Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

theprestige said:
How so? NZ law says that a client can commit workplace sexual harassment against a contractor. Your idea that there can't be a professional relationship between a parent and the nanny they hire clearly runs counter to NZ law.
Click to expand...
But what is the point in having help if you can't sexually assault and harass them?
 
theprestige said:
How so? NZ law says that a client can commit workplace sexual harassment against a contractor. Your idea that there can't be a professional relationship between a parent and the nanny they hire clearly runs counter to NZ law.
Click to expand...
Jesus... this is like extracting ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ teeth!!

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.

If I must, I will keep repeating this until you get it!

ETA: You also claimed I said that "contractors can't be victims of workplace harassment". That is just a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lie, I never said or implied that, and you know it.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Jesus... this is like extracting ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ teeth!!

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.
Click to expand...
She doesn't have to be an employee, for there to be workplace harassment, or a power imbalance.
 
For real.

SC, I think the issue is that, boots-on-the-ground wise, your average young person does not feel any different about being a contractor hired to babysit vs being an employee hired to babysit. I would go so far as to say that such a person is likely to feel absolutely no less or more empowered wrt the stability of their situation with the person for whom they are doing work, whether their legal agreement says 'employee' or 'contractor.'

I honestly don't understand why it seems like a eureka type discovery to you, that we are all not getting. Other than that she had better have brought the right form and filled the right boxes when she did her taxes.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
For real.

SC, I think the issue is that, boots-on-the-ground wise, your average young person does not feel any different about being a contractor hired to babysit vs being an employee hired to babysit. I would go so far as to say that such a person is likely to feel absolutely no less or more empowered wrt the stability of their situation with the person for whom they are doing work, whether their legal agreement says 'employee' or 'contractor.'

I honestly don't understand why it seems like a eureka type discovery to you, that we are all not getting. Other than that she had better have brought the right form and filled the right boxes when she did her taxes.
Click to expand...
I think smartcooky thinks it makes a difference in terms of payments.

Maybe it does. Maybe it means Neil Gaiman was under no obligation to pay her in regular installments. He was talking about how it would cause him a problem with the inland revenue.

But for me it seems likely to confirm that she had not been paid which, while gets him off the hook with the IR, does also suggest that she was manipulated. It looks worse to me overall whereas smartcooky seems to be focused on an irrelevance.
 
theprestige said:
She doesn't have to be an employee, for there to be workplace harassment, or a power imbalance.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lithrael said:
I honestly don't understand why it seems like a eureka type discovery to you, that we are all not getting. Other than that she had better have brought the right form and filled the right boxes when she did her taxes.
Click to expand...
It goes to her claim that she wasn't paid for her work.
Under NZ Tax Law, if she was an employee, Gaiman would be responsible for paying her income tax (its called PAYE... Pay As You Earn) and her ACC Payments.
But as a contractor, all of that becomes her responsibility. All Gaiman has to show is that he paid her, which will be trivially easy to do. If she is claiming homelessness and no income, she is going to be in very big trouble, because that is tax evasion.
This could all backfire on her....
 
smartcooky said:
It goes to her claim that she wasn't paid for her work.
Under NZ Tax Law, if she was an employee, Gaiman would be responsible for paying her income tax (its called PAYE... Pay As You Earn) and her ACC Payments.
But as a contractor, all of that becomes her responsibility. All Gaiman has to show is that he paid her, which will be trivially easy to do. If she is claiming homelessness and no income, she is going to be in very big trouble, because that is tax evasion.
This could all backfire on her....
Click to expand...

For some reason, smartcooky's discovery of her being on a contract looks strangely like this reaction....
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Click to expand...

smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is extremely weird that you think that her being a contractee as opposed to an employee somehow changes the power dynamic.

She was staying in their home and presumably the contractual nature actually increases his power over her and makes it worse.

Also, the whole idea about taxes and how she could be in trouble with inland revenue is a weird distraction. it only came up because she said she had not been paid. That was initially seized on by smartcooky as unlikely because he would get into trouble with inland revenue if true. The contractual nature only shows why he wouldn’t be in trouble in terms of taxes but it doesn’t somehow mean that Pavlovich would be.

Some of this just looks like a desperate attempt to fins something, ANYTHING (!), that Pavlovich can be guilty of which would somehow absolve Gaiman.

Here’s my theory… if you bet the house too early on (“she’s a gold digger!”) you either lose face or double down. Smartcooky is doubling and tripling down.
 
angrysoba said:
Here’s my theory… if you bet the house too early on (“she’s a gold digger!”) you either lose face or double down. Smartcooky is doubling and tripling down.
Click to expand...
It's even possible that she is a "gold digger" and yet that doesn't absolve him. Aren't we all "gold diggers" to some degree? Who among us has renounced worldly concerns and taken a vow of poverty?

