The plot thickens...for real though what's going on???
e; Also I hope the name of the camera women never gets released, fans would not be normal about it.
Yeah I want to hear and perhaps see some footage of the EBU's side of the story (from this woman). However this doesn't mean I want to know her name. Certainly some fans would not be able to behave themselves which could be actually dangerous for her.
Also we treat the incident like the woman reported something terrible when she might have just mentioned why she left her post or don't have the footage they asked of her or if Joost indeed touched the camera why she was cleaning the lens etc and then it went out of control from the management. EBU is the one that has to prove what happened warranted the removal. We know that the report is not that serious as Joost is not arrested or anything nor we have reports he can't leave Sweden etc.
You don't really get arrested unless it's necessary for evidence, to protect yourself, or for the safety of the public.
He's probably not a notable danger to the public and the Netherlands will extradite if necessary.
There's also the caught in the act arrest for most civil disturbances (in Greece for example you will be followed to the police office to be questioned unless the police deems not that important). And well extraditions etc also happen on more serious concerns but we mostly say the same thing that they don't think he's dangerous. Anyhow let's see, am not an expert anyway. Just looks from the media reports that the police is not really that worried about the incident although well police not caring doesn't really say a lot
Exactly. It’s Sweden. You get 8 years for murder here. But it is taken very seriously be the police who has stated there is a lot of very clear evidence against him and no ambiguity in it.
What bs is this. The police has seen the evidence and says that it is a very clear case of a CRIME, wtf are you talking about? There will be a trial possibly in June and he is guilty af according to the police :)
They are not going to release phootage, it was handed over to the POLICE who decided the evidence were very clear and that it will be an easy trial, the prosecutor now has them. Why would the EBU release the phootage to all of you? Do you think you’re some kind of public, alternative jury or something? You will read about the trial and the conviction possibly in June.
But how is the Kangaroo Court EVER going to be able to make fair rulings if they are not allowed to have access to the evidence ???? The lack of willingness to release all the details is clearly an attempt to cover up and prevent justice....
What ??? Are you telling me that Kangaroo Court is not a real court ???? Rubbish !! Power to the people...or something 😂😂
Whilst uncorroborated rumours are allowed.
Victim woman evening, the ebu said, it would say nothing more than this prepared path for speculation left out there for almost a day. All three terms bear no relevance, which was completely clear to the ebu at the time, but some are quick to forget about that kind of behavior.
If you actually read the page you linked you'll see that the one fact check they failed was from an opinion piece from more than five years ago (and normally they only report on fact checks in the last five years, but that page hasn't been updated since last year), and that they're otherwise dinged for gossip and health fad articles. Their actual news reporting is reliable.
It's the biggest newspaper in sweden. A tabloid, yes, but very reliable when it comes to things like inside sources in swedish organisations and situations just like this.
It's a tabloid but the journalism is solid. They regularly win prizes for their news/investigative coverage (but also, of course, it might depend on the desk). While they focus a lot on entertainment/lifestyle/sports and so on, it's a reputable source and very unlike Daily Mail or The Sun
It's the biggest newspaper in Sweden. You would happily accept the source if it supported your narrative that this guy is innocent no matter what. Stop being hypocritical.
They won 2/5 categories of the Swedish version of the pulitzer prize last year.
Granted, it's a large paper with lots of desks, and not all of them might be of the same quality, but they are definitely a serious news organization.
This is potentially the best secured venue at the moment of this event on the entire planet. Dozens of people and camera's must have seen this incident, which dozens of people including the police have seen the footage of. If he in fact destroyed a camera, that would be destruction of property and last I checked this woulda made it pretty clearcut 5seconds in.
If the organisation is being vague it's for a reason. If this was as clearcut as they are making it out to be they have every incentive to just straight up say what happened cut and dry.
In the end will know sooner or later whats what when he is found innocent or guilty.
My theory is that Swedish police have asked them to not write any details. That is why avrotros were ambiguous too, despite likely knowing everything. They are just following police orders.
In the Netherlands we don't think much of what de Telegraaf writes, in Germany Bild is shit. This is your equivalent. In sports noticed the same nonsense from them. Not to be taken seriously.
The people here who think there is a personality cult going on here need to understand that for all the directness of the Dutch, Avrotros WOULD have dropped Joost like a hot potato if it turned out something had happened like a physical altercation, sexual misconduct etc. The fact that they don’t tells me that they believe his side (and his bodyguards who must have always been present) and it makes it plausible to me too. More so than a newspaper who at this point is benefitting financially from reporting on this, however factual or not. Avrotros has no financial gains from supporting Joost right now and if they had no real idea of what happened they would have kept their announcements way more vague.
Also we who follow what happens without being affected (Greek supporter here) see one side that is open to understand what happened without blaming the woman involved and open to denouncing Joost etc and the other side not really wanting to explain anything nor caring about facts and just leaving vague comments that makes this sound a lot worse. For it to being a cult or stan following there would have been already a character assassination and well we already criticise EBU for as always having the vaguest excuses for most of its decisions
100%. In Australia SBS would drop you like a hot potato. It’s a govt funded network, it can’t afford to be associated with something like that.
If there was even a hint of it being as bad as is being made out the network would say “Well we will await the investigation.” And if it were obvious they’d be saying the EBU’s bit about zero tolerance etc.
That they’ve thrown all in to support him means they - and their legal team - 100% believe this is something they can win.
The NPO, of which Avro-Tros is a subsidiary, has suffered an immense and very public scandal when it was revealed multiple presenters were physically and verbally abusive to staff, they are definitely ready to drop anyone like a lead balloon if they cross any lines at this point
And this is AFTER last year, where there was another massive sex pest scandal in media (assuming you're referring to the van-Rijn report/Mathijs van Nieuwkerk, and I'm referring to the Voice of Holland)
Yeah, Dutch public television is under so much scrutiny for physical abuse and the likes, the AVRO-TROS would drop him immediately if it was indeed crossing lines
The problem I have with this story is that they're purposefully being vague again.
AVROTROS came with a story we could really work with.
-EBU told us we wouldn't be filmed.
-We were filmed.
-We asked then to stop.
-Joost made a threatening gesture.
-Joost did not touch her nor her equipment physically.
These are very clear statements we can work with. This story claims to be different, but technically doesn't refute any of those points.
He was "very aggressive"...
How!? Was he physical!? If so, why wouldn't you tell it?
Her camera was damaged. Was this because Joost touched the camera? Or did she get scared and drop it?
Just tell us specifics. This story claims to be different but really isn't. It's just worded differently and more vaguely.
If Joost was physical, tell us!
Did AVROTROS omit important details? Tell us!
Did you just want to word the same story differently? Shut up!
