Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Wibbs · 12-01-2018 3:34pm

Aye. Hollywood and big businesses in general tend to operate on that logic alright. Remember that car(whose name escapes) that Ford released in the 70's, where if it was hit from behind it tended to burst into flames and kill the occupants. Ford's bean counters and lawyers reckoned it would be cheaper to pay out on any lawsuits than to make engineering changes to the cars coming off the production line. It finally came out and the car was a massive sales failure, but that was their line of thinking.

Ditto for Hollywood. Harvey got away with it for so long, so long as he was making money. Lots of it. Better again he was making money on "worthy" films. The perfect producer. Woody Allen got a pass for a similar reason. Polanski the same. His supporters like Streep et al constantly referred to his "artistry". Child rape? Meh, he's a genius you know. Harvey has been a spent force for a few years now. His umbrella of success was springing holes, so not too much of an issue if he gets thrown under the outrage bus. It's when current big money makers and "artists" got smeared by association then Hollywood got worried. If a current big money maker and artist gets accused? They're really in fear of that.

Neyite · 12-01-2018 3:36pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Do you think that is what makes a change? The damageto the bottom line, when a movie has to be pulled because someone involved is target of negative publicity brings change. Do you really think nicely worded mission statement or safety statement or someone hired into hr department to deal with it will make any difference? Changes happen when it becomes more expensive not to pay attention than it is to keep victim quiet. As stated plenty of times it's not like people didn't know about Weinstein, it would be very easy to protect victims. And they didn't protect victim(s) even when they went to police, Weinstein was removed when he was damaging for the bottom line.

True, I forgot that momentarily - apologies

It's the bottom line every time.

kunst nugget · 12-01-2018 3:46pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Remember that car(whose name escapes) that Ford released in the 70's, where if it was hit from behind it tended to burst into flames and kill the occupants. Ford's bean counters and lawyers reckoned it would be cheaper to pay out on any lawsuits than to make engineering changes to the cars coming off the production line. It finally came out and the car was a massive sales failure, but that was their line of thinking.

The Pinto.

12-01-2018 3:49pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Someone above you did. I was speaking in general and it was not aimed at you but since you raised the point, you didn't exactly go out of the way to question their statement either.

Of course they can be utter scumbags but I think Oprah knows a bit more about the abuse than some keyboard warrior who dismisses her claims with but she was selling carbs... Being a victim doesn't make anyone a good person but until you can show me that she is some serial rapist or killer I'm pretty sure we can assume she knows a bit more about what she was talking about than those who are so eager to criticize her here.

They might be but if everyone joins the bandwagon things might change. You don't achieve change by only mobilizing those who are not objectionable in any way.

you also know that victims of abuse have been known to go on and abuse people themselves?? being that you seem to be "assuming" she knows more about abuse, why cant any one of us keyboard warriors assume she's also complicit as per the research to hand!! since you're assuming!!!

Ipso · 12-01-2018 7:03pm

meeeeh wrote: »

What victimhood. I'm just saying that the opinion is discredited with completely unconnected to the subject or unproven slur.

Btw can I ask why was Oprah speech so objectionable? What did she say that was so wrong?

Nothing. It just doesn't qualify her to be president. The reaction is everything that is wrong with the modern liberal movement. A complete and utter circle **** in an echo chamber surrounded with a warm glow of smugness.
It's this kind of nonsense that leads to people like trump getting elected.

meeeeh · 12-01-2018 7:37pm

Ipso wrote: »

Nothing. It just doesn't qualify her to be president. The reaction is everything that is wrong with the modern liberal movement. A complete and utter circle **** in an echo chamber surrounded with a warm glow of smugness.
It's this kind of nonsense that leads to people like trump getting elected.

Oh it most definitely doesn't qualify her for a job of president and that idea is complete nonsense. I think it more lack of imagination. She is considered opposite to Trump because she is a black woman but she is not opposite to Trump. It would be replacing bilionare media personality with no political experience or serious program with another bilionare media personality without any political experience or serious program. It would be more of the same but her speech was still good.

Sand · 12-01-2018 10:10pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Me too did something good. It told people that is ok not to just a good sport when someone in position of power riches you inappropriately just for a bit of craic. And it's ok not to be embarrassed about being attacked in the dark alley like it's your fault. Very often victims are not heroes and going to authorities actually makes very little difference. Sexual assaults are very hard to prosecute so it's naive to expect miniscule amount if convictions will change things. It's a bit pointless to be a hero in private when cultural shift is needed.

