Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

While we lads all like to say "What kind of man wouldn't do anything?" and all that, if the victims won't go to the cops or report it then odds are they'll be asking confidants to keep it to themselves as well. I do think it's ridiculous that it apparently was always enough to stop the men doing anything.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I read earlier today where one young lass who was on the road to more was assaulted by Weinstein and she confided in her costar Colin Firth. Who now expresses regret he only gave her sympathy at the time. She's forgiven him and confirmed he was supportive, but for me it begs the question what sort of "man" wouldn't take that crap further and at best have words with the abuser? Pitt at least did apparently take Weinstein to task(but stopped there). Jesus, you can call me old fashioned, but with so called "men" around like that, no wonder women were afraid to speak out.

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.

People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

PCeeeee

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.

People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

You're dead right. But what Wibbs is saying needs to be said. Over and over again. Old fashioned as I no doubt am we should act when it is in our view morally right to do so. We might need encouragement to do so in the face of whatever might come our way afterward.

The saying of it by our peers makes us sure of ourselves and that's important.

server down

eviltwin wrote: »

Harvey's power to kill a career didn't just extend to the women he targeted, I'm sure it would have had an effect on anyone, male or female, who called him out on it and tried to put him in his place.

I find the entire thing almost beyond belief that one man seemed to have so much power that he could do this to so many people and get away with it for so long.

Oh don’t be naive. It can’t be one person.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.

People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

David Icke isn’t listened to because he believes we are ruled by lizards.

I fail to see why say Ben Affleck could have his career destroyed at this stage. Or why reporting on one man would end careers. Unless it isn’t one man.

Also interesting how journalists have stayed away. Sure there were “sexism in Hollywood” stores about not enough female leads. Or Oscars. Not this.

eviltwin

server down wrote: »

Oh don’t be naive. It can’t be one person.

Its not just one person, its a trickle effect, I doubt he was the only person involved in this kind of activity but he's the most powerful, the one with the most to lose, the biggest name so he's the one who is getting the heat.

conorhal

Deleted User wrote: »

You know something interesting, Wibbs? I've read people on here and elsewhere ask why people who knew didn't say anything? The same people would often understand why the victims themselves didn't.

But surely the people who knew didn't say anything for practically the same reasons; they knew it would also destroy their lives as well. Not just that, but it would still be their word against one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry.

I don't think it has anything to do with, "oh, he's white and male, so he'll be listened to" - look what happened to Corey Feldman and David Icke, and numerous other people who are white and male and still weren't listened to.
People didn't say anything because of fear. Because of who Weinstein was.

As much as you might disagree with such a person, Lauren Southern made a great response to exactly what you're talking about.
The thrust of her point about why people didn't speak out earlier is that 'it's better to be wrong too late, then it is to be right too early' (just ask Galileo).
If you are a lone voice crying in the wilderness you will be dismissed, worse, you might just end up like John the Baptist, a head on a plate.
That's a legitimate fear. I wouldn't judge anybody for feeling it.

In the 90's Miramax dominated the Oscar's and if you wanted one you had to do business with Weinstein. As Southern points out, in a survey of 1,500 Oscar acceptance speeches, Weinstien was thanked more often than God. In 96' 22 of the top Oscar categories went to Miramax backed film's all the other major studios, combined bagged 5.
But, fear protect the establishment.
It's interesting how Weinstien, now that he has no power, has become Hollywood's 'scape-goat', and I mean that in the original sense of the phrase, back when a tribe would pin the sins of the tribe to an animal and send it out into the wilderness so that retribution would fall on it and not them.
It's interesting how an industry in which the 'casting couch' as been around since it's inception has chosen to lump it's sins on one individual and cast him into the desert but little has been said about the systemic nature of the problem, nor have other names leaked out (except on social media).
The goat has been cast into the wilderness, God's, look not upon our tribe!

server down

eviltwin wrote: »

Its not just one person, its a trickle effect, I doubt he was the only person involved in this kind of activity but he's the most powerful, the one with the most to lose, the biggest name so he's the one who is getting the heat.

