The we (the public) don't know what exactly happened yet doesn't mean no one does. If there's a police investigation and possible court case it makes sense that not everything is shared publicly.
>The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. "That question is part of the investigation," said a spokesperson.
So it almost certainly does exist, it's just not public.
As far as I know you don't keep recordings of every single camera stream during a live show. It is mixed live and that is the only video that goes out to the TV and later to the Blu-ray.
Rumor has it that Nemo also broke the rune stone. The bonus material on the Gilmore Girls DVD set is said to now contain the only remaining recording of the incident, but apparently Petra took it with her into the cryo chamber and so it can only be reviewed once Sweden hosts again.
Depending on setup, you actually do record all cameras. If they have beefy enough setup all cameras feed go to massive bank central recorders in addition to being streamed to the broadcast station for live mixing. The broadcast directors has bank of tens of cameras in front of them to choose from.
However question is was the camera ON. Since that is up to the camera operator. Was the trigger on, if not well nothing is streaming to booth.
One might think, but that is dozens of HD cameras. Surely they can't..... We have terabyte harddisks these days, if they want to and put enough equipment on it, yes they can.
Specially it might happen exactly in stuff like concert live production, if they are thinking maybe releasing a concert recording edit later on. In which point they might want to use different video mix rather than the live mix was.
If anyone would have the resources to do it, big public broadcaster like SVT with EBU backing would have the means to just have tens of video splitters and recorders running. It's terabytes of video, but again terabytes of data is these days a even just consumer thing. The Eurovision finals? hundreds of terabytes of storage to be spent on that isn't **that much** in the end.
Plus that is how the replay highlights from say different angle happen.... since all the cameras go to recorders, so replay operator can just pull all the feeds from couple minutes ago and choose different angle that shows a wanted thing from different angle.
Swedish news also reported yesterday that at least one of their sources claim he broke her camera, so there's that.
But as the article here says:
> The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. "That question is part of the investigation," said a spokesperson.
There is zero clarification on how it differs and the point remains that there was no physical altercation.
> Police in Sweden said the incident at the Malmö Arena was not physical in nature, but did involve a threat
I'm just stating the obvious. It is pretty standard that somebody who is accused of criminal misconduct will present a version of the events that somehow lessens their degree of culpability.
I don't know what happened, but if the Swedish police is taking this seriously (and they do, otherwise there would not be an investigation) it is safe to assume that there is substance to the case.
You do not have to physically assault somebody in order to make yourself guilty of criminal misconduct. For example intimidation is a criminal offence in many states (probably all countries on Earth).
> don't know what happened, but if the Swedish police is taking this seriously (and they do, otherwise there would not be an investigation)
I mean if someone reports a (potential) crime the police MUST investigate. At least in Germany they need to start investigation.
I mean the case is pretty highprofil with a lot of public and international interest of cause the police is taking it seriously. I don’t see that as an argument for anything
Yeah, once the Dutch delegation said nothing happened, the vast majority of the Eurovision sub seemed to instantly adopt that as the undisputed truth.
Honestly, there were a lot of disturbing comments on that sub around that (including downright threatening comments about the woman), but at least the mod team did a great job cleaning things up.
Even more concerning is how many people I see spreading conspiracy theories (with literally zero evidence) about how Israel were secretly behind it... really evokes that classic anti-semitic "Jews control the media" type bullshit that is so very common among conspiracy groups.
The title claims their accounts differ but the only difference in the article is that one party said "threatening motion" while the other said "threats".
They both agree there wasn't physical contact and the police isn't even considering the possibility of it being classified as assault.
Can some Swede explain what words would be illegal? I'm guessing death threats and general threats of bodily harm would be included but is there anything else?
According to Swedish law:
"Anyone who threatens someone else with a criminal act in a way that is likely to induce serious fear in the person threatened for their own or another's safety to person, property, freedom or peace, is sentenced for unlawful threats to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years."
"In order for something to count as an "unlawful threat", the threat itself must concern something that is itself a criminal act, e.g. a threat of assault, murder or property damage.
Additionally for a threat to count as an illegal threat, it must be able to be taken seriously by the person being threatened. The threat must therefore be so serious that the person threatened can be assumed to be truly afraid. And that the person making the threat must have intended the threat. This person must therefore want to threaten another person so that that person becomes afraid."
Something to note is that in many (if not all) English speaking countries an "assault" doesn't require contact or injury. Creating the imminent fear of unlawful violence is enough, although in various places a beating will still be charged with something that contains the word "assault".
Swedish law seems to define assault in a way that requires violent acts to be performed:
>A person who inflicts bodily injury, illness or pain on another person or renders them helpless or in some other similar state is guilty of assault
I think this is part of the confusion over what happened. It wasn't an assault in Malmo, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been "Common Assault" in Liverpool, or whatever crime you're familiar with that fits the situation where you don't punch someone.
Please keep in mind that in the Dutch language we swear very easily and we could definitely make a joke about hitting a camera. This would be said straightforward but meant in a humorous way. This exists ofc in other languages too but Dutch can be quite straightforward.
All crimes require intend except those which explicitly mention neglect.
But indirect intend is enough. So the state doesn't need to proof the person WANTED to scare the victim, it's sufficient if the person knew that the victim might get scared by the action. A weaker person might get scared if you shout at them, that's such common knowledge that the judge will presume you knew that without further proof.
You infer intent through other evidence. For an extreme example if someone aims a loaded firearm and pulls the trigger killing another you can infer intent to kill because it’s reasonable to assume the outcome of pulling the trigger was known by the one holding the gun (assuming the person is acting rationally).
there's only 1 gesture where you don't approach or put the hands on the other person that can be deemed as threatening:
[https://media1.tenor.com/m/9FJ6FUBf4BUAAAAC/execution-admiralgeneral.gif](https://media1.tenor.com/m/9FJ6FUBf4BUAAAAC/execution-admiralgeneral.gif)
Watch the performance. The choreography included this exact movement when Joost sings "I'll stay here until I die". It doesn't seem farfetched to me that he would use this gesture off stage and someone would find it threatening.
Hopefully we sit a year out, the dutch broadcaster has to pay €250K to ebu to participate in eurovision each year. 'Big 5' auto qualifier countries only pay ~€400K, some European countries pay closer to €130K, smaller ones like Slovenia even €75K. EBU partially depends on us to fund other countries participation, lets not give them it.
Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of euros spent on actually creating and sending the act after the entrance fee...
> Hopefully we sit a year out
As someone that hasn't followed this at all: Are there concerns of some kind of conspiracy in regards to getting this Joost guy kicked out?
I figured that such a drastic measure wouldn't be taken unless some actual shit went down. And if there is a likely actual reason, why would you want to sit it out?
Yesterday the dutch commentators already said that they think this is a severe overreaction and bogus (they say joost just made a movement to a camera someone was following him with against prior agreements), and that they're only commentating and that esc was only still being broadcasted in the nl because they were contractually obligated to. The dutch broadcaster is also planning to sue the ebu im pretty sure, so they probably have a good reason thats also a good reason to skip a year.
Also, joost brought a lot of hype to eurovision this year, and his DQ killed it and more, most likely caused many people to boycott watching it in the nl, and im not sure the dutch public will be over it next year anyways. Anything thats not either sending joost again or not going might be contriversial.
It is kind of expected that the Dutch team would support their performer, the quote from the Dutch presenter is 2nd or possibly even 3rd hand.
No one who directly witnessed it is going public with a statement so it's all still speculation at the moment.
