Harvey Weinstein

[Redouane]

I'm tired of the hype surrounding it. Don't get me wrong, the real victims deserve justice but those claiming abuse just to get on the hype train are pissing me off. Everyday 5 new celebrities claim abuse by him. Did he abuse all of Hollywood or something? 

Edited 16 October 2017 by Redouane

[Captain...]

11 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in the late 70s and jumped bail before he could be sentenced. He's been living abroad ever since. They awarded him an Oscar in 2003 and the whole of Hollywood applauded.

That's a very simplified and sensational version of events.

 

He had sex with a 13 year old and was convicted of 'statutory rape', the charges of rape by use of drug, perversion, sodomy, furnishing a child with a controlled substance (which was a legal drug at the time he allegedly shared a quaalude with her and champagne). Were all dropped.

 

He admitted having sex with her, his defence was that she was a physically mature girl of thirteen and she consented to everything. He was sent to jail for 42 days for psychiatric analysis and the results from his analysis was that he was no threat, he wasn't a deviant or a paedo and he shouldn't be jailed. It was after he had been released believing he wouldn't get any jail time he got wind that they were going to change their minds and lock him away again so he skipped town.

 

This is exactly why there is such a problem, there are 2 sides to every story and the powerful predator gets to put their story forwards while the victim's story gets quashed and their career ruined in the process. Polanski only got convicted because he did something there is no defence for. If she had been 16 it probably wouldn't have ever come out. Hollywood chose to believe his side of the story and he got to keep his career and livelihood whilst the victim got a small fortune in an out of court settlement.

 

Weinstein is only getting all this now because they managed to get a number of women to come forwards, one woman would have been dismissed, "she consented, she was trying to land a part, now she's washed up and looking to extort money". That was the attitude back then. Now things are changing, I wonder how much of this has come off the back of the Bill Cosby case and I don't doubt there will be many more after this one dies down. I'm pretty sure the press are sitting on a few similar stories waiting for the right moment to release them.

 

Hopefully this will be the watershed moment that forces the film industry and the other industries to clean up their act, as the oscars panel said it's been an open secret for too long and it shouldn't have been allowed to get to this point.

 

 

[Webbo]

Just now, Captain... said:

That's a very simplified and sensational version of events.

 

He had sex with a 13 year old and was convicted of 'statutory rape', the charges of rape by use of drug, perversion, sodomy, furnishing a child with a controlled substance (which was a legal drug at the time he allegedly shared a quaalude with her and champagne). Were all dropped.

 

He admitted having sex with her, his defence was that she was a physically mature girl of thirteen and she consented to everything. He was sent to jail for 42 days for psychiatric analysis and the results from his analysis was that he was no threat, he wasn't a deviant or a paedo and he shouldn't be jailed. It was after he had been released believing he wouldn't get any jail time he got wind that they were going to change their minds and lock him away again so he skipped town.

 

This is exactly why there is such a problem, there are 2 sides to every story and the powerful predator gets to put their story forwards while the victim's story gets quashed and their career ruined in the process. Polanski only got convicted because he did something there is no defence for. If she had been 16 it probably wouldn't have ever come out. Hollywood chose to believe his side of the story and he got to keep his career and livelihood whilst the victim got a small fortune in an out of court settlement.

 

Weinstein is only getting all this now because they managed to get a number of women to come forwards, one woman would have been dismissed, "she consented, she was trying to land a part, now she's washed up and looking to extort money". That was the attitude back then. Now things are changing, I wonder how much of this has come off the back of the Bill Cosby case and I don't doubt there will be many more after this one dies down. I'm pretty sure the press are sitting on a few similar stories waiting for the right moment to release them.

 

Hopefully this will be the watershed moment that forces the film industry and the other industries to clean up their act, as the oscars panel said it's been an open secret for too long and it shouldn't have been allowed to get to this point.

 

 

He plea bargained the charges down. He was the adult, she was a child, what he did was illegal and he knew it.

[foxy boxing]

This sort of thing has happened in Hollywood for years where men think they can abuse young ambitious women for there own depravity. the casting couch has been going on since Hollywood began and women feel like they have to use their sexuality to get ahead. sex sells as they say! but men like Weinstein who use there position in society to pray on young women need to be held accountable for their actions and in no way should women have to use their bodies to get ahead in life.

[Captain...]

13 minutes ago, Redouane said:

I'm tired of the hype surrounding it. Don't get me wrong, the real victims deserve justice but those claiming abuse just to get on the hype train are pissing me off. Everyday 5 new celebrities claim abuse by him. Did he abuse all of Hollywood or something? 

