 (from the WhatsApp message PDF)
FACT: Pavlovich met Palmer for the first time in February 2020, when she was 22 years old. (Paragraphs 18 to 20 of the Lawsuit)
FACT: Pavlovich turned 23 on April 5, 2020, and 24 on April 5, 2021.
FACT: Pavlovich met Gaiman for the first time in February 2022, so she was 24 years and 9 months old (Paragraph 42 of the Lawsuit)
FACT: The affair between Pavlovich and Gaimen went on until at least December 2022 - 10 months later, so 25 years 7 months (final message in the WhatsApp message list dated 29/12/2022)
My statement was
The maths doesn't lie, you are wrong. I'm not walking back anything.
If I'm wrong about this, the Pavl
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Not according to NZ law. There is no employer/employee relationship between contractors - its not a "boss/worker" situation.
When I had a business, I had several employees who worked for me, but I also had two contractors; one used to come in one night one a week to clean the floors and windows in the shop, the other was a servicing engineer who came in every six months to maintain the printers. I was not the contractors' boss.
Last edited:
Fair enough, though there was nothing wrong with my maths, only the starting data (I should have known better than to trust the Fail). I did look for her date of birth, but didn't find it.
That said, I think you were unnecessarily aggressive towards Orphia on that point, given the confusing information available, and the fact that you were also wrong.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Right, and did you take baths with them from the first day and have them stay in your house?
The type of work your contractors did for you seems quite different to the arrangement that Pavlovich and Gaiman had.
There’s something pretty obnoxious about the idea that she should have read the small print and oh dear, I hope she doesn’t have tax evasion added to the rest of her woes.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Did you invite either of the contractors to take a bath with you?
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The Employment Relations Act 2000 defines sexual harassment as direct or indirect requests for sexual activity.
The person doing the harassing could be the employer (such as a manager), or an employer’s representative, co-worker, a volunteer,
or even a non-employee like a client
, contractor, or supplier.
Harassment at work | Employment New Zealand
Sexual, racial and other forms of harassment are serious issues that employers must properly investigate and act on.
www.employment.govt.nz
But keep telling us how in New Zealand, contractors can't be victims of workplace harassment because they don't technically work at the place they're being contracted to do work at.(Not surprisingly, actual harassment laws are generally written so as to prevent these kinds of scumbag "ackshully I'm legally allowed to victimize her" rules-lawyering tactics.)
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The Employment Relations Act 2000 defines sexual harassment as direct or indirect requests for sexual activity.The person doing the harassing could be the employer (such as a manager), or an employer’s representative, co-worker, a volunteer,or even a non-employee like a client, contractor, or supplier.Harassment at work | Employment New Zealand
Sexual, racial and other forms of harassment are serious issues that employers must properly investigate and act on.But keep telling us how in New Zealand, contractors can't be victims of workplace harassment because they don't technically work at the place they're being contracted to do work at.
(Not surprisingly, actual harassment laws are generally written so as to prevent these kinds of scumbag "ackshully I'm legally allowed to victimize her" rules-lawyering tactics.)
This is just a misrepresentation of what I said.
This kind of snark is beneath you. I expect it from some of the other, somewhat less than honest posters here, but you've always been better than that.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never addressed the right or wrong of the situation. I merely pointed out the error of assuming that, because she was paid to do work for Gaiman, that it automatically made her an employee of his, with all the employer/employee relationship and power imbalance that comes with that. There seems to be a lot of 2+2=5 going on in this thread - posters who read into posts things that simply are not there.
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
1. Orphia claimed I hadn't read the complaint.
2. There was nothing confusing about it if you read the complaint.
3. I wasn't wrong.