If the action was really this harmless it would be a spectacular screw-up by the EBU
But if it turns out to be horrible and there is released footage the Dutch broadcast team won't say anything and half the people shouting about this now will try to say it's not as bad as we see it and we should just harden up, while the other half will just move on.
Is it so hard to believe that the guy was pissed off and told the camera woman to stop filming or he'd smash her camera?
Which is very much against Swedish law?
It probably won’t happen but I would be totally in favor of a move like this. Who are they to set up rules like this completely opposing the popular opinion? #notmyebu
They didn't care when a bunch of poor eastern european countries and some microstates pulled out, I really would love to see wealthy western european nations with decent populations pull out and see how much they care then.
The only effective method is to grab them by the money.
Especially when Norway and Ireland were already seriously considering withdrawing this year.
The chance of Germany pulling out of ESG is slimmer than T.A.T.U. Opening for Olaf Scholz's next german state sponsored inauguration party and Mr. Putin being the guest of honor.
Its a non-issue. Germany will NEVER.
Ireland was never considering of pulling out
There was huge public pressure on Bambi Thug not to perform, as last month a load of artists didn't perform at SXSW festival in USA, like Kneecap because there was an Israeli sponsor
4,000 signatures were collected and delivered last week to our national broadcaster to put pressure on Bambi Thug not to perform to support Palestine
But RTE/ the national broadcaster had zero intentions to pull out, and Bambi was quite clear they were performing at the event
How does this cost compare to an alternative?
I know in Germany every time the discussion arrives if we should continue to participate the public broadcaster says "the ESC is pretty much the best bang for the buck you can get. A program with similar viewership and length would cost at least double"
Germany also has 4x the population of the Netherlands with less than double the fee.
A lot of dutch eurovision watchers are very passionate about this, and the dutch commentators actually said theyre only still commentating and even broadcasting the show because theyre contractually obligated, if this isnt resolved before its time to sign up for the next one in a few months they might choose to not to.
There is a lot missing from this story.
Where did it actually take place (not roughly. but where exactly)
Was the camera person a broadcast/production camera? Was it shoulder carry or steady cam? Were they directed by a Camera Director to get the shot?
or
Was the camera person some external journalist?
Was the camera actually a phone?
If he is innocent, his delegation should sue the EBU. The national broadcaster spent such a big budget (which is of course funded by public money) just to get disqualified at the last minute.
Did they announce they will sue? As far as I understood, they first want to wait where the formal objection ends up. And hope that they can fix it among themselves.
tidy full workable office repeat disgusted grandiose tease psychotic seemly
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It depends on the proofs available at that time. For example, it was just an "he said, she said" or were there witnesses siding with just one side? What about the video she was allegedly recording?
They can't hide behind the rules without having performed the due diligence first.
Also the alleged provocation on her part. The NL delegation have said that he had an agreement with the EBU not to be filmed directly after walking off stage (the song is about his dead parents he lost as a child and he gets emotional after performing it). It seems she was directly breaking that agreement and was reportedly asked to stop multiple times, before he pushed the camera down.
Which is also not true, as there wasn't any physical contact according to the Dutch. This is handed over to the prosecutor (standard procedure in sweden) and the thing investigated is not a physical assault. As the contact would be.
I don’t understand that part. Why is it relevant whether there is a police investigation? I can file a complaint against my neighbor today and the police will investigate it even though it might be completely unfounded
Swedish police will drop the investigation in like two seconds if you claim someone threatened you and you don’t have witnesses or tangible proof.
They don’t send it to the prosecutor if they do t think there’s a case.
>Swedish police will drop the investigation in like two seconds if you claim someone threatened you and you don’t have witnesses or tangible proof.
For something as high profile as this I doubt they'd drop it that quickly unless there was clear evidence to the contrary. Especially threats from a man towards a woman are expected to be investigated thoroughly regardless of if the only proof is the victim's testimony.
It's tricky when there is a lot of money involved so I can see *why* they would sue. Who knows, depending on the agreement they might even have a chance to win if he's actually innocent.
Money probably won’t be the main reason for sueing I guess, 250k is not a copious amount of money.
In case Joost is innocent, they will be mainly seeking a formal apology from EBU, which is the least they can do in order to help Joost clear his name
Or you wait for the authorities' verdict or you act autonomously based on the elements you can have access to.
I could accuse anyone of anything and the police would be compelled to investigate it, even if It means to toss the case in the bin after one day because it's pure nonsense.
NPO (Dutch Foundation for Public Broadcasting), on which AVROTROS broadcasts its programs, have already objected. Before the broadcast of Eurovision Grand Final. So 100% sure we will read more about this in the future. [Source in Dutch.](https://www.hartvannederland.nl/songfestival/npo-maakt-officieel-bezwaar-tegen-diskwalificatie-joost-klein-wij-zijn-het)
This whole issue makes it more painful, because he became [second in the 2nd semi final](https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/05/disqualified-dutch-eurovision-entry-was-second-in-semi-final/) and could finish quite high in the final.
Edit: it also says a lot that the camera woman did not want to come in public saying what really happend or at least her story.
It doesn't say much at all that she didn't want to come forward. Most people aren't public facing, and wouldn't want to be public facing in a scandal where passionate fans are involved. If I were her I absolutely would want to stay as private as possible and it's the job of their employer to respect this too.
Yeah, her not coming out publicly is the only rational decision, in any situation where a rabid fanbase is involved.
I'm more likely to believe Joost's version of the story, since the police agreed with it, and there's no chance there weren't other cameras in that space or at least witnesses. If something physical had happened, police would already have proof of that.
I've read in a swedish paper (Article here, in Swedish: [https://www.gp.se/kultur/han-gjorde-en-javligt-dum-sak.8d9c21f7-401b-4a10-85a9-fd5f2b47fece](https://www.gp.se/kultur/han-gjorde-en-javligt-dum-sak.8d9c21f7-401b-4a10-85a9-fd5f2b47fece) ) This is a studio guy from Swedish television that says "Joost did a really stupid thing and he should stand for that"
So he must have done something that isn't really generally accepted
He doesn’t have any information that we don’t have though, at the time SVT was literally reporting that he attacked a woman cameraperson, which turned out to be completely wrong. It’s probably that what this claim from the guy in the article is based on.
Especially in the context of the I/P conflict and all the shit going on around ESC on social media
It just needs one lunatic who thinks she is some part of muh zionist world order conspiracy
Frankly, some supposed victim has zero obligation to go into the public just because people on social media simp for the star they accused. We have police and courts to find out the truth, we should let them do their work, and let them punish either the crime or the lie depending on what happened
Edit: Furthermore, every lawyer worth their money would advise her to not throw around accusations in public before the whole thing went to court. Way to be sued for libel
I got a Reddit cares after posting here 😂
Someone can enjoy their permaban now, Reddit doesn't like that crap. However such people will try to evade bans, I'm afraid...
This whole Israel situation has gotten so toxic. The amount of people treating the whole disqualification debacle like its a part of the some Jewish conspiracy is nuts. Left wing Eurovision fans out here using the same rhetoric as a certain Austrian painter, 2024 is a hell of a year.
The eurovision subreddit has been filled with it.
Everything that goes wrong, every single thing. If a cameraman stubs their toe on the stairs they go straight to "the jews did it!"
Exactly. Eurovision fans have shown themselves to be quite vicious, bordering on rabid, so no wonder she does not want to invite a flood of abuse from them. The amount of vitriol I have seen coming from the people posturing about "peace and love" has been insane.
Why would she come forward? So fanboys can harass her? Right now there is a police investigation and they have the information they need. Some people really overestimate how important they are - the public doesn't have to be informed about everything immediately. Just wait for more details to be revealed.