The thing is, I don't think these are new insights. Sexual assault and generally sleazy behaviour in any context has not been 'okay' for decades. Using a mass media example, the whole draw of a show like 'Mad Men' was its opening up a window on an office culture that was so alien to the modern world it might as well have been science fiction.

That Hollywood still operates on the basis that trading (or expecting) sexual favours for professional advancement and promotion is normal doesn't tell us anything about the wider world. It just informs us about the champions of progressive morality. If a cultural shift is needed, its with Hollywood and its Weinstein liberalism catching up with the rest of the world rather than lecturing to it.

bnt · 12-01-2018 10:35pm

More on Paul Haggis: his ex-wife Deborah Rennard has gone public with a strongly-worded statement supporting Paul.

Paul and I had our troubles. If we didn’t we wouldn’t have separated in late 2009, and we wouldn’t have divorced after that. He has flaws, as do we all, he is by no stretch of the imagination a perfect man. But I know Paul better than just about anyone on the planet. I have seen him in the best and worst of times, I know who he is inside and out, and I know he would never use coercion, threats, or violence to have sex with a woman.

mad muffin · 12-01-2018 11:28pm

Liam Neeson is going to get it in the neck…

RabbleRouser2k · 12-01-2018 11:43pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Wahlberg and Williams are represented by the same agency, which makes it even worse

Yeah, the same agency who's founder groped Terry Crews.

rusty cole wrote: »

I remember years ago she had he "experts" on the show Wowing the crowd as to how her fat body was down to "THE CARBBBS ladiieeeessssss"

What's the difference between this and a shoddy evangelist?? the crowd even buys into the whole agenda and narrative!! Fakery of the highest order. sure is that any different than how trump won his election??

Yep, the Church of Oprah-where to criticize it is to be denounced as a Heathen.

Kathleen Madigan had a great joke about Oprah, tbh. One week Oprah will come out and be like 'Jimmy Choo shoes, ladies-you have to have them! Go out and buy them!' (The shoes cost $1000 a pair, minimum).
Next week: 'Oprah helps you balance your spending!' and Oprah walks out, looking in 'pity' at all the now angry, poor women who went broke buying shoes. 'Well, ladies, overdid it with the spending? Made the mistake of spending beyond your means?'
And you know the audience are sitting there like 'well you f**king told us to buy shoes!!!'

The carbs are the least worst thing she did. Besides the anti-vaxx thing, she helped sell the Iraq Invasion to the American people. Dedicated three shows to it.

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm no fan of Oprah's programs but if there is a person who can talk about abuse with authority it's her. That doesn't mean I want her to be American president but don't discredit her valid points with discussion about crabs just because you don't want to hear what she is saying or because you don't like where she is politically. This thread long ago became an opportunity to throw mud at mostly liberal women and nothing else.

She can talk about her experiences, but she can't speak for everyone. Anyone who believes they can is delusional. I have Mental Health issues, I can only speak for myself with regards to this. Even an expert psychologist cannot speak for every person.
(Btw, nobody mentioned crabs). And claiming we're just attacking 'liberal' women is ridiculous. You're only selecting what you want to believe.

Ash.J.Williams · 12-01-2018 11:49pm

Ipso wrote: »

Nothing. It just doesn't qualify her to be president. The reaction is everything that is wrong with the modern liberal movement. A complete and utter circle **** in an echo chamber surrounded with a warm glow of smugness.
It's this kind of nonsense that leads to people like trump getting elected.

That sums it all up exactly

RabbleRouser2k · 13-01-2018 12:00am

rusty cole wrote: »

you also know that victims of abuse have been known to go on and abuse people themselves?? being that you seem to be "assuming" she knows more about abuse, why cant any one of us keyboard warriors assume she's also complicit as per the research to hand!! since you're assuming!!!

Also, according to studies, if a male is abused by a female, it's more likely he will become an abuser.
Which is interesting, I feel, in how little of sexual abuse crimes, committed by women, are reported.

meeeeh · 13-01-2018 12:44am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, the same agency who's founder groped Terry Crews.

Yep, the Church of Oprah-where to criticize it is to be denounced as a Heathen.

