Jump to content
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

Harvey Weinstein & others - sexual assault

Recommended Posts

Tazio

Meanwhile James Corden has decided it was wise to open the evening at a charity event in the states with Harvey Weinstein jokes. 

 

Fair it to say it didn't go down very well with the audience. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sexton Hardcastle

IF one good thing comes of these events then James Cordon being put on the scrap heap would be delightful.

 

utter ***** of a man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusk_Till_Dawn

I noticed that Corden is on the George Michael biog on Monday. **** knows how he’s wormed his way onto that. “No-mark speaks about George Michael.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
18 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Has to be said trump seems a little more distanced from the sex prredators

You've got to remember, at best, he is a self-confessed sex predator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephane Grappelli
34 minutes ago, Sexton Hardcastle said:

IF one good thing comes of these events then James Cordon being put on the scrap heap would be delightful.

 

utter ***** of a man.

 

:spoton:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jambo1961

Stevie Wonder can see  how corrupt Hollywood is with its sexual deviance  and most of us know what goes on...but  those that run the gaff are almost bullet proof sadly and have been from the off

 

Remember Brando suggested Hollywood was run by a Jewish Mafia oh oh

 

It wasnt long before he was put in his place and he then  apologised

 

Admire the bravery of those who have spoke out recently but imagine we even got near the truth of what has gone on there ..that would be something else and not nice at all 

Edited by jambo1961

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
On 10/12/2017 at 09:18, Nookie Bear said:

I didn't pick up how this actually came to light but it's interesting how many actresses (powerful ones at that) have now stepped forward to claim they were victims.

 

I just cannot get my head around why so many people seem unwilling or unable to speak up until it is too late, by which time more and more people suffer.

Their career. I'd imagine there has been a culture of acquiescence in Holywood for years. For actresses starting out they've probably had to put up with all sorts of stuff to get going or just go back to wherever they've come from and not pursue acting. Pretty much every accuser Weinstein has can be seen smiling next to him on the red carpet in a photograph. It tells you everything you need to know about guys like him in positions of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer

I've said it before and I'll say it again. WTF is up with Donald Trump's coupon? Does he wear orange make up or fake tan? Seriously what is the score with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
14 minutes ago, Jamhammer said:

Their career. I'd imagine there has been a culture of acquiescence in Holywood for years. For actresses starting out they've probably had to put up with all sorts of stuff to get going or just go back to wherever they've come from and not pursue acting. Pretty much every accuser Weinstein has can be seen smiling next to him on the red carpet in a photograph. It tells you everything you need to know about guys like him in positions of power.

But many of those actresses were still seen apparently adulating the creep long after they had made it, and were rich enough and widely respected enough not to need him. And when they must have known about his behaviour not just to them but to many others, over decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
2 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

You've got to remember, at best, he is a self-confessed sex predator.

I remember, and Trump is an odious individual. But why is his boast about grabbing pussies the only thing he has ever said that anyone actually believes? Maybe it is the only truth he has ever uttered,  but what happened to the many civil cases about sexual assault that surfaced conveniently during the presidential election campaign? Are they being pursued? Funding them would present no difficulty whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
20 hours ago, niblick1874 said:

 

You are quite correct in what you say, however, there is the small matter of this below which I am sure is all made up shite. Non the less, she has said she will give it all to charity. The Clinton foundation? 

 

So, how much money has Weinstein donated or raised for Clinton over the years? According to a tally of political donations maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, Weinstein directly donated $21,400 to Clinton between 1999 and 2016. Weinstein also donated $33,590.45 to the Hillary Clinton Victory Fund, according to Federal Election Commission filings, and $15,000 to HillPAC, Clinton’s earlier political action committee, according to the Center for Responsive

In the clip I saw that is not what she said, What she said was that she gives 10% of her income to charity which seems pretty irrelevant since the donations were not part of her income. And she then said donating the money to charity would be part of that, which suggests charity would get 10% of Weinstein's donations or that other charities would be paying 90% of the compensating  donation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo
10 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

I remember, and Trump is an odious individual. But why is his boast about grabbing pussies the only thing he has ever said that anyone actually believes? Maybe it is the only truth he has ever uttered,  but what happened to the many civil cases about sexual assault that surfaced conveniently during the presidential election campaign? Are they being pursued? Funding them would present no difficulty whatsoever.

Because it was off the record and said to like minded individuals.