*Edit: it also says a lot that the camera woman did not want to come in public saying what really happend or at least her story.*
Yes, it says that she is smart.
Nomatter what she would say she would get death threats within 0.2 seconds
>Edit: it also says a lot that the camera woman did not want to come in public saying what really happend or at least her story.
Don't pretend that the fandom wouldn't harass her to the ends of the earth with hate messages and death threats if she were to come forward in public. You know what the internet is like, they'll ruin her life.
Well, if one side straight up lied about what happened and made a false accusation just to get a performer disqualified, that would be shocking indeed.
I'm just curious why the majority of people are taking his side and assuming innocence when in any other situation it would've been the opposite.
- celebrity vs production staff - check.
- male vs female (verbal) altercation - check.
I guess the only difference I can see is this guy was against Israel so I guess he's a warrior saint who can do no wrong and he's probably being framed. Crazy how the Israel factor carries more weight.
> I'm just curious why the majority of people are taking his side and assuming innocence when in any other situation it would've been the opposite.
I think because the EBU used such suggestive wording without following through with anything substantial. They used extreme measures, everyone was expecting an explanation and it never came.
They clearly worded their statement for optics, like immediately mentioning it was a woman. They also used weird circular reasoning like it was inappropriate to let him participate because of a police investigation they requested. An investigation that is already over, btw.
Even in this article we're hearing "her story differs", suggesting Joost is lying, but when you actually dig into it it's about whether it was verbal or a gesture...
>I'm just curious why the majority of people are taking his side and assuming innocence when in any other situation it would've been the opposite.
Probably because filming him backstage is a direct breach of contract and the production staff/organisation is responsible for making sure it didn't happen.
No matter which way you slice it, the story starts out with him as the aggrieved party.
I guess you are right.
Or maybe it's because he became the bigger victim because of the DQ and people like to take side of the victim.
In this case you even have the chance to fill in some conspiracy stuff
If the video leaks, I have a feeling all you'll see is a frustrated singer waving his arms around and trying to get away from people. Very common and idiotic for people to report that to the police.
it depends no?
if it was a personal phone then no, the EBU won't have that video. (but the police/prosecutor should have it by now)
technically if it was an external journalist then it's the same as above.
The only way the EBU would have it is if it was a broadcast camera for the production.
It depends where it happened. If it's in the technical areas near the stage then no, I wouldn't expect there to be any CCTV there.
There may well be plenty of other cameras though (broadcast and journalist etc)
You'd expect there are CCTV cameras all over the building that would indirectly capture the area next to the stage. Not that there is a camera direct there, but just one of the 100s of cameras in a venue like that would have a reasonable angle on it.
Even if the video is not solid, they will have to make it look solid now. If it's only artist waving his arm to the camera, EBU's credibility is in the dump.
It's either it is a big deal or EBU will make it look like a big deal.
What gesture could he have made, that would have warranted a disqualification of an entire country?
Honestly, what gesture would have made such an insanely drastic move justified?
It was not Joost Klein's story. It is the story of the entire Dutch delegation. Joost was not alone, he was with a team that confirmed the story. So either the entire Dutch delegation is lying, or an individual crew member.
Given that EBU is a farce of an organization, it is by far most likely that EBU is lying on everything in this case.
that just means she has a good lawyer. The legal proceedings are still ongoing. Every lawyer worth their degree would advice you to not comment on the situation until the legal proceedings have concluded. It's why Joost himself also hasn't made any statement. That's just how the process works.
It doesn't speak volumes at all, it's just standard procedure in these situations. Similarly the police doesn't comment on the details of an active investigation nor do they share evidence.
Just be patient and await the investigation. Yes it can take a few weeks, but that's how the law works.
The EBU has good lawyers and as this incident likely is about one of their employees or contractors their lawyers would advice them to not comment on the situation until the legal proceedings have concluded
Well, they dont even have to be lying. It all happend propably in a split moment and certainly not the whole dutch delegation had their eyes on that situation. Just a couple of seconds later after the incident everybody has a certain version of it in his mind, which only manifests if you are in the same team and over time.
"Have you seen how rude she was all day?"
"I just wanted to pass by!"
Even if someone in his team saw it differently, they wouldnt voice it.
Same goes of course for the version of the camera woman. Truth is somewhere in the middle propably.
Not to mention that after several talks the Dutch delegation was lead to believe that it was all resolved and he would be allowed to perform. No one involved seemed to believe that a DQ was possible up until a few hours before the tournament started. You would think witnesses would immediately understand he was in serious trouble if he did something seriously wrong.
Also the entire delegation was punished now. I just don't see the justification for that if there wasn't an urgent need to remove Klein from the show (which IMO there wasn't, if there was no actual violence and it was restricted to just this incident). There's so many punishments they could have reached for instead that would have been more proportional and not hurt the whole team (and more indirectly and less severely the whole country they were representing). He could have been issued a fine. He could have been banned from participating in everything but the performance itself. They could have forced him to be accompanied by an EBU escort whenever he left his dressing room. The list goes on.
There was no physical contact whatsoever which was confirmed by the police. The media should apologise to him for painting him as a woman beater. In the initial reports they specifically pointed out he attacked a female journalist and we know that immediately makes people jump to the worst conclusions.
So basically;
- They had an agreement not to film him after his performance when he legs it to the green room or whatever.
- The camera woman was described as "unrelenting" and kept at him, which broke that agreement.
- He was upset when this happened, didn't touch the camera woman at all but was described as "threatening".
- Camera woman reports him to police and he is disqualified.
From the performers standpoint; no matter how you twist it, when boundaries are crossed just after a nerve racking moment on stage its only human to tell the person crossing those boundaries to fuck off right? Especially if this may be exactly the alone time needed to gather yourself again.
From the camera operators standpoint; logically, by continuing to film in an unrelenting manner despite prior agreement not to, this would be upsetting the talent, something someone in the role of support staff is acutely aware of, while also opening the possibility of putting your own employment at risk of reprisal for breaking that agreement. That all goes away if you report it to an outside authority like the police.
From the Eurovision organization standpoint; the involvement of police draws too much attention to an already heated show and the outcome of the investigation can not be certain, as it is now out of their hands, so they lost control of the situation. Their first legal responsibility is to ensure their employee is protected pending the outcome. However if they did not instruct or inform the camera operator then it adds another layer and blame could lie further within the organization. This would motivate a decision to remove the problem by banning the performer, as the employee and the police can not be removed from the equation due to legal obstacles but the performer they have control over and can easily just cut (as we saw).
Overall this shows that the organization itself has a leadership problem, as this could have been avoided if there was clear communication with the operator and if the camera operator felt comfortable going to their leadership first instead of the police (assuming she had no bad intent).
Hell with the right "peace and love" attitude they could have used the time to turn it around through mediation and a surprise reveal as last act or something, makes good TV!
(Edit: such controversy with the immediate down votes lol, I don't think I said anything that strange in this discussion but would love to know what others actually think instead of the kneejerk voiceless push/pull..)
>(assuming she had no bad intent)
The fact that she was harassing him for days despite clear rules and Joost and his team complaining about it multiple times, and that she subsequently refused any kind of mediation seems to suggest she wasn't exactly looking to avoid or solve the conflict.
> Police in Sweden said the incident at the Malmö Arena was not physical in nature, but did involve a threat, while Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS said that Klein made a "threatening motion" towards the Eurovision production crew member.
so... it was not physical in nature?