I also don't really see the age difference between them as being the real issue here from an ethical standpoint. All that really matters is whether she was over the age of majority, which she was. Whether she is 40 years younger than him or the same age is irrelevant as long as she is legally an adult. It got me thinking a little bit about why certain women supposedly prefer older men. I think this is a real thing. Not all heterosexual women prefer older men; in fact probably most don't (here I mean significantly older, not 5 or even 10 years older) but I think there is at least a minority who do, or say they do. There's a tendency to stereotype those women as "gold diggers". But people often see the mote in others' eyes while being blind to the beam in their own. Yeah, maybe they like having money, but then again, don't we all?
 
Puppycow said:
It's even possible that she is a "gold digger" and yet that doesn't absolve him. Aren't we all "gold diggers" to some degree? Who among us has renounced worldly concerns and taken a vow of poverty?

I also don't really see the age difference between them as being the real issue here from an ethical standpoint. All that really matters is whether she was over the age of majority, which she was. Whether she is 40 years younger than him or the same age is irrelevant as long as she is legally an adult. It got me thinking a little bit about why certain women supposedly prefer older men. I think this is a real thing. Not all heterosexual women prefer older men; in fact probably most don't (here I mean significantly older, not 5 or even 10 years older) but I think there is at least a minority who do, or say they do. There's a tendency to stereotype those women as "gold diggers". But people often see the mote in others' eyes while being blind to the beam in their own. Yeah, maybe they like having money, but then again, don't we all?
Click to expand...
The gold digger accusation is not that she wanted money, but assumes she is making up false allegations in order to sue him.

This claim makes little sense as she did not file a civil lawsuit initially but made a criminal complaint against him only to find out that the NZ police would not prosecute on the evidence they had. Then she reached out to journalists (and we heard from the podcast that she was not the first to do this), and then her telling her story prompted other women to come forward to talk about the abusive relationships they had.

It is these things that smartcooky is studiously ignoring while constantly deploying DARVO. His determination to do this is weird and unskeptical. Unlike Blackstone, who he quoted earlier, he does not make cautious claims, but makes wild assertions and insinuations and speculates in a one-sided way against Pavlovich.
 
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
Morally, it's a distinction without a difference, if she was living and working in his house and not having a fair income.

Legally, this is probably why she's not suing Gaiman for lost wages, so it's not important, except for you to try and claim a "win" of some sort.
 
Puppycow said:
I'm trying to point out how unusual this is!! I don't know why you are so hell bent on defending Gaiman's actions here.
Click to expand...
I'm not hell-bent on defending his actions. I am hell-bent on sticking unwaveringly with the legal concept of "The presumption of innocence".

Puppycow said:
Of course I don't think you did that. It would never cross your mind, which is why what he did is so ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.
Click to expand...
I have repeatedly been at pains to point out that that I think what he has done, if true, is highly inappropriate and seriously ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up.

However, while what he did rises to the level of scumbaggery, the fact remains that being a cradle-snatching scumbag is not illegal. NONE of what he did, on the documentary evidence we have seen, rises to the level of criminality. All of her messages would indicate that she enjoyed every minute of what they were doing.

(And no, I don't buy the unbridled speculation that has been indulged in by all the weekend psychologists posting in this thread, that her messages don't mean exactly what they say because of some unspecified psychobabble).
 
Orphia Nay said:
Morally, it's a distinction without a difference, if she was living and working in his house and not having a fair income.

Legally, this is probably why she's not suing Gaiman for lost wages, so it's not important, except for you to try and claim a "win" of some sort.
Click to expand...
Morals have nothing to do with it. The lawsuit is a legal document, not a moral one. I am also not trying to make a distinction. I simply pointed out and error made by a poster when they assumed, because she was paid to do work for Gaiman, that it automatically made her an employee of his.

THAT IS ALL! There is no code, or hidden meaning, or implication here. There is nothing between the lines to read.
 
Puppycow said:
It's even possible that she is a "gold digger" and yet that doesn't absolve him. Aren't we all "gold diggers" to some degree? Who among us has renounced worldly concerns and taken a vow of poverty?

I also don't really see the age difference between them as being the real issue here from an ethical standpoint. All that really matters is whether she was over the age of majority, which she was. Whether she is 40 years younger than him or the same age is irrelevant as long as she is legally an adult. It got me thinking a little bit about why certain women supposedly prefer older men. I think this is a real thing. Not all heterosexual women prefer older men; in fact probably most don't (here I mean significantly older, not 5 or even 10 years older) but I think there is at least a minority who do, or say they do. There's a tendency to stereotype those women as "gold diggers". But people often see the mote in others' eyes while being blind to the beam in their own. Yeah, maybe they like having money, but then again, don't we all?
Click to expand...
Well, she obviously felt comfortable enough with him to ask him to help her out with money for rent.

