Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 19-10-2017 08:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What does this have to do with this thread or are you using this place as a dump for random articles?

I thought we were trying to raise awareness of abuse in society? These kids don't have a voice, and there should be as much focus on who was abusing them, (and making money out of it) as there is on Weinstein.

Whoever was facilitating this abuse needs to be publicly destroyed. And you'd be amazed what publicity can do in terms of getting witnesses to come forward.

Or is it another case of sweep it under the carpet and pretend you didn't know?

19-10-2017 09:11AM

Surprised that Amanda Brunker didn't speak about her experience at the hands of a hurricane given that she has been affected by every thing.

Also...

22627420_10155706122505097_753061163_n.png?oh=54c9e46048908dca32887b9470acc6ad&oe=59EAE606

22627420_10155706122505097_753061163_n.png?oh=54c9e46048908dca32887b9470acc6ad&oe=59EAE606

Hector Savage · 19-10-2017 10:59AM

So apparently it's not unusual in the music industry either

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41672902

Wibbs · 19-10-2017 11:10AM

Hector Savage wrote: »

So apparently it's not unusual in the music industry either

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41672902

Naturally. Any industry that promises riches and fame will have gatekeepers to those riches and fame and a long queue of people trying to get though the gate. It's a perfect target rich environment for abusers.

Billy86 · 19-10-2017 11:23AM

Sure didn't that Ke$ha one say something similar about a producer called Doctor [something-or-other] maybe a year or two back? Can't remember many particulars about it at all but I do remember a good few people having some not-so-kind things to say about her at the time.

danmanw8 · 19-10-2017 11:59AM

Jurgen Klopp wrote: »

The Hollywood hypocrisy is really exposed with this fella

Meryl Streep I'm hysterics over Trumps grab em by the pussy comments but was the first to give a standing ovation for Polanski even after all he's done and not word out of her criticize this creep

Didn't she say he made her do dodgy stuff back in the day too?

I remember I think it was Tina Fey made a joke at some awards directed at him and all the actors just groaned but once the camera panned to Wein laughing they all joined in, afraid of their lives of his influence even tho his antics were well known

Tina Fey's show 30 Rock called Weinstein out, the line was something like "I'll have you know I turned Harvey Weinstein down 3 times.... out of 5". One of the people who worked on the show played an important part in bringing the scandal to light.

Shurimgreat · 19-10-2017 03:11PM

I still think Brunker should name and shame the businessman if it is indeed a true story. It might help protect other vulnerable women.

Many of the women coming out now including McGowan etc are naming perpetrators. This encourages other women to come forward with accounts about the same perpetrators.

Protecting the anonymity of a perpetrator is no use to anyone.

ceadaoin. · 19-10-2017 03:17PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Sure didn't that Ke$ha one say something similar about a producer called Doctor [something-or-other] maybe a year or two back? Can't remember many particulars about it at all but I do remember a good few people having some not-so-kind things to say about her at the time.

Yep, she accused Dr Luke of giving her drugs and taking advantage of her over several years. She says she started to say no and he forced himself on her and blackmailed her by holding her career to ransom. He refused to release her from her contract so she was forced to work with him or no one. That's what the court case was about. I think she lost the case? But has since been released from the contract and has a new album out. Other artists who had worked with Dr Luke like Lady Gaga and Kelly Clarkson supported her so I think there was something in it.

I remember the thread on here at the time many had no sympathy for her. And those same people then wonder why more don't speak out.

A Little Pony · 19-10-2017 03:26PM

How do people think so many of the untalented people you see on TV nowadays get into that position in the first place.

selectamatic · 19-10-2017 03:59PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I still think Brunker should name and shame the businessman if it is indeed a true story. It might help protect other vulnerable women.

Many of the women coming out now including McGowan etc are naming perpetrators. This encourages other women to come forward with accounts about the same perpetrators.

Protecting the anonymity of a perpetrator is no use to anyone.

Brunker should go to her nearest garda station and go on record like everyone else that witness' or is a victim of a crime and let due process take its course.

This name and shame social media witch hunt mentality can potentially go very wrong and innocent people can be accused of abhorrent things and as good as declared instantly guilty by the baying mob.

Goat the dote · 19-10-2017 04:00PM

A Little Pony wrote: »

How do people think so many of the untalented people you see on TV nowadays get into that position in the first place.

Is that how you explain Fair City?

branie2 · 19-10-2017 04:42PM

I've no sympathy for him

Shurimgreat · 19-10-2017 04:43PM

selectamatic wrote: »

Brunker should go to her nearest garda station and go on record like everyone else that witness' or is a victim of a crime and let due process take its course.