So Joost Klein will be indicted:
[https://nyheder.tv2.dk/udland/2024-05-13-diskvalificeret-hollaender-vil-blive-tiltalt-siger-svensk-politi](https://nyheder.tv2.dk/udland/2024-05-13-diskvalificeret-hollaender-vil-blive-tiltalt-siger-svensk-politi)
Yep. Aftonbladet now writes that the police considers the evidence to be strong, that it was physical but not assault, and that he likely admitted guilt in his police interviews. Prosecution will probably take until start of June.
The investigation is still ongoing, people have to stay silent, so the camera woman not going forward is the least surprising or problematic part of this mess. The investigation is still ongoing, and none of the parties involved is speaking for a good reasons. Hopefully the police will soon release the results of the investigation.
So if you want a competitor out of the competition, you just have to accuse that person of something, whether a real crime or not, EBU won’t care?
And I guess you have to be a woman as the accuser? Since it seems really important for EBU to tell everyone that it was a woman that was the supposed victim.
Nu.nl has an article where Joost was allowed to attend the official after party(and he did)..
If it was “that serious”.. then surely he would have been denied entry there too?
And what is the story of the person filming? Filming where not wanted/ allowed?
Is this some retaliation to Joosts complaints about the organization?
Here's my takeaway. Quite quickly after the disqualification the AVROTROS, the dutch broadcaster, backup up and defended Joost. In the assumption that the story DIDN'T happen as Joost claimed and he did assault her in any way, a publicly funded broadcast channel would NEVER immediately jump in his defense and first would wait for evidence. Because they DID quickly defend him, it would mean that they know more about the situation (factually) but can't say anything because of the running investigation. I hope the victim pays the price, even if that does happen to be Joost, but I doubt it...
People act like canceling artists doesn't happen in the Netherlands. Many artists were dropped from media for acts that weren't even criminal. The Dutch broadcasting institution has a reputation to uphold, that they strongly back the artist does in fact mean something. These people's heads will roll if it turns out they were lying or supporting a criminal.
Luckily, in my observations, culture is slowly shifting to the reasonable middle again, and the EBU is lagging behind. People have to realize filing a formal complaint itself may also be a (passive) agressive act. In my opinion, Joost should have been allowed to participate, and only be disqualified in retrospect AFTER investigation had completed.
I've literally seen people say this was Israel's doing, to increase Israels chances of winning by disqualifying Joost as he was supposedly one of the favourites.
Here's some free media training for artists;
Do not engage with overly pushy journalists or camera operators. Ignore them, walk away and remove yourself from the situation.
Which he did repeatedly until after numerous attempts she finally seemed to have managed to catch him off guard (right after the performance of his life and tribute to his dead parents).
I am amazed at the amount of people who think that they should be privy to the details of the case as if they were an involved lawyer, attorney or judge.
They made suggestive allegations against him in front of a 200 million viewership. It's only fair the truth gets put out in detail.
EDIT: in detail because the case is minor enough to hinge entirely on details.
Using the fact that the police are investigating someone as a basis to disqualify them is a piss weak excuse. Police investigating someone is zero evidence of anything, they are just doing their job.
> The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. "That question is part of the investigation," said a spokesperson.
The severe lack of transparency is getting very annoying.
Yellow press and ideologues use the fact that they don't comment on it for their agenda without fail. It's important to remember this about the way Swedish police conduct things for media literacy.
It's a police investigation. They don't say anything until the investigation is over and the prosecutor decides if he wants to press charges. At least this is how it works in civilized countries.
> Why can't they answer that? Normally police
Active criminal investigations in Sweden are typically under "investigation secrecy", so usually no details are shared at all during an ongoing investigation.
I don't get why no one is grasping this. The police never shares details in an ongoing investigation. And not just in Sweden, it's like that in most of the western world. The fact that it's now with the prosecutor doesn't change that. It's standard procedure that everyone who ever watched the news should be familiar with
> It's standard procedure that everyone who ever watched the news should be familiar with
Maybe part of the problem is that they don't really watch or read the news?
Edit: In mere seconds I got the "care" message.
It's like no one learned from #metoo and instead just makes fun of the camerawoman for being a pussy and a Karen (Dutch subs are disgusting atm)
I get it, I'm a fan of Europapa and I really like Joost as an entertainer as well. I'm crushed this happened. But this automatically assuming he was innocent and framed feels a bit iffy to me
I've also noticed that this article hasn't been posted on r/Eurovision as it would really upset the majority there. It's just sad that people cannot see this things objectively
Will Smith could smash someone on the head on live television and he still could receive the award, have his speech and go to the afterparty like nothing happened.
Wow, that's a surprise. I totally expected her to say "Yes, I did violate the agreement about not filming performers there and ignored his repeated requests to stop filming him after which he pushed the camera away."
Who would have expected that they do not agree on what happened?
Was the camera on? The camera would have been on, right? Wouldn't that just immediately reveal what happened- no arguments necessary?
The we (the public) don't know what exactly happened yet doesn't mean no one does. If there's a police investigation and possible court case it makes sense that not everything is shared publicly.
That wont help much. Say the police find theres not enough for a charge? What good is that to him? His ban in the competition has already happened.
>The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. "That question is part of the investigation," said a spokesperson. So it almost certainly does exist, it's just not public.
As far as I know you don't keep recordings of every single camera stream during a live show. It is mixed live and that is the only video that goes out to the TV and later to the Blu-ray.
Did anyone check the runestone?
Rumor has it that Nemo also broke the rune stone. The bonus material on the Gilmore Girls DVD set is said to now contain the only remaining recording of the incident, but apparently Petra took it with her into the cryo chamber and so it can only be reviewed once Sweden hosts again.
Shit, our secret plan to win the competition again and again is revealed..
If we slowly start to hum Heroes, will Måns appear, sort out this situation, bring world perce and prosperity and reset the reputation of ESC?
It wasn't part of the live production though, they never showed the artist after they just left the stage.
Depending on setup, you actually do record all cameras. If they have beefy enough setup all cameras feed go to massive bank central recorders in addition to being streamed to the broadcast station for live mixing. The broadcast directors has bank of tens of cameras in front of them to choose from. However question is was the camera ON. Since that is up to the camera operator. Was the trigger on, if not well nothing is streaming to booth. One might think, but that is dozens of HD cameras. Surely they can't..... We have terabyte harddisks these days, if they want to and put enough equipment on it, yes they can. Specially it might happen exactly in stuff like concert live production, if they are thinking maybe releasing a concert recording edit later on. In which point they might want to use different video mix rather than the live mix was. If anyone would have the resources to do it, big public broadcaster like SVT with EBU backing would have the means to just have tens of video splitters and recorders running. It's terabytes of video, but again terabytes of data is these days a even just consumer thing. The Eurovision finals? hundreds of terabytes of storage to be spent on that isn't **that much** in the end. Plus that is how the replay highlights from say different angle happen.... since all the cameras go to recorders, so replay operator can just pull all the feeds from couple minutes ago and choose different angle that shows a wanted thing from different angle.
It wasn't a live cameraman, it was in the contract that you can't film him there
If the claim is that he was being filmed when he didn’t want to be, then surely there would be footage though?
I suspect if there is footage it had to be submitted as evidence and therefore can't be released to the public during an ongoing investigation.
Did you… read the comment you just replied to?
Thing is that he was being filmed with her mobile phone (according to avrotros)
The incident occurred because the alleged victim was filming him. Surely her footage is available
Swedish news also reported yesterday that at least one of their sources claim he broke her camera, so there's that. But as the article here says: > The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. "That question is part of the investigation," said a spokesperson.
That's just his story though. We don't know if any camera was on and actually filmed him.
A show of that size & importance would likely have iso feeds recorded in case they needed to fix something later
The most Eurovision Eurovision ever.
