Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 13-10-2017 10:24pm

And before I go to bed, a quick reminder that Robert De Niro was arrested in Paris in 1998 as part of an investigation into a vice ring that was trafficking girls as young as 15 years old into prostitution. (There are no indications that De Niro is into underage girls though, it appears he was merely an unsuspecting 'john' of regular high class hookers.)

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.

At one point, according to the report of the investigating judge, the agency became a kind of approved dealer in girls, operating with the connivance, if not the blessing, of the French foreign ministry and French secret services. By steering Middle East arms clients towards girls from a known, and closely watched, agency, there was thought to be a reduced risk of blackmail, or the leaking of secret negotiations.

The French Brigade de Repression de Proxenetisme (the equivalent of the Vice Squad) traced 89 young women - would-be models or actresses - who said they had been tricked or sometimes physically constrained by Ms Brumark and Mr Bourgeois into working for them. According to the judicial report, the girls were sometimes "sold on like cattle" to other call- girl agencies.

The files of clients' names seized by the police are said to include many well-known members of the sports and show-business jet-set on both sides of the Atlantic. The only names to emerge so far are De Niro, Fibak and the French film producer, Alain Sarde.

Pay special attention to the bold print. This is not a new technique for the intelligence services, as we saw with the Kincora boys home scandal and MI5.

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

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/de-niro-held-questioned-in-paris-over-vice-ring-1.134173

Wibbs · 13-10-2017 10:42pm

Aye the modelling world has long had rumours of that kinda pimping out of young women to rich and powerful men. Within the business it's certainly acknowledged that, just like Hollywood, a section of the industry is very bloody greasy and not just at the lower end either(through a couple of contacts in said biz I've heard some stories I can tell you). The music business has a similar dark and sordid underbelly. Basically any industry where you have a long queue of young people desperate to get into the business, with massive financial rewards for that tiny percentage who do "make it" and with powerful gatekeepers of access and success, it's almost a guarantee of repellent behaviour among some of the gatekeepers. And just like pedophiles will naturally gravitative to a "target rich environment" that has more children around, so sexual and power predators will also naturally gravitative to a target rich environment like the film/fashion/music/entertainment industries.

Billy86 · 13-10-2017 10:48pm

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Kaya Jones, one of the earlier members of the Pussycat Dolls music band, has implied that she was forced into a prostitution ring while in the band. She also publicly questions why another member of the band committed suicide:

Unfortunately that would explain a lot about one of the most baffling acts I have ever seen - and I don't intend that as a sneer at their singing abilities etc, but the actual makeup of the group/groups/lineups/whatever we're calling them.

Wibbs · 13-10-2017 10:54pm

On that point of power. It often remains hidden because one could argue that such power hungry types are also more likely to be actually good at what they do and make the big bucks for the backers. Harvey a perfect example of that. And so long as they remain discrete then so long as the greasy till keep ringing...

And from what I'm gathering about all this is that it was all about the power with him, rather than the sexual. I mean no matter how gross you are, if you're a rich and powerful man a) there will be a percentage of women who will be into that and b) you can pay for "professionals" that would give you all the sexual release you might want, if that's what you want. Horrid Harvey could have paid any number of nubile young women to watch him shower or give him a back rub.

Prostitution is also a dirty and open secret of Hollywood. Men like Charlie Sheen were at least (mostly)honest about it. Remember Heidi Fleiss? And all the A, B and c listers her "girls" were servicing? That was a "scandal" too, yet bugger all changed. I'll bet if anything it's more rife today. The "sugar daddy" thing is also in play where sexual contracts are drawn up(did I read somewhere earlier than some woman or other was approached by Horrid Harvey for just such a contract?). The woman gets her gaff and lifestyle paid for off book and the men get whatever jollies they're into(and oddly in many cases it's not even sex). THat's something common enough even with high flying(and not so high flying) business executives outside of the entertainment field.