Yes, there has been that culture in Hollywood/the film industry for decades. You have to do these things to get the part, to progress to be successful and if you don't then you won't make it. There were thousands of vulnerable young attractive women to abuse, it was just part of the process. I wouldn't be surprised if HW thought he was doing nothing wrong, it was just part of the culture and the women knew that and knew exactly what was meant to be on the casting couch or invited to a big producers hotel room.

 

There will be thousands of women, some raped, some coerced, many reluctant and probably just as many willing and compliant doing what they can to progress in the industry.

[Captain...]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

He plea bargained the charges down. He was the adult, she was a child, what he did was illegal and he knew it.

Yep, I said that. He was also convicted on those grounds. 

 

There was no evidence of drug use and he denies that he gave her drugs. He was convicted of unlawful sex with a minor, which is not as salacious as your Daily Mail headline: He drugged and raped a child and Hollywood applauded.

[Guest FriendlyRam]

Any man that treats women like that should have their balls cut off. Some women seem to think all men are capable of this and I can assure them we are not. Most men I know would have had him in a dark ally and battered him ffs. Didnt any man in hollywood say or do anything? Imo any man in hollywood who knew about this should have their careers ended, their homes and wealth taken away and thrown onto the streets. Its high time we took a stand against these scumbags tbh.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Yep, I said that. He was also convicted on those grounds. 

 

There was no evidence of drug use and he denies that he gave her drugs. He was convicted of unlawful sex with a minor, which is not as salacious as your Daily Mail headline: He drugged and raped a child and Hollywood applauded.

Quote

 

Geimer testified that Polanski provided champagne that they shared as well as part of a quaalude,^[17] and despite her protests, he performed oral, vaginal, and anal sex acts upon her,^[18][19] each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop.^{[12][20][21][22]}

Although Geimer has insisted that the sex was non-consensual, Polanski has disputed this.^[23][24] Under California law, sexual relations with anyone under the age of 14 is statutory rape.^[25] Describing the event in his autobiography, Polanski stated that he did not drug Geimer, that she "wasn't unresponsive", and that she did not respond negatively when he inquired as to whether or not she was enjoying what he was doing.^[26] The 28-page probation report submitted to the court by Kenneth Fare (signed by deputy Irwin Gold) concluded by saying that there was evidence "that the victim was not only physically mature, but willing." The officers quoted two psychiatrists' denial of Roman being "a pedophile" or "sexual deviate".^[27]

Claiming to protect Geimer from a trial, her attorney arranged a plea bargain.^[4] Polanski accepted, and, under the terms of the agreement, the five initial charges were dismissed. Instead, Polanski pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.^[28]

 

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case}

 

^{So we're supposed to take the word of a convicted rapist?}

[davieG]

58 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I doubt that Hollywood is any worse for this shit than any other situation where you've got people working alongside each other where there is a massive power imbalance. Weinstein had the power to make or break careers, and found himself in a situation where he could do what he liked, and get away with it

...and always has been, hence all the historic child abuse at care homes.

Not sexual abuse but I've seen similar stuff happen at work as well on a lesser scale.

[the fox]

36 minutes ago, Redouane said:

I'm tired of the hype surrounding it. Don't get me wrong, the real victims deserve justice but those claiming abuse just to get on the hype train are pissing me off. Everyday 5 new celebrities claim abuse by him. Did he abuse all of Hollywood or something? 

the "pill" cosby thing all over again!
he may truly have abused all those women, who knows? but i'm far less sympathetic with the womens that consent to such thing, you made your bed i guess.

 

drugging and raping little boys/girls is a whole nother matter, the needle is way too kind to those people who use the naivity of those kids to please thier disgusting acts. 

dump those subhumans in a big acide tank!

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case}

 

^{So we're supposed to take the word of a convicted rapist?}

Read my post again, I'm not saying he didn't drug her, I am saying there are 2 sides to every story, it is not as simple as you put it. I also said that it is the powerful predator that gets to put his story forwards when it is her word against his and there is no evidence he won and Hollywood believed him. That is in no way a defence or justification. I apologise for trying to make a nuanced point and not a simple black and white statement of outrage.  "He should be castrated and never work again!" - is that better?

 

 

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Read my post again, I'm not saying he didn't drug her, I am saying there are 2 sides to every story, it is not as simple as you put it. I also said that it is the powerful predator that gets to put his story forwards when it is her word against his and there is no evidence he won and Hollywood believed him. That is in no way a defence or justification. I apologise for trying to make a nuanced point and not a simple black and white statement of outrage.  "He should be castrated and never work again!" - is that better?

