Editing can work a lot of magic – Van Vicker comes to the defence of Prof Gyampo

0
editing-can-work-a-lot-of-magic-van-vicker-comes-to-the-defence-of-prof-gyampo
Actor Van Vicker

Movie actor Van Vicker has jumped to the defence of Professor Ransford Edward Yaw Gyampo who was implicated in the BBC’s “Sex for Grades” documentary.

In a documentary produced by the BBC Africa Eye and aired on Monday, October 7, 2019, the BBC claimed that it has uncovered sexual harassment at the University of Lagos and the University of Ghana.

The BBC sent female undercover reporters to the campuses of the two universities where it reported that they were sexually harassed, propositioned and put under pressure by senior lecturers – all the while wearing secret cameras.

Following that, two lecturers at the University of Ghana, Professor Ransford Gyampo and Dr Paul Kwame Butakor, shown in the documentary and accused of engaging in sexual harassment on campus have been interdicted by the university.

Commenting on the development, in an Instagram post, Van Vicker stated that edited visuals can be deceptive asking the BBC to release the raw footage of their documentary.

As sighted by BrownGh.Com, the multiple award-winning actor chastited lecturers who engage in sex for grades but faulted the BBC documentary.

From a film makers perspective, Van Vicker indicated that ‘editing can work a lot of magic’ therefore the BBC should come out with the raw footage to ascertain their claim.

Sharing a snippet of the documentary, Van wrote “I am absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of lecturers who abuse their power by manipulating students in exchange of sexual favours. Total irritation. My daughter shall enrol in a tertiary institution in a couple of years and I will be heartbroken if this behaviour is still prevalent. I am uprightly elated that UG has taken the appropriate stans in this matter. I do not condone the lecturers action however, from a film makers perspective editing can work a lot of magic. What do I mean? Let me elucidate here; if I were a lecturer and asked my female student to come by my house (when all folks are home including wife) or to rendezvous with me (publicly) in all genuineness to help this student I could be implicated as making advances for sexual favours. How? So say the BBC documentary is out as it is and there u happen to see my visual of me saying to that particular female (the example I just sited); “come by my house”. You dont see her actually go to my house or wherever but I could be implicated as perhaps one of those lecturers who engage in such activities; till I am exonerated. By which time my name would have already been dragged through the mud. So what I am saying is we are not privy to a lot of information due to the fact that the visuals WERE EDITED. We are not privy to the RAW FOOTAGES or we were NOT THERE to see how it ACTUALLY ROLLED OUT. So on that premise would it be logical to assume that the said female could have professed her love to the lecturer or seduced him in order for him to behave the way he did? REMEMBER SOME VISUALS WERE NOT RECORDED OR WERE EDITED OUT? For emphasis let me repeat, I have two girls who are near going to uni and I will at no time foster such licentiousness by a lecturer. Essentially what I am saying is edited visuals can be deceptive hence PROPER investigations should be conducted in order to substantiate culpability.”

ALSO READ  I will sue BBC — Ransford Gyampo threatens

I am absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of lecturers who abuse their power by manipulating students in exchange of sexaul favours. Total irritation. My daughter shall enroll in a tertiary institution in a couple of years and I will be heartbroken if this behaviour is still prevalent. I am uprightly elated that UG has taken the appropriate stans in this matter. I do not condone the lecturers action however, from a film makers perspective editing can work a lot of magic. What do I mean? Let me elucidate here; if I were a lecturer and asked my female student to come by my house (when all folks are home including wife) or to rendezvous with me (publically) in all genuineness to help this student I could be implicated as making advances for sexual favours. How? So say the BBC documentary is out as it is and there u happen to see my visual of me saying to that particular female (the example I just sited); “come by my house”. You dont see her actually go to my house or wherever but I could be implicated as perhaps one of those lecturers who engage in such activities; till I am exonerated. By which time my name would have already been dragged through the mud. So what I am saying is we are not privy to a lot of information due to the fact that the visuals WERE EDITED. We are not privy to the RAW FOOTAGES or we were NOT THERE to see how it ACTUALLY ROLLED OUT. So on that premise would it be logical to assume that the said female could have professed her love to the lecturer or seduced him in order for him to behave the way he did? REMEMBER SOME VISUALS WERE NOT RECORDED OR WERE EDITED OUT? For emphasis let me repeat, I have two girls who are near going to uni and I will at no time foster such licentiousness by a lecturer. Essentially what I am saying is edited visuals can be deceptive hence PROPER investigations should be conducted in order to substantiate culpability. #filmmaker #vanvicker #theyounggodfather.

View this post on Instagram

I am absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of lecturers who abuse their power by manipulating students in exchange of sexaul favours. Total irritation. My daughter shall enroll in a tertiary institution in a couple of years and I will be heartbroken if this behaviour is still prevalent. I am uprightly elated that UG has taken the appropriate stans in this matter. I do not condone the lecturers action however, from a film makers perspective editing can work a lot of magic. What do I mean? Let me elucidate here; if I were a lecturer and asked my female student to come by my house (when all folks are home including wife) or to rendezvous with me (publically) in all genuineness to help this student I could be implicated as making advances for sexual favours. How? So say the BBC documentary is out as it is and there u happen to see my visual of me saying to that particular female (the example I just sited); "come by my house". You dont see her actually go to my house or wherever but I could be implicated as perhaps one of those lecturers who engage in such activities; till I am exonerated. By which time my name would have already been dragged through the mud. So what I am saying is we are not privy to a lot of information due to the fact that the visuals WERE EDITED. We are not privy to the RAW FOOTAGES or we were NOT THERE to see how it ACTUALLY ROLLED OUT. So on that premise would it be logical to assume that the said female could have professed her love to the lecturer or seduced him in order for him to behave the way he did? REMEMBER SOME VISUALS WERE NOT RECORDED OR WERE EDITED OUT? For emphasis let me repeat, I have two girls who are near going to uni and I will at no time foster such licentiousness by a lecturer. Essentially what I am saying is edited visuals can be deceptive hence PROPER investigations should be conducted in order to substantiate culpability. #filmmaker #vanvicker #theyounggodfather

A post shared by van vicker (@iam_vanvicker) on

 

Subscribe To our Youtube Channel

View All

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here