RabbleRouser2k · 13-10-2017 11:08pm

anna080 wrote: »

Rose is also pictured with Harvey at events, smiling with him almost 10 years after taking money from him. She most likely would still be silent even now, only for his own brother was the one to throw him under the bus. She took the money and kept her mouth shut, yet is now shaming others who did the same.
I feel for her, I really do- but there's so much about this whole fcuking thing that I do not understand.

Her 'Women Boycott Twitter' hashtag is also something that I just rolled my eyes at. As are those who partook in it.
Others notably called them out for it-noting they did nothing for Leslie Jones, or for Jemele Hill, and no boycott for Trayvon Martin either, to name a few.
But the moment a privileged white woman has her account shut down for a genuine breach (incl a phone number in a tweet, a violation) they act.

And other women are stating 'you complain about women having no voice, so stay silent? Doesn't make sense. Should be encouraging people to speak up, encourage women, nay, everyone, to use their voice.

Frankly, as others have noted-it wasn't some 'we have to stop Weinstein' call to action that uncovered his crimes. Instead, it was that his films are no longer hits or profitable. He's had a sparse 6 years, or more, with his most recent film (released this year) having sat on a shelf for 3 yrs. The moment Harvey no longer was bankable, he was dead weight.

seenitall · 13-10-2017 11:10pm

Wibbs wrote: »

The "sugar daddy" thing is also in play where sexual contracts are drawn up(did I read somewhere earlier than some woman or other was approached by Horrid Harvey for just such a contract?). The woman gets her gaff and lifestyle paid for off book and the men get whatever jollies they're into(and oddly in many cases it's not even sex).

Yeah, that kind of deal is part of the Hollywood folklore, with that weirdo Howard Hughes as one well-known specimen - with any number of young hopefuls fresh off the Midwest train. A proud Hollywood tradition, so to speak.

Harry Palmr · 13-10-2017 11:13pm

Colin Farrell and Jane Fonda are on Norton's show right now, dunno if anything has been said though.

retro:electro · 13-10-2017 11:18pm

Ugh. I've just read a headline "Gweneth Paltrow thanks her peers for support as she's applauded for her first appearance since Weinstein revelations".

Guess what she was speaking about? "The Power of Women". Sorry but BS like this just makes me bloody mad. And then I end up looking like a psychic cnut. But I'm not. Why is she being applauded? Why? For staying silent about abuse that she KNEW was going on? She didn't need him for anything- she secured fame due to her parents and family ties. She had all the power in the world to do something and she did nothing. Go away and sh!te Gweneth with your "Power of Women" event. Pretty convenient to come out now and speak from your hole about how we can all come together and kumbaya the abuse away- but where were you and where was your voice in exposing and shaming the dirty underbelly of the industry you work in and have worked in for decades? Why not use your power as a women to help those other more vulnerable, less powerful women from exploitation when you know they are being abused?
Beyond annoying.

13-10-2017 11:26pm

I think we have to be careful here not to transfer responsibility for stopping abuse from the abuser to the victims. Most victims will have many reasons for either coming forward or not, and when it's a 'not', often embarrassment and shame are involved, if not out and out trauma and fear.

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened. You could also hold Brad Pitt to task, since he knew too. I don't think a crime was committed against her, so it's not like she could take a case.

In fact you could blame all his victims for not stopping the abuse, but it's much fairer to blame the abuser. The focus should stay on him, not what his victims are up to since he encountered them.

Wibbs · 14-10-2017 12:04am

Candie wrote: »

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened.

I would agree C with regard to pretty much all of the women that prick abused. but Paltrow was Hollywood "royalty". Her family were steeped in the business. It was the family business and she had grown up within it. She was a "princess" of the royal family out of the gate. Of all the women in the mix she could have destroyed his position with a few quiet words to the people she knew from childhood. But didn't. That bit is actually more troubling. That this part of the business was so engrained and accepted that even someone like her figured move on and shut up.

You could also hold Brad Pitt to task, since he knew too.

TBH I take him more to task. He was a guy of huge profile and box office cache, where two of his exes(that we know of) had the same experiences of Horrid Harvey and yet he did jack sh1t about taking him to task and kept on benefiting from the environment. Don't tell me he didn't know. Ditto for his friend Clooney.