Kathleen Madigan had a great joke about Oprah, tbh. One week Oprah will come out and be like 'Jimmy Choo shoes, ladies-you have to have them! Go out and buy them!' (The shoes cost $1000 a pair, minimum).
Next week: 'Oprah helps you balance your spending!' and Oprah walks out, looking in 'pity' at all the now angry, poor women who went broke buying shoes. 'Well, ladies, overdid it with the spending? Made the mistake of spending beyond your means?'
And you know the audience are sitting there like 'well you f**king told us to buy shoes!!!'

The carbs are the least worst thing she did. Besides the anti-vaxx thing, she helped sell the Iraq Invasion to the American people. Dedicated three shows to it.

You are way too invested into Oprah. I know she had a talk show I didn't watch. However you are wrong about Jimmy Shoos, plenty are under 1000 dollars (about half) non sale price. And it's a little bit silly to blame Oprah for people spending money they don't have, there is a thing called personal responsibility. She made women buy shoes, oh the horror!!! Did she marched them to the shop? Anyway she could pick worse brand.

(Crabs/carbs was spelling mistake.)

RabbleRouser2k · 13-01-2018 3:26am

meeeeh wrote: »

You are way too invested into Oprah. I know she had a talk show I didn't watch. However you are wrong about Jimmy Shoos, plenty are under 1000 dollars (about half) non sale price. And it's a little bit silly to blame Oprah for people spending money they don't have, there is a thing called personal responsibility. She made women buy shoes, oh the horror!!! Did she marched them to the shop? Anyway she could pick worse brand.

(Crabs/carbs was spelling mistake.)

That story was a paraphrasing of a Kathleen Madigan joke, she's a comic. If it did or didn't happen, I dunno. It's a good example of the stuff she does.
Encourage spending beyond their means.

Anyways, did anyone see the Late Late show tonight? Liam Neeson did an interview, as did Sean Spicer (surprising guest list tonight) and Neeson's comments on the metoo movement, describing it as a 'witch hunt' were met with 'revulsion' from twitter.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/liam-neeson-criticised-over-hollywood-sexual-harassment-scandal-comments-on-late-late-show-822560.html

Liam Neeson was on the Late Late Show, was asked about MeToo...and suddenly twitter think's he's condoning rape.

The only thing they have to judge it on is a clip from the late late show. He clarified his statements later on in the interview, but twitter went insane. It's like those mad countries who think someone said something nasty because someone told them, and they can't read the truth.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 8:39am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Anyways, did anyone see the Late Late show tonight? Liam Neeson did an interview, as did Sean Spicer (surprising guest list tonight) and Neeson's comments on the metoo movement, describing it as a 'witch hunt' were met with 'revulsion' from twitter.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/liam-neeson-criticised-over-hollywood-sexual-harassment-scandal-comments-on-late-late-show-822560.html

Liam Neeson was on the Late Late Show, was asked about MeToo...and suddenly twitter think's he's condoning rape.

The only thing they have to judge it on is a clip from the late late show. He clarified his statements later on in the interview, but twitter went insane. It's like those mad countries who think someone said something nasty because someone told them, and they can't read the truth.

There is a large bunch of childish mouthy hysterics out there and social media encourages this and gives them a platform beyond what they should have and a power they most certainly should not have.

Fig. 1

Average Twitter reaction.

A backlash and some semblance of a return to measured consideration is in dire need of happening.

Sad Professor · 13-01-2018 1:15pm

For anyone convinced of Woody Allen's guilt on the basis of the word of some of the Farrows, I'd strongly recommend reading this piece. There were two formal investigations into Allen, both found no evidence of child abuse. And Moses Farrow (Mia's other adopted child) disputes the allegations, accusing Mia Farrow of brainwashing and emotional abuse.

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/

I don't know what to believe personally, but this is a complex case and Allen's guilt should not be assumed.

I think Gerwig, Rebecca Hall et al are well intentioned, but I don't think they have done their research and are being pressured by the media and the Farrows into blacklisting Allen.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 1:41pm

Interesting read SP. Beyond all the "interesting" narrative changes by his ex wife, he makes the point that in all his decades of making on average one film per year, not a single cast or crew member has had anything but praise for him and his treatment of people. Within the biz he's famously easy to work with since day one. Yeah, though the whole marrying the adopted daughter bit I find "icky", there's more than a hint of another story behind the received one.

twill · 13-01-2018 1:55pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

For anyone convinced of Woody Allen's guilt on the basis of the word of some of the Farrows, I'd strongly recommend reading this piece. There were two formal investigations into Allen, both found no evidence of child abuse. And Moses Farrow (Mia's other adopted child) disputes the allegations, accusing Mia Farrow of brainwashing and emotional abuse.

https://ronanfarrowletter.wordpress.com/2017/12/13/qa-with-dylan-farrow/

I don't know what to believe personally, but this is a complex case and Allen's guilt should not be assumed.