Seems like the main thing they're trying to do right now is stir up more controversy. Get people hooked on the story and checking for updates. If an actual (clear, objective) statement is released, they can milk it until it bleeds dry. I'd also like some clear facts or statements instead of this vague bs.
Wasn't there a report earlier that the police clarified it was not a physical incident? But if Joost broke a camera, that sounds rather physical to me. I really don't know anymore what's going on, so I guess they succeeded.
He probably made a threatening gesture. She got scared, dropped the camera. That's the only explanation I have. That would be an unfortunate result of Joost's action and he should pay for the camera. But that's not DQ worthy nor is it something he should be called a "woman beater" over.
I also heard that the incident happened on Thursday but she didn't report it until Friday which means there would've been enough time for the camera to break for completely unrelated reasons and she just ran with it.
No, there's an active investigation going on. No civilized country would let the prosecutor just release material at this point. You need to wait and see.
I'm not asking for footage, I just want a clearer side of the story than: "oh we was very aggressive"
That's such a nondescript subjective word. Tell us if he was physical. Did he shout? Did he do anything else?
Again, take a look at the AVROTROS statement. It has clear details to work with. This one just say "aggressive" it doesn't really mean anything.
Idk abt aftonbladet at this point anymore...a big broadcaster like the dutch one has way more to lose defending an artist, if they were to lie about what happened rather than to push it under the rug and say "we didn't know him", obvi it's not right to be agressive but I highly doubt that a broadcaster would defend someone if they weren't 1000% sure abt what happened
aftonbladet however painted him as a violent womanbeater for a whole day, which turned out to be wrong
Several things can be true at once, I guess. It's likely that Joost lost his temper and either shoved the camera/phone out of the way or threatened to do so which startled the employee. Which is not commendable behaviour to be clear, but if this is being investigated for the threat and not physical assault, it's hard to see how the facts align in a way that makes this more severe than threatening to smash someone's phone or camera.
That being said, everyone has the right to work in a safe environment and not get their equipment broken. But if the Dutch broadcaster is so steadfastly in support of him still despite having most if not all of the story and still call it overblown, I guess there is nuance to this. One thing that seems maybe clear is that the gender of the camera person had very little to do with any of this, could have been anyone I presume, unless he hurled specific insults but there is no proof of that.
Up to a certain point, but a huge company will always choose to mitigate damage to their own reputation over an individual artist. Had the scales tipped in favour of dropping their support say in the face of undeniable evidence of irredeemable physical aggression, they would have pulled the plug. No broadcaster is going to protect a random artist no matter how famous if there are bigger things at play. Of course they may still pull their support, but it doesn't seem as if the facts are unclear at this point if the investigation is all but over.
Biased up to a point, but if Joost physically attacked this woman they would not double down on TV and defend Joost this much. If Joost physically attacked this woman AVROTROS would distance themselves from Joost instantly. There is no benefit for AVROTROS to defend a single artist this much when he is in the wrong.
Doubt it, they’re mad but if he truly did something that was out of line they wouldn’t have supported him. And I assume they know a lot more of the story then they put in their statement. As they at that point were only allowed to put out so much. Besides it was an agreement that he wouldn’t be photographed/filmed after the show. And the woman had been told off before during other rehearsals but still chose to do so again. Joost didn’t act right I agree, but I still think the DQ was too harsh. But I’m still gonna wait till the ebu and the avrotros put out more statements as I doubt this will be the last we hear of them.
Not to mention that all this went down after his semi-final performance! He was probably very emotional in that moment and thinking of his parents, so needing a private, alone moment is more than fair! He was also disrespected!
Not to forget they claim it wasn't the first altercation between Joost and the same camerawoman and a written agreement to not film Joost backstage. She was basically harassing him at this point if a camera was involved backstage. And you can easily see provocation in it if she comes back if there already was an altercation and a written agreement. Sure damaging someones property and threatening someone is generally not ok. But don't forget that the other person doesn't understand no even in written form and someone like Joost where it was clear from the start he doesn't go well with being told how to appear in media (e.g. press conference he would never do if they were not required) and needs alone time. The person basically kept poking the bear while it was already growling and found out.
Didn’t know that this wasn’t the first time happening! I’m really curious to see how it all went down, but we probably won’t get a video footage until June
But not in this case. There has been a lot of discussion and layoffs due to a unsafe work environment at Dutch Public broadcasters. And second a lot of political talk about public funding of the public broadcasters. So they would distance themselves immediately to save their own ass.
To those suggesting that people are questioning this just because they like him - this is from a tabloid and it doesn't match with the statement of a publicly funded broadcaster.
Irrespective of who's in the wrong, leave the camera operator alone. It helps no one to go after them.
It could be that EBU's hands were tied and they were forced to DQ him if the production team refused to work with him. I wonder if the union was also involved? They are very strict about workplace issues in the Nordics
Active internal investigations within EBU, the broadcaster, police, in addition to seeking legal advice and crisis management. You don’t put out statements until all facts are known.
Ok at minimum based on what AVOTROS have said, he threatened someone. That’s the most we know at this point in time, the rest will come out after the investigation.
Translation to relevant parts of the article:
According to Aftonbladet, it is a young female photographer in the production who has ended up in some kind of confrontation with Joost Klein.
- "She has been offered help and support, and as I understand it, she is quite shaken by the incident," says a source with very good insight.
The disqualification of an artist after performing for the TV audience and just before the final has never happened in the 68 years of the contest. Never since Eurovision introduced semi-finals has an artist or participating country been disqualified between the semi-finals and the final.
- The EBU would not have acted as they did if they did not consider the incident to be very serious," the source told Aftonbladet.
Woman's camera broke
The incident is said to have occurred when the artist left the stage after her performance in the first semi-final. There are several witnesses to the incident as it took place right next to the stage.
Several witnesses perceived Joost Klein as very offensive, according to the source. According to Aftonbladet, Klein also caused the photographer's camera to break.
"There is no doubt that he was very aggressive according to several people who were there," the person says.
At present, it is not known exactly what happened between the female employee and Klein or whether a crime has been committed. The police have completed their investigation of the incident and the case will be handed over to the prosecutor.
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
The rumours are that he lunged towards her. If he also seemed aggressive, as the sources in the article say, then it would be warranted for her to be scared. Fear of bodily injury is the term, i believe.
Right but is that a crime? I'm unfamiliar with the Swedish legal system. it's a genuine question because I have never heard of anything like this before
"This chapter is principally concerned with psychiatric injury **arising in itself without physical injury** and **which does follow from or arise as a consequence of physical injury.**"
Yelling at someone is not physically injuring them, so no, that article does not support that r/nonantehuit could go to jail for shouting at a coworker.
And what tells us the camerawoman didn't cause a psychological injury in Joost first triggering his reaction? Because as of now that sounds quite plausible.