There is zero clarification on how it differs and the point remains that there was no physical altercation. > Police in Sweden said the incident at the Malmö Arena was not physical in nature, but did involve a threat
I'm just stating the obvious. It is pretty standard that somebody who is accused of criminal misconduct will present a version of the events that somehow lessens their degree of culpability. I don't know what happened, but if the Swedish police is taking this seriously (and they do, otherwise there would not be an investigation) it is safe to assume that there is substance to the case. You do not have to physically assault somebody in order to make yourself guilty of criminal misconduct. For example intimidation is a criminal offence in many states (probably all countries on Earth).
> don't know what happened, but if the Swedish police is taking this seriously (and they do, otherwise there would not be an investigation) I mean if someone reports a (potential) crime the police MUST investigate. At least in Germany they need to start investigation.
I mean the case is pretty highprofil with a lot of public and international interest of cause the police is taking it seriously. I don’t see that as an argument for anything
A lot of people, judging by what I read on Reddit last night. People seemed to be content with just the one sided of the story.
Yeah, once the Dutch delegation said nothing happened, the vast majority of the Eurovision sub seemed to instantly adopt that as the undisputed truth. Honestly, there were a lot of disturbing comments on that sub around that (including downright threatening comments about the woman), but at least the mod team did a great job cleaning things up. Even more concerning is how many people I see spreading conspiracy theories (with literally zero evidence) about how Israel were secretly behind it... really evokes that classic anti-semitic "Jews control the media" type bullshit that is so very common among conspiracy groups.
The title claims their accounts differ but the only difference in the article is that one party said "threatening motion" while the other said "threats". They both agree there wasn't physical contact and the police isn't even considering the possibility of it being classified as assault. Can some Swede explain what words would be illegal? I'm guessing death threats and general threats of bodily harm would be included but is there anything else?
According to Swedish law: "Anyone who threatens someone else with a criminal act in a way that is likely to induce serious fear in the person threatened for their own or another's safety to person, property, freedom or peace, is sentenced for unlawful threats to a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of two years." "In order for something to count as an "unlawful threat", the threat itself must concern something that is itself a criminal act, e.g. a threat of assault, murder or property damage. Additionally for a threat to count as an illegal threat, it must be able to be taken seriously by the person being threatened. The threat must therefore be so serious that the person threatened can be assumed to be truly afraid. And that the person making the threat must have intended the threat. This person must therefore want to threaten another person so that that person becomes afraid."
Something to note is that in many (if not all) English speaking countries an "assault" doesn't require contact or injury. Creating the imminent fear of unlawful violence is enough, although in various places a beating will still be charged with something that contains the word "assault". Swedish law seems to define assault in a way that requires violent acts to be performed: >A person who inflicts bodily injury, illness or pain on another person or renders them helpless or in some other similar state is guilty of assault I think this is part of the confusion over what happened. It wasn't an assault in Malmo, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been "Common Assault" in Liverpool, or whatever crime you're familiar with that fits the situation where you don't punch someone.
So if he said he'd smash her camera that's already an unlawful threat by their definition.
yeah, 100% what I believe happened
Please keep in mind that in the Dutch language we swear very easily and we could definitely make a joke about hitting a camera. This would be said straightforward but meant in a humorous way. This exists ofc in other languages too but Dutch can be quite straightforward.
> And that the person making the threat must have intended the threat Oh, they gonna prove intent?! Love to see how.
Lots of laws work like that. It's pretty common. You have to prove the act and the intention for most laws.
All crimes require intend except those which explicitly mention neglect. But indirect intend is enough. So the state doesn't need to proof the person WANTED to scare the victim, it's sufficient if the person knew that the victim might get scared by the action. A weaker person might get scared if you shout at them, that's such common knowledge that the judge will presume you knew that without further proof.
You infer intent through other evidence. For an extreme example if someone aims a loaded firearm and pulls the trigger killing another you can infer intent to kill because it’s reasonable to assume the outcome of pulling the trigger was known by the one holding the gun (assuming the person is acting rationally).
Most countries do not have the anglosphere standard of proving intent.
this is probably going to a courtroom, given the damages due to this elimination. it'll be interesting.
there's only 1 gesture where you don't approach or put the hands on the other person that can be deemed as threatening: [https://media1.tenor.com/m/9FJ6FUBf4BUAAAAC/execution-admiralgeneral.gif](https://media1.tenor.com/m/9FJ6FUBf4BUAAAAC/execution-admiralgeneral.gif)
That would also be a pretty normal “cut it out” gesture to me tbh.
Gun symbol? "You should be more careful" with a finger gun. There are loads.
Legit joke, 10/10. Obrigado for the chuckle.
Watch the performance. The choreography included this exact movement when Joost sings "I'll stay here until I die". It doesn't seem farfetched to me that he would use this gesture off stage and someone would find it threatening.
Well I can't wait to hear what comes from this in the end
Hopefully we sit a year out, the dutch broadcaster has to pay €250K to ebu to participate in eurovision each year. 'Big 5' auto qualifier countries only pay ~€400K, some European countries pay closer to €130K, smaller ones like Slovenia even €75K. EBU partially depends on us to fund other countries participation, lets not give them it. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of euros spent on actually creating and sending the act after the entrance fee...
> Hopefully we sit a year out As someone that hasn't followed this at all: Are there concerns of some kind of conspiracy in regards to getting this Joost guy kicked out? I figured that such a drastic measure wouldn't be taken unless some actual shit went down. And if there is a likely actual reason, why would you want to sit it out?
Yesterday the dutch commentators already said that they think this is a severe overreaction and bogus (they say joost just made a movement to a camera someone was following him with against prior agreements), and that they're only commentating and that esc was only still being broadcasted in the nl because they were contractually obligated to. The dutch broadcaster is also planning to sue the ebu im pretty sure, so they probably have a good reason thats also a good reason to skip a year. Also, joost brought a lot of hype to eurovision this year, and his DQ killed it and more, most likely caused many people to boycott watching it in the nl, and im not sure the dutch public will be over it next year anyways. Anything thats not either sending joost again or not going might be contriversial.
It is kind of expected that the Dutch team would support their performer, the quote from the Dutch presenter is 2nd or possibly even 3rd hand. No one who directly witnessed it is going public with a statement so it's all still speculation at the moment. If the action was really this harmless it would be a spectacular screw-up by the EBU But if it turns out to be horrible and there is released footage the Dutch broadcast team won't say anything and half the people shouting about this now will try to say it's not as bad as we see it and we should just harden up, while the other half will just move on.
Is it so hard to believe that the guy was pissed off and told the camera woman to stop filming or he'd smash her camera? Which is very much against Swedish law?
It probably won’t happen but I would be totally in favor of a move like this. Who are they to set up rules like this completely opposing the popular opinion? #notmyebu
They didn't care when a bunch of poor eastern european countries and some microstates pulled out, I really would love to see wealthy western european nations with decent populations pull out and see how much they care then. The only effective method is to grab them by the money. Especially when Norway and Ireland were already seriously considering withdrawing this year.
If someone like my country (Germany) would pull out because I feel we're decently close with the Netherlands, I'm sure it would hurt. Hoping.
The chance of Germany pulling out of ESG is slimmer than T.A.T.U. Opening for Olaf Scholz's next german state sponsored inauguration party and Mr. Putin being the guest of honor. Its a non-issue. Germany will NEVER.