I think Gerwig, Rebecca Hall et al are well intentioned, but I don't think they have done their research and are being pressured by the media and the Farrows into blacklisting Allen.

It's not "the Farrows" who allege child abuse, it's Dylan Farrow. If you are calling anyone a liar, it has to be her. Woody Allen's P.R. team has led a vicious campaign against her, go out of their way to avoid actually stating that she is lying, though they strongly insinuate it. Their main method of attack is to pretend that there were investigations that proved Allen's innocence, which is untrue, and accuse Mia Farrow of coaching Dylan.

Sad Professor · 13-01-2018 2:07pm

twill wrote: »

It's not "the Farrows" who allege child abuse, it's Dylan Farrow. If you are calling anyone a liar, it has to be her. Woody Allen's P.R. team has led a vicious campaign against her, go out of their way to avoid actually stating that she is lying, though they strongly insinuate it. Their main method of attack is to pretend that there were investigations that proved Allen's innocence, which is untrue, and accuse Mia Farrow of coaching Dylan.

I didn't call anyone liar. I clearly said I don't know what to believe and that the case is complex. Allen's innocence hasn't been proved, nor does it have to be, only his guilt.

twill · 13-01-2018 2:12pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I didn't call anyone liar. I clearly said I don't know what to believe and that the case is complex. Allen's innocence hasn't been proved, nor does it have to be, only his guilt.

As I said, you said it was on the word of the Farrows. It's not. It's on the word of an adult woman who continues to accuse Allen of molesting her. The talk of brainwashing etc is a way of responding to her continued allegations as lies without directly calling her a liar.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 2:13pm

twill wrote: »

Their main method of attack is to pretend that there were investigations that proved Allen's innocence, which is untrue, and accuse Mia Farrow of coaching Dylan.

You should have a read of that link Sad Professor posted. It dissects each one of those Vanity Fair bulletpoints and for my mind dismisses them pretty comprehensibly.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 2:24pm

twill wrote: »

As I said, you said it was on the word of the Farrows. It's not. It's on the word of an adult woman who continues to accuse Allen of molesting her.

It was on the word of a seven year old whose story has changed down the years. Ok, not unexpected for someone so young, but Mia Farrow's story has also changed.

The investigation into Allen at the time was pretty exhaustive and involved multiple agencies, one of which took six months which concluded, decisively and unambiguously, that 'Dylan was not abused by Mr. Allen.” Oh and the same adult woman has claimed they never talked to her, when the records show they spoke to her numerous times. Then there was yet another investigation that took 14 months and their conclusion echoed the previous; "No credible evidence was found that the child named in this report has been abused or maltreated. This report has, therefore, been considered unfounded.”

Allen faced no charges either. The prosecutor claimed he would have, but didn't want to put the young girl through it(she'd already been through much by that stage). A comment for which he got hauled over the coals by his state oversight board. The trials he lost? They were custody trials not abuse trials.

It's a pretty sordid story of a marriage breakup and divorce with kids in the mix and the two main protagonists don't come out of it smelling of roses and as I say Allen going off with his adopted daughter is more than greasy, but I have to say I would strongly question the Allen sexually abused his daughter story.

Sad Professor · 13-01-2018 2:25pm

twill wrote: »

As I said, you said it was on the word of the Farrows. It's not. It's on the word of an adult woman who continues to accuse Allen of molesting her. The talk of brainwashing etc is a way of responding to her continued allegations as lies without directly calling her a liar.

No it's not.

Moses Farrow has accused Mia of "brainwashing". His words, not mine. Is it true? Who knows. This whole case is a he said/she said situation that happened in the middle of an acrimonious separation. Dylan was 7 at the time and I have nothing but sympathy for her since, one way or another, it was obviously a messed up household.

twill · 13-01-2018 2:26pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You should have a read of that link Sad Professor posted. It dissects each one of those Vanity Fair bulletpoints and for my mind dismisses them pretty comprehensibly.