28/12/2022 @ 09:06​
Pavlovich: Hi Neil, that would be really great I think. Thank you. Also do you think it would be possible to help me with my rent this month? I've only been able to get a few pre-Christmas shifts at a cafe I used to work at and now everywhere has shut up until mid Jan, and I am so panicked about it. It would be the most enormous help. When do you arrive in NZ?​
​
28/12/2022 @ 15:31​
Gaiman: Sure. I already spoke to R- about helping if you need It. We get there on the 4th I think. Amanda and A will probably leave before I do, as I'll be on A duty while I'm there. How much do you need?​
​
28/12/2022 @ 14:49​
Pavlovich: Thank you so much Neil. Honestly, I can't tell you how helpful this is. It 's an enormous stress and pressure for me right now. Rent for this month would be amazing. My new place is $375 a week. I've just had to pay a lump sum bond and now I hardly have enough to pay my rent or groceries! But the place is lovely and full of light, I can see myself here for years. I am sharing with another girl H...​
and quite close to R- I think. You're lucky because the weather has just become very warm, after raining and being miserable for weeks on end. The cicadas are gorgeous. It's definitely helping my mood​
How are you feeling about coming back?​

Orphia Nay said:
Only when you don't want to think about how Pavlovich might be an economic prisoner.
Click to expand...

She paid a bond for the house - and that is four weeks rent up front... so NZ$1,500. Where the hell did she get that if she was destitute, homeless, living on the beach and "an economic prisoner"
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
She paid a bond for the house - and that is four weeks rent up front... so NZ$1,500. Where the hell did she get that if she was destitute, homeless, living on the beach and "an economic prisoner"
Click to expand...
The messages you quoted seem to explain how she could have gotten it. "I've only been able to get a few pre-Christmas shifts at a cafe I used to work at" and "I am sharing with another girl H..."
If "H" paid half of that and she scraped together the rest by working shifts at a cafe, maybe she had just enough to pay the bond.
I can see the "economic prisoner" argument in a way. Do businesses in NZ typically "shut up" between Christmas and mid-January?
There are various degrees of destitution and homelessness. Some people are quasi-homeless in the sense that they rely on the kindness of friends or family to have a roof over their head, but don't have a place of their own.
 
smartcooky said:
I'm not hell-bent on defending his actions.
I am hell-bent on sticking unwaveringly with the legal concept of "The presumption of innocence".
Click to expand...
There are ways of doing that in a principled manner, such as deciding to suspend judgment of all involved until there are court proceedings. But you did not do that. You did not "presume innocence". You assumed malice on the part of Pavlovich.
 
Puppycow said:
The messages you quoted seem to explain how she could have gotten it. "I've only been able to get a few pre-Christmas shifts at a cafe I used to work at" and "I am sharing with another girl H..."
If "H" paid half of that and she scraped together the rest by working shifts at a cafe, maybe she had just enough to pay the bond.
I can see the "economic prisoner" argument in a way.
Click to expand...
Here are some straws for you clutch at...

Graspingatstraws.jpg


Puppycow said:
Do businesses in NZ typically "shut up" between Christmas and mid-January?
Click to expand...
Well, not quite as far as mid-January, but essentially yes. Many businesses (especially those that are not in the service industry, such as supermarkets, corner stores, cafeterias and taverns) will close for business for one to two weeks over the Christmas/New Year Break. I used to close my Fuji Image Lab from Christmas Eve until I opened again on the first weekday after January 2. Some others in the local area close until the second week of January - around the 9th to 12th.
Puppycow said:
There are various degrees of destitution and homelessness. Some people are quasi-homeless in the sense that they rely on the kindness of friends or family to have a roof over their head, but don't have a place of their own.
Click to expand...
No. Her claim was that she was completely homeless, sleeping on the beach, and that Gaiman never paid her at all until the very end.

Those claims simply do not stack up with what she says in her messages...

Of course, we cannot believe what she says in those messages because (insert psycho-babble excuses here).
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
She paid a bond for the house - and that is four weeks rent up front... so NZ$1,500. Where the hell did she get that if she was destitute, homeless, living on the beach and "an economic prisoner"
Click to expand...


Puppycow said:
The messages you quoted seem to explain how she could have gotten it. "I've only been able to get a few pre-Christmas shifts at a cafe I used to work at" and "I am sharing with another girl H..."
If "H" paid half of that and she scraped together the rest by working shifts at a cafe, maybe she had just enough to pay the bond.
I can see the "economic prisoner" argument in a way. Do businesses in NZ typically "shut up" between Christmas and mid-January?
There are various degrees of destitution and homelessness. Some people are quasi-homeless in the sense that they rely on the kindness of friends or family to have a roof over their head, but don't have a place of their own.
Click to expand...