This name and shame social media witch hunt mentality can potentially go very wrong and innocent people can be accused of abhorrent things and as good as declared instantly guilty by the baying mob.

Name and shame or alternatively go to the nearest Garda station, either or.

I think one way or another she is not coming out well from her article. Either its a made up fiction which if so shows her in a poor light. Or else its a true story and she knows there's a guy out there using his power and influence to attack vulnerable women.

kunst nugget · 19-10-2017 04:49PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Name and shame or alternatively go to the nearest Garda station, either or.

No bloody way is it an either or situation. It's astonishing that you think that naming and shaming someone, without the need for any evidence, in the court of social media is as valid an option as reporting the crime to the Gardai for them to investigate.

Shurimgreat · 19-10-2017 04:56PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

No bloody way is it an either or situation. It's astonishing that you think that naming and shaming someone, without the need for any evidence, in the court of social media is as valid an option as reporting the crime to the Gardai for them to investigate.

Most of the women who came out against Weinstein had no evidence other than their own word. They named and shamed him. A brave but necessary move.

When some of the women went to the cops such as the model who wore a wire, the cops did nothing.

But as I said, she can do one or the other.

kunst nugget · 19-10-2017 05:13PM

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Most of the women who came out against Weinstein had no evidence other than their own word. They named and shamed him. A brave but necessary move.

When some of the women went to the cops such as the model who wore a wire, the cops did nothing.

But as I said, she can do one or the other.

None of them came out and spoke against him until the New York Times had published their article on Weinstein - an article that would have had an enormous amount of research from numerous sources put into it and would have been thoroughly checked to make sure that what they were printing was legally sound and not libelous. What has come out since has helped corroborate the veracity of the story.

Completely different than the likes of Brunker casually calling someone out on social media with nary a bit of evidence to back it up.

Shurimgreat · 19-10-2017 05:22PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

None of them came out and spoke against him until the New York Times had published their article on Weinstein - an article that would have had an enormous amount of research from numerous sources put into it and would have been thoroughly checked to make sure that what they were printing was legally sound and not libelous. What has come out since has helped corroborate the veracity of the story.

Completely different than the likes of Brunker casually calling someone out on social media with nary a bit of evidence to back it up.

It doesn't matter the forum where its called out to be honest. Its actually easier to sue someone writing in an established newspaper than someone casually saying something on twitter or social media.

Most historical sexual assault cases depend on the victims word against the perpetrators. DNA evidence etc would be long gone by that stage.

And as I repeated and which you continue to overlook, let her go to the Gardaí and make a statement.

But I would add, Weinstein was called out all over social media and most of the accusations were made on twitter by actresses and models, with little or no solid evidence to back it up. He's been tried (rightly) and found guilty by social media. My hunch is if it was left to the police to investigate Weinstein, he'd escape scot free. In fact shamefully, that's exactly what happened. Because a lot of the time prosecutors are reluctant to bring something to court where the evidence is flimsy.

markodaly · 19-10-2017 07:20PM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Wasn't the reason for this population decline and a lack of workers in Germany? Is that left-wing? Also, can you remember who it was that helped wreck Iraq, Libya and Syria? Is western supplying of Islamist nut-jobs 'left-wing'?

Population decline and lack of workers in Germany, when the unemployment rate of both Spain and Greece hovers over 20%.

You prove the point also, if the reason was why you mentioned, then why did they lie about it? Were the German people asked about this?

The Rape of Lucretia · 19-10-2017 07:33PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

You missed the joke again-and since when is 'b***k' an expletive? It's not racist to say 'b***k' the same way it's not racist to say 'white'.

Oh, I see what the 'joke' was alright. But this is 2017, and while it may be an archaic 'joke', it certainly isnt funny. Rather it is grossly offensive, as is the idea one refers to a person as of any colour at all. Your attitude is proving my point, I believe indeed you do not find them offensive. But such an viewpoint is as outdated as the one where older powerful men exploit young women trying to work in an industry controlled by older powerful men, where their view of acceptable behaviour is lost in a time warp. Until now and again, as for HW, their cover is broken.

Wibbs · 19-10-2017 08:00PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Oh, I see what the 'joke' was alright. But this is 2017, and while it may be an archaic 'joke', it certainly isnt funny.

To you. I hate to break this news but you don't set the bar for what's funny and what isn't. Then again a sense of humour was hardly ever been an accusation levelled at intersectional social "studies" philosophies.

