Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Outlaw Pete

Venom wrote: »

Twitter trying to silence people going against the narrative more likely.

Tbh I think it's more about who she was attempting to throw under the bus that has resulted in her temporary suspension rather than anything else. She's attacking a lot of the liberal elite and I doubt that sits too well with Jack. Twitter is after all the place that allowed Azealia Banks free reign to viciously abuse conservative politicians (NSFW examples: 1, 2) without feeling the need to action her. Wasn't until she racial abused a member of 1D that they finally suspended her.

Just watched the video of Harvey leaving for 'rehab' .

He still is claiming the assaults were 'mistakes'.

Also he had a little dig at those who spoke out. He's unreal, this guy

ceadaoin.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Remind me, how much is Trump worth? I'm just asking questions...

Haha no such luck. That one is David geffen allegedly

Venom

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Tbh I think it's more about who she was attempting to throw under the bus that has resulted in her temporary suspension rather than anything else. She's attacking a lot of the liberal elite and I doubt that sits too well with Jack. Twitter is after all the place that allowed Azealia Banks free reign to viciously abuse conservative politicians (NSFW examples: 1, 2) without feeling the need to action her. Wasn't until she racial abused a member of 1D that they finally suspended her.

100% agree with you. McGowan calling out high profile celebs for BS while their trying to act shocked and maintain they knew nothing about these abuses would not sit well at all with @Jack's political leanings.

The likes of Banks, Leslie Jones and Kanye West among others, have tweeted crazy stuff at people and were allowed to get away with it for the most part.

conorhal

With everybody that's ever worked with Weinstein seeming to feel obliged to come out in condemnation of him to pass some kind of purity test, I'm waiting for the 'Devin Faraci effect' to kick in, surely sombody's going to get trigged badly by the sanctimonious response from some star or producer, and start tweeting 'oh so it was bad when he did it <insert name here> well what about the time you did the exact same thing to me?'
Which is what happened when Faraci, editor of Birth.Movies.Death who worked for the Alamo Draughthouse cinema's started tweeing furiously about Trump's 'grab em by the P**** ' remark, it turned out that particular activity was something he was fond of himself.

Saruhashi

Billy86 wrote: »

There is absolutely no way to claim Clinton must have known about this without saying the exact same about Trump, and vice-versa.

Which raises the question of exactly how much all of these people know about each other.

Before the thread went into Trump vs Clinton arguments I think the poster made a good point that these powerful people seem to keep each other in check by agreeing to keep secrets in exchange for favors.

If two people in competition with each other both have some terrible secrets then it makes sense that they would hold back to avoid mutually assured destruction.

I was surprised actually by the lack of concrete stuff that came out about Trump. He comes across as the stereotypical sleazy rich guy but there was nothing solid that I saw. Even the impact of his "grab em by the pussy" moment was lessened by the fact that he said "they'll let you do anything".

So if Clinton had whatever on Trump and it never came out then a valid question, I think, is what does he have on her?

It seems like in the upper echelons of American society there is widespread corruption and abuse. People ignoring some awful stuff just to forward their own careers.

Venom

conorhal wrote: »

With everybody that's ever worked with Weinstein seeming to feel obliged to come out in condemnation of him to pass some kind of purity test, I'm waiting for the 'Devin Faraci effect' to kick in, surely sombody's going to get trigged badly by the sanctimonious response from some star or producer, and start tweeting 'oh so it was bad when he did it <insert name here> well what about the time you did the exact same thing to me?'
Which is what happened when Faraci, editor of Birth.Movies.Death who worked for the Alamo Draughthouse cinema's started tweeing furiously about Trump's 'grab em by the P**** ' remark, it turned out that particular activity was something he was fond of himself.

It's already happened to Ben Afflick with Rose McGowan and other female actors calling him out.

DaeryssaOne

Kate Beckinsale just put this up on Instagram:

"I was called to meet Harvey Weinstein at the Savoy Hotel when I was 17. I assumed it would be in a conference room which was very common.When I arrived ,reception told me to go to his room . He opened the door in his bathrobe . I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older ,unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him . After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left ,uneasy but unscathed.