Is he? His studio wasn’t the biggest. The only way a threat like “you’ll never work in this town again” works is if it true. Therefore other studio heads are providing cover.

JupiterKid

The BBC news website is saying that the Board of the Academy Awards is meeting to "review" Weinstein's membership.

This smells to me like a circling of the wagons - Weinstein will be sacrificed for the "greater good" of perpetuating the Hollywood entertainment industry. There's just too much at stake for them if this scandal widens to bring other big players down - it's all about the money. Sickening.:mad:

We shall see how this all pans out. But Tinseltown seems desperate to limit the damage and preserve the status quo.

Meanwhile, Weinstein is reportedly at a treatment facility somewhere undisclosed in Europe.

conorhal

JupiterKid wrote: »

The BBC news website is saying that the Board of the Academy Awards is meeting to "review" Weinstein's membership.

This smells to me like a circling of the wagons - Weinstein will be sacrificed for the "greater good" of perpetuating the Hollywood entertainment industry. There's just too much at stake for them if this scandal widens to bring other big players down - it's all about the money. Sickening.:mad:

We shall see how this all pans out. But Tinseltown seems desperate to limit the damage and preserve the status quo.

Meanwhile, Weinstein is reportedly at a treatment facility somewhere undisclosed in Europe.

It's worth noting that as a nominee and winner, Roman Polanski is a voting member, who anally raped a 13yr old girl that he drugged up, but that's fine as long as it's not a 'trending topic'.

meeeeh

server down wrote: »

David Icke isn’t listened to because he believes we are ruled by lizards.

I fail to see why say Ben Affleck could have his career destroyed at this stage. Or why reporting on one man would end careers. Unless it isn’t one man.

Also interesting how journalists have stayed away. Sure there were “sexism in Hollywood” stores about not enough female leads. Or Oscars. Not this.

The article in New Yorker explains how journalists were trying for years to publish something yet every time either the witnesses backed of or legal treaths were sent. I'm not saying all journalists are blameless but there is a reason journalists can't just name someone without having water tight proof.

server down

meeeeh wrote: »

The article in New Yorker explains how journalists were trying for years to publish something yet every time either the witnesses backed of or legal treaths were sent. I'm not saying all journalists are blameless but there is a reason journalists can't just name someone without having water tight proof.

Yes. Fair enough. However I notice that there was plenty of reports on Uber’s toxic misogyny and general misogyny in IT (nothing like this scale - Uber aside).

tara73

JupiterKid wrote: »

Meanwhile, Weinstein is reportedly at a treatment facility somewhere undisclosed in Europe.

He's in Europe??:eek: How can they let this piece of sh*** fly out? So many people with much lesser skeletons in the closet get on the 'no fly list' in a wink, but this person can fly out. He will most likely never coming back to the US to avoid any conviction, like his counterpart Polanski.

Do you have a source for this?

pitifulgod

tara73 wrote: »

He's in Europe??:eek: How can they let this piece of sh*** fly out? So many people with much lesser skeletons in the closet get on the 'no fly list' in a wink, but this person can fly out. He will most likely never coming back to the US to avoid any conviction, like his counterpart Polanski.

Do you have a source for this?

He din't end up going to Europe in end, he's in Arizona rehab.
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/harvey-weinstein-diner-arizona-restaurant-rehab-article-1.3560418

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

There has been a lot of talk about 'enablers' of sexual assault and paedophilia, which is something I want to talk about.

There is rarely one predator operating on their own. There is an entire support group who are prepared to procure, traffic, threaten, intimidate, and dismiss victims.

To use a crude analogy: if the predator is the frontman, then they enablers are the backstage crew.