Ulysses Gaze · 14-10-2017 12:05am

Candie wrote: »

I think we have to be careful here not to transfer responsibility for stopping abuse from the abuser to the victims. Most victims will have many reasons for either coming forward or not, and when it's a 'not', often embarrassment and shame are involved, if not out and out trauma and fear.

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened. You could also hold Brad Pitt to task, since he knew too. I don't think a crime was committed against her, so it's not like she could take a case.

In fact you could blame all his victims for not stopping the abuse, but it's much fairer to blame the abuser. The focus should stay on him, not what his victims are up to since he encountered them.

Completely agree with this.

The only party to blame here is Harvey Weinstein.

Outlaw Pete · 14-10-2017 4:13am

Candie wrote: »

I think we have to be careful here not to transfer responsibility for stopping abuse from the abuser to the victims.

When people take a settlement to remain quiet it inevitably brings into question how much of a "victim" they were to begin with. I'm sure my saying that will be seen as a slight on such women but I actually think it's the opposite, as I don't personally believe many women (or men for that matter) would take hush money after being raped.

Like I said though, if Rose was an actress down on her luck, that had came to Hollywood to make it big (but never landed so much as a walk on part in a B Movie) then I'd absolutely understand her taking the money and jumping on the next bus back to Ohio, but not at 24-year old that had already broken through (to a large degree) going on to keep quiet despite hearing that her 'rapist' was continuing to attack other vulnerable young girls that crossed his path (as she has claimed to be the case).

That to me is indicative of someone being either cold hearted and fecklessly culpable......... or someone who is misusing the word 'rape' (as so many third wave feminists do these days) and my money's on the latter as I don't think Rose would do what she has done if Harvey had raped her. Using the third wave feminist's definition of the word rape though, yeah, I think she'd take $100k for that kind of thing and it ties in with her not really saying too much over the years until she got into feminism too. Also fits perfectly with what Ben Affleck said to her after she confided in him.

Most victims will have many reasons for either coming forward or not, and when it's a 'not', often embarrassment and shame are involved, if not out and out trauma and fear.

Of course, Candie, but we're are not dealing with like for like here. There's a world of a difference between some of the women involved here, like Romola Garai, Kate Beckinsale, Miro Sorvino, Cara etc and some of the others more questionable accusers and their accusations of serious sexual assault.

For example: one had gone out with a 70-year-old from the age 18-19, was put up in an apartment for two years, had thousands upon thousands spent on her and then went to the Police and said she was attacked by him, only to withdraw the complaint later. Another claims Harvey forced her to perform Oral sex on him but yet then seemingly felt it appropriate to go out with him for the next few years (despite being grossed out by him) and yet another had no problem addressing the Board at the Weinstein corp, espousing how what was going on shouldn't be tolerated but yet then flung her moral compass in the trash and took a fat settlement.

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened.

Total agree but nothing wrong with being nauseated by her turning it into a female empowerment seminar either.

In fact you could blame all his victims for not stopping the abuse....

Nope, you couldn't. In fact, you yourself just gave very good reasoning as to why we couldn't

...but it's much fairer to blame the abuser.

Which implies someone is blaming the victims, but nobody is tbf (although they may be considered to be).

Look, if Harvey raped any of the accusers / sexually assaulted them / forced them to watch him masturbate etc, then of course Harvey is 100% to blame for doing that. I don't see anyone saying anything to the contrary. You (and some others) appear to be believe that merely talking about the legitimacy of some of the accusations, or whether victims could ever be considered culpable after they take a settlement, is tantamount to blaming these people for being attacked in the first place. But it's really not. I get that it's not very palatable to ponder the notion that a victim taking a settlement might have resulted in more women being attacked, but be that as it may, it still wouldn't be suggesting that Rose would in any way shape or form have been to blame for being attacked herself.

It's worth remembering here that nobody has been found guilty of anything just yet and so I'm not sure why the discussion should take place as if that were the case. Not suggesting we should speak about Harvey as if he is 100% innocent of all that he has been accused, of course not, think there's slim chance of that, but neither do I feel we should be speaking of him as if he is 100% guilty of all he has been accused of either.