Edited by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
31 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

But many of those actresses were still seen apparently adulating the creep long after they had made it, and were rich enough and widely respected enough not to need him. And when they must have known about his behaviour not just to them but to many others, over decades.

 

Harvey Weinstein had immense power within the industry. Being backballed by him could cause career damage to even the most respected actors.

 

You really are on a righteous path of victim blaming here, and for the life of me I can't figure out why you would be. Do you always take the side of the bully? And, if so, why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
17 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Harvey Weinstein had immense power within the industry. Being backballed by him could cause career damage to even the most respected actors.

 

You really are on a righteous path of victim blaming here, and for the life of me I can't figure out why you would be. Do you always take the side of the bully? And, if so, why is that?

Where have i taken the side of the bully? I have not blamed any victim for being victims. I have suggested  that earlier accusations could have avoided others becoming victims

 As the reaction to the belated accusations amply demonstrate. Weinstein is unlikely to work in hollywood again. At least you would hope so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jamhammer
1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

But many of those actresses were still seen apparently adulating the creep long after they had made it, and were rich enough and widely respected enough not to need him. And when they must have known about his behaviour not just to them but to many others, over decades.

Aye but still terrified of his power in the industry if they were to accuse him. Historical allegations being notoriously difficult to prove not to mention that they would also have to have the world know that they were abused. A lot easier not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paolo
43 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Where have i taken the side of the bully? I have not blamed any victim for being victims. I have suggested  that earlier accusations could have avoided others becoming victims

 As the reaction to the belated accusations amply demonstrate. Weinstein is unlikely to work in hollywood again. At least you would hope so.

You would hope so. 

 

However, Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old, sodomising her in the process.  He was still awarded an Oscar, and was given a standing ovation (which Meryl Streep took part in), and actors and actresses have been delighted to work for him, including the self righteous Ewan McGregor.  Whoopi Goldberg also said it wasn’t “rape rape”. Unlike Weinstein, he has also not been expelled from the Acadamy, and is still a member. 

Edited by Paolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tazio

The entire Polanski thing is a dark thing that Hollywood seems to pretend isn't a thing at all. I didn't realise just how horrific it was until a couple of years ago, life should have been the sentence, and the full length of it served. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
47 minutes ago, Jamhammer said:

Aye but still terrified of his power in the industry if they were to accuse him. Historical allegations being notoriously difficult to prove not to mention that they would also have to have the world know that they were abused. A lot easier not to.

Yes a lot easier not to which is my point. Even wannabee actresses like myleene klass kept shtum long after her hopes of a hollywood career were long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly American
5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

I remember, and Trump is an odious individual. But why is his boast about grabbing pussies the only thing he has ever said that anyone actually believes? Maybe it is the only truth he has ever uttered,  but what happened to the many civil cases about sexual assault that surfaced conveniently during the presidential election campaign? Are they being pursued? Funding them would present no difficulty whatsoever.

 

Several of them are moving forward. Subpoena for one of them just became public.

 

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/summer-zervos-attorneys-subpoena-trump-campaign

 

He also told Howard Stern on the air that he routinely walked into the pageant dressing rooms unannounced. Wikipedia isn't authoritative but the list is pretty enormous.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Edited by Ugly American

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
niblick1874
On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 15:24, niblick1874 said:

 

You are quite correct in what you say, however, there is the small matter of this below which I am sure is all made up shite. Non the less, she has said she will give it all to charity. The Clinton foundation? 

 

So, how much money has Weinstein donated or raised for Clinton over the years? According to a tally of political donations maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, Weinstein directly donated $21,400 to Clinton between 1999 and 2016. Weinstein also donated $33,590.45 to the Hillary Clinton Victory Fund, according to Federal Election Commission filings, and $15,000 to HillPAC, Clinton’s earlier political action committee, according to the Center for Responsive

 

6 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

In the clip I saw that is not what she said, What she said was that she gives 10% of her income to charity which seems pretty irrelevant since the donations were not part of her income. And she then said donating the money to charity would be part of that, which suggests charity would get 10% of Weinstein's donations or that other charities would be paying 90% of the compensating  donation.

 

What are you doing.

 

I was talking to Ugly American. I'm sure he will be back on and the first thing he will do is address this. Give him a chance.