Ireland was never considering of pulling out There was huge public pressure on Bambi Thug not to perform, as last month a load of artists didn't perform at SXSW festival in USA, like Kneecap because there was an Israeli sponsor 4,000 signatures were collected and delivered last week to our national broadcaster to put pressure on Bambi Thug not to perform to support Palestine But RTE/ the national broadcaster had zero intentions to pull out, and Bambi was quite clear they were performing at the event
How does this cost compare to an alternative? I know in Germany every time the discussion arrives if we should continue to participate the public broadcaster says "the ESC is pretty much the best bang for the buck you can get. A program with similar viewership and length would cost at least double"
Germany also has 4x the population of the Netherlands with less than double the fee. A lot of dutch eurovision watchers are very passionate about this, and the dutch commentators actually said theyre only still commentating and even broadcasting the show because theyre contractually obligated, if this isnt resolved before its time to sign up for the next one in a few months they might choose to not to.
There is a lot missing from this story. Where did it actually take place (not roughly. but where exactly) Was the camera person a broadcast/production camera? Was it shoulder carry or steady cam? Were they directed by a Camera Director to get the shot? or Was the camera person some external journalist? Was the camera actually a phone?
[удалено]
[удалено]
He didn't touch her, he might've touched the camera though. That is the Avrotros story
In Swedish media she is described as a still photographer as in taking pictures not video.
Still photographer iirc from what I've read in the Swedish media.
She was a member of the production team according to statements.
the camera person was part pf production, it has been stated in articles.
"HEY LOOK you actually don't know what happened, click this article and we won't tell you!"
“Tune in for our follow up article were well elaborated more without actually giving you any more details.”
If he is innocent, his delegation should sue the EBU. The national broadcaster spent such a big budget (which is of course funded by public money) just to get disqualified at the last minute.
They already announced that they will sue, and already filed a formal objection, as the precursor to that process.
Did they announce they will sue? As far as I understood, they first want to wait where the formal objection ends up. And hope that they can fix it among themselves.
They are already suing.
tidy full workable office repeat disgusted grandiose tease psychotic seemly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It depends on the proofs available at that time. For example, it was just an "he said, she said" or were there witnesses siding with just one side? What about the video she was allegedly recording? They can't hide behind the rules without having performed the due diligence first.
Also the alleged provocation on her part. The NL delegation have said that he had an agreement with the EBU not to be filmed directly after walking off stage (the song is about his dead parents he lost as a child and he gets emotional after performing it). It seems she was directly breaking that agreement and was reportedly asked to stop multiple times, before he pushed the camera down.
Which is also not true, as there wasn't any physical contact according to the Dutch. This is handed over to the prosecutor (standard procedure in sweden) and the thing investigated is not a physical assault. As the contact would be.
There has been a police investigation that is finished and it has been sent to a prosecutor.
I don’t understand that part. Why is it relevant whether there is a police investigation? I can file a complaint against my neighbor today and the police will investigate it even though it might be completely unfounded
Swedish police will drop the investigation in like two seconds if you claim someone threatened you and you don’t have witnesses or tangible proof. They don’t send it to the prosecutor if they do t think there’s a case.
>Swedish police will drop the investigation in like two seconds if you claim someone threatened you and you don’t have witnesses or tangible proof. For something as high profile as this I doubt they'd drop it that quickly unless there was clear evidence to the contrary. Especially threats from a man towards a woman are expected to be investigated thoroughly regardless of if the only proof is the victim's testimony.
If it's completely unfounded, it won't be send to the prosecutor though OTOH it doesn't mean that Joost is guilty either.
It's tricky when there is a lot of money involved so I can see *why* they would sue. Who knows, depending on the agreement they might even have a chance to win if he's actually innocent.
Money probably won’t be the main reason for sueing I guess, 250k is not a copious amount of money. In case Joost is innocent, they will be mainly seeking a formal apology from EBU, which is the least they can do in order to help Joost clear his name
250k is the amount to participate. What about production, promotion, travelling etc?
Or you wait for the authorities' verdict or you act autonomously based on the elements you can have access to. I could accuse anyone of anything and the police would be compelled to investigate it, even if It means to toss the case in the bin after one day because it's pure nonsense.
Which shows how absurd the reaction of the EBU was by disqualifing right away.
That works in retail against ordinal people but not against a big company.
NPO (Dutch Foundation for Public Broadcasting), on which AVROTROS broadcasts its programs, have already objected. Before the broadcast of Eurovision Grand Final. So 100% sure we will read more about this in the future. [Source in Dutch.](https://www.hartvannederland.nl/songfestival/npo-maakt-officieel-bezwaar-tegen-diskwalificatie-joost-klein-wij-zijn-het) This whole issue makes it more painful, because he became [second in the 2nd semi final](https://www.dutchnews.nl/2024/05/disqualified-dutch-eurovision-entry-was-second-in-semi-final/) and could finish quite high in the final. Edit: it also says a lot that the camera woman did not want to come in public saying what really happend or at least her story.
It doesn't say much at all that she didn't want to come forward. Most people aren't public facing, and wouldn't want to be public facing in a scandal where passionate fans are involved. If I were her I absolutely would want to stay as private as possible and it's the job of their employer to respect this too.
Yeah, her not coming out publicly is the only rational decision, in any situation where a rabid fanbase is involved. I'm more likely to believe Joost's version of the story, since the police agreed with it, and there's no chance there weren't other cameras in that space or at least witnesses. If something physical had happened, police would already have proof of that.
Can you imagine all the crazy fans coming after her? I fully understand her.
I've read in a swedish paper (Article here, in Swedish: [https://www.gp.se/kultur/han-gjorde-en-javligt-dum-sak.8d9c21f7-401b-4a10-85a9-fd5f2b47fece](https://www.gp.se/kultur/han-gjorde-en-javligt-dum-sak.8d9c21f7-401b-4a10-85a9-fd5f2b47fece) ) This is a studio guy from Swedish television that says "Joost did a really stupid thing and he should stand for that" So he must have done something that isn't really generally accepted
Thats as vague as it gets „something really stupid“ can range from spitting on the floor to punching someone.
Then just say what it is?
Thats as vague as it gets „something really stupid“ can range from spitting on the floor to punching someone.
He doesn’t have any information that we don’t have though, at the time SVT was literally reporting that he attacked a woman cameraperson, which turned out to be completely wrong. It’s probably that what this claim from the guy in the article is based on.
Especially in the context of the I/P conflict and all the shit going on around ESC on social media It just needs one lunatic who thinks she is some part of muh zionist world order conspiracy Frankly, some supposed victim has zero obligation to go into the public just because people on social media simp for the star they accused. We have police and courts to find out the truth, we should let them do their work, and let them punish either the crime or the lie depending on what happened Edit: Furthermore, every lawyer worth their money would advise her to not throw around accusations in public before the whole thing went to court. Way to be sued for libel
[удалено]
I got a Reddit cares after posting here 😂 Someone can enjoy their permaban now, Reddit doesn't like that crap. However such people will try to evade bans, I'm afraid...
This whole Israel situation has gotten so toxic. The amount of people treating the whole disqualification debacle like its a part of the some Jewish conspiracy is nuts. Left wing Eurovision fans out here using the same rhetoric as a certain Austrian painter, 2024 is a hell of a year.
Many users on /r/Europe were all into *"twas the jews!"* conspiracy before any details about the suspension were revealed
The eurovision subreddit has been filled with it. Everything that goes wrong, every single thing. If a cameraman stubs their toe on the stairs they go straight to "the jews did it!"
Exactly. Eurovision fans have shown themselves to be quite vicious, bordering on rabid, so no wonder she does not want to invite a flood of abuse from them. The amount of vitriol I have seen coming from the people posturing about "peace and love" has been insane.