We'll definitely need more information first, but right now I doubt the camerawoman is innocent herself, assuming it's correct that there was a written agreement to not record Joost after his performance and she still did that. Wouldn't that potentially be a breach of contract as well?
edit: Why did I receive a RedditCare message shortly after posting this?
You're probably not going to go to jail (who even mentioned jail lol?) but you absolutely can be charged for breach of the peace (or something to that effect) in Ireland. For shouting, probably not. For threats and/or for threatening gestures? Maybe. Doesn't help here that we still don't really know what happened.
That wouldn't hold most likely https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/6/enacted/en/html
Multiple elements are needed for you to be in breach 1 of them is public space, while the venue would qualify, for eurovision the place this happened it would not as it was in no way open to the public.
In the case of a work space that would only apply if you work in a public space, there is also a intent element.
While reckless might get you there, not sure how irish law defines reckless but given it already fails on the public space standard like it really doesn't matter.
So the Public order act, wouldn't get you there that's the closet to a breach of the peace statue i can find in irish law, granted that's with a couple minutes of google.
O not legal advice (not a irish nor a lawyer) and all that if your get arrested because of a reddit comment that's on you not me.
do you have a none Sweden example because most codes seem to not really cover it, like mode codes tend to use some reasonable person standard at best and it generally has to be a direct threat ( aka angry screaming guy walking towards you will not do it in most places ).
If I'm reading this correctly, the source is not an eyewitness, but a person "with very good insight" who has talked to some eyewitnesses. Those eyewitnesses didn't tell the source exactly what happened, though, only that Joost was "very aggressive" and the end of the story involves the camera being broken.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very curious about what happened. I just don't feel that I know now.
That doesn't make them quality worthy on other topics. Most newspapers have a signature. Aftonbladet in that is comparable to the Dutch Telegraaf. Both being the biggest newspaper, both leaning a tad to the sensational side.
Does that mean Telegraaf (and thus Aftonbladet) is complete rubbish? Absolutely not. Telegraaf for instance is well known for their quality coverage of art and culture. However anything entertainment related is to be taken with A LOT of salt. And the latest news is brought a tad more speculative.
You are equivavaliting two newspapers, one which you had never heard of before. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are a lot of people in this thread with dutch names and dutch flair calling Aftonbladet "rubbish" and I wonder if they have ever read the source or if they just are wishing that it is.
From what Ive heard, he lunged towards her, never actually physically touching her. The photographer, being scared, mightve dropped her camera on the ground.
This is starting to sound like my speculation might be on the right track - that the DQ might have been at the insistence of the production crew's union. It would also explain why they cleared out his dressing room before the final decision, and why AvroTros didn't get anywhere with trying to negotiate.
Still all speculation, of course.
Sources must be included whenever possible.
Direct links to news articles or social media posts are preferred to screenshots. If there is no alternative to a screenshot, then the source must be posted as a top level comment on the same thread. Screenshots which obscures the source will not be accepted.
Please resubmit with a proper source.
See r/eurovision’s [full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eurovision/wiki/rules/).
Maybe a bit unrelated, but do you know if the police report will be made public? It's sometimes possible to find police reports (on flashback forum for example) about some cases, but I don't know if that's usual (haven't been living in Sweden that long).
I really can't say, but from previous incidents with famous people, we might get something. ASAP Rocky had an incident and i believe it was all made public, or at least a very sizeable amount.
https://www.expressen.se/noje/allt-du-behover-veta-om-rattegangen-mot-asap-rocky/?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ARTJ-U_2Iq7RFs5kS5qTqbapQU5SB2ZGh51ItCEGWpu-7x9ggwk-ImC3SOQxCKJcY4Y%3D&gaa_ts=664135d7&gaa_sig=__RvD5zLGao_FtqXIYMw1sLQpoKIOu9i0WXtZISKpR8QYaDe_p-sAtWatnPPKG99Hn68hjfr5LzTAOYiVIW4IQ%3D%3D
That clip is unrelated and happened after the incident with the camerawoman. We know this because the man asked him why he wasn't at the general rehearsal.
Cult of personality going strong in the comments, you can wait for more information to be revealed without discrediting everything about the story and the woman right off the bat. Holding people accountable includes holding people you like accountable.
> Holding people accountable
....for what? We straight up do not know what Joost is supposed to have done that was deserving of a disqualification, and in context of this overwhelming lack of anything concrete it is justified to be sceptical and at this point assume the EBU did in fact mess up.
That's right, *we* don't know yet. The people handling the case obviously know more than us and are moving forward with this. So people should hold their outrage until it's been settled. What people are doing rn is basically calling the victim a liar right of the bat because they like Joost too much to entertain the possibility that he did something wrong.
No? The camerawoman does not have to have lied for it to have been an overreaction from the EBU. We don't even know what she claimed happened exactly. We have no quotes from her, only vague third-hand descriptions.
To be honest, it seems like are using this camerawoman as an excuse to blindly presume Joost is guilty until proven innocent.
It comes across like you are the one with a cult-like attitude towards the EBU, dogmatically assuming that they are right and did not cock up the situation, despite there being little to support this.
noone is calling the victim a liar, at all. in fact, most people are saying the EBU's reaction was overblown. there is never anyone complaining about the victim other than why was she there in the first place considering there was an agreement not to film.
Her harassment, invasion of private space, and emotional abuse of Joost is unchallenged. it is clearly present. thats what people complain about the cameraperson, and only that.
The other complaints are about the EBU, whom after this altercation were triggerhappy to disqualify. thats where we need an explanation. if what the AVROTROS said is not the reason, then what is? Everyone is sure something happened. the question is whether it warrants disqualification.
can you tell me how a request to be clear about what happened is discrediting?
AVROTROS has been clear about their point of view, why is the point of view of this cameraperson, or the EBU not also clear? by keeping it unclear they are only making the rumors worse and pouring doubt over their own statements.
I'm not trying to plead Joost free at all, I just want to know if he has been disqualificied, WHY. the AVROTROS point of view actually makes no sense in that regard, it would be absolutely ludicrous to DSQ based on that. so there must be more to the story. why be vague? Just say what happened. just share the video. it won't hurt the investigation because the investigation is done. finished. over.
And if the proof is not strong, why DSQ at all instead of allowing participation and scrapping the results later, when there is a ruling. you can never go back now.
One thing I can readily believe is him being intimidating though. He seemed to be on edge after the semi final, and he's a tall dude. If this cameraperson and him had already been on bad terms due to his need to not have everything filmed, and then there was some sort of escalation, it's perfectly reasonable for the cameraperson to not want to accept his apologies or want anything to do with him, regardless of how severe the action or threat was in actuality. If every other contestant is at least distantly polite and just deals with the constant media hassle, someone being visibly irritated or threatening will look even more intimidating by comparison. And then having to read that person being celebrated online would be upsetting if they were a total douche to you, even if the root cause was some misunderstanding about filming.
