Does Weinstein scandal mask institutional problem?

Harvey Weinstein has been banned by the Academy and the BFI and suspended from BAFTA – based only on accusations.

It is an odd thing, the institutional mentality.

At times it is random, imprecise, unfair; what applies to one person seldom applies to all, and there seems to be a blatant indifference to the rule of law.

Harvey Weinstein has been accused by more than 40 women of either sexual harassment, sexual assault or even rape – but he has denied the allegations against him and has yet to be charged with any offence.

However, the Academy, it seems, felt pressured to react to the dozens of stars who were "shocked and disgusted" by his alleged behaviour, and on Sunday announced it was banning the film mogul.

The group, which has more than 8,000 members, said the film producer "does not merit the respect of his colleagues".

:: Hollywood’s PR machine and its secret scandal

BAFTA was even swifter, making the announcement just five days after the New York Times published its first expose.

"While BAFTA has previously been a beneficiary of Mr Weinstein’s support for its charitable work, it considers the reported alleged behaviour completely unacceptable and incompatible with BAFTA’s values," the organisation said.

Without going into the details of legal procedures, where everyone is innocent until proven guilty – yawn, right? – how do the good folks at the British Academy Of Film and Television Arts feel about running a retrospective on Roman Polanski?

:: ‘An overcrowded brothel’: Hollywood’s infamous casting couch

In 1978, the French-Polish director admitted the statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl.

Twenty-five years later, he won both best director and best film for The Pianist at the BAFTA awards. He also won best director at the Oscars.

Whatever problems these institutions have with the Weinstein claims, they didn’t have with Polanski.

The British Film Institute was not as quick to condemn Weinstein, but has now withdrawn the fellowship awarded to him in 2002.

"Sexual harassment, abuse and bullying is unacceptable under any circumstances," the BFI said in a statement.

"Everyone working in the film industry – in any industry – should be safe and respected in the workplace."

By acting like this, of both judge and jury of accused filmmakers, actors or producers, film institutions risk being dragged into the spotlight by the industry and the media.

The most sensible thing to do would be to write up a code of conduct for members to protect actors from casting couch-type situations.

The BFI has now promised to do so, incorporating it in its diversity standards.

They should wait for court proceedings, if any, to be over to make any sort of decision regarding members – or risk fuelling a lynch mob-like mentality, with subjects trialled by their peers and social media before they are even charged with an offence.

Granted, Weinstein could end up facing a jury one day, and I’m certainly not defending him – but we shouldn’t be treating him as a criminal either. Not yet, anyway.

(c) Sky News 2017: Does Weinstein scandal mask institutional problem?