It's the PR assistant who looks the other way.
It's the journalist who takes a kickback to kill a story.
It's the cop who is on the payroll to pass information.
It's the doctor and medical staff who leak confidential patient notes.
It's the fellow celebrities who don't want to get involved.
It's the ruthless legal team who will crush a victim without mercy as long as they get paid.
It's the two faced politician who claims to be a feminist but protects rapists.
And it's the general public who pretend they never knew what was going on, or blame the victims because of what they wore.

Take a lot at the enablers in this BBC clip. It's the suited and booted PR people who immediately shut down the questions about Weinstein with a joking-but-serious "I think we're going to pass on that one".

Immediate shutdown.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41619317/harvey-weinstein-allegations-exploring-hollywood-s-casting-couch-culture


Know your enemy. It isn't just the predator who needs to be held accountable.

The one thing these rats don't like is expose and publicity. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. And they'll turn on each other in two seconds flat to save themselves. They use divide and conquer tactics on us; but they are equally vulnerable. The one thing they've never fully to able to control is information and communication.

Their power structure is a paper tiger. Any bit of sustained pressure at all and it will collapse in on itself.

You may not realise it, but you have woken up in the age of information warfare. And that's what this is: full blown warfare.

And everyone has the potential to be a General just by keeping themselves informed and relaying accurate information. The internet has levelled the playing field. The collective intelligence available to us has the power to destroy these people overnight if we use it properly. Knowledge truly is power.


So dig, dig, dig.

tara73

I don't really get this rehab thing. Oh, he's going into Rhab and --boof-- he comes out and is a cleansed, great character person?? what a nonsense.

or does a voluntarily Rehab visit has any advantages in case it all gets to court..? I think it was mentioned somewhere beforehand. he just does it for his own advantages again.

what a disgrace, all words fail here. which therapist wants to have anything to do with this scum. but oh, there's money involved, sure they 'cure' him..yaaaawn.

PCeeeee

PCeeeee wrote: »

You're dead right. But what Wibbs is saying needs to be said. Over and over again. Old fashioned as I no doubt am we should act when it is in our view morally right to do so. We might need encouragement to do so in the face of whatever might come our way afterward.

The saying of it by our peers makes us sure of ourselves and that's important.

See - it's easy to say it when you're not in that situation. But if I were in one of absolute and total fear of the consequences, then I don't know what I'd do, truth be told.

server down

tara73 wrote: »

I don't really get this rehab thing. Oh, he's going into Rhab and --boof-- he comes out and is a cleansed, great character person?? what a nonsense.

or does a voluntarily Rehab visit has any advantages in case it all gets to court..? I think it was mentioned somewhere beforehand. he just does it for his own advantages again.

what a disgrace, all words fail here. which therapist wants to have anything to do with this scum. but oh, there's money involved, sure they 'cure' him..yaaaawn.

An old history teacher of mine said that rehab is like confession. Confess and be cleansed of and forgiven for your sins. The catholic church might expect you to reform afterwards though. Rehab just takes the money.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

See - it's easy to say it when you're not in that situation. But if I were in one of absolute and total fear of the consequences, then I don't know what I'd do, truth be told.

I’m trying to work out how otherwise mouthy multi millionaires would be in total fear of one guy.

server down

server down wrote: »

I’m trying to work out how otherwise mouthy multi millionaires would be in total fear of one guy.

Not just one guy. Someone with powerful friends who could destroy your career, no matter who you are. Someone else mentioned about Reese Witherspoon and how she vanished and how they wouldn't be surprised if it had been because of Weinstein.

We don't know how many other people had their careers vanish for certain.

meeeeh

server down wrote: »

Yes. Fair enough. However I notice that there was plenty of reports on Uber’s toxic misogyny and general misogyny in IT (nothing like this scale - Uber aside).

As far as I know that is more general stuff, people weren't named unless there is some concrete stuff. For example Luis Walsh's defamation case is perfect example how things can go wrong.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not just one guy. Someone with powerful friends who could destroy your career, no matter who you are. Someone else mentioned about Reese Witherspoon and how she vanished and how they wouldn't be surprised if it had been because of Weinstein.