 

We can't have any Tom Dick or Harry looking into this kind of thing. We have to really on those that will tell us the truth no matter what. He would not want this kind of thing to be swept under the carpet and besides, others might have a look and come across the likes of this below and jump to the wrong conclusions. We need an unbiased view along with the truth and Ugly American is our man. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/harvey-weinstein-democratic-politics-sexual-harassment-scandal-2017-10/#weinsteins-political-involvement-began-in-the-early-1990s-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bridge of Djoum
On 10/14/2017 at 09:20, Frank said:

Screenshot_20171014-140647.thumb.png.79bb990d5c48efe569962a0e1a96dba2.png

Image result for hillary clinton sesame streetD

Don't forget these deviants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
On ‎16‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 00:32, niblick1874 said:

 

 

What are you doing.

 

I was talking to Ugly American. I'm sure he will be back on and the first thing he will do is address this. Give him a chance.

 

We can't have any Tom Dick or Harry looking into this kind of thing. We have to really on those that will tell us the truth no matter what. He would not want this kind of thing to be swept under the carpet and besides, others might have a look and come across the likes of this below and jump to the wrong conclusions. We need an unbiased view along with the truth and Ugly American is our man. 

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/harvey-weinstein-democratic-politics-sexual-harassment-scandal-2017-10/#weinsteins-political-involvement-began-in-the-early-1990s-1

Fortunately, since UA seems to have been struck dumb, Private Eye has a nice spoof "Apology on behalf of two former Presidents of the USA (and their First Ladies)" " In common with each other, and indeed the entire Hollywood movie industry, we may in recent years have given the impression that we thought Mr Harvey Weinstein, the well known film producer, was in some way a major force for good in American culture and society. When we feted Mr Weinstein at White House events ... etc."  President Clinton in a postscript chimes in with an admission that he is "particularly shocked by the idea of a man in a position of great power attempting to coerce a young woman into granting him sexual favours in return for a promise that he might advance her career" and claims that "Hillary wishes me to say that she agrees with every word ...".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly American
37 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Fortunately, since UA seems to have been struck dumb, Private Eye has a nice spoof "Apology on behalf of two former Presidents of the USA (and their First Ladies)" " In common with each other, and indeed the entire Hollywood movie industry, we may in recent years have given the impression that we thought Mr Harvey Weinstein, the well known film producer, was in some way a major force for good in American culture and society. When we feted Mr Weinstein at White House events ... etc."  President Clinton in a postscript chimes in with an admission that he is "particularly shocked by the idea of a man in a position of great power attempting to coerce a young woman into granting him sexual favours in return for a promise that he might advance her career" and claims that "Hillary wishes me to say that she agrees with every word ...".

 

I have nibs on ignore. That would be why I'm "struck dumb."

 

As for what this word salad is supposed to mean, now I really am struck dumb. I believe I've already commented on Bill's predatory behavior in this very thread. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're on about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
8 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

I have nibs on ignore. That would be why I'm "struck dumb."

 

As for what this word salad is supposed to mean, now I really am struck dumb. I believe I've already commented on Bill's predatory behavior in this very thread. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're on about.

It is meant to point out how lightly the Clintons and Obamas have got away with their close association with and substantial funding from Mr Weinstein. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redjambo
1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

It is meant to point out how lightly the Clintons and Obamas have got away with their close association with and substantial funding from Mr Weinstein. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

 

I assume you think that the Clintons and Obamas were knowledgeable about Weinstein's behaviour while accepting those donations? If so, then I presume that you have proof of this. If not, what does it matter if they had a close association?

 

If someone were to continue a close association with a person after they learned of that person's illegal behaviour, then that would be a different kettle of fish. Otherwise "guilt by association" is a very weak argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly American
16 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

It is meant to point out how lightly the Clintons and Obamas have got away with their close association with and substantial funding from Mr Weinstein. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

 

There is no close association. Weinstein, like dozens of other Hollywood moguls, has funded all Democratic candidates, largely because of Democrats' tendency to oppose censorship laws or other "family values" nonsense since, roughly, Dan Quayle's family values crusade and the rise of the Christian right. Before then Hollywood moguls had been staunchly Republican. This is not any kind of mystery.

 

Clinton had an arguably closer relationship, although not very close, with another former major Democratic donor based in New York City who has been accused of being a sexual predator. His name is Donald Trump, who being a reality TV star, also had close associations with multiple studio heads, including Weinstein.