I will read it more closely when I have the time, but so far I see nothing to undermine Dylan Farrow's statements. The judge in the case was right to dismiss the report that Allen's defenders rely on. It states that her story wasn't consistent so it wasn't reliable? Had they ever assessed children or alleged victims before?

Sad Professor wrote: »

No it's not.

Moses Farrow has accused Mia of "brainwashing". His words, not mine. Is it true? Who knows. This whole case is a he said/she said situation that happened in the middle of an acrimonious separation. Dylan was 7 at the time and I have nothing but sympathy for her since, one way or another, it was obviously a messed up household.

It really, really is. I don't mean on your part. But she is an adult now, not a child, and the accusations of brainwashing are made to discredit her now.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 2:31pm

twill wrote: »

It states that her story wasn't consistent so it wasn't reliable? Had they ever assessed children or alleged victims before?

There were two investigations including one that ran for 14 months. Both reached the same conclusion that "No credible evidence" was in play. The Farrow "side" mentions one report, not both. And as I say a child being inconsistent is one thing, but her fully grown adult mother? The same mother who asked her lawyers to look for seven million dollars in return for dropping the child abuse allegation.

twill · 13-01-2018 2:34pm

Wibbs wrote: »

There were two investigations including one that ran for 14 months. Both reached the same conclusion that "No credible evidence" was in play. The Farrow "side" mentions one report, not both. And as I say a child being inconsistent is one thing, but her fully grown adult mother? The same mother who asked her lawyers to look for seven million dollars in return for dropping the child abuse allegation.

Is there a source for the latter doesn't come from Woody Allen?

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 2:37pm

twill wrote: »

It really, really is. I don't mean on your part. But she is an adult now, and is entitled to be believed.

And this is where I have a big bloody problem with how innocence and guilt is too often being established these days. She is not bloody well "entitled to be believed". Nobody is. One is entitled to be listened to and bring a case in law and if a judge and jury and testimony come to the conclusion that you have a case then and only then should any "entitlement" be in play. Otherwise you have mob rule and a major can of worms where nutcases/people with an angle can just accuse someone and people believe them. Because they're somehow "entitled to be believed" just because they make an accusation? What the actual hell?

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 2:38pm

twill wrote: »

Is there a source for the latter doesn't come from Woody Allen?

If it was false, don't you think Farrow's legal team, in the middle of a divorce and custody settlement would have jumped on the chance to paint Allen as a liar? They didn't. Never mind there would be two legal teams made up of a number of people, so plenty of witnesses and plenty of people to say "nope, never happened". They didn't.

strandroad · 13-01-2018 2:41pm

Wibbs wrote: »

You should have a read of that link Sad Professor posted. It dissects each one of those Vanity Fair bulletpoints and for my mind dismisses them pretty comprehensibly.

Genuine question, how does it dissect and dismiss the testimony of several adult witnesses in the house? Allen's head in her lap etc?

The linked article is one person's opinion, so all things being equal I'd be inclined to rate VF materials, with their multiple fact checkers, higher. He is not objective if he demands evidence from the Farrows, but takes Allen word alone on things like phone calls.

I tend to think, why not both. Perhaps Mia Farrow was a terrible parent and perhaps she jumped at the opportunity to get back at Allen. It doesn't follow that she made it up, coached and bribed multiple people. Perhaps she (gleefully?) exposed what was right there.

twill · 13-01-2018 2:44pm

Wibbs wrote: »

And this is where I have a big bloody problem with how innocence and guilt is too often being established these days. She is not bloody well "entitled to be believed". Nobody is. One is entitled to be listened to and bring a case in law and if a judge and jury and testimony come to the conclusion that you have a case then and only then should any "entitlement" be in play. Otherwise you have mob rule and a major can of worms where nutcases/people with an angle can just accuse someone and people believe them. Because they're somehow "entitled to be believed" just because they make an accusation? What the actual hell?

I amended my post to say this: But she is an adult now, not a child, and the accusations of brainwashing are made to discredit her now.
I meant that her word is being attacked in a dishonest way: without engaging with it, by accusing her of being brainwashed.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 2:47pm

strandroad wrote: »

Genuine question, how does it dissect and dismiss the testimony of several adult witnesses in the house? Allen's head in her lap etc?

and other witnesses including his son have different stories(and that son was estranged from him at the time).

The linked article is one person's opinion, so all things being equal I'd be inclined to rate VF materials, with their multiple fact checkers, higher.