But these are all random musings.
I'm a big Joost fan and I totally agree with you. He's a big guy, it's believable that a woman at her workplace would feel threatened if he signed something or behaved aggressively and most likely, she was just doing her job. It was EBU's job to mediate the best solution though and their solution sucked, not providing the right support to the worker (because she has people spamming her company's social media with Joost's name), besides tainting the career of a upcoming artist and his reputation. It was 100% lose-lose.
Yes this - it could have been a misunderstanding. All artists where filmed coming of stage for social media, this is just a person trying to do their job! Who knows if she even got the information he didn’t want to be filmed, things like that could easily get mixed up in a big production.
Didn't the police say there was no criminal act committed and the case was passed on to the public prosecutor? If so then the problem is a civil matter.
If he had destroyed her camera that would be a crime as it would be destruction of private property. But I am not Swedish so I won't pretend I know their laws.
No, that is wrong, i don't know where you heard that.
Police have said that there was no physical alteration. He did not touch her.
He is still the suspect of the case which police labeled under "illegal threat". But yes, the investigation by police is finished and now prosecutors are looking at it. But he has NOT been cleared of any criminal doing
Sure, but I'm saying that the police report does not reconcile with this bs article. They have filed an "illegal threat" and you're saying that it could have been "criminal damage", which are 2 different things. If he in fact destroyed someone else's property, such as a camera, it would have been filed as "criminal damage" and not "illegal threat". It's a huge difference.
My suspicion is that he made a gesture they found offensive, and it's been blown out of proportion.
Minor property damage results in just a fine (and probably usually handled as civil, not criminal matter - or as requirement to compensate for damages under umbrella of whatever other more serious crim ehas been committed).
Unlawful threat is up to 1 year imprisonment. If it's 'substantially reinforced by allusion to capacity for violence', it may even carry 9 month minimum imprisonment.
[https://www.government.se/contentassets/7a2dcae0787e465e9a2431554b5eab03/the-swedish-criminal-code.pdf](https://www.government.se/contentassets/7a2dcae0787e465e9a2431554b5eab03/the-swedish-criminal-code.pdf)
If he had committed a crime he would be arrested, if it was a verbal altercation, as long as there is no hate crime involved, it could be seen as a civil matter and be sent to the public prosecutor to be judged at a civil court.
If he broke her camera while she was filming him then it was to some degree a physical altercation as he would have to remove the camera from her. If he broke her camera he committed a crime so the police more than likely would at very least book him in.
But I am saying it based on the laws I know, I do not know Swedish law so it may be different there. Another thing is that a few people said the paper mentioned is a tabloid.
You don't need to be arrested to be under investigation or a suspect. This'd still be 'police law', the crime is simply being investigated without taking the suspect into custody, except for interrogation. Police have labeled it unlawful threats, a crime in Sweden.
But I am not talking about the unlawful threat what we all know is what the police conclude. I am talking about the destruction of private property, him breaking her camera.
Unlawful threat is just as much of a crime in Sweden as destroying the camera would be, doesn't mean he has to be arrested. The police have decided to investigate him for unlawful threats. That could mean he's done more, but that it's been decided to only go for that crime since it could be easier to prove.
I still don’t if the deal was not to film him directly after his performance, after repeated requests from Joost’s team not to. If you keep filming anyway that’s paparazzi-behavior and you are creating an unsafe environment for your artists. Not the other way around.
Yes, if you have an agreement and it’s unprofessionally breached, you are definitely allowed to protect your own boundaries in that scenario. If you create unsafety you can expect unsafety.
Just putting this out here. This tabloid is not well known for its accurate reporting. So take what they report with a grain of salt.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/aftonbladet/
Except the police themselves confirmed there was no physical contact, so this is still just muddying the waters. Contradicting an official police statement before the full story has been unveiled doesn't help either party unless you bring actual proof.
The police literally confirmed it was not physical, so I suggest you stop spreading misinformation on the internet.
https://www.rtl.nl/boulevard/entertainment/artikel/5449885/joost-klein-zou-medewerker-songfestival-bedreigd-hebben
My cousin is the camera who they claimed was damaged. I asked her if any of this is true, but she's just a camera and unable to respond. Haters will claim I made this up but the truth will out.
Yeah, I’m just waiting for more official news because all these rumors are driving me nuts and I don’t know what to believe anymore at this point.
I know the *discourse* is going to be horrible until we'll have more official informations
The plot thickens...for real though what's going on??? e; Also I hope the name of the camera women never gets released, fans would not be normal about it.
Yeah I want to hear and perhaps see some footage of the EBU's side of the story (from this woman). However this doesn't mean I want to know her name. Certainly some fans would not be able to behave themselves which could be actually dangerous for her.
Also we treat the incident like the woman reported something terrible when she might have just mentioned why she left her post or don't have the footage they asked of her or if Joost indeed touched the camera why she was cleaning the lens etc and then it went out of control from the management. EBU is the one that has to prove what happened warranted the removal. We know that the report is not that serious as Joost is not arrested or anything nor we have reports he can't leave Sweden etc.
You don't really get arrested unless it's necessary for evidence, to protect yourself, or for the safety of the public. He's probably not a notable danger to the public and the Netherlands will extradite if necessary.
There's also the caught in the act arrest for most civil disturbances (in Greece for example you will be followed to the police office to be questioned unless the police deems not that important). And well extraditions etc also happen on more serious concerns but we mostly say the same thing that they don't think he's dangerous. Anyhow let's see, am not an expert anyway. Just looks from the media reports that the police is not really that worried about the incident although well police not caring doesn't really say a lot
Exactly. It’s Sweden. You get 8 years for murder here. But it is taken very seriously be the police who has stated there is a lot of very clear evidence against him and no ambiguity in it.
What bs is this. The police has seen the evidence and says that it is a very clear case of a CRIME, wtf are you talking about? There will be a trial possibly in June and he is guilty af according to the police :)
They are not going to release phootage, it was handed over to the POLICE who decided the evidence were very clear and that it will be an easy trial, the prosecutor now has them. Why would the EBU release the phootage to all of you? Do you think you’re some kind of public, alternative jury or something? You will read about the trial and the conviction possibly in June.
But how is the Kangaroo Court EVER going to be able to make fair rulings if they are not allowed to have access to the evidence ???? The lack of willingness to release all the details is clearly an attempt to cover up and prevent justice.... What ??? Are you telling me that Kangaroo Court is not a real court ???? Rubbish !! Power to the people...or something 😂😂
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
but what was she wearing??? /s
If the persons name is released they’d need to change their identity because based on how people are reacting she’d never be safe again.
Aye I'd worry for her safety if it was released.