 

(Annoyed I can't get the proper "You're out of your element Donny" gif to embed)

 

 

Edited by Ugly American

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
2 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

There is no close association. Weinstein, like dozens of other Hollywood moguls, has funded all Democratic candidates, largely because of Democrats' tendency to oppose censorship laws or other "family values" nonsense since, roughly, Dan Quayle's family values crusade and the rise of the Christian right. Before then Hollywood moguls had been staunchly Republican. This is not any kind of mystery.

 

Clinton had an arguably closer relationship, although not very close, with another former major Democratic donor based in New York City who has been accused of being a sexual predator. His name is Donald Trump, who being a reality TV star, also had close associations with multiple studio heads, including Weinstein.

 

(Annoyed I can't get the proper "You're out of your element Donny" gif to embed)

 

 

Depends on your definition of a close association. Frequent invitations to the White House and tens of thousands of donations qualifies for me. And if any couple were qualified to spot a sex predator when they saw one then Bill and Hillary fit the bill.

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redm
3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

It is meant to point out how lightly the Clintons and Obamas have got away with their close association with and substantial funding from Mr Weinstein. I would have thought that was fairly obvious.

 

I don’t believe there’s even a tiny chance Barack Obama knew about it. Aside from anything else, he allowed his daughter to do an internship at the Weinstein company. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
niblick1874
3 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

There is no close association. Weinstein, like dozens of other Hollywood moguls, has funded all Democratic candidates, largely because of Democrats' tendency to oppose censorship laws or other "family values" nonsense since, roughly, Dan Quayle's family values crusade and the rise of the Christian right. Before then Hollywood moguls had been staunchly Republican. This is not any kind of mystery.

 

Clinton had an arguably closer relationship, although not very close, with another former major Democratic donor based in New York City who has been accused of being a sexual predator. His name is Donald Trump, who being a reality TV star, also had close associations with multiple studio heads, including Weinstein.

 

(Annoyed I can't get the proper "You're out of your element Donny" gif to embed)

 

 

:facepalm:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/16/harvey-weinstein-helped-pay-bill-clintons-legal-bills-during-monica-era-washington-post-archive-reveals.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
niblick1874
4 minutes ago, Tazio said:

 

among several Hollywood heavyweights who gave the maximum $10,000 to Clinton’s legal defense fund.

 

Doesn't really say best mates does it?

:facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tazio
Just now, niblick1874 said:

:facepalm:

 

A bit rich of you ever using this smiley. There is no closer association than donating to the democrats. For once try to read something and comprehend it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
niblick1874
On ‎10‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 17:47, Tazio said:

 

A bit rich of you ever using this smiley. There is no closer association than donating to the democrats. For once try to read something and comprehend it. 

:facepalm:

 

Harvey Weinstein took great pleasure in telling everyone at a major award show (the Glaad media awards) that he was the chief projectionist at the Whitehouse for eight years (1992-2000). He tells everyone that they even built a little portable screening room for when he (Bill Clinton) went on vacation. 

 

Go find out when Bill Clinton took his little trips to Jeffery Epstein's private island.

 

I'm the one that should for once try to read something and comprehend it? You think. Don't make me laugh.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
niblick1874

Gabe Hoffman.

A young hedge fund manager, very rich, wanted to give back but didn't know how. One day he told a friend this and asked him if he had any ideas. his friend suggested that he did something to expose the pedophilia that went on behind the sense in Hollywood. not knowing quit how to go about it they looked around for stuff that was known and discover a whole pile of stuff. He hired one or two private detectives and ended up with way to much stuff for the documentary he wanted to make. He then looked around and got lucky when Amy Berg said she would direct it.  

Amy Berg.

Award winning Oscar nominated director of Delver us from evil that blew the lid of the pedophilia that was rife in the catholic church.

Two yeas ago it came out and was given a 93% by Rotten Tomatoes which is one of the heist scores ever given by them. They were invited to a whole host of film festivals and the likes but were uninvited when the high ups got wind of it. It was band and hidden by all.

 

A few days ago they decided to put it on for free on A site till the end of the month but today I came across it on youtube so I guess they gave up banning it or don't know it's there.

 

The firs link is an excellent interview of Gabe Hoffman where he explains everything from the time he desided to give back, all about the documentary how they tried to hide it and why he put it up for free.

 

The second link is the documentary. it lasts for 1 hour and ten minutes and then plays again hens the 2 hours and a bit. Hope it works. 