RabbleRouser2k · 14-10-2017 4:43am

Deleted User wrote: »

Could you specify the allegations about abuse in the above 3 cases?

Otherwise it kinda looks like a "these people died young...ergo I'm guessing they were abused".

Which seems to me to be a reductive way of looking at very complex issues, celebrity and the end of celebrity, wealth and dwindling wealth, power, depression, drugs, alcohol and yes, possibly, abuse...and all on the mind of a young and immature person.

I'm gonna retract the Brandis thing-from an old archived interview, it seems like he was very much protected. As in his parents monitored his work, and kept an eye on his output. If they didn't like something, be it the character or the script, or someone, he wasn't working on it. He was a guy who loved to work (did it since he was 2 or 3), if he couldn't work, then that may have affected him.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/29/nyregion/15-year-old-takes-his-li-realism-to-hollywood.html

http://www.laweekly.com/arts/jonathan-brandis-how-life-after-teen-stardom-can-take-a-wrong-turn-4183323

Seems like once he hit 20, he was brushed aside-that article into some major depth about how the male stars get scrutinised. Probably helps explain why some completely lose themselves-when they are not on magazines, who are they?
This line stands out as seriously depressing-quoting Leo Di Caprio "My two main competitors in the beginning, the blond-haired kids I went to audition with, one hung himself and the other died of a heroin overdose".

Pettiet is assumed, I will admit, but judging from what I have read, and how at 15 his habit was out of control-I think it lends itself to serious questions. Di Caprio noted how he avoided the 'hurricane of chaos' that others did not. And he has never taken any drugs-he had a pretty stable upbringing. Pettiet was out partying late at night, just way past regular hours-the kid could easily be taken advantage of. One article I read pretty much said 'he took drugs to escape his problems, some he created, others that were just cruel fate'.

Sadly, he worked with Brand is on a few occassions, notably Seaquest DSV. His death may have affected Brandis, as they weren't too far apart in age.

As for Leif Garrett-he was also involved, for a short spell, with Scientology. Now, as I mentioned, I suspect abuse at some point-and if he joined Scientology...there was probably every form of it, emotional, physical, sexual (that's emerged in other cases) so all of that adding up didn't help his situation.

califano wrote: »

Maureen O'Hara eluded to similar behaviour she endured with John Ford and others. But said she couldn't say and would take it to her grave.

What she eluded to was that Ford was an in the closet homosexual. She claimed she walked in on him doing something with a famous actor/ producer-but that it could have been the two of them joking around, as he knew he had a meeting with her. Either way, she took it to her grave.

Billy86 wrote: »

Good post, there is a litany alright. I just singled out this one because I had a brief fling with someone, really liked her, but she got really strange and then broke it off quickly. She let me know a little after it was because her family (12 siblings I think it was) in Brazil were in the Children of God; she was the third youngest any every one of them had ran away to Canada or the US the moment they turned 18 (her parents were Canadian and American but had moved to Brazil with the COG).

She only said a bit of what happened because the trauma was clearly huge even if she hid it well from others, but the stories of what goes on there were harrowing, children literally passed around between families for days or weeks at a go as if (to copy a line someone else used earlier in the thread) like sweets. I would without question believe that River Phoenix was raped when he was four.

Jeez, that sounds absolutely horrible-for her I mean.

I find it absolutely tragic if he was. He was a gifted individual, who often played the character who was in pain. This may have been why he shunned stardom. If you watch many of his interviews, he was out of it during them-in one he speaks of how 'cameras steal your soul' and how he was 'freaking out right now' just thinking about that. He may have not liked the idea of someone 'taking' something from him.

Someone has mentioned Drew Barrymore-and to be honest, her home life was horrible. Her dad used to hit her mom in the stomach to induce a miscarriage (while pregnant with Drew) and was none too kind to her even as a kid. I think Spielberg (as her godfather) was one of the few stable people in her life. But for those she could rely on, her life would have gone differently. It's borderline a miracle she survived at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CrCp6UKYVs.