We don't know how many other people had their careers vanish for certain.

Ok. So you are agreeing with me that this was systematic and systemic.

server down

meeeeh wrote: »

As far as I know that is more general stuff, people weren't named unless there is some concrete stuff. For example Luis Walsh's defamation case is perfect example how things can go wrong.

No, the CEO was named in that fairly early. However there were no general reports on the casting couch culture either. I mean we all knew but none of the campaigns you would get on other industries.

Hande hoche!

Expelled by the Oscars crowd.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41623637

Wibbs

JupiterKid wrote: »

The BBC news website is saying that the Board of the Academy Awards is meeting to "review" Weinstein's membership.

This smells to me like a circling of the wagons - Weinstein will be sacrificed for the "greater good" of perpetuating the Hollywood entertainment industry. There's just too much at stake for them if this scandal widens to bring other big players down - it's all about the money. Sickening.:mad:

We shall see how this all pans out. But Tinseltown seems desperate to limit the damage and preserve the status quo..

Yep. As I mused on the first day this broke:

Wibbs wrote: »

They brought Woody Allen back into the fold too after his well dodgy seduction and marriage to his adopted daughter. So long as someone makes bank, they get left in the sin bin for a time, but after a while they come back in quietly.

They also tend to be attention junkies so I expect much outrage for a time, each fighting over twitter to be the most supportive/victimised.

When something like this happens in Hollywood, or music biz or the fashion biz and goes public I think: A) sounds like he pissed off enough of the top movers and shakers or this would have never come to light(often they wait until a greasy bastard is dead). After all he kept paying off his previous victims to keep quiet for twenty years. Something changed. It's a pressure release valve for the ongoing stuff we never hear about and C) it looks like the industry is "taking this very seriously" and need a sacrificial goat to pin out, but tomorrow another aspiring actress(or actor) willing to do almost anything to be a "star" will be looking down the barrel of another greasy bastard on another casting couch. Business as usual.

Wibbs wrote: »

This would be seen as a venial sin, though a bad one as it went public, the true mortal sin of Hollywood and for which forgiveness is rare is to lose money.

Further to this earlier point Weinstein's star has been on the wane and his top earning level and golden touch(no pun) has long passed. This meant a) the first two women, McGowan and Judd(who are also pretty much out of the mainstream business) to come forward felt more safe to do so and b) it means Hollywood has much less to lose over the floodgates opening on him and cal look like it's cleaning house while losing the least amount of face and cash(the former looks ever less likely now, though people have very short memories). I would take some convincing to believe that a current "Weinstein" at the top of his game making money for the studio would be so easily exposed. And I would take epic levels of convincing and sleeping tablets to believe there aren't other "Weinstein's" operating today.

tara73

server down wrote: »

An old history teacher of mine said that rehab is like confession. Confess and be cleansed of and forgiven for your sins. The catholic church might expect you to reform afterwards though. Rehab just takes the money.

don't get me wrong, I think people with addiction problems, mental health issues etc. going into professional Rehab is the best thing to do. But this guy is just a scumbag with the lousiest of lousiest character (I avoid comparisons to any creature from the animal kingdom, because that would be an insult to the animals..:)) and no Rehab will make him a better person. he might restrain himself in the future, but he could do that without Rehab, he knew exactly what he was doing, it's no illness, it's pure evilness.

Noel82

tara73 wrote: »

don't get me wrong, I think people with addiction problems, mental health issues etc. going into professional Rehab is the best thing to do. But this guy is just a scumbag with the lousiest of lousiest character (I avoid comparisons to any creature from the animal kingdom, because that would be an insult to the animals..:)) and no Rehab will make him a better person. he might restrain himself in the future, but he could do that without Rehab, he knew exactly what he was doing, it's no illness, it's pure evilness.