Aside. TBH I wouldn't.

He is not objective if he demands evidence from the Farrows, but takes Allen word alone on things like phone calls.

True, but the main difference is while Allen's statements haven't been called out as lies, a few of the Farrow's have. EG the victim claiming she was never interviewed yet records show she was interviewed nine times.

I tend to think, why not both. Perhaps Mia Farrow was a terrible parent and perhaps she jumped at the opportunity to get back at Allen. It doesn't follow that she made it up, coached and bribed multiple people. Perhaps she (gleefully?) exposed what was right there.

Sure. TBH my take on it boils down to two independent reports, one that ran for over a year and both could find no evidence. Does it mean no crime was committed? It doesn't but given there has never been any hint of that from him before or since and this was a nasty custody case, I'm more than inclined to believe he didn't do it.

That the Farrows compare him to Weinstein and Spacey is beyond idiotic. Both have decades long history of sexual assault from multiple witnesses across continents. Both could be tried for any number of them if prosecutors were of a mind to and would almost certainly lose.

EDIT and I say all this as someone who would have been right behind the "Woody Allen is a pervert" side.

meeeeh · 13-01-2018 2:52pm

The thing is nobody knows and until there is a bit more concrete stuff than she said / he said It's hard to judge. I might be wrong but Allen accusations involve his family only. It's a bit different in case of Spacey and Weinstein etc where there are multiple unconnected accusers. It could be true or not but I wouldn't hang him just yet.

strandroad · 13-01-2018 3:00pm

Wibbs wrote: »

and other witnesses including his son have different stories(and that son was estranged from him at the time).

So how does the son dispute the head in her lap event etc? If you mean Moses he was saying that Mia was a bully, ran a terrible household and he was beaten. That's not mutually exclusive.

True, but the main difference is while Allen's statements haven't been called out as lies, a few of the Farrow's have. EG the victim claiming she was never interviewed yet records show she was interviewed nine times.

They were, e.g. he said he never set foot in the attic and backtracked when they found his hair there.
With the interviews what they were saying is that the report was created by two social workers, the lead person who decided and signed it never met Dylan, and she was not interviewed by any psychologists. Shades of grey.

Sure. TBH my take on it boils down to two independent reports, one that ran for over a year and both could find no evidence. Does it mean no crime was committed? It doesn't but given there has never been any hint of that from him before or since and this was a nasty custody case, I'm more than inclined to believe he didn't do it.

Were the claims that he was in therapy for unhealthy attachment to his daughter, was not to be alone with her, was interacting with her inappropriately ever disproven? It was all third party backed.

That the Farrows compare him to Weinstein and Spacey is beyond idiotic. Both have decades long history of sexual assault from multiple witnesses across continents. Both could be tried for any number of them if prosecutors were of a mind to and would almost certainly lose.

That's true, their abuse was systemic. But what about Kirk Douglas then. He's feted and some people are finding it unpalatable but there is nothing on him apart from decades old gossip. If Natalie Wood's sister came forward and was calling people out would she be allowed to?

strandroad · 13-01-2018 3:13pm

Wibbs wrote: »

And this is where I have a big bloody problem with how innocence and guilt is too often being established these days. She is not bloody well "entitled to be believed". Nobody is. One is entitled to be listened to and bring a case in law and if a judge and jury and testimony come to the conclusion that you have a case then and only then should any "entitlement" be in play. Otherwise you have mob rule and a major can of worms where nutcases/people with an angle can just accuse someone and people believe them. Because they're somehow "entitled to be believed" just because they make an accusation? What the actual hell?

This attitude would invalidate the vast majority of church abuse claims in Ireland though. Very few of them saw the inside of any court or indeed a garda station, technically they are all allegations. And yet we believe them if we know the perpetrators are systemically and culturally out of reach.

CatFromHue · 13-01-2018 3:48pm

Regarding the Church abuse there was the Ryan Report that followed a commission that looked into the abuse.

I don't know if there will or would be a commission that looks into Hollywood.

Wibbs · 13-01-2018 4:07pm

strandroad wrote: »

This attitude would invalidate the vast majority of church abuse claims in Ireland though. Very few of them saw the inside of any court or indeed a garda station, technically they are all allegations. And yet we believe them.

I'm inclined to believe them. I don't automatically. I believe the judicial enquiries that found evidence of abuse. I most certainly do not see someone as having any entitlement for automatic belief just because they make an accusation.