Rather it is grossly offensive, as is the idea one refers to a person as of any colour at all.

Grossly offensive eh? So one can't refer to a person's colour? That's verboten now too? You actually "censored" the word "Black". That's pretty much all we need to know TBH.

Your attitude is proving my point, I believe indeed you do not find them offensive. But such an viewpoint is as outdated as the one where older powerful men exploit young women trying to work in an industry controlled by older powerful men, where their view of acceptable behaviour is lost in a time warp. Until now and again, as for HW, their cover is broken.

It would be extremely naive to think that industries(any really) will not continue to be controlled by "older powerful men" and no amount of figurehead women in higher roles will likely change that. Why? Sexism is part of it, but a bigger part of it IMHO is that there are simply more men as percentage overall that will seek out and be willing to work their lives away to get to those levels. Pretty much every single person that got to the top from the bottom are near pathological workaholics and more men exhibit this trait. Most people, men or women don't.

Pero_Bueno · 19-10-2017 08:06PM

Hector Savage wrote: »

So apparently it's not unusual in the music industry either

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41672902

I see what you did there

:D:D

RabbleRouser2k · 19-10-2017 08:41PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yep, she accused Dr Luke of giving her drugs and taking advantage of her over several years. She says she started to say no and he forced himself on her and blackmailed her by holding her career to ransom. He refused to release her from her contract so she was forced to work with him or no one. That's what the court case was about. I think she lost the case? But has since been released from the contract and has a new album out. Other artists who had worked with Dr Luke like Lady Gaga and Kelly Clarkson supported her so I think there was something in it.

I remember the thread on here at the time many had no sympathy for her. And those same people then wonder why more don't speak out.

What went against Kesha, or called her case into question, was that she testified, under oath and on camera, that Dr Luke had never touched her (This was a few years into her career) or abused her. Her mother testified the same. If she was lying under oath the first time, then her telling the truth now is called into question. Likewise, if she told the truth under oath the first time (as did her mom) then the second testimony is dubious. It's damned if she did, damned if she didn't.
Those who spoke of Dr Luke, including Kelly Clarkson, said he 'pushed her really hard'-which is possible. But then again, under Dr Luke, Clarkson had her biggest hits. She didn't speak of any abuse. He is no doubt a jerk, but a rapist? Seems questionable.

Kesha hasn't been released from her contract-but Dr Luke has. She's still with Sony.

Wibbs wrote: »

Naturally. Any industry that promises riches and fame will have gatekeepers to those riches and fame and a long queue of people trying to get though the gate. It's a perfect target rich environment for abusers.

I don't know if many people remember, but Lindsay Lohan, and Scarlett Johansson, were often pictured at parties holding alcoholic drinks whilst being underage (Lohan was 17, 18. Scarlett about 19. Keep in mind drinking age in US is 21). And these weren't the 'we snapped em doing something they shouldn't'-these were the 'awards photos where we look great'. Hollywood allows them do whatever it is they want.
Hell, Bruce Willis was 'involved' with Lohan at one point. She was barely legal, literally. And he was known for that sort of thing (the porn star Jenna Jameson had a story about him too-as in he was another forcable grabber.)

RabbleRouser2k · 19-10-2017 09:32PM

Wibbs wrote: »

To you. I hate to break this news but you don't set the bar for what's funny and what isn't. Then again a sense of humour was hardly ever been an accusation levelled at intersectional social "studies" philosophies.

Grossly offensive eh? So one can't refer to a person's colour? That's verboten now too? You actually "censored" the word "Black". That's pretty much all we need to know TBH.

It would be extremely naive to think that industries(any really) will not continue to be controlled by "older powerful men" and no amount of figurehead women in higher roles will likely change that. Why? Sexism is part of it, but a bigger part of it IMHO is that there are simply more men as percentage overall that will seek out and be willing to work their lives away to get to those levels. Pretty much every single person that got to the top from the bottom are near pathological workaholics and more men exhibit this trait. Most people, men or women don't.