A few years later he asked me if he had tried anything with me in that first meeting .I realized he couldn't remember if he had assaulted me or not .I had what I thought were boundaries - I said no to him professionally many times over the years-some of which ended up with him screaming at me calling me a **** and making threats, some of which made him laughingly tell people oh "Kate lives to say no to me ." It speaks to the status quo in this business that I was aware that standing up for myself and saying no to things,while it did allow me to feel uncompromised in myself,undoubtedly harmed my career and was never something I felt supported by anyone other than my family.

I would like to applaud the women who have come forward , and to pledge that we can from this create a new paradigm where producers,managers,executives and assistants and everyone who has in the past shrugged and said " well, that's just Harvey /Mr X/insert name here " will realize that we in numbers can affect real change.For every moment like this there have been thousands where a vulnerable person has confided outrageous unprofessional behavior and found they have no recourse, due to an atmosphere of fear that it seems almost everyone has been living in .

I had a male friend who, based on my experience,warned a young actress who said she was going to dinner with Harvey to be careful. He received a phone call the next day saying he would never work in another Miramax film ;the girl was already sleeping with Harvey and had told him that my friend had warned her off.Let's stop allowing our young women to be sexual cannon fodder,and let's remember that Harvey is an emblem of a system that is sick,and that we have work to do."

JP Liz V1

Kate Beckinsale latest to comment

http://people.com/movies/kate-beckin...al-harassment/

Venom

Saruhashi wrote: »

Which raises the question of exactly how much all of these people know about each other.

Before the thread went into Trump vs Clinton arguments I think the poster made a good point that these powerful people seem to keep each other in check by agreeing to keep secrets in exchange for favors.

If two people in competition with each other both have some terrible secrets then it makes sense that they would hold back to avoid mutually assured destruction.

I was surprised actually by the lack of concrete stuff that came out about Trump. He comes across as the stereotypical sleazy rich guy but there was nothing solid that I saw. Even the impact of his "grab em by the pussy" moment was lessened by the fact that he said "they'll let you do anything".

So if Clinton had whatever on Trump and it never came out then a valid question, I think, is what does he have on her?

It seems like in the upper echelons of American society there is widespread corruption and abuse. People ignoring some awful stuff just to forward their own careers.

You have to take into account that most politicians will accept donations from anyone if it helps them get elected. Someone with the money and connections of Weinstein would be like a golden goose.

Saying that, there are many video clips of the Clinton's, Obama's and other high level politicians praising Weinstein as being a great personal friend to them not to mention the level of access he had to the Whitehouse.

retro:electro

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Kate Beckinsale latest to comment

http://people.com/movies/kate-beckin...al-harassment/

Yet poor Meryl god love her had no clue..
Surely the fact that Hollywood's most prominent personalities are exposing Harvey right now puts Meryl's whole statement into disrepute? I bet she thought everyone would follow her lead and feign ignorance.

Saruhashi

Venom wrote: »

You have to take into account that most politicians will accept donations from anyone if it helps them get elected. Someone with the money and connections of Weinstein would be like a golden goose.

Saying that, there are many video clips of the Clinton's, Obama's and other high level politicians praising Weinstein as being a great personal friend to them not to mention the level of access he had to the Whitehouse.

I keep thinking there are parallels to the way the church was here in Ireland.

Rich, with loads of political influence. On the surface everyone looks like they are just trying to do good. Help the disadvantaged. Help young people to realize their potential. Make the world a better place.

In the background though there is some horrendous stuff going on and people are either just ignoring the rumors or outright trying to cover it up.

I refuse to believe that the Clinton's or the Obama's would not look into this guys background before deciding to praise him publicly. They've known what he is but they've decided to do what's necessary to forward their own agendas.

It's almost a reflection of the position that many of these young people entering Hollywood find themselves in. The amounts of money are huge and the gains you make will change your life forever. You could literally go from nothing to overnight superstar and this sleazy scumbag is the gatekeeper. So maybe you just put up with some stuff.