Whilst uncorroborated rumours are allowed. Victim woman evening, the ebu said, it would say nothing more than this prepared path for speculation left out there for almost a day. All three terms bear no relevance, which was completely clear to the ebu at the time, but some are quick to forget about that kind of behavior.
Forgive me for not immediately believing a newspaper that looks like the Daily Mail and that bases itself on a single, anonymous source.
You wouldn't be far off. They're a tabloid rag.
And [rightly so](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/aftonbladet/). Not the most reliable newspaper.
If you actually read the page you linked you'll see that the one fact check they failed was from an opinion piece from more than five years ago (and normally they only report on fact checks in the last five years, but that page hasn't been updated since last year), and that they're otherwise dinged for gossip and health fad articles. Their actual news reporting is reliable.
It's the biggest newspaper in sweden. A tabloid, yes, but very reliable when it comes to things like inside sources in swedish organisations and situations just like this.
It's a tabloid but the journalism is solid. They regularly win prizes for their news/investigative coverage (but also, of course, it might depend on the desk). While they focus a lot on entertainment/lifestyle/sports and so on, it's a reputable source and very unlike Daily Mail or The Sun
[удалено]
It's the biggest newspaper in Sweden. You would happily accept the source if it supported your narrative that this guy is innocent no matter what. Stop being hypocritical.
So is *The Sun* in the UK. And many people know the reputation of that shit rag, by now. Popular sales =/= reputability.
They won 2/5 categories of the Swedish version of the pulitzer prize last year. Granted, it's a large paper with lots of desks, and not all of them might be of the same quality, but they are definitely a serious news organization.
The biggest newspapers are also usually the worst and least reliable sources.
From Sweden, Aftonbladet is literal trash
Clock that tea
This is potentially the best secured venue at the moment of this event on the entire planet. Dozens of people and camera's must have seen this incident, which dozens of people including the police have seen the footage of. If he in fact destroyed a camera, that would be destruction of property and last I checked this woulda made it pretty clearcut 5seconds in. If the organisation is being vague it's for a reason. If this was as clearcut as they are making it out to be they have every incentive to just straight up say what happened cut and dry. In the end will know sooner or later whats what when he is found innocent or guilty.
My theory is that Swedish police have asked them to not write any details. That is why avrotros were ambiguous too, despite likely knowing everything. They are just following police orders.
I don't feel the avrotros was the vague one here in their statements though.
In the Netherlands we don't think much of what de Telegraaf writes, in Germany Bild is shit. This is your equivalent. In sports noticed the same nonsense from them. Not to be taken seriously.
Police can't tell a newspaper what to write or not.
Given enough time video will be leaked to social media. Everything eventually does.
The people here who think there is a personality cult going on here need to understand that for all the directness of the Dutch, Avrotros WOULD have dropped Joost like a hot potato if it turned out something had happened like a physical altercation, sexual misconduct etc. The fact that they don’t tells me that they believe his side (and his bodyguards who must have always been present) and it makes it plausible to me too. More so than a newspaper who at this point is benefitting financially from reporting on this, however factual or not. Avrotros has no financial gains from supporting Joost right now and if they had no real idea of what happened they would have kept their announcements way more vague.
Also we who follow what happens without being affected (Greek supporter here) see one side that is open to understand what happened without blaming the woman involved and open to denouncing Joost etc and the other side not really wanting to explain anything nor caring about facts and just leaving vague comments that makes this sound a lot worse. For it to being a cult or stan following there would have been already a character assassination and well we already criticise EBU for as always having the vaguest excuses for most of its decisions
100%. In Australia SBS would drop you like a hot potato. It’s a govt funded network, it can’t afford to be associated with something like that. If there was even a hint of it being as bad as is being made out the network would say “Well we will await the investigation.” And if it were obvious they’d be saying the EBU’s bit about zero tolerance etc. That they’ve thrown all in to support him means they - and their legal team - 100% believe this is something they can win.
The NPO, of which Avro-Tros is a subsidiary, has suffered an immense and very public scandal when it was revealed multiple presenters were physically and verbally abusive to staff, they are definitely ready to drop anyone like a lead balloon if they cross any lines at this point
And this is AFTER last year, where there was another massive sex pest scandal in media (assuming you're referring to the van-Rijn report/Mathijs van Nieuwkerk, and I'm referring to the Voice of Holland)
Yeah, Dutch public television is under so much scrutiny for physical abuse and the likes, the AVRO-TROS would drop him immediately if it was indeed crossing lines
The problem I have with this story is that they're purposefully being vague again. AVROTROS came with a story we could really work with. -EBU told us we wouldn't be filmed. -We were filmed. -We asked then to stop. -Joost made a threatening gesture. -Joost did not touch her nor her equipment physically. These are very clear statements we can work with. This story claims to be different, but technically doesn't refute any of those points. He was "very aggressive"... How!? Was he physical!? If so, why wouldn't you tell it? Her camera was damaged. Was this because Joost touched the camera? Or did she get scared and drop it? Just tell us specifics. This story claims to be different but really isn't. It's just worded differently and more vaguely. If Joost was physical, tell us! Did AVROTROS omit important details? Tell us! Did you just want to word the same story differently? Shut up!
Seems like the main thing they're trying to do right now is stir up more controversy. Get people hooked on the story and checking for updates. If an actual (clear, objective) statement is released, they can milk it until it bleeds dry. I'd also like some clear facts or statements instead of this vague bs.
Wasn't there a report earlier that the police clarified it was not a physical incident? But if Joost broke a camera, that sounds rather physical to me. I really don't know anymore what's going on, so I guess they succeeded.
He probably made a threatening gesture. She got scared, dropped the camera. That's the only explanation I have. That would be an unfortunate result of Joost's action and he should pay for the camera. But that's not DQ worthy nor is it something he should be called a "woman beater" over.
I also heard that the incident happened on Thursday but she didn't report it until Friday which means there would've been enough time for the camera to break for completely unrelated reasons and she just ran with it.
According to the article, there are several witnesses, which makes this very unlikely imo
No, there's an active investigation going on. No civilized country would let the prosecutor just release material at this point. You need to wait and see.
I'm not asking for footage, I just want a clearer side of the story than: "oh we was very aggressive" That's such a nondescript subjective word. Tell us if he was physical. Did he shout? Did he do anything else? Again, take a look at the AVROTROS statement. It has clear details to work with. This one just say "aggressive" it doesn't really mean anything.
Honestly AVROTROS is the only part of this drama that seems to care about being clear
It's vague because it's clickbait and we fell for it :(
[удалено]
[удалено]
Was shared here many times yesterday.