Sadly this is true-there's a really great documentary on the Special effects industry-and it's pretty much a male dominated field-based on many factors. The working long hours is one. Another is, sadly, biological. Many women (not all) want to have a get married and have kids. Well, time is money, and so is pregnancy. Once a woman has a child, she's not going to be able to do overtime, at least, not as often. So mom's become lepers.
So that's money lost. (In the VFX industry-18 hour days are not uncommon-and no, they don't have a union). The closer to the top you get, the less women you will meet. (Substance abuse and divorce is also not uncommon-as is rehab).
Ditto the animation industry. Divorce-again, not uncommon. And again, there's a reason so many in the field are men. (The few who remain married have clever ways to do so-some have the 'when the work day is over, it's over-I don't take work home'. Still, you'll find a lot of divorce-some of the greats have been married four or five times).

ceadaoin. · 19-10-2017 09:45PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sadly this is true-there's a really great documentary on the Special effects industry-and it's pretty much a male dominated field-based on many factors. The working long hours is one. Another is, sadly, biological. Many women (not all) want to have a get married and have kids. Well, time is money, and so is pregnancy. Once a woman has a child, she's not going to be able to do overtime, at least, not as often. So mom's become lepers.
So that's money lost. (In the VFX industry-18 hour days are not uncommon-and no, they don't have a union). The closer to the top you get, the less women you will meet. (Substance abuse and divorce is also not uncommon-as is rehab).
Ditto the animation industry. Divorce-again, not uncommon. And again, there's a reason so many in the field are men. (The few who remain married have clever ways to do so-some have the 'when the work day is over, it's over-I don't take work home'. Still, you'll find a lot of divorce-some of the greats have been married four or five times).

Surely what you're describing here is those men being unwilling to take time out of their career to help raise kids, rather than women actively choosing this role. There is absolutely no "biological" reason why a woman cant work overtime once she has a child as you suggest.

RabbleRouser2k · 20-10-2017 12:52AM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Surely what you're describing here is those men being unwilling to take time out of their career to help raise kids, rather than women actively choosing this role. There is absolutely no "biological" reason why a woman cant work overtime once she has a child as you suggest.

Well, most of the men don't get married or have kids. So theirs no need to take time out. They're married to the job.
So there is a choice, for both, men choosing to be single, women choosing to marry and have kids. (Again, the 'moms as lepers' are coming from women. Not my words)
Women can do overtime, but if the kid gets sick, then that means the parents will have to alternate between minding them. If the mom is in VFX, the dad in...I dunno, construction, they'll have to take separate days off to look after the kid (Dad on Monday, mom Tuesday, Dad Wednesday etc). In VFX, it's not uncommon to get blacklisted-again, happens all too often. (And taking time out to look after your kids, cruelly, will get someone blacklisted. As I said, there are no unions).
Also, traditional overtime is a lot different to the VFX industry-18 hour days, 7 days a week-some artists don't even go home, just sleep in the office, well past the norm.

Shurimgreat · 20-10-2017 09:34AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

None of them came out and spoke against him until the New York Times had published their article on Weinstein - an article that would have had an enormous amount of research from numerous sources put into it and would have been thoroughly checked to make sure that what they were printing was legally sound and not libelous. What has come out since has helped corroborate the veracity of the story.

Completely different than the likes of Brunker casually calling someone out on social media with nary a bit of evidence to back it up.

She can name him to the gardai.
The point is not how or where she names him.
The point is she has knowledge of a "prominent businessman" who appears similar in character to Weinstein and is/was using his position and power to attack vulnerable young women.
Like I said, either way she is looking bad. Its either a made up story, or else she is refusing to report the businessman to the gardai.

Wibbs · 20-10-2017 10:20AM

Now it seems David Blaine the magician guy has been accused of drugging and raping a woman back in the noughties. The floodgates have been opened it seems(though from what I gather she brought this to police attention before the whole Weinstein thing came out).

Though as well as the trending #metoo hashtag, I'd be concerned of a #givemeattentiontoo angle. It's damned easy to make accusations, particularly when no names are mentioned and the interwebs mixed with human nature magnifies this when trends kick off. And of course we're unlikely to ever hear of those who did go along with the "casting couch" to get ahead in the business. The old leg over for a leg up.

Outlaw Pete · 20-10-2017 11:35AM

Wibbs wrote: »

And of course we're unlikely to ever hear of those who did go along with the "casting couch" to get ahead in the business. The old leg over for a leg up.

You had me at hello :P

tara73 · 20-10-2017 11:43AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You had me at hello :P

this is disgusting and makes my blood boil. it shows everything about the whole subject in one picture. who's the poor woman?

Outlaw Pete · 20-10-2017 11:50AM

tara73 wrote: »

this is disgusting and makes my blood boil. it shows everything about the whole subject in one picture. who's the poor woman?

Renee Zellweger (Bridget Jones, Jerry Maguire etc).

What makes you say "poor woman"? She seems happy enough to me.

adc378638e6aa55b4439ed8b7d39d3b6

Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Comments