Maybe Obama and Clinton were being used in a similar, but far less horrible, way.

The more troubling possibility is that these people were praising Weinstein because they have some hidden secrets of their own.

This doesn't surprise me about Hollywood. There have always been rumors. There have always been these disturbing rumors in "show business" and unfortunately they are proven to be true over and over again.

Wibbs

jobr wrote: »

I had a male friend who, based on my experience,warned a young actress who said she was going to dinner with Harvey to be careful. He received a phone call the next day saying he would never work in another Miramax film ;the girl was already sleeping with Harvey and had told him that my friend had warned her off.

I'm glad she brought it up, because that's the other aspect to this, women(and men) desperate to get into the business who will exchange sexual favours for advantage. Their hole for a role, as it were. We're (now)hearing how many times King Lech tried it on and failed, what will be less likely to come out will be those times where he tried it on and it worked and furthered their careers and not just women and not just Weinstein.

mzungu

anna080 wrote: »

Yet poor Meryl god love her had no clue..
Surely the fact that Hollywood's most prominent personalities are exposing Harvey right now puts Meryl's whole statement into disrepute? I bet she thought everyone would follow her lead and feign ignorance.

Considering her support for Roman Polanski, I was half expecting her to come out to bat for Weinstein. I would find it hard to take anything she says seriously.

Ash.J.Williams

Meryl streep is a joke

Ipso

In the case of Brian Singer, aren't some of the allegations pretty old? This would be back before he was a very popular director, so if the charges have any credibility why go to the bother of covering up his crimes, unless he is part of a wider powerful circle.

retro:electro

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Meryl streep is a joke

Totally. And in a way I kind of hate the fact that she is in the firing line and even minimally deflecting from Harvey's behaviour - but the fact that she has asserted herself as some kind of paragon of morality; pontificating and judging, when her disparaging words would perhaps be better directed at her own back yard.
This scandal goes further than exposing the behaviour of Weinstein, it exposes the corrupt hypocrisy of Hollywood as a whole.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Venom wrote: »

100% agree with you. McGowan calling out high profile celebs for BS while their trying to act shocked and maintain they knew nothing about these abuses would not sit well at all with @Jack's political leanings.

The likes of Banks, Leslie Jones and Kanye West among others, have tweeted crazy stuff at people and were allowed to get away with it for the most part.

The Bigotry of Low Expectations.

POC are not held to the same standards as whites.

Billy86

Ipso wrote: »

In the case of Brian Singer, aren't some of the allegations pretty old? This would be back before he was a very popular director, so if the charges have any credibility why go to the bother of covering up his crimes, unless he is part of a wider powerful circle.

That's the thing - Singer still doesn't hold considerable power, as good as no directors do. On set yeah sure but the real work of this manipulation happens off set (e.g. the abuses often happen on set or location, but long term repercussions for well after when the shoot is done is where the real balance of power lies). That power ultimately lies with producers which along with the money and royalties, is a big reason why a lot of the entertainment industry is obsessed with getting 'producer credits' on projects. Which really brings up quite a number of questions about Singer who continues to get high profile work despite many of these allegations being quite out in the open for some time.




Also, apparently infighting between Harvey and his brother has kicked off with Harvey alleging Bob set him up and Bob's response back:

"My brother Harvey is obviously a very sick man," Bob told TMZ. "I've urged him to seek immediate professional help because he is in dire need of it. His remorse and apologies to the victims of his abuse are hollow. He said he would go away for help and has yet to do so."

On Tuesday, People reported that Harvey's wife, Georgina Chapman, is leaving him and that the disgraced movie mogul is flying to Europe to seek treatment for sex addiction.

"He has proven himself to be a world class liar and now rather than seeking help he is looking to blame others," Bob went on to tell TMZ. "His assertion [that Bob set him up] is categorically untrue from A to Z. I pray he gets the help that he needs and I believe that it is him behind all of these stories to distract from his own failure to get help."

seamus

"Sex addiction".