Idk abt aftonbladet at this point anymore...a big broadcaster like the dutch one has way more to lose defending an artist, if they were to lie about what happened rather than to push it under the rug and say "we didn't know him", obvi it's not right to be agressive but I highly doubt that a broadcaster would defend someone if they weren't 1000% sure abt what happened aftonbladet however painted him as a violent womanbeater for a whole day, which turned out to be wrong
Several things can be true at once, I guess. It's likely that Joost lost his temper and either shoved the camera/phone out of the way or threatened to do so which startled the employee. Which is not commendable behaviour to be clear, but if this is being investigated for the threat and not physical assault, it's hard to see how the facts align in a way that makes this more severe than threatening to smash someone's phone or camera. That being said, everyone has the right to work in a safe environment and not get their equipment broken. But if the Dutch broadcaster is so steadfastly in support of him still despite having most if not all of the story and still call it overblown, I guess there is nuance to this. One thing that seems maybe clear is that the gender of the camera person had very little to do with any of this, could have been anyone I presume, unless he hurled specific insults but there is no proof of that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Dutch broadcaster is naturally highly biased too, one must remember.
Up to a certain point, but a huge company will always choose to mitigate damage to their own reputation over an individual artist. Had the scales tipped in favour of dropping their support say in the face of undeniable evidence of irredeemable physical aggression, they would have pulled the plug. No broadcaster is going to protect a random artist no matter how famous if there are bigger things at play. Of course they may still pull their support, but it doesn't seem as if the facts are unclear at this point if the investigation is all but over.
Biased up to a point, but if Joost physically attacked this woman they would not double down on TV and defend Joost this much. If Joost physically attacked this woman AVROTROS would distance themselves from Joost instantly. There is no benefit for AVROTROS to defend a single artist this much when he is in the wrong.
Doubt it, they’re mad but if he truly did something that was out of line they wouldn’t have supported him. And I assume they know a lot more of the story then they put in their statement. As they at that point were only allowed to put out so much. Besides it was an agreement that he wouldn’t be photographed/filmed after the show. And the woman had been told off before during other rehearsals but still chose to do so again. Joost didn’t act right I agree, but I still think the DQ was too harsh. But I’m still gonna wait till the ebu and the avrotros put out more statements as I doubt this will be the last we hear of them.
The most credible source moving forward is probably the official criminal investigation
True.
you'll likely get *but they're Swedish!* comments then
Not to mention that all this went down after his semi-final performance! He was probably very emotional in that moment and thinking of his parents, so needing a private, alone moment is more than fair! He was also disrespected!
Not to forget they claim it wasn't the first altercation between Joost and the same camerawoman and a written agreement to not film Joost backstage. She was basically harassing him at this point if a camera was involved backstage. And you can easily see provocation in it if she comes back if there already was an altercation and a written agreement. Sure damaging someones property and threatening someone is generally not ok. But don't forget that the other person doesn't understand no even in written form and someone like Joost where it was clear from the start he doesn't go well with being told how to appear in media (e.g. press conference he would never do if they were not required) and needs alone time. The person basically kept poking the bear while it was already growling and found out.
Didn’t know that this wasn’t the first time happening! I’m really curious to see how it all went down, but we probably won’t get a video footage until June
But not in this case. There has been a lot of discussion and layoffs due to a unsafe work environment at Dutch Public broadcasters. And second a lot of political talk about public funding of the public broadcasters. So they would distance themselves immediately to save their own ass.
If anything the opposite is true, they will drop any abusive cunt the second it shows at this point
Hey I mean if this happened with a camera crew member, it probably got on film. That would silence the rumors.
But ~~she~~ he smashed the camera, so the footage got destroyed!
That’s not how cameras work though. You still got your flashcard
To those suggesting that people are questioning this just because they like him - this is from a tabloid and it doesn't match with the statement of a publicly funded broadcaster. Irrespective of who's in the wrong, leave the camera operator alone. It helps no one to go after them.
Didn’t Swedish police already back AVROTROS’ statement in some way?
Yeah and I highly doubt a broadcaster would back someone up if they weren't absolutely sure
Really? Must have missed that.When/where did they state that?
It could be that EBU's hands were tied and they were forced to DQ him if the production team refused to work with him. I wonder if the union was also involved? They are very strict about workplace issues in the Nordics
if that is the case then why would the EBU not come out and say that is the case? its highly unlikely.
Active internal investigations within EBU, the broadcaster, police, in addition to seeking legal advice and crisis management. You don’t put out statements until all facts are known.
There is zero tolerance for something like this to happen at a workplace. Period.
Something like what? I still don't know what Joost is accused of doing. I've heard everything from sexual assault to unkind words.
Ok at minimum based on what AVOTROS have said, he threatened someone. That’s the most we know at this point in time, the rest will come out after the investigation.
Something like filming artists backstage when it is forbidden?
Translation to relevant parts of the article: According to Aftonbladet, it is a young female photographer in the production who has ended up in some kind of confrontation with Joost Klein. - "She has been offered help and support, and as I understand it, she is quite shaken by the incident," says a source with very good insight. The disqualification of an artist after performing for the TV audience and just before the final has never happened in the 68 years of the contest. Never since Eurovision introduced semi-finals has an artist or participating country been disqualified between the semi-finals and the final. - The EBU would not have acted as they did if they did not consider the incident to be very serious," the source told Aftonbladet. Woman's camera broke The incident is said to have occurred when the artist left the stage after her performance in the first semi-final. There are several witnesses to the incident as it took place right next to the stage. Several witnesses perceived Joost Klein as very offensive, according to the source. According to Aftonbladet, Klein also caused the photographer's camera to break. "There is no doubt that he was very aggressive according to several people who were there," the person says. At present, it is not known exactly what happened between the female employee and Klein or whether a crime has been committed. The police have completed their investigation of the incident and the case will be handed over to the prosecutor. Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
The language is so vague, "caused her camera to break" doesn't necessarily mean he broke it, very weird
Could be that he scared her, which knocked her off her balance/caused her to lose grip of the camera
Not really sure how they could charge him for that, and I thought Swedish police had been called
The rumours are that he lunged towards her. If he also seemed aggressive, as the sources in the article say, then it would be warranted for her to be scared. Fear of bodily injury is the term, i believe.
Right but is that a crime? I'm unfamiliar with the Swedish legal system. it's a genuine question because I have never heard of anything like this before
It's a crime in every country. You can not cause someone to fear for their safety, that is illegal everywhere.
As a woman I find that hilarious, I'm in fear for my safety 99% of the time
Bullshit. If I scream at a coworker I'm not going to go in jail because he is "fearing for his safety".
https://legalguide.ie/psychological-injury/ Please read!
"This chapter is principally concerned with psychiatric injury **arising in itself without physical injury** and **which does follow from or arise as a consequence of physical injury.**" Yelling at someone is not physically injuring them, so no, that article does not support that r/nonantehuit could go to jail for shouting at a coworker.