 

 

He was an adult she was a child. He had the power, she didn't. That's as black and white as it gets.

[Captain...]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

He was an adult she was a child. He had the power, she didn't. That's as black and white as it gets.

He should be castrated and never work again

[Redouane]

31 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Yes, there has been that culture in Hollywood/the film industry for decades. You have to do these things to get the part, to progress to be successful and if you don't then you won't make it. There were thousands of vulnerable young attractive women to abuse, it was just part of the process. I wouldn't be surprised if HW thought he was doing nothing wrong, it was just part of the culture and the women knew that and knew exactly what was meant to be on the casting couch or invited to a big producers hotel room.

 

There will be thousands of women, some raped, some coerced, many reluctant and probably just as many willing and compliant doing what they can to progress in the industry.

Obviously, but we are talking about abuse here not the "you do me a favor I do you a favor" which is wrong, but it's not abuse by any means. Sleeping your way to stardom is a life choice, and I have no sympathy for those people. Those that consented could've rejected the approaches. Sure, it could've lost them a role in a movie or even sabotaged their careers, but isn't that less important than keeping your integrity intact? In all job sectors we can take shortcuts to boost our careers, but should we? I don't think so, because it's essentially cheating your way through life. 

 

 

 

[ozleicester]

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I don't disagree, but I've seen with my own eyes instances of people being party to some really bad stuff where you assume that someone will blow the lid on it, but when it comes to the crunch, people really don't want to be that person.

 

I think this is partly because folk assume that someone else will do it, or if you take responsibility and be that person you worry that people won't rally around, and you find yourself isolated even though everyone knows what's going on

 

1 hour ago, lgfualol said:

Yup, plus people like Courtney Love who called Weinstein out got blacklisted by the Creative Arts Agency for saying it. Could be a career killer for most people.

 

1 hour ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

I doubt that Hollywood is any worse for this shit than any other situation where you've got people working alongside each other where there is a massive power imbalance. Weinstein had the power to make or break careers, and found himself in a situation where he could do what he liked, and get away with it

All of the above is pretty true.... but the difference for me is that other "powerful" people have sat back and let him go with this, courtney love wasnt a power and had her career ruined... Pitt/Clooney and myriad other very powerful hollywood people allowwed and approved this.

 

And as Webbo said... they applauded Polanski...and still worship other directors in the USA who it is well known are similar

[Rincewind]

Holywood is a minefield for grooming young girls. I wonder how many mothers (parents) dream of their little princess being on the big screen? or stage? They show them the best way to attract men and the agencies know this and know the producers directors etc who wont say no. Ages are not asked as the girl plays the part of an adult wittingly or unwittingly. There may be more safeguards now with background checks and checking of ages with the agencies but there are other ways for an ambitious girl to contact the men. The men should be more vigilant but some can't say no when a beautiful girl who could look anything from 18 to 30 throws themselves at them. Being flattered does wonders for their ego.

I am not condoning it but I wonder how many young girls did not make it and how many of those coming forward would have been famous without doing what they did.

[Guest]

No different to thousands of men in positions of power in thousands of situations. It's the system that needs looking at. If he raped anyone then put him down for a long time. All these women "coming out of the woodwork" there's something wrong with them too. How many women happily "massaged" him in order to progress their careers.

 

Let's not ignore all the seedy angles whilst looking just at the one.

[Webbo]

21 minutes ago, Captain... said:

He should be castrated and never work again

You're right, I'm just being a Daily Mail reading, reactionary bigot. Raping children is no big deal.

[Bellend Sebastian]

13 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

 

 

All of the above is pretty true.... but the difference for me is that other "powerful" people have sat back and let him go with this, courtney love wasnt a power and had her career ruined... Pitt/Clooney and myriad other very powerful hollywood people allowwed and approved this.

 

And as Webbo said... they applauded Polanski...and still worship other directors in the USA who it is well known are similar

I don't know enough about the film industry to know for sure where the power ultimately lies.  I know the likes of Clooney command top dollar as actors, but Weinstein owned a studio, which is ultimately financing the whole thing, I believe. I suppose it's like a footballer earning £200,000 a week - you're in a position of power to be able to demand that sort of cash, but ultimately, someone else makes the decision if you do or not

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

You're right, I'm just being a Daily Mail reading, reactionary bigot. Raping children is no big deal.

 

I guess I am too, then.

 

Not often that we agree, Webbo, but we do on this.

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

You're right, I'm just being a Daily Mail reading, reactionary bigot. Raping children is no big deal.

I really don't understand what you read sometimes people can have a slightly different view to you without meaning they think the complete opposite to everything you believe. I don't even really disagree, what he did was wrong and he should be punished.At no point have I said raping children is ok, nor have I called you a bigot but your original post was highly simplified. I don't feel like it needs saying, but just to be clear, I also think raping children is bad I am not defending Polanski. I am just adding context to a what was actually a libellous statement from you. There is no evidence he drugged her and he has no conviction for drugging her. There is also no evidence she didn't consent, but it is still rape because she was 13. People in Hollywood either don't care and only view his art or don't see it as a serious sexual assault because his account is that she consented and the psychiatric analysis said he was not paedo or predator and he wasn't a danger to other minors.

 

Since then there has been no evidence he has committed further crimes (that doesn't make it ok) and if you wanted to justify it (I don't I have no interest in watching his films and wouldn't applaud him) you could say he made one mistake and was found guilty he shouldn't be punished for the rest of his life, but that would hold more water if he had actually served his sentence and not skipped the country.

 

As it stands his case has very little in common with Weinstein who systematically preyed on vulnerable young, yet legal, women abused his power for decades and used his influence to cover it up. What is relevant was how victims of assault were treated in the 70/80s it was hushed up, she was paid off in an out of court settlement and if she had been 16 or even 14 it may never have come out. The only thing they could prove was she was 13 and they settled on the plea so she wouldn't be dragged through a court case.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I really don't understand what you read sometimes people can have a slightly different view to you without meaning they think the complete opposite to everything you believe. I don't even really disagree, what he did was wrong and he should be punished.At no point have I said raping children is ok, nor have I called you a bigot but your original post was highly simplified. I don't feel like it needs saying, but just to be clear, I also think raping children is bad I am not defending Polanski. I am just adding context to a what was actually a libellous statement from you. There is no evidence he drugged her and he has no conviction for drugging her. There is also no evidence she didn't consent, but it is still rape because she was 13. People in Hollywood either don't care and only view his art or don't see it as a serious sexual assault because his account is that she consented and the psychiatric analysis said he was not paedo or predator and he wasn't a danger to other minors.

 

Since then there has been no evidence he has committed further crimes (that doesn't make it ok) and if you wanted to justify it (I don't I have no interest in watching his films and wouldn't applaud him) you could say he made one mistake and was found guilty he shouldn't be punished for the rest of his life, but that would hold more water if he had actually served his sentence and not skipped the country.

 

As it stands his case has very little in common with Weinstein who systematically preyed on vulnerable young, yet legal, women abused his power for decades and used his influence to cover it up. What is relevant was how victims of assault were treated in the 70/80s it was hushed up, she was paid off in an out of court settlement and if she had been 16 or even 14 it may never have come out. The only thing they could prove was she was 13 and they settled on the plea so she wouldn't be dragged through a court case.

You chose to call it a salacious Daily Mail headline." There's no evidence he drugged her" apart from the victim's testimony. 

[Captain...]

16 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You chose to call it a salacious Daily Mail headline." There's no evidence he drugged her" apart from the victim's testimony. 

It was, a sensational headline comment with no substance, except even the Daily Mail wouldn't put that because it is libellous. If I say you drugged me, is that sufficient evidence for it to be repeated as fact? You have to work with the facts. This is relevant to the second part, "Hollywood applauded", true but based on the facts of the case they were applauding someone who was convicted of "unlawful sex with a minor" 30 years ago not someone who "drugged and raped a 13 year old". 

 

 

Edited 16 October 2017 by Captain...

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

It was, a sensational headline comment with no substance, except even the Daily Mail wouldn't put that because it is libellous. If I say you drugged me, is that sufficient evidence for it to be repeated as fact? You have to work with the facts. This is relevant to the second part, "Hollywood applauded", true but based on the facts of the case they were applauding someone who was convicted of "unlawful sex with a minor" 30 years ago not someone who "drugged and raped a 13 year old". 

 

 

Quote

 "unlawful sex with a minor"

You admitted yourself it was statutory rape.

Quote

"He admitted having sex with her, his defence was that she was a physically mature girl of thirteen and she consented to everything."

So she had big tits and even though she wasn't old enough to consent and he knew it she was up for it, he claims. That makes okay?Why you feel the need to defend a convicted rapist I don't know. If it's libellous there are millions of people he's going to have sue before me.

 

 

 

I'm going to leave it there because you're being ridiculous and I don't want to bore everyone else.

[David Guiza]

The irony of those questioning why people are only coming forward now and in the same breath accusing them of lying is amazing. Also, as if Woody Allen was going to say anything else but intimate that he feels sorry for Weinstein. Fantastic director and actor but another very questionable individual.