AudreyHepburn · 13-01-2018 6:08pm

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

That story was a paraphrasing of a Kathleen Madigan joke, she's a comic. If it did or didn't happen, I dunno. It's a good example of the stuff she does.
Encourage spending beyond their means.

Anyways, did anyone see the Late Late show tonight? Liam Neeson did an interview, as did Sean Spicer (surprising guest list tonight) and Neeson's comments on the metoo movement, describing it as a 'witch hunt' were met with 'revulsion' from twitter.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/entertainment/liam-neeson-criticised-over-hollywood-sexual-harassment-scandal-comments-on-late-late-show-822560.html

Liam Neeson was on the Late Late Show, was asked about MeToo...and suddenly twitter think's he's condoning rape.

The only thing they have to judge it on is a clip from the late late show. He clarified his statements later on in the interview, but twitter went insane. It's like those mad countries who think someone said something nasty because someone told them, and they can't read the truth.

He's absolutely right and anyone that thinks otherwise wants their head checked.

The likes of Harvey Weinstein clearly should be locked up but it seems to be the case that any man in any way associated with the film industry is fair game and that any little innocent brush against a woman can be seen as sexual misconduct and it's actually sickening to see.

It makes a mockery of true sexual assault and will only result in men being afraid to even look at women for fear of being accused of something untoward.

They can't all be sexual deviants. Just because a man brushed off you, touched you or said something dirty or having sexual innuendo or content in it does not make a sexual predator nor does it mean he deserves to have his career and life ruined.

cloudatlas · 13-01-2018 10:08pm

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

He's absolutely right and anyone that thinks otherwise wants their head checked.

The likes of Harvey Weinstein clearly should be locked up but it seems to be the case that any man in any way associated with the film industry is fair game and that any little innocent brush against a woman can be seen as sexual misconduct and it's actually sickening to see.

It makes a mockery of true sexual assault and will only result in men being afraid to even look at women for fear of being accused of something untoward.

They can't all be sexual deviants. Just because a man brushed off you, touched you or said something dirty or having sexual innuendo or content in it does not make a sexual predator nor does it mean he deserves to have his career and life ruined.

Neeson's comment about Dustin Hoffman having a ritual for good luck was weird I didn't get it.

RabbleRouser2k · 13-01-2018 10:11pm

Yeah, anyone who disagrees is being threatened with blocking on twitter...no discussion allowed...and this is why so called millennials are ridiculed. Though technically I fall into that bracket.

As Neeson said at the beginning of the interview, he dreads public speaking. No wonder with these people. Ugh.

Eliza Dushku is alleging she was molested when she was 12, by a stunt coordinator who worked on Tru Lies. He's still working in the industry, on high profile projects like Blade runner 2049.

http://www.vulture.com/2018/01/eliza-dushku-claims-stuntman-molested-her-when-she-was-12.html

Vojera · 14-01-2018 3:35pm

Margaret Atwood has written a piece about the divisions in feminism and verbalises a concern that I certainly have: when accusations are taken as fact, inevitably some innocent person is going to get caught in the crossfire. There must be some way for people to assert their innocence and currently that's not happening.

JupiterKid · 14-01-2018 4:13pm

And now another serious allegation. Eliza Dushku, who played Arnold Swarznegger and Jamie Lee Curtis’s daughter in the 1994 film True Lies, alleges she was sexually assaulted at the age of 12 by the stunt co-ordinator during filming.

Link:
https://www.cbr.com/eliza-dushku-sexual-assault-true-lies-1994/

HandsomeBob · 14-01-2018 4:33pm

JupiterKid wrote: »

And now another serious allegation. Eliza Dushku, who played Arnold Swarznegger and Jamie Lee Curtis’s daughter in the 1994 film True Lies, alleges she was sexually assaulted at the age of 12 by the stunt co-ordinator during filming.

Link:
https://www.cbr.com/eliza-dushku-sexual-assault-true-lies-1994/

Really disturbing this could happen and people would turn a blind eye on any production, but for it to happen on a James Cameron film is even more surprising.

Only a couple of months ago he was moaning about Wonder Woman setting a bad message to women both young and old.

brooke 2 · 15-01-2018 3:35am

cloudatlas wrote: »

Neeson's comment about Dustin Hoffman having a ritual for good luck was weird I didn't get it.

That was bizarre! He claimed he was 'on the fence' about Hoffman, yet proceeded to make statements to show he was anything but.
He even seemed to condone some of the grotesque behaviour attributed to Hoffman, calling some of it 'superstition' and 'childhood
stuff' among actors, at the same time as claiming that he himself had never indulged in any of it. :rolleyes:
Perhaps Liam has a few skeletons in his own closet?

NIMAN · 15-01-2018 4:01am

Can anyone tell me what the latest on Weinstein is?

Is he still 'helping police with their enquiries'?

Or is he a free man? If so, it would suggest he didn't do anything too illegal?

NI24 · 15-01-2018 10:29am

NIMAN wrote: »

Or is he a free man? If so, it would suggest he didn't do anything too illegal?

Hi Harvey! You should save your strength-- you have a lot more prosecutors to bribe.

eviltimeban · 15-01-2018 10:33am

Now Aziz Ansari's getting it. Apparently he had consensual sexual activity with a girl who pursued him at a party, she gave him "non verbal cues" that he "didn't pick up on" but at no time did she leave or say no. Sounds more like regret over a bad date than anything else.

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/the-humiliation-of-aziz-ansari/550541/

Mokuba · 15-01-2018 10:43am

JupiterKid wrote: »

And now another serious allegation. Eliza Dushku, who played Arnold Swarznegger and Jamie Lee Curtis’s daughter in the 1994 film True Lies, alleges she was sexually assaulted at the age of 12 by the stunt co-ordinator during filming.

Link:
https://www.cbr.com/eliza-dushku-sexual-assault-true-lies-1994/

He has denied this.

Its her word against his right now. Both sides claiming that have people who can back up their version of events.

Yet its his name who has been dragged into the mud with no investigation. He has since been fired by his agency.

It would be nice if the world didn't automatically believe people based on gender.

RabbleRouser2k · 15-01-2018 10:56am

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Really disturbing this could happen and people would turn a blind eye on any production, but for it to happen on a James Cameron film is even more surprising.

Only a couple of months ago he was moaning about Wonder Woman setting a bad message to women both young and old.

Read up on Cameron-he sat idly by while Arnold Schwarzenegger was groping ladies all around him, including his then wife Linda Hamilton (Cameron's wife I mean).

So this happened before, its him acting like it didn't that's creepy.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/oct/03/usa.filmnews

Vojera wrote: »

Margaret Atwood has written a piece about the divisions in feminism and verbalises a concern that I certainly have: when accusations are taken as fact, inevitably some innocent person is going to get caught in the crossfire. There must be some way for people to assert their innocence and currently that's not happening.

I think that was a telling sign when she didn't turn up for the Globes. Like the message of her book had been corrupted to become 'blame men!!!!'. No, blame those in power, those who allowed this crud to happen and are now shrinking in their chairs.

The allegations about Anziz Anzari are interesting-it explains why his Globes speech was so 'quiet' compared to his SNL hosting gig.

pitifulgod · 15-01-2018 6:40pm

Mokuba wrote: »

He has denied this.

Its her word against his right now. Both sides claiming that have people who can back up their version of events.

Yet its his name who has been dragged into the mud with no investigation. He has since been fired by his agency.

It would be nice if the world didn't automatically believe people based on gender.

What conceivable reason would she have to make it up? She told more than one person at the time about it. Seems more like effective measures weren't taken against the man at the time unfortunately. So yep I have no issue believing her. Terry Crews called out an agent for groping, it was also a guy who called out Kevin Spacey. So there are male victims that have come out.

Also in all likelihood not the only person abused by him so bringing it out into the open and will most likely make other victims more willing to come out.

ceadaoin. · 15-01-2018 6:57pm

Mokuba wrote: »

He has denied this.

Its her word against his right now. Both sides claiming that have people who can back up their version of events.

Yet its his name who has been dragged into the mud with no investigation. He has since been fired by his agency.

It would be nice if the world didn't automatically believe people based on gender.

Its not based on gender though is it?Famous photographer Mario testino has been banned from working for Vogue after allegations he took advantage of male models.

I believe Eliza. Her account is just too detailed and her description of the grooming process is very accurate. I mean really, what would she have to gain by coming out with this if it wasn't true? People have confirmed that they were told about it at the time. She ended up with broken ribs after a stunt went wrong the day after someone confronted him on set about it. Coincidence? I think the quick firing is also a sign that people know it's true and that others are likely to come forward

Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Comments