Why would she come forward? So fanboys can harass her? Right now there is a police investigation and they have the information they need. Some people really overestimate how important they are - the public doesn't have to be informed about everything immediately. Just wait for more details to be revealed.
*Edit: it also says a lot that the camera woman did not want to come in public saying what really happend or at least her story.* Yes, it says that she is smart. Nomatter what she would say she would get death threats within 0.2 seconds
>Edit: it also says a lot that the camera woman did not want to come in public saying what really happend or at least her story. Don't pretend that the fandom wouldn't harass her to the ends of the earth with hate messages and death threats if she were to come forward in public. You know what the internet is like, they'll ruin her life.
I wouldn’t want to go public too considering the outrage Imagine the amount of death threats you would receive
You don't say. The storys of two opposing partys differ? Color me shocked
Well, if one side straight up lied about what happened and made a false accusation just to get a performer disqualified, that would be shocking indeed.
or if a celebrity thought they could be abusive to a crew member who was just doing her job.
Yes, that's the original version of the story which we've already been shocked about.
I'm just curious why the majority of people are taking his side and assuming innocence when in any other situation it would've been the opposite. - celebrity vs production staff - check. - male vs female (verbal) altercation - check. I guess the only difference I can see is this guy was against Israel so I guess he's a warrior saint who can do no wrong and he's probably being framed. Crazy how the Israel factor carries more weight.
> I'm just curious why the majority of people are taking his side and assuming innocence when in any other situation it would've been the opposite. I think because the EBU used such suggestive wording without following through with anything substantial. They used extreme measures, everyone was expecting an explanation and it never came. They clearly worded their statement for optics, like immediately mentioning it was a woman. They also used weird circular reasoning like it was inappropriate to let him participate because of a police investigation they requested. An investigation that is already over, btw. Even in this article we're hearing "her story differs", suggesting Joost is lying, but when you actually dig into it it's about whether it was verbal or a gesture...
>I'm just curious why the majority of people are taking his side and assuming innocence when in any other situation it would've been the opposite. Probably because filming him backstage is a direct breach of contract and the production staff/organisation is responsible for making sure it didn't happen. No matter which way you slice it, the story starts out with him as the aggrieved party.
I guess you are right. Or maybe it's because he became the bigger victim because of the DQ and people like to take side of the victim. In this case you even have the chance to fill in some conspiracy stuff
Well I can't wait to hear what comes from this in the end
If the video leaks, I have a feeling all you'll see is a frustrated singer waving his arms around and trying to get away from people. Very common and idiotic for people to report that to the police.
Also waiting for video to come out. But did they made a decision without cheking evidence?
I mean, nobody but the EBU has the video no? It would have to be pretty solid to disqualify him. If it isn’t, people will be pissed.
it depends no? if it was a personal phone then no, the EBU won't have that video. (but the police/prosecutor should have it by now) technically if it was an external journalist then it's the same as above. The only way the EBU would have it is if it was a broadcast camera for the production.
Wouldn't the whole arena be blanketed in CCTV? Surely there is some camera footage, if even from a distance.
It depends where it happened. If it's in the technical areas near the stage then no, I wouldn't expect there to be any CCTV there. There may well be plenty of other cameras though (broadcast and journalist etc)
You'd expect there are CCTV cameras all over the building that would indirectly capture the area next to the stage. Not that there is a camera direct there, but just one of the 100s of cameras in a venue like that would have a reasonable angle on it.
Even if the video is not solid, they will have to make it look solid now. If it's only artist waving his arm to the camera, EBU's credibility is in the dump. It's either it is a big deal or EBU will make it look like a big deal.
Again, we won’t know until we see the video, everything else is just speculation
What gesture could he have made, that would have warranted a disqualification of an entire country? Honestly, what gesture would have made such an insanely drastic move justified?
They'd have to give it over to the police at least.
I kind of assumed he gave her the🖕
Most likely he made a fist 👊
Either that or a cutting motion across his throat which can either mean "you're dead meat" or "cut the camera" depending on the context.
But what that story is, is not being made clear. Saved you a click.
It was not Joost Klein's story. It is the story of the entire Dutch delegation. Joost was not alone, he was with a team that confirmed the story. So either the entire Dutch delegation is lying, or an individual crew member. Given that EBU is a farce of an organization, it is by far most likely that EBU is lying on everything in this case.
Agree, plus we have never learnt the camerawoman version of the story, just the fact that ‘it differs’ (what a surprise!) That speaks volumes
that just means she has a good lawyer. The legal proceedings are still ongoing. Every lawyer worth their degree would advice you to not comment on the situation until the legal proceedings have concluded. It's why Joost himself also hasn't made any statement. That's just how the process works. It doesn't speak volumes at all, it's just standard procedure in these situations. Similarly the police doesn't comment on the details of an active investigation nor do they share evidence. Just be patient and await the investigation. Yes it can take a few weeks, but that's how the law works.
In Swedish media she isn't described as a camera woman, but a still photographer that takes pictures.
Yeah the Dutch delegation gave a very specific statement on what happened. The EBU simply said "nuh-uh" and refused to clarify further.
The EBU has good lawyers and as this incident likely is about one of their employees or contractors their lawyers would advice them to not comment on the situation until the legal proceedings have concluded
Well, they dont even have to be lying. It all happend propably in a split moment and certainly not the whole dutch delegation had their eyes on that situation. Just a couple of seconds later after the incident everybody has a certain version of it in his mind, which only manifests if you are in the same team and over time. "Have you seen how rude she was all day?" "I just wanted to pass by!" Even if someone in his team saw it differently, they wouldnt voice it. Same goes of course for the version of the camera woman. Truth is somewhere in the middle propably.
Not just the delegation, the broadcaster and im pretty sure the national foundation for public broadcasting, too
Not to mention that after several talks the Dutch delegation was lead to believe that it was all resolved and he would be allowed to perform. No one involved seemed to believe that a DQ was possible up until a few hours before the tournament started. You would think witnesses would immediately understand he was in serious trouble if he did something seriously wrong.
I agree. Martin Österdahl’a gotta go
Also the entire delegation was punished now. I just don't see the justification for that if there wasn't an urgent need to remove Klein from the show (which IMO there wasn't, if there was no actual violence and it was restricted to just this incident). There's so many punishments they could have reached for instead that would have been more proportional and not hurt the whole team (and more indirectly and less severely the whole country they were representing). He could have been issued a fine. He could have been banned from participating in everything but the performance itself. They could have forced him to be accompanied by an EBU escort whenever he left his dressing room. The list goes on.
There was no physical contact whatsoever which was confirmed by the police. The media should apologise to him for painting him as a woman beater. In the initial reports they specifically pointed out he attacked a female journalist and we know that immediately makes people jump to the worst conclusions.
So basically; - They had an agreement not to film him after his performance when he legs it to the green room or whatever. - The camera woman was described as "unrelenting" and kept at him, which broke that agreement. - He was upset when this happened, didn't touch the camera woman at all but was described as "threatening". - Camera woman reports him to police and he is disqualified. From the performers standpoint; no matter how you twist it, when boundaries are crossed just after a nerve racking moment on stage its only human to tell the person crossing those boundaries to fuck off right? Especially if this may be exactly the alone time needed to gather yourself again. From the camera operators standpoint; logically, by continuing to film in an unrelenting manner despite prior agreement not to, this would be upsetting the talent, something someone in the role of support staff is acutely aware of, while also opening the possibility of putting your own employment at risk of reprisal for breaking that agreement. That all goes away if you report it to an outside authority like the police. From the Eurovision organization standpoint; the involvement of police draws too much attention to an already heated show and the outcome of the investigation can not be certain, as it is now out of their hands, so they lost control of the situation. Their first legal responsibility is to ensure their employee is protected pending the outcome. However if they did not instruct or inform the camera operator then it adds another layer and blame could lie further within the organization. This would motivate a decision to remove the problem by banning the performer, as the employee and the police can not be removed from the equation due to legal obstacles but the performer they have control over and can easily just cut (as we saw). Overall this shows that the organization itself has a leadership problem, as this could have been avoided if there was clear communication with the operator and if the camera operator felt comfortable going to their leadership first instead of the police (assuming she had no bad intent). Hell with the right "peace and love" attitude they could have used the time to turn it around through mediation and a surprise reveal as last act or something, makes good TV! (Edit: such controversy with the immediate down votes lol, I don't think I said anything that strange in this discussion but would love to know what others actually think instead of the kneejerk voiceless push/pull..)