I thought South Park destroyed that nonsense with their pisstake episode. Weinstein really laying on the "Poor me" bull.

Grayson

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Tbh I think it's more about who she was attempting to throw under the bus that has resulted in her temporary suspension rather than anything else. She's attacking a lot of the liberal elite and I doubt that sits too well with Jack. Twitter is after all the place that allowed Azealia Banks free reign to viciously abuse conservative politicians (NSFW examples: 1, 2) without feeling the need to action her. Wasn't until she racial abused a member of 1D that they finally suspended her.

I read earlier that twitter is now banning people for bad language. And that the suspension Rose got was a 12 hour suspension.


I've worked for a big online company. A lot of these type of suspensions are caused when the post hits a filter. The suspension is automatic and isn't done by a person.

It's always possible that someone physically reviewed the account but it's just as likely that it's automated.

tara73

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Interesting. Abusive DMs perhaps.


https://twitter.com/timtrimingham/status/918433166301515776

why I'm not surprised. a person, brave and without fear, has to be silenced one way or the other.
this is for the people who still wonder why some people don't 'speak up'. here's one example what happens if you speak up.

Outlaw Pete

jobr wrote: »

Kate Beckinsale just put this up on Instagram:

"I was called to meet Harvey Weinstein at the Savoy Hotel when I was 17. I assumed it would be in a conference room which was very common.When I arrived ,reception told me to go to his room . He opened the door in his bathrobe . I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older ,unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him . After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left ,uneasy but unscathed."

Ah well sure you never know, Harvey may yet end up doing some Porridge.

Penn

tara73 wrote: »

why I'm not surprised. a person, brave and without fear, has to be silenced one way or the other.
this is for the people who still wonder why some people don't 'speak up'. here's one example what happens if you speak up.

Twitter have said that the post she had up with a screen cap of an email contained someone's phone number, and that's why her account was suspended. She's removed that tweet and has access to the account again but hasn't tweeted.

Billy86

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah well sure you never know, Harvey may yet end up doing some Porridge.

If in reference to the age thing (Beckinsale being 17 at that time) that would likely depend as New York's age of consent is 17 but California's is 18 - other states vary of course but I'd assume it was one of these two states if in the US. She also seems to have lived in the UK until maybe her early 20s, where the age of consent is 16 - it may have happened there as she told him she had school the next day. Her first appearances on TV/film also came in 1991 when she was 17 and were UK productions.

Goat the dote

Billy86 wrote: »

If in reference to the age thing (Beckinsale being 17 at that time) that would likely depend as New York's age of consent is 17 but California's is 18 - other states vary of course but I'd assume it was one of these two states if in the US. She also seems to have lived in the UK until maybe her early 20s, where the age of consent is 16 - it may have happened there as she told him she had school the next day. Her first appearances on TV/film also came in 1991 when she was 17 and were UK productions.

He offered her alcohol. The age limit there is 21 I think

Billy86

Goat the dote wrote: »

He offered her alcohol. The age limit there is 21 I think

Good point, missed that one! Yeah it's a blanket 21 in the US since the 70s I think it was and the UK is obviously 18.

AllForIt

Check this out for cringeworthyness :


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41594764

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05jpbnn


Pathetic attempt at attention seeking. What a plonker.

Outlaw Pete

Billy86 wrote: »

If in reference to the age thing (Beckinsale being 17 at that time) that would likely depend as New York's age of consent is 17 but California's is 18 - other states vary of course but I'd assume it was one of these two states if in the US. She also seems to have lived in the UK until maybe her early 20s, where the age of consent is 16 - it may have happened there as she told him she had school the next day. Her first appearances on TV/film also came in 1991 when she was 17 and were UK productions.

Yes, was referencing the alcohol offer but primarily I was just indulging in a little paronomasia

AllGunsBlazing

AllForIt wrote: »

Check this out for cringeworthyness :


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41594764

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05jpbnn


Pathetic attempt at attention seeking. What a plonker.

I saw that on Newsnight last night. It seemed horribly self indulgent on his part. He's not a victim in any of this so why was his opinion sought after?