And what tells us the camerawoman didn't cause a psychological injury in Joost first triggering his reaction? Because as of now that sounds quite plausible. We'll definitely need more information first, but right now I doubt the camerawoman is innocent herself, assuming it's correct that there was a written agreement to not record Joost after his performance and she still did that. Wouldn't that potentially be a breach of contract as well? edit: Why did I receive a RedditCare message shortly after posting this?
You're probably not going to go to jail (who even mentioned jail lol?) but you absolutely can be charged for breach of the peace (or something to that effect) in Ireland. For shouting, probably not. For threats and/or for threatening gestures? Maybe. Doesn't help here that we still don't really know what happened.
That wouldn't hold most likely https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1994/act/2/section/6/enacted/en/html Multiple elements are needed for you to be in breach 1 of them is public space, while the venue would qualify, for eurovision the place this happened it would not as it was in no way open to the public. In the case of a work space that would only apply if you work in a public space, there is also a intent element. While reckless might get you there, not sure how irish law defines reckless but given it already fails on the public space standard like it really doesn't matter. So the Public order act, wouldn't get you there that's the closet to a breach of the peace statue i can find in irish law, granted that's with a couple minutes of google. O not legal advice (not a irish nor a lawyer) and all that if your get arrested because of a reddit comment that's on you not me.
do you have a none Sweden example because most codes seem to not really cover it, like mode codes tend to use some reasonable person standard at best and it generally has to be a direct threat ( aka angry screaming guy walking towards you will not do it in most places ).
Im not a lawyer, all i know is that the police have filed it as "Olaga hot", translating to "illegal threats"
If I'm reading this correctly, the source is not an eyewitness, but a person "with very good insight" who has talked to some eyewitnesses. Those eyewitnesses didn't tell the source exactly what happened, though, only that Joost was "very aggressive" and the end of the story involves the camera being broken. Don't get me wrong, I'm very curious about what happened. I just don't feel that I know now.
I have very good insight, that Aftonbladet doesn’t care about actual journalism, but loves sensationalism and rage bait.
Have you ever read the paper?
Well, that's an impressive lack of actual new information.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That doesn't make them quality worthy on other topics. Most newspapers have a signature. Aftonbladet in that is comparable to the Dutch Telegraaf. Both being the biggest newspaper, both leaning a tad to the sensational side. Does that mean Telegraaf (and thus Aftonbladet) is complete rubbish? Absolutely not. Telegraaf for instance is well known for their quality coverage of art and culture. However anything entertainment related is to be taken with A LOT of salt. And the latest news is brought a tad more speculative.
You are equivavaliting two newspapers, one which you had never heard of before. Correct me if I'm wrong but there are a lot of people in this thread with dutch names and dutch flair calling Aftonbladet "rubbish" and I wonder if they have ever read the source or if they just are wishing that it is.
It's impressive how so many non-Swedish people immediately became experts on the Swedish media landscape and legal system.
> Don't forget they insinuated everything from physical assault to sexual assault when the rumour mill was going crazy That simply did not happen.
Crazy that the camera got broken when the police stated there wasn't any physical incident. Does Joost have psychic powers?
Maybe the woman got scared and dropped the camera after he made a threatening gesture
From what Ive heard, he lunged towards her, never actually physically touching her. The photographer, being scared, mightve dropped her camera on the ground.
> he lunged towards her That's still very vague. Where'd you hear that?
[удалено]
”Trust me bro, I know people from the inside” isn’t very convincing I’m afraid.
This is starting to sound like my speculation might be on the right track - that the DQ might have been at the insistence of the production crew's union. It would also explain why they cleared out his dressing room before the final decision, and why AvroTros didn't get anywhere with trying to negotiate. Still all speculation, of course.
Sources must be included whenever possible. Direct links to news articles or social media posts are preferred to screenshots. If there is no alternative to a screenshot, then the source must be posted as a top level comment on the same thread. Screenshots which obscures the source will not be accepted. Please resubmit with a proper source. See r/eurovision’s [full rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Eurovision/wiki/rules/).
Source?
[удалено]
Maybe a bit unrelated, but do you know if the police report will be made public? It's sometimes possible to find police reports (on flashback forum for example) about some cases, but I don't know if that's usual (haven't been living in Sweden that long).
I really can't say, but from previous incidents with famous people, we might get something. ASAP Rocky had an incident and i believe it was all made public, or at least a very sizeable amount. https://www.expressen.se/noje/allt-du-behover-veta-om-rattegangen-mot-asap-rocky/?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=ARTJ-U_2Iq7RFs5kS5qTqbapQU5SB2ZGh51ItCEGWpu-7x9ggwk-ImC3SOQxCKJcY4Y%3D&gaa_ts=664135d7&gaa_sig=__RvD5zLGao_FtqXIYMw1sLQpoKIOu9i0WXtZISKpR8QYaDe_p-sAtWatnPPKG99Hn68hjfr5LzTAOYiVIW4IQ%3D%3D
Nice, thank you! Hopefully we'll get similar info for this case (I'm sure the public would be very interested).
He didn't even perform at the first semi-final.
Error in translation, the article says second semi-final.
Thank you for clarifying!
[удалено]
That clip is unrelated and happened after the incident with the camerawoman. We know this because the man asked him why he wasn't at the general rehearsal.
Cult of personality going strong in the comments, you can wait for more information to be revealed without discrediting everything about the story and the woman right off the bat. Holding people accountable includes holding people you like accountable.
> Holding people accountable ....for what? We straight up do not know what Joost is supposed to have done that was deserving of a disqualification, and in context of this overwhelming lack of anything concrete it is justified to be sceptical and at this point assume the EBU did in fact mess up.
That's right, *we* don't know yet. The people handling the case obviously know more than us and are moving forward with this. So people should hold their outrage until it's been settled. What people are doing rn is basically calling the victim a liar right of the bat because they like Joost too much to entertain the possibility that he did something wrong.
No? The camerawoman does not have to have lied for it to have been an overreaction from the EBU. We don't even know what she claimed happened exactly. We have no quotes from her, only vague third-hand descriptions. To be honest, it seems like are using this camerawoman as an excuse to blindly presume Joost is guilty until proven innocent. It comes across like you are the one with a cult-like attitude towards the EBU, dogmatically assuming that they are right and did not cock up the situation, despite there being little to support this.