Normally this lady can be pretty divisive. She's pretty on point here. (She is very conservative, I might add).

Also, the person who started 'womenboycottwitter' campaign (which flopped, badly) tweeted this.
I'm no fan of Trump, but this is demented.

https://twitter.com/display_jobs/status/917462139459141632

Outlaw Pete · 14-10-2017 5:39am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Also, the person who started 'womenboycottwitter' campaign (which flopped, badly) tweeted this.
I'm no fan of Trump, but this is demented.

New proposed rules might stop people posting such stuff:

https://twitter.com/jack/status/919028956333879296

Sweet irony though.

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/918950497884737537

14-10-2017 5:57am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

New proposed rules might stop people posting such stuff:

https://twitter.com/jack/status/919028956333879296

Sweet irony though.

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/918950497884737537

And to add another layer of irony...it's from Assange.

A man who could give Weinstein tips on how to abscond if a warrant for sexual offences is issued.

Outlaw Pete · 14-10-2017 6:11am

NIMAN wrote: »

If he said to women, "you need to have sex with me to get a job" and they agree and do it, I think it's rather hypocritical for them to do it, get a decent career, then years after the event, when they are rich and famous, start complaining.

They could always have said no and turned their back on him.

Well, most of those that have spoken out did tell him the naff off tbf: Cara, Garai, Mira, Rosanna Arquette, Judd, Seydoux, Jolie, Klass, Palthrow all declined his kind offers. I think only two have admitted to reluctantly obliging him and I highly doubt we will ever hear from any women that took him up on his offers without complaint. No doubt rumours will abound mind.

We can now add Eva Green to the list of women he propositioned in a hotel room and then threatened to ruin the career of when they declined.

“Under the pretext of a professional appointment, he’d given her a script with a beautiful key role it. And as his office was also in his hotel suite, they’d go up and then … He promised her, like the others that he’d favorize their careers in exchange for sexual favors.”

“Eva managed to escape him but he threatened to destroy her professionally,” her mother explained. “Because if the ‘BIG PIG’ had been outed by a victim, for revenge he would forbid [directors] to select them. That’s a brutal reaction to take on a young actress because it was putting themselves in danger of being scratched off casting lists.”

14-10-2017 6:38am

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Not sure if posted already but Seth McFarlane a couple of years ago:

Seth MacFarlane knew of it as he heard it from a victim.

Yet he turned it into some joke that could have been construed as a reference to Weinstein's looks or the way an actress might flirt to get a role.

He most certainly did not "call him out" and should be cast within the group who knew but really did sfa about it.

RabbleRouser2k · 14-10-2017 7:14am

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

New proposed rules might stop people posting such stuff:

https://twitter.com/jack/status/919028956333879296

Sweet irony though.

https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/918950497884737537

I hope so-and I hope twitter enforces these rules. There's been some people just posting all kinds of craziness-and they block if you call em out on it.

meeeeh · 14-10-2017 9:00am

Are we in the 'hooker can't be raped' territory?

It's actually funny how naive and judgemental at the same tine some can be.

Ellie2008 · 14-10-2017 9:08am

meeeeh wrote: »

Are we in the 'hooker can't be raped' territory?

It's actually funny how naive and judgemental at the same tine some can be.

Of course she can be who said otherwise?!

pjohnson · 14-10-2017 9:22am

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Of course she can be who said otherwise?!

Anyone who mentioned Rose hypocrisy 100% condones rape.

Wibbs · 14-10-2017 9:36am

pjohnson wrote: »

Anyone who mentioned Rose hypocrisy 100% condones rape.

No they don't. That's a naive nonsense and one that shuts down debate. These are valid questions to ask. For a start it opens up the debate about an environment that is so twisted it pays off women for their silence and women(or men or kids) within that environment keep their silence.

meeeeh · 14-10-2017 9:39am

pjohnson wrote: »

Anyone who mentioned Rose hypocrisy 100% condones rape.

No the problem is when for sone the victim is a victim only when her behaviour is completely blameless, her life afterwards is destroyed and she (or he) looks sad in dignified way on any photo from then on.