 

Just a foot note. Don't listen to the empty vessels, the cesspit in Hollywood is just a cog in a world wide machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sandy Clark
On 12/10/2017 at 22:28, Francis Albert said:

I can understand women (and men) accepting the century-old casting couch route to stardom and wealth. But if, as the many multi-millionaire victims coming forward did,  they continued ,after having made it and having enough to live in luxury for life, to keep mum and so expose future victims, aren't they accessories after the fact as they used to say?

You really want to be that guy don't you. It's such a shame, for you, the only forum of publicity you receive is a football teams forum. 

 

I actually find this post disgusting. But hey, the lassies ALL live in luxury and didn't say nowt at the time so.....

 

But they all kept quiet so they are all accessories.

 

You, of course, have full understanding of the industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
8 hours ago, cmonthegorgie said:

You really want to be that guy don't you. It's such a shame, for you, the only forum of publicity you receive is a football teams forum. 

 

I actually find this post disgusting. But hey, the lassies ALL live in luxury and didn't say nowt at the time so.....

 

But they all kept quiet so they are all accessories.

 

You, of course, have full understanding of the industry.

If I had actually said anything resembling what you claim I said I would fully deserve your contempt. But of course I didn't.

For evil to triumph  the good need only do nothing.

(Or of course, as in the paedophile example referred to above,  collude)

 

Edited by Francis Albert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southcap

Just when you think kickback posters can't get any more retarded....

 

Someone tries to argue that being s victim of a crime makes you an accessory to the crime being committed.

 

Let me guess, if someone breaks into your house, you're an accessory for  having a hour to break into?

 

I'll happily say, anyone who tries to defend, justify or explain this behaviour clearly has a similar mind set to the offender. Read into that how you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paolo
45 minutes ago, southcap said:

Just when you think kickback posters can't get any more retarded....

 

Someone tries to argue that being s victim of a crime makes you an accessory to the crime being committed.

 

Let me guess, if someone breaks into your house, you're an accessory for  having a hour to break into?

 

I'll happily say, anyone who tries to defend, justify or explain this behaviour clearly has a similar mind set to the offender. Read into that how you will.

I haven’t seen anyone say that. 

 

Anyway, I see there has been accusations against another Holywood person.   James Toback. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
benny

Saw an accusation against Patrick Swayze on  a Facebook page.

His fans are furious bringing it up years after his death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dia Liom
2 hours ago, southcap said:

Just when you think kickback posters can't get any more retarded....

 

Someone tries to argue that being s victim of a crime makes you an accessory to the crime being committed.

 

Let me guess, if someone breaks into your house, you're an accessory for  having a hour to break into?

 

I'll happily say, anyone who tries to defend, justify or explain this behaviour clearly has a similar mind set to the offender. Read into that how you will.

 

Though your not the only one on this thread responding in this manner, do you not think it's worth debating/discussing a point you disagree with, rather than your hysterics?

 

Noone claimed a victim to a crime is an accessory. The issue raised was whether a victim has a responsibility to inform so as to protect others from the perpetrator. I'd say ideally they do, though don't think there is any one answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francis Albert
2 hours ago, southcap said:

Just when you think kickback posters can't get any more retarded....

 

Someone tries to argue that being s victim of a crime makes you an accessory to the crime being committed.

 

Let me guess, if someone breaks into your house, you're an accessory for  having a hour to break into?

 

I'll happily say, anyone who tries to defend, justify or explain this behaviour clearly has a similar mind set to the offender. Read into that how you will.

 So you accuse me of having the same mind set as Weinstein?

 

I will repeat a question I asked previously which no-one answered.

 

If you become aware that a senior employee at your workplace  is sexually abusing junior employees (including possibly yourself) do you report it or keep silent?

 

If you yourself are a junior employee dependent on your job to feed your family I can see you have a bit of a dilemma.

 

But if you are yourself as rich as and as powerful (or almost as) the perpetrator, even if you become so years later, don't you speak up?

 

Many of those who knew were not helpless victims, certainly  in later years.

 

At no point have I or anyone else on this thread tried to defend, justify, or explain the vile behaviour of Weinstein.

 

But you have a choice - you either join in the competition to be seen as the person who is most horrified by the (actually quite unsurprising) allegations and to be seen as the one who feels most strongly about his behaviour.

 

Or you discuss how others can be prevented from following in his footsteps, as I can guarantee is happening and will happen.

 

Depriving Weinstein of his Academy and Bafta membership or similar meaningless gestures might make people feel righteous but it won't do the trick.

 

Jane Fonda, whose career even survived something amounting to high treason, says she regrets not having spoken out about the accusations she'd heard about.

 

(Maybe if the Academy or Bafta awarded annually those who have contributed most to cleaning up the century old Hollywood cesspit?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southcap
39 minutes ago, Dia Liom said:

 

Though your not the only one on this thread responding in this manner, do you not think it's worth debating/discussing a point you disagree with, rather than your hysterics?

 

Noone claimed a victim to a crime is an accessory. The issue raised was whether a victim has a responsibility to inform so as to protect others from the perpetrator. I'd say ideally they do, though don't think there is any one answer.

Of course it WAS worthy of discussion a long, long time ago. Thankfully that discussion came to the correct conclusion that sexual assault and similar behaviour is wrong. On that subject, there is no discussion.

 

On the fact others in Hollywood should be held accountable for stuff that goes on? Of course, same as the churches, homes, politics etc etc who turn a blind eye to this shit that goes on. Everyone single one.

 

But the victims? For not sticking them in? Lunacy! Making a victim of a crime a criminal for not reporting themselves to be a victim of a crime is just off the chart mental.

 

So everyone who came forward about saville, Harris etc should be charged? 

 

If that is the case, then no historic sec crime will ever be reported ever again and all you need yo do to get away with being s beast is ensuring your victim keeps their mouths shut for a few years.

 

It just whiffs of victim blaming. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paolo
28 minutes ago, southcap said:

Of course it WAS worthy of discussion a long, long time ago. Thankfully that discussion came to the correct conclusion that sexual assault and similar behaviour is wrong. On that subject, there is no discussion.

 

On the fact others in Hollywood should be held accountable for stuff that goes on? Of course, same as the churches, homes, politics etc etc who turn a blind eye to this shit that goes on. Everyone single one.

 

But the victims? For not sticking them in? Lunacy! Making a victim of a crime a criminal for not reporting themselves to be a victim of a crime is just off the chart mental.

 

So everyone who came forward about saville, Harris etc should be charged? 

 

If that is the case, then no historic sec crime will ever be reported ever again and all you need yo do to get away with being s beast is ensuring your victim keeps their mouths shut for a few years.

 

It just whiffs of victim blaming. 

You have totally contradicted yourself.    First you bang on about those questioning those who didn’t come forward, and then you compare the situation to those who did come forward.  

 

And in the case of Savile, plenty did, they were just ignored, and no action was taken.  They done all they could. 

 

For what it is worth, many established and rich actresses could have come forward sooner, and if they did there may have been less new victims.  

 

Many were happy to bang in about Trump’s alleged misogyny and alleged behaviour, taking the moral high ground. 

 

That does not mean it was their fault and no one has said it was. 

 

There were of course those who were not victims but did know about it who also done nothing.   Now that is indefensible. 

Edited by Paolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redm

 

6 hours ago, southcap said:

Just when you think kickback posters can't get any more retarded....

 

Someone tries to argue that being s victim of a crime makes you an accessory to the crime being committed.

 

Let me guess, if someone breaks into your house, you're an accessory for  having a hour to break into?

 

I'll happily say, anyone who tries to defend, justify or explain this behaviour clearly has a similar mind set to the offender. Read into that how you will.

 

This version of victim blaming (or ‘reallocation’ of a portion of the blame) also completely ignores the power dynamic of these situations. 

 

It’s also a pretty strange reaction to behaviour of this sort. It’s only a step or two away from “she was probably asking for it” or “come on, is sexual assault really THAT bad?” 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugly American
2 hours ago, redm said:

 

 

This version of victim blaming (or ‘reallocation’ of a portion of the blame) also completely ignores the power dynamic of these situations. 

 

It’s also a pretty strange reaction to behaviour of this sort. It’s only a step or two away from “she was probably asking for it” or “come on, is sexual assault really THAT bad?” 

 

 

 

The other thing about sexual predators is that they have an uncanny sense of people who are, in the moment, weak and susceptible to manipulation.

 

This story about James Toback just dropped. The reporter says on twitter that since publishing it, nearly 200 more women have contacted him with stories, many of them who left acting after being harassed or assaulted by him.

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mn-james-toback-sexual-harassment-allegations-20171018-story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paolo
6 hours ago, redm said:

 

 

This version of victim blaming (or ‘reallocation’ of a portion of the blame) also completely ignores the power dynamic of these situations. 

 

It’s also a pretty strange reaction to behaviour of this sort. It’s only a step or two away from “she was probably asking for it” or “come on, is sexual assault really THAT bad?” 

 

 

If anyone was victim blaming you would have a point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paolo

What are folks thoughts ln his former assistant taking hush money?

 

It appears that she too was a victim.   Does that justify it?    A question worth asking in my opinion.  

 

It it has been alleged that Bill Cosby had similar non-disclosure agreeements. 

 

http://news.sky.com/story/weinsteins-british-former-assistant-breaks-confidentiality-agreement-to-talk-11096015

Edited by Paolo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cosanostra

It's not as simple as victim blaming IMO. It's way more complicated.

If someone commits a crime against you and you know that speaking out might save other people from the same misery, then the moral thing to do is speak out.

That obviously doesn't take into account the psychological damage that rape and sexual abuse have on a victim. It's obviously an incredibly difficult thing to do and it usually takes a few other victims to come forward before the rest feel the strength of safety in numbers before coming forward. The guilt and shame felt by survivors of abuse is as bad as the initial trauma in many cases so it's hard to seriously start pointing the finger back at them.

I can understand the calls for people to come forward quicker in cases like this and I can understand that those who took money, film roles and privilege might look like they've been bought. Seeing many of the actresses who are now complaining about this evil, fat, disgusting creature with their hands draped around him as if they were the best of friends obviously doesn't sit well with any of us.

Sexual abuse and rape are unimaginable for the victims though. Most of us will never know what they went through so we can't say what we would have done or what they should have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
redm
3 hours ago, cosanostra said:

It's not as simple as victim blaming IMO. It's way more complicated.

If someone commits a crime against you and you know that speaking out might save other people from the same misery, then the moral thing to do is speak out.

That obviously doesn't take into account the psychological damage that rape and sexual abuse have on a victim. It's obviously an incredibly difficult thing to do and it usually takes a few other victims to come forward before the rest feel the strength of safety in numbers before coming forward. The guilt and shame felt by survivors of abuse is as bad as the initial trauma in many cases so it's hard to seriously start pointing the finger back at them.

I can understand the calls for people to come forward quicker in cases like this and I can understand that those who took money, film roles and privilege might look like they've been bought. Seeing many of the actresses who are now complaining about this evil, fat, disgusting creature with their hands draped around him as if they were the best of friends obviously doesn't sit well with any of us.

Sexual and abuse and rape are unimaginable for the victims though. Most of us will never know what they went through so we can't say what we would have done or what they should have.

 

 

Agree with some of this. It's hugely complex but I do feel that when people ask why a victim didn't behave in a certain way (a way that they see as being correct, or normal, or even just the right thing to do) that they're diluting the focus, which to me should always be on the abuser and the decisions they made. 

 

On a really basic level I completely understand why people don't speak out. You go through something awful like that, surely the last thing you probably want to do is relive it, discuss it, worry about being judged whether it's for something you wore or something you drank or somewhere you went. It's degrading, it's painful, and unfortunately there is a culture of victim blaming and rape jokes and everything else meaning people might not feel as if they'll be supported if they speak up. If the abuser is famous or powerful you have all the additional shit that comes with that too. Others not wanting to believe you because it isn't convenient to them, people trying to shush you, denials, smears, being isolated or ostracised. I don't think it's even a wee bit surprising that people often just go quiet. 

 

I don't see the point in looking to blame anyone other than the person/people who carry out the abuse but if I was wondering about other parties I'd be more inclined to question why his peers (or people with similar share in similar power dynamic) didn't speak up. It's a real shame that the inconvenient truth was too inconvenient for them too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deesidejambo

I struggle with the PA who accepted the £125000 quid bribe (sorry "non-disclosure agreement payment") to keep quiet though.

 

If I get it correctly this was in 1998?  If she had chosen not to accept the money and spoken out, everyone from 1998 onwards would have been protected against him. 

 

The reason she is speaking out now is because her lawyers will have told her she is in just as deep shit as he is.  She accepted money to prevent her disclosure of an alleged serious crime.   A crime which appears to have been repeated many times since 1998.  Allegedly.

 

No doubt I will be told she was naive or pressured into it.  But I suspect the truth may be she was willing too accept the money at that time and now that she has been advised she may be culpable in not preventing repetition she is on damage limitation.  For herself.

 

imo of course!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...