Harvey Weinstein

[Izzy]

4 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

I actually like Louis CK as well, ffs

Me too, he's a brilliant comedian.

 

And I also love Kevin Spacey and Steven Seagal films.

 

All my hero's are turning out to be absolute cvnts of our time!

 

But like Matt says, just gotta separate the art from the artist I suppose..

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

I'd hope that "feel sorry for him" was a slightly poor choice of words and that's not entirely what you meant. 

In terms of Hollywood hanging him out to dry.

 

Put the guy on the end of a noose as far as I'm concerned.

[Carl the Llama]

3 hours ago, ozleicester said:

Fkinell.... long long list

 

http://time.com/5015204/harvey-weinstein-scandal/

Really hope Jeffrey Tambor isn't really involved and it's just an unscrupulous former colleague exploiting the scandal, love him in AD. Louis CK can get to, always thought he was full of himself.

[Finnegan]

Louis CK is about as funny as Carrot Top tbh. 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

16 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Louis CK is about as funny as Carrot Top tbh. 

 

I liked him in parks and rec

[The Horse's Mouth]

Louie was class

[SpacedX]

26 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Louis CK is about as funny as Carrot Top tbh. 

I have no idea why, but I found this highly amusing. 

[Ross-Kemp]

I quite liked Carrot Top live to be fair

[Finnegan]

18 minutes ago, Ross-Kemp said:

I quite liked Carrot Top live to be fair

 

Get the **** off my Internet. 

[Carl the Llama]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42965100

Not the same thing but still not great.  You do have to wonder why the outrage didn't come out back when this interview was aired and also what's going to happen to the rest off Hollywood given how pretty much  everyone there seems to support Polanski.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42965100

Not the same thing but still not great.  You do have to wonder why the outrage didn't come out back when this interview was aired and also what's going to happen to the rest off Hollywood given how pretty much  everyone there seems to support Polanski.

‘’Not for these 13 year old party girls’’, what the hell does that mean?

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

‘’Not for these 13 year old party girls’’, what the hell does that mean?

Just live in a different World this lot.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

‘’Not for these 13 year old party girls’’, what the hell does that mean?

That it's not as bad for a grown man to sleep with a 13 year old who wants it apparently.  I dunno if the BBC article touches upon it but I listened to a bit of the interview and at one point Stern and his co-host keep bringing up that this girl had been fed booze and ecstasy to which Tarantino responds that they're "killing him [Polanski], on the drink and drugs" or words to that effect, complaining that they were making the events sound worse by mentioning it. 

[Carl the Llama]

Yeah here's the audio, first video is a mini excerpt, you'll have to scroll down for the longer version towards the bottom of the article.  Apologies for the outlet but it was the first decent length clip I found.

[Jon the Hat]

We saw with the BBC stuff that young teens were freely mingling with these stars, so I guess it’s not that surprising it was the case in Hollywood as well.  For Tarantino to think that makes it ok, especially in 2003 is pretty horrendous.  He has to come out and say he was wrong imo else he is tacitly admitting he still thinks that.

[Captain...]

I've only read the links, but I don't read it as Tarantino saying what he did was ok, just that it wasn't "rape" because it was consensual, it was unlawful sex with a minor. Which is different to violently forcing yourself upon someone, that doesn't mean he's saying it's ok. It seems to start when he takes issue with Stern branding Polanski and rapist, he is not defending what he did just how it is classified. He's basically sticking up for a mate who he knows has done wrong but feels the reaction to it is unfair.

 

It is obviously fvcked up, especially if the stuff about drink and drugs is true (her word against his), but his argument is it isn't rape because she wanted it to happen, just illegal because she was 13 (which is a legal age of consent in some countries). He makes reference to young party girls as though it was a common thing for these types of girls to hang around Hollywood types and take drugs and have sex (again this doesn't make it right).

 

Before anyone replies I am not saying sex with consenting 13 year olds is ok, I am not defending Polanski, and do not approve of his actions. I am just saying I get what Tarantino is trying to say and I do think there should be a different word/definition for unlawful sex with a minor. Calling Polanski a rapist is like calling Matthew Broderick a murderer, he killed two people but not deliberately so it's manslaughter, but he was at fault and I get why he would be called a murderer and I understand why those close to him would defend him. Same with Polanski, I understand those that call him a rapist, but I also understand the need for those close to him to defend those accusations of rape, but they aren't defending what he did just how he is now branded as a rapist.

Edited 7 February 2018 by Captain...

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, Captain... said:

I've only read the links, but I don't read it as Tarantino saying what he did was ok, just that it wasn't "rape" because it was consensual, it was unlawful sex with a minor. Which is different to violently forcing yourself upon someone, that doesn't mean he's saying it's ok. It seems to start when he takes issue with Stern branding Polanski and rapist, he is not defending what he did just how it is classified. He's basically sticking up for a mate who he knows has done wrong but feels the reaction to it is unfair.

 

It is obviously fvcked up, especially if the stuff about drink and drugs is true (her word against his), but his argument is it isn't rape because she wanted it to happen, just illegal because she was 13 (which is a legal age of consent in some countries). He makes reference to young party girls as though it was a common thing for these types of girls to hang around Hollywood types and take drugs and have sex (again this doesn't make it right).

 

Before anyone replies I am not saying sex with consenting 13 year olds is ok, I am not defending Polanski, and do not approve of his actions. I am just saying I get what Tarantino is trying to say and I do think there should be a different word/definition for unlawful sex with a minor. Calling Polanski a rapist is like calling Matthew Broderick a murderer, he killed two people but not deliberately so it's manslaughter, but he was at fault and I get why he would be called a murderer and I understand why those close to him would defend him. Same with Polanski, I understand those that call him a rapist, but I also understand the need for those close to him to defend those accusations of rape, but they aren't defending what he did just how he is now branded as a rapist.

I get your point but the second mind altering substances are involved, especially ones designed to leave you loved up, the consent defense becomes untenable and you're looking at classic grooming which makes it equivalent to rape imo.

[Captain...]

32 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I get your point but the second mind altering substances are involved, especially ones designed to leave you loved up, the consent defense becomes untenable and you're looking at classic grooming which makes it equivalent to rape imo.

Completely agree but Polanski has denied that, or at least denied that he forced her take them. I doubt we'll ever know the truth. Those close to him will believe him and defend his actions as poorly judged misadventure, those that believe the victim will see him as a sick evil predator. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I just get frustrated that it in any discussion over such cases, if you don't instantly condemn Polanski as a sick peado rapist you get condemned yourself as a rapist sympathiser and accused of approving of rape.

[Carl the Llama]

5 hours ago, Captain... said:

Completely agree but Polanski has denied that, or at least denied that he forced her take them. I doubt we'll ever know the truth. Those close to him will believe him and defend his actions as poorly judged misadventure, those that believe