Instead of realising that in real life victims aren't perfect but despite that they still deserve to be listened to.

pjohnson · 14-10-2017 9:40am

Wibbs wrote: »

No they don't. That's a naive nonsense and one that shuts down debate. These are valid questions to ask. For a start it opens up the debate about an environment that is so twisted it pays off women for their silence and women(or men or kids) within that environment keep their silence.

I think thats where people have the issue with Rose. She kept her silence happily. NOW she is "tweet-shaming" (?) other Weinstein victims for not speaking up. Despite her not speaking up herself.

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/917139398101106689

How many young girls did she shame with her silence? Using the logic of her own tweet.

When this was pointed out yesterday the "victim blaming" card was played against anyone who mentioned this problem. Even tho Rose is the one victim blaming other victims of HW.

B0jangles · 14-10-2017 9:49am

And for those sternly looking down upon those who went along with Weinstein's abuse, the ones who took the bribe and were silenced - try to put yourself in the shoes of a maybe 18 year old kid who dreams of being in films.

You are alone in a room with a man who absolutely has the power get you the lead part in a Star Wars-level movie. All you have to do is play along, just grit your teeth for 20 minutes, do the massage thing like he wants. oh wait, it ends up being quite a bit worse, but it's over now. Even if you are totally horrified at what just happened, who do you tell, who will believe you? There's no H.R. department, no witnesses, no evidence.

The carrot is still there - you did what he wanted and the contract is coming. Do you really feel so morally superior, so secure in your own righteousness that you'd sneer at them for accepting the bribe given that the cost to them of telling the truth would be career suicide, trial by media and in the end, not being believed anyway?

super_furry · 14-10-2017 9:50am

Deleted User wrote: »

Seth MacFarlane knew of it as he heard it from a victim.

Yet he turned it into some joke that could have been construed as a reference to Weinstein's looks or the way an actress might flirt to get a role.

He most certainly did not "call him out" and should be cast within the group who knew but really did sfa about it.

You’re wrong there, he respected the wishes of the victim who told him what happened to her.

pjohnson · 14-10-2017 9:55am

B0jangles wrote: »

And for those sternly looking down upon those who went along with Weinstein's abuse, the ones who took the bribe and were silenced - try to put yourself in the shoes of a maybe 18 year old kid who dreams of being in films.

You are alone in a room with a man who absolutely has the power get you the lead part in a Star Warse-level movie. All you have to do is play along, just grit your teeth for 20 minutes, do the massage thing like he wants. oh wait, it ends up being quite a bit worse, but it's over now. Even if you are totally horrified at what just happened, who do you tell, who will believe you? There's no H.R. department, no witnesses, no evidence.

The carrot is still there - you did what he wanted and the contract is coming. Do you really feel so morally superior, so secure in your own righteousness that you'd sneer at them for accepting the bribe given that the cost to them of telling the truth would be career suicide, trial by media and in the end, not being believed anyway?

Why can Rose sneer at them?

HandsomeBob · 14-10-2017 9:58am

I hope Rose is getting the support she needs from those who encouraged her to speak out. Her behaviour since this has come out strikes me as someone who has been left to her own thoughts and well being after revealing something incredibly painful.

B0jangles · 14-10-2017 10:00am

pjohnson wrote: »

Why can Rose sneer at them?

She suffered a great deal for telling the truth, she's perfectly entitled to lash out and be angry because she did as so many here think they all should have done - she told the truth and she was not believed.

For some reason you are more interesting in attacking Rose McGowan than talking about the serial abuser Harvey Weinstein, what's that about?

meeeeh · 14-10-2017 10:09am

pjohnson wrote: »

Why can Rose sneer at them?

I think she was sneering at those who knew what happened (but were not Harvey's victims), were often very vocal about women's issues and were very quiet when the story broke. I think she had a point because I think quite a few of those who have no problem voicing their opinions ran their tweets past their legal reps and pr advisers.

There is no denying her twits are erratic but that's completely insignificant in the whole story.

Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Comments