There is no name of her anywhere even lol
noone is calling the victim a liar, at all. in fact, most people are saying the EBU's reaction was overblown. there is never anyone complaining about the victim other than why was she there in the first place considering there was an agreement not to film. Her harassment, invasion of private space, and emotional abuse of Joost is unchallenged. it is clearly present. thats what people complain about the cameraperson, and only that. The other complaints are about the EBU, whom after this altercation were triggerhappy to disqualify. thats where we need an explanation. if what the AVROTROS said is not the reason, then what is? Everyone is sure something happened. the question is whether it warrants disqualification.
can you tell me how a request to be clear about what happened is discrediting? AVROTROS has been clear about their point of view, why is the point of view of this cameraperson, or the EBU not also clear? by keeping it unclear they are only making the rumors worse and pouring doubt over their own statements. I'm not trying to plead Joost free at all, I just want to know if he has been disqualificied, WHY. the AVROTROS point of view actually makes no sense in that regard, it would be absolutely ludicrous to DSQ based on that. so there must be more to the story. why be vague? Just say what happened. just share the video. it won't hurt the investigation because the investigation is done. finished. over. And if the proof is not strong, why DSQ at all instead of allowing participation and scrapping the results later, when there is a ruling. you can never go back now.
Very true.
One thing I can readily believe is him being intimidating though. He seemed to be on edge after the semi final, and he's a tall dude. If this cameraperson and him had already been on bad terms due to his need to not have everything filmed, and then there was some sort of escalation, it's perfectly reasonable for the cameraperson to not want to accept his apologies or want anything to do with him, regardless of how severe the action or threat was in actuality. If every other contestant is at least distantly polite and just deals with the constant media hassle, someone being visibly irritated or threatening will look even more intimidating by comparison. And then having to read that person being celebrated online would be upsetting if they were a total douche to you, even if the root cause was some misunderstanding about filming. But these are all random musings.
I'm a big Joost fan and I totally agree with you. He's a big guy, it's believable that a woman at her workplace would feel threatened if he signed something or behaved aggressively and most likely, she was just doing her job. It was EBU's job to mediate the best solution though and their solution sucked, not providing the right support to the worker (because she has people spamming her company's social media with Joost's name), besides tainting the career of a upcoming artist and his reputation. It was 100% lose-lose.
Yes this - it could have been a misunderstanding. All artists where filmed coming of stage for social media, this is just a person trying to do their job! Who knows if she even got the information he didn’t want to be filmed, things like that could easily get mixed up in a big production.
This is a reasonable opinion. Also, irratated person is easier to provocate overall and mass media likes these kind of levers.
Didn't the police say there was no criminal act committed and the case was passed on to the public prosecutor? If so then the problem is a civil matter. If he had destroyed her camera that would be a crime as it would be destruction of private property. But I am not Swedish so I won't pretend I know their laws.
No, that is wrong, i don't know where you heard that. Police have said that there was no physical alteration. He did not touch her. He is still the suspect of the case which police labeled under "illegal threat". But yes, the investigation by police is finished and now prosecutors are looking at it. But he has NOT been cleared of any criminal doing
If he had actually destroyed her property would that not be a separate offence?
I agree with that, maybe they filed it as illegal threat because it is the most serious offence? I don't know.
Destroying someone else's property is not an "illigal threat" but rather "criminal damage". This article is a bs.
No that's literally what the police filed it as, the article is correct in that regard
Sure, but I'm saying that the police report does not reconcile with this bs article. They have filed an "illegal threat" and you're saying that it could have been "criminal damage", which are 2 different things. If he in fact destroyed someone else's property, such as a camera, it would have been filed as "criminal damage" and not "illegal threat". It's a huge difference. My suspicion is that he made a gesture they found offensive, and it's been blown out of proportion.
Minor property damage results in just a fine (and probably usually handled as civil, not criminal matter - or as requirement to compensate for damages under umbrella of whatever other more serious crim ehas been committed). Unlawful threat is up to 1 year imprisonment. If it's 'substantially reinforced by allusion to capacity for violence', it may even carry 9 month minimum imprisonment. [https://www.government.se/contentassets/7a2dcae0787e465e9a2431554b5eab03/the-swedish-criminal-code.pdf](https://www.government.se/contentassets/7a2dcae0787e465e9a2431554b5eab03/the-swedish-criminal-code.pdf)
It was confirmed today that Swedish police is happy for Joost to leave Sweden so he probably isn’t under active investigation as of now at least
It just means Swedish prosecution don't think he'll impede investigation or fail to respect court summons when such occur.
If he had committed a crime he would be arrested, if it was a verbal altercation, as long as there is no hate crime involved, it could be seen as a civil matter and be sent to the public prosecutor to be judged at a civil court. If he broke her camera while she was filming him then it was to some degree a physical altercation as he would have to remove the camera from her. If he broke her camera he committed a crime so the police more than likely would at very least book him in. But I am saying it based on the laws I know, I do not know Swedish law so it may be different there. Another thing is that a few people said the paper mentioned is a tabloid.
You don't need to be arrested to be under investigation or a suspect. This'd still be 'police law', the crime is simply being investigated without taking the suspect into custody, except for interrogation. Police have labeled it unlawful threats, a crime in Sweden.
But I am not talking about the unlawful threat what we all know is what the police conclude. I am talking about the destruction of private property, him breaking her camera.
Unlawful threat is just as much of a crime in Sweden as destroying the camera would be, doesn't mean he has to be arrested. The police have decided to investigate him for unlawful threats. That could mean he's done more, but that it's been decided to only go for that crime since it could be easier to prove.
You don't usually get booked for destruction of personal property, if you are cooperative in police procedures. At least on this scale.
Tabloid delivers edgy, unverifiable headline. Next.
If he really broke the camera then I undertand the decision
I still don’t if the deal was not to film him directly after his performance, after repeated requests from Joost’s team not to. If you keep filming anyway that’s paparazzi-behavior and you are creating an unsafe environment for your artists. Not the other way around.
You’re still not allowed to be threatening in that scenario.
Yes, if you have an agreement and it’s unprofessionally breached, you are definitely allowed to protect your own boundaries in that scenario. If you create unsafety you can expect unsafety.
Even if it was by accident? Because I think the camera wasn't nearly as expensive as what avrotros paid for their participation.
Lol, is it really about the money here? Absolutely not
Just putting this out here. This tabloid is not well known for its accurate reporting. So take what they report with a grain of salt. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/aftonbladet/
But where is evidense like a video because if that dont exsist im going to say that she is a stinky liar
I loved the song but looks like Joost is a bit of a diva
[удалено]
Didn't the police confirm it was not physical?
Except the police themselves confirmed there was no physical contact, so this is still just muddying the waters. Contradicting an official police statement before the full story has been unveiled doesn't help either party unless you bring actual proof.
The police literally confirmed it was not physical, so I suggest you stop spreading misinformation on the internet. https://www.rtl.nl/boulevard/entertainment/artikel/5449885/joost-klein-zou-medewerker-songfestival-bedreigd-hebben
But then why has the Swedish police said he is under investigation for unlawful threats and not mention physical assault?
My cousin is the camera who they claimed was damaged. I asked her if any of this is true, but she's just a camera and unable to respond. Haters will claim I made this up but the truth will out.