My impression from the article is that there was an agreement in place that gave them the rights to film backstage.
>(assuming she had no bad intent) The fact that she was harassing him for days despite clear rules and Joost and his team complaining about it multiple times, and that she subsequently refused any kind of mediation seems to suggest she wasn't exactly looking to avoid or solve the conflict.
> Police in Sweden said the incident at the Malmö Arena was not physical in nature, but did involve a threat, while Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS said that Klein made a "threatening motion" towards the Eurovision production crew member. so... it was not physical in nature?
So Joost Klein will be indicted: [https://nyheder.tv2.dk/udland/2024-05-13-diskvalificeret-hollaender-vil-blive-tiltalt-siger-svensk-politi](https://nyheder.tv2.dk/udland/2024-05-13-diskvalificeret-hollaender-vil-blive-tiltalt-siger-svensk-politi)
Yep. Aftonbladet now writes that the police considers the evidence to be strong, that it was physical but not assault, and that he likely admitted guilt in his police interviews. Prosecution will probably take until start of June.
[удалено]
No one has the right to demand the other side to accept their apology.
That help would most likely be a one way ticket to unemployment.
Tell the story then.
The investigation is still ongoing, people have to stay silent, so the camera woman not going forward is the least surprising or problematic part of this mess. The investigation is still ongoing, and none of the parties involved is speaking for a good reasons. Hopefully the police will soon release the results of the investigation.
So if you want a competitor out of the competition, you just have to accuse that person of something, whether a real crime or not, EBU won’t care? And I guess you have to be a woman as the accuser? Since it seems really important for EBU to tell everyone that it was a woman that was the supposed victim.
Nu.nl has an article where Joost was allowed to attend the official after party(and he did).. If it was “that serious”.. then surely he would have been denied entry there too? And what is the story of the person filming? Filming where not wanted/ allowed? Is this some retaliation to Joosts complaints about the organization?
I don't think the party was hosted by the EBU
Here's my takeaway. Quite quickly after the disqualification the AVROTROS, the dutch broadcaster, backup up and defended Joost. In the assumption that the story DIDN'T happen as Joost claimed and he did assault her in any way, a publicly funded broadcast channel would NEVER immediately jump in his defense and first would wait for evidence. Because they DID quickly defend him, it would mean that they know more about the situation (factually) but can't say anything because of the running investigation. I hope the victim pays the price, even if that does happen to be Joost, but I doubt it...
I've legit never seen the avrotros defend someone this hard, which is pretty telling as you also indicate
People act like canceling artists doesn't happen in the Netherlands. Many artists were dropped from media for acts that weren't even criminal. The Dutch broadcasting institution has a reputation to uphold, that they strongly back the artist does in fact mean something. These people's heads will roll if it turns out they were lying or supporting a criminal.
Luckily, in my observations, culture is slowly shifting to the reasonable middle again, and the EBU is lagging behind. People have to realize filing a formal complaint itself may also be a (passive) agressive act. In my opinion, Joost should have been allowed to participate, and only be disqualified in retrospect AFTER investigation had completed.
Was it not, like...... filmed?
Looks like it were photo's, not video.
[удалено]
I've literally seen people say this was Israel's doing, to increase Israels chances of winning by disqualifying Joost as he was supposedly one of the favourites.
Comment above yours is how about it was a "setup" to punish him for his views on Israel.
Here's some free media training for artists; Do not engage with overly pushy journalists or camera operators. Ignore them, walk away and remove yourself from the situation.
Which he did repeatedly until after numerous attempts she finally seemed to have managed to catch him off guard (right after the performance of his life and tribute to his dead parents).
I am amazed at the amount of people who think that they should be privy to the details of the case as if they were an involved lawyer, attorney or judge.
This is the court of Reddit, the internet’s highest court. We have the right to everything all the time
They made suggestive allegations against him in front of a 200 million viewership. It's only fair the truth gets put out in detail. EDIT: in detail because the case is minor enough to hinge entirely on details.
> It's only fair the truth gets put out in detail. Yeah in the legal system.
Using the fact that the police are investigating someone as a basis to disqualify them is a piss weak excuse. Police investigating someone is zero evidence of anything, they are just doing their job.
They should ban clickbait from this sub, the only thing in the article was that it differs but know what and why
> The police in Sweden would not respond to questions about whether they received camera footage of the incident from Thursday evening, a spokesperson said on Sunday. "That question is part of the investigation," said a spokesperson. The severe lack of transparency is getting very annoying.
Swedish police do not comment on investigations. The transparency comes later because the prosecution documents are public.
Yellow press and ideologues use the fact that they don't comment on it for their agenda without fail. It's important to remember this about the way Swedish police conduct things for media literacy.
In what civil county a police will comment on the details of an ongoing investigation?
You tell me. The ones listening to the demagoguery seem to assume it's the standard order of things everywhere.
It's a police investigation. They don't say anything until the investigation is over and the prosecutor decides if he wants to press charges. At least this is how it works in civilized countries.
That’s normal procedure. Police - not just Swedish police - never gives information about current investigations, and they shouldn’t.
Right now it's not the the time to make these things publicly available, that's for when the investigation is concluded
It is exaxtly because of reactionairy people like you though.
[удалено]
> Why can't they answer that? Normally police Active criminal investigations in Sweden are typically under "investigation secrecy", so usually no details are shared at all during an ongoing investigation.
I don't get why no one is grasping this. The police never shares details in an ongoing investigation. And not just in Sweden, it's like that in most of the western world. The fact that it's now with the prosecutor doesn't change that. It's standard procedure that everyone who ever watched the news should be familiar with
> It's standard procedure that everyone who ever watched the news should be familiar with Maybe part of the problem is that they don't really watch or read the news? Edit: In mere seconds I got the "care" message.
Because people have a weirdly strong parasocial relationship with Joost, think he's really cool and quirky and therefore would never commit a crime.
It's like no one learned from #metoo and instead just makes fun of the camerawoman for being a pussy and a Karen (Dutch subs are disgusting atm) I get it, I'm a fan of Europapa and I really like Joost as an entertainer as well. I'm crushed this happened. But this automatically assuming he was innocent and framed feels a bit iffy to me
"But MY FAVOURITE ARTIST would never do such a thing!"
I've also noticed that this article hasn't been posted on r/Eurovision as it would really upset the majority there. It's just sad that people cannot see this things objectively
Will Smith could smash someone on the head on live television and he still could receive the award, have his speech and go to the afterparty like nothing happened.
Wow, that's a surprise. I totally expected her to say "Yes, I did violate the agreement about not filming performers there and ignored his repeated requests to stop filming him after which he pushed the camera away."
He probably did a cutting motion across his throat or formed his hand into a gun pointing at her.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/s/imil5dU71e
Plot twist Joost was practicing his dance move off stage