In fact, in the complaint she said that Gaiman had paid her, but this was after some time...

This took place "weeks after she started the job"'

1743761917675.png

Later on....

1743762002800.png
 
Sure there is a lot of he-said, she-said, so if it goes to court it will be interesting to see how much of either person's claims stand up.
 
smartcooky said:
No. Her claim was that she was completely homeless, sleeping on the beach, and that Gaiman never paid her at all until the very end.
Click to expand...

At one stage she says she was sleeping on the beach, but there were lots of stages of the claim.

smartcooky said:
Those claims simply do not stack up with what she says in her messages...

Of course, we cannot believe what she says in those messages because (insert psycho-babble excuses here).
Click to expand...
You're the one clinging to those messages because of your "gold-digger" psychobabble.
 
smartcooky said:
But that is exactly what happens. Its called Trial by Media. On no more than the unsubstantiated word of the accuser, the accused gets vilified and publicly branded a rapist before any evidence is even looked at while the accuser gets to remain anonymous. The accused ends up with the burden to prove they didn't do what they are accused of if want to avoid their life being destroyed. That is a reversal of natural justice.

And the saps in here lap it all up!!
Click to expand...
We can discuss whether it's right or wrong to immediately identify suspects with full name and photo before they're sentenced. They're way more careful about doing that in Norway, for example, often you don't learn the names of criminals even when they're convicted. You can agree or disagree with that, and that's a discussion that might warrant its own thread at some point, but yes, people are definitely judged when they are picked up for, among other things, SA. it's the police sniper's "He's got to have been the target, I just shot him!" rationale from the Four Lions movie.

Do you really think that doesn't go both ways, though? I've talked to lots of SA survivors and read lots and lots of stories, and I've lost count of the horror stories of even close friends and family members not believing survivors when they come forward, often on flimsy grounds like "no, he's such a nice guy, he could've never done that" or "if that was true you'd have told us a long time ago", or your "if you were really abused you'd never have stayed with them for so long". In fact that's a big part of the reason why it takes survivors 12 years on average to break their silence, they know there's a very real chance they'll be shamed, humuliated, have all the blame put on them, or accused of being liars. SA is a taboo topic and the ignorance surrounding it is staggering.
 

The author Neil Gaiman is seeking more than $500,000 from Caroline Wallner, the potter who accused him of sexual misconduct during the time she lived and worked on his property in Woodstock. Gaiman has filed a demand for arbitration, accusing Wallner of
breaching their NDA by sharing her story with the media, including with New York Magazine. In his claim, Gaiman argued that Wallner violated the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of their agreement and is requesting a full repayment of their settlement amount, plus attorneys’ fees and $50,000 for each interview she’s given to the media.
 
Suing people for disclosing the thing you paid them not to disclose is a bold strategy, for someone trying to deny that the thing happened.

Also, the very existence of the NDA is suspect. A "non-disparagement" clause? Innocent people don't pay liars hundreds of thousands of dollars to stop lying about them, and then sue them when they break that agreement. They just skip straight to the lawsuit part, and save that money for their lawyers.
 
theprestige said:
The complaint, you mean? Yes. It's been linked recently in this thread.
Click to expand...


Orphia Nay said:
Do you mean Wallner's lawsuit, or perhaps Gaiman's against Wallner?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant this bit "Gaiman has filed a demand for arbitration,"

I want to know if it solely is based on breaking the NDA or whether there is more to it, such as a defamation claim.

Because if Gaiman is telling the truth (or as some might say, his accuser is a "gold digger"), then I would presume the best approach is to answer the specific claims and maybe sue for defamation. Whereas just going after the NDA looks like the only problem he has is with her telling the truth.
 
Tortoise Media (the podcast creators) say:

"Gaiman has since filed an arbitration claim against Wallner, accusing her of breaching her NDA by speaking to the media about the alleged abuse.

"According to New York Magazine, Wallner has filed her own claim against Gaiman, alleging that he breached his end of the NDA when his lawyer held onto digital evidence of their relationship that was meant to be destroyed."

www.tortoisemedia.com

Neil Gaiman seeks $500,000 from accuser

www.tortoisemedia.com www.tortoisemedia.com

I'll keep looking to see if I can find the document(s).

Eta: nothing on Courtlistener yet.
 
Last edited:
I presume the NDA was under NZ law? If so then it looks like it is generally the same as UK, can't use one to cover up something criminal also have to be specific, wide ranging ones are often found to be unenforceable.
 
Darat said:
I presume the NDA was under NZ law? If so then it looks like it is generally the same as UK, can't use one to cover up something criminal also have to be specific, wide ranging ones are often found to be unenforceable.
Click to expand...
Caroline Wallner lived in New York state, so I'm guessing it's under that jurisdiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom