Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

pitifulgod

pitifulgod wrote: »

Some pretty unfair speculation tbh. Shifting to blaming various women.

No connection is too tenuous in the drive to blame women for the criminal acts of Weinstein.

RabbleRouser2k

Candie wrote: »

No connection is too tenuous in the drive to blame women for the criminal acts of Weinstein.

Read over, not blaming, simply saying 'they knew', and Jlaw knew.
You've heard the expression 'evil thrives when good people do nothing?' Well, if Georgie Clooney also stayed quiet, as did Affleck and Damon, as well as J Law, then yeah, one should call those people out. Banners have gone up around the Dolby Theatre where the Oscars are held with 'They knew' as well as 'don't make speeches, name them'. Oh, and Jimmy Kimmel knew, as old clips showed he was part of the problem, incredibly reluctant to make a Weinstein joke, and won't be making any at the Oscars.

What's interesting is Ryan Seacrest will be interviewing at the Oscars, despite a recent internal investigation...by the company he works for. Which was flawed to say the least.
The woman he is accused of sexually harassing and other misconduct had a witness to his conduct, and yet 'insufficient evidence' was their verdict. It should have been carried out by some kind of legal authority. Not E!. Not a biased employer.
Seacrest's presence is definitely going to undermine the 'metoo' movement. As he will be tasked with talking to actresses and actors. Some agencies are already saying they won't allow their talent to speak with him.

https://www.thewrap.com/ryan-seacrest-sexual-abuse-suzie-hardy-e-investigation/

Shurimgreat

Agreed Rabblerouser.

One thing though. When Weinstein effectively ruled Hollywood and that seems to be the way he operated, all these actresses including those he attacked, had to play ball and work with him. He could and did destroy careers. I suppose they did the maths and reckoned they either became rich actresses or out of work actresses who took a stand. Not an easy choice.

ceadaoin.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Read over, not blaming, simply saying 'they knew', and Jlaw knew.
You've heard the expression 'evil thrives when good people do nothing?' Well, if Georgie Clooney also stayed quiet, as did Affleck and Damon, as well as J Law, then yeah, one should call those people out. Banners have gone up around the Dolby Theatre where the Oscars are held with 'They knew' as well as 'don't make speeches, name them'. Oh, and Jimmy Kimmel knew, as old clips showed he was part of the problem, incredibly reluctant to make a Weinstein joke, and won't be making any at the Oscars.

What's interesting is Ryan Seacrest will be interviewing at the Oscars, despite a recent internal investigation...by the company he works for. Which was flawed to say the least.
The woman he is accused of sexually harassing and other misconduct had a witness to his conduct, and yet 'insufficient evidence' was their verdict. It should have been carried out by some kind of legal authority. Not E!. Not a biased employer.
Seacrest's presence is definitely going to undermine the 'metoo' movement. As he will be tasked with talking to actresses and actors. Some agencies are already saying they won't allow their talent to speak with him.

https://www.thewrap.com/ryan-seacrest-sexual-abuse-suzie-hardy-e-investigation/

I don't think seacrest will be doing his usual red carpet interviews this year. He might even have to come out at last to escape these allegations

DavidLyons_

Candie wrote: »

pitifulgod wrote: »

Some pretty unfair speculation tbh. Shifting to blaming various women.

No connection is too tenuous in the drive to blame women for the criminal acts of Weinstein.

Not once has there been a post blaming anyone but Weinstein for "the criminal acts of Weinstein". Not once.

Some people, however, really, really benefited in a massive way from his methods of doing business and some of those same people, it would appear, have now decided that their careers would also benefit from roundly denouncing him.

JP Liz V1

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Ryan Seacrest's stylist has spoken up.

http://variety.com/2018/tv/news/ryan-seacrest-sexual-abuse-allegations-stylist-details-1202710460/

Will he still be doing the red carpet for E for Oscars this Sunday

mzungu

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Will he still be doing the red carpet for E for Oscars this Sunday

Looks like he is.

As Ryan Seacrest continues to defend himself against an allegation of sexual harassment, E! has chosen to stand by its longtime host, saying this week that he will occupy his usual post front and center of the action on the red carpet during Hollywood's biggest night.

Link: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/entertainment/ryan-seacrest-e-red-carpet/index.html

RabbleRouser2k

mzungu wrote: »

Looks like he is.

Link: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/entertainment/ryan-seacrest-e-red-carpet/index.html

Bellamy Young, an actress on Scandal, said she felt Ryan Seacrest should not present at the Oscars...

...she was forced to apologise. Can't believe having an opinion like that is something you have to apologise for.

I mean Casey Affleck did the decent thing and stepped down from presenting, it will look very bad if Seacrest sticks around. Jimmy Kimmel saying he 'respects his truth' is also blinkered.

Andrew Beef

The BBC programme last night was interesting. I was surprised and feel more than a degree of sympathy for Weinstein. Despite what Generation Snowflake would have us believe, it isn’t illegal to proposition a woman, ask her for a naked massage, and then allow her to leave when she declines the offer. The man clearly has issues, but it demeans actual sexual assaults to conflate them with this sort of stuff.

strandroad

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Despite what Generation Snowflake would have us believe, it isn’t illegal to proposition a woman, ask her for a naked massage, and then allow her to leave when she declines the offer.

In any professional environment it's textbook sexual harassment. Not to mention that some of them were not allowed to leave, or indeed he got into their rooms and not vice versa. I'm not sure where your degree of sympathy is coming from but it seems quite misguided.

Andrew Beef

strandroad wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Despite what Generation Snowflake would have us believe, it isn’t illegal to proposition a woman, ask her for a naked massage, and then allow her to leave when she declines the offer.

In any professional environment it's textbook sexual harassment. Not to mention that some of them were not allowed to leave, or indeed he got into their rooms and not vice versa. I'm not sure where your degree of sympathy is coming from but it seems quite misguided.

They weren’t his employees; it came across as pathetic more than sinister.

retro:electro

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The BBC programme last night was interesting. I was surprised and feel more than a degree of sympathy for Weinstein. Despite what Generation Snowflake would have us believe, it isn’t illegal to proposition a woman, ask her for a naked massage, and then allow her to leave when she declines the offer. The man clearly has issues, but it demeans actual sexual assaults to conflate them with this sort of stuff.

You don’t have to be a part of “Generation Snowflake” whatever the fluff that is to feel like his actions were perverted, a clear abuse of power and just so debased and wrong.
Not sure what programme it is you were watching that you had even an ounce of sympathy for the guy, but I’d like to know so I can avoid it.

strandroad

Andrew Beef wrote: »

They weren’t his employees; it came across as pathetic more than sinister.

Ostensibly they were there to discuss business and network. Like an event speaker pitching talks to a conference organiser; if the latter starts offering massages or grope the former it can be reported as harassment. Only that we know that his company was complicit top to bottom.

meeeeh

Andrew Beef wrote: »

They weren’t his employees; it came across as pathetic more than sinister.

You mean the secret files he had on people in case they went against him. The actresses who stopped getting work when they said no. An organisation around him that enabled all that. That is sinister not pathetic.

JP Liz V1

mzungu wrote: »

Looks like he is.

Link: https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/28/entertainment/ryan-seacrest-e-red-carpet/index.html

Seacrest has to have shares in E by now, he produces so many of it's shows

Hande hoche!

Andrew Beef wrote: »

They weren’t his employees; it came across as pathetic more than sinister.

Hiring ex-Mossad agents to silence actresses, would seem to fall under the sinister category.

JP Liz V1

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Actress Annabella Sciorra has also come forward to say Harvey raped her-and continued to torment her for years afterwards. This is...this is..this is just horrible.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/weighing-the-costs-of-speaking-out-about-harvey-weinstein

She filmed one movie with Weinstein, The Night we Never met, in 1993. Which is round about the time Harvey raped her. That same year her marriage ended, and I have no doubt Harvey's actions contributed to it.
He also ended her career, essentially-both psychologically, in the aftermath, and also by telling producers she was 'difficult'.
Just lock the guy away, for eternity.

Ellen Barkin (in the article above) even talks about how Harvey verbally insulted her on the set of Into the West-may very well have threatened her then husband Gabriel Byrne's career too. (That's what Harvey did-he even did it to Ioan Gruffudd's then girlfriend, now wife).

Annabella Sciorra is now presenting at the Oscars

RabbleRouser2k

Former Melrose Place actress has been accused of drugging and orally raping a minor 20 years ago. (No, not Heather Locklear-she's got her own problems going on).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5454671/Jamie-Luner-drugged-boy-16-performing-oral-sex-him.html

JupiterKid

Weinstein needs to be jailed for the rest of his life if even a fraction of all the allegations - and it is a massive landslide - are true.

The others also need to be punished and made an example of. Especially the child actor molesters and other sex pests.

This process is now irreversible - the culture within Hollywood will change.

RabbleRouser2k

JupiterKid wrote: »

Weinstein needs to be jailed for the rest of his life if even a fraction of all the allegations - and it is a massive landslide - are true.

The others also need to be punished and made an example of. Especially the child actor molesters and other sex pests.

This process is now irreversible - the culture within Hollywood will change.

Yes to a conviction, but some of these fall under statute of limitations-as in too late to convict. The law sucks in cases of rape.

I would think a child molester would not deserve to be in the same sentence as a sex pest-one is being a jerk, the other is violating the vulnerable. (Weinstein isn't a sex pest, he's a serial attempted/ actual rapist).

I'd hope a beginning of change, but to be honest, I don't think it is. Even the presence of Seacrest at the Oscars highlights this.

Deirdre O'Kane was on the LLS tonight-and she gave the usual 'blinkered' talk about change...but so far the only 'change' was ladies wearing black. So...they were being like nuns then? Or Niqabs? It felt too much like Sharia than any kind of statement.
It's all words, there's been no action...just a 'fund' to send money. But where does the money go?

Andrew Beef

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Former Melrose Place actress has been accused of drugging and orally raping a minor 20 years ago. (No, not Heather Locklear-she's got her own problems going on).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5454671/Jamie-Luner-drugged-boy-16-performing-oral-sex-him.html

16 year old boy has oral sex performed on him at a party in LA by a 26 year old Melrose Place actress at the height of her fame.

Not exactly getting rogered by Fr Fiddly in the basement of St Munchin’s, is it?

Outlaw Pete

The accusation is that they drugged him first.

http://people.com/tv/jamie-luner-accused-sexual-misconduct-minor/

Imagine he was female. Maybe that will help.

Andrew Beef

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The accusation is that they drugged him first.

http://people.com/tv/jamie-luner-accused-sexual-misconduct-minor/

Imagine he was female. Maybe that will help.

Whiskey, speed, and oral sex from a hot tv star...every teenage boys nightmare!



Mod-Banned

RabbleRouser2k

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Whiskey, speed, and oral sex from a hot tv star...every teenage boys nightmare!

Are you for real??? Genuinely? Flip the gender's, it's a Polanski level offence. At the least, a Bryan Singer one.

20 years later he spiralled into drugs, and alcohol, and depression...

A teenage dream? Hardly.

citytillidie

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Are you for real??? Genuinely? Flip the gender's, it's a Polanski level offence. At the least, a Bryan Singer one.

20 years later he spiralled into drugs, and alcohol, and depression...

A teenage dream? Hardly.

Just like all those who say that when female teachers abuse boys.

It is the same thing but it seems to be made a laugh of when it is a woman on boy situation

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Whiskey, speed, and oral sex from a hot tv star...every teenage boys nightmare!

It's comments like this that make it difficult for male victims to come forward.

JupiterKid

eviltwin wrote: »

It's comments like this that make it difficult for male victims to come forward.

Completely agree. Total double standards when it comes to sexual abuse between the genders when the prevailing pattern is reversed. Older man - teenage girl = evil paedo who should be publicly castrated and burnt at the stake. Older woman and teenage boy = lol he must have loved every minute of it.

It's the same with female on male domestic abuse - attitude seems to be "well he must have been a weak pussy if his missus beat him around the place."

Andrew Beef

The guy was 16...it is totally off the wall to be mentioning paedophilia in that context.

A 16 year old guy getting a bl..job from a 26 year old woman is not “abuse”.

Mod-Banned

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The guy was 16...it is totally off the wall to be mentioning paedophilia in that context.

A 16 year old guy getting a bl..job from a 26 year old woman is not “abuse”.

He was drugged, he couldn't consent to the sex and he was filmed. Of course it's abuse.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The guy was 16...it is totally off the wall to be mentioning paedophilia in that context.

A 16 year old guy getting a bl..job from a 26 year old woman is not “abuse”.

He was allegedly drugged. He didn't consent, he didn't have a choice, he was used. He's had problems in his adult life and was advised to address this, so we can take from that that it's adversely affected him since.

You don't get to decide if he's entitled to feel abused, it's not about what you think he should feel.