Totally this, he did it because he could get away with it, not because of some illness forcing him to do it. He treated people like pawns and knew exactly what he was doing. Hopefully hard prison time ensues. The "rehab" angle is just a publicity stunt to lesson and somewhat dampen the horrific things he's done.

retro:electro

tara73 wrote: »

don't get me wrong, I think people with addiction problems, mental health issues etc. going into professional Rehab is the best thing to do. But this guy is just a scumbag with the lousiest of lousiest character (I avoid comparisons to any creature from the animal kingdom, because that would be an insult to the animals..:)) and no Rehab will make him a better person. he might restrain himself in the future, but he could do that without Rehab, he knew exactly what he was doing, it's no illness, it's pure evilness.

It's just PR spin. Say you're sorry, you're an addict and are going to rehab to fix your problems. If the public are stupid enough they'll buy what you're selling and feel sorry for you. Tiger Woods was the same, and he wasn't out five minutes when he was at the same craic again. He has to be seen to be doing something, anything.

Anyway, De Niro is very quiet in all of this isn't he? He's best buddies with Weinstein. Dr Niro was shouting awfully loud about his hatred of Trump during the election. Wouldn't be surprised if he's on the list of master molesters.

Noel82

anna080 wrote: »

Anyway, De Niro is very quiet in all of this isn't he? He's best buddies with Weinstein. Dr Niro was shouting awfully loud about his hatred of Trump during the election. Wouldn't be surprised if he's on the list of master molesters.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-sex-scandal-that-wouldnt-lie-down-1185127.html

"The case uncovers the brutal methods used to snare young women - some as young as 15 - into a call-girl agency specialising in wealthy, high- profile clients. It also exposes attempts by the French government machine to block an investigation which might embarrass senior politicians and damage French interests abroad.


Six people are charged with the running of an international prostitution ring, whose call-girls entertained the actor Robert de Niro, the former tennis player, Wojtek Fibak, two senior (but unnamed) French politicians and several Gulf princes. The agency specialised in tricking, or trapping, star-struck teenage girls into selling their bodies with the promise of careers as models or actresses."

JupiterKid

AFAIK from what I have read, "sex addiction" is only treated in a limited number of rehab facilities around the world, and many within the psychiatric and psychological professions question if it is even an actual, real addiction. I know actor Michael Douglas was supposedly treated for sex addiction around the time he starred in Basic Instinct in the early 1990s.

I myself am a recovering (very early stage) alcoholic, which IS a real addiction. I've been in rehab 4 times over the past 3 years. I can tell you, some rehab places are like hotels, others are like boot camps. I wonder what type of rehab centre Weinstein will be going into?

BBC news had reported that HW had gone to a facility in Europe. Perhaps plans were changed after Weinstein got legal advice - so as not to be seen to be doing a "Polanski?"

The more I think about it, the more I wonder about actresses (and some actors) who were riding high in Hollywood only for their careers to stall and for them to drop off the media radar. Did they simply grow tired of the lifestyle and retire? Or was there something more insidious at play?

The story of child/teen actor Corey Haim is heartbreaking. A really talented kid who broke into Hollywood at age 12/13 in the mid 1980s, starred in some really big films but who quickly turned to drugs and his addiction destroyed his film career and ultimately killed him. It's actually amazing he made it to 38 given the extent of his drug addiction. His friend Corey Feldman, another Hollywood child star, has alleged that Haim was sodomised by a well known industry figure during the filming of a movie when he was 13. Of course, no names have been disclosed. They never are. Feldman alleges he too was abused sexually and that an extensive paedophile ring operates in Hollywood.

Look at Drew Barrymore. Starred in ET aged 7, was drinking alcohol at 9, cocaine at 11. But she survived. Has she horrors to tell?

But back to the scumbag du jour, Weinstein. I don't think from what I've read from his victims that have come forward that he did what he did for sexual arousal, it was all about fear, control and manipulation. This I think was where he got his kicks. And he had a whole team support him and enable him or turn a blind eye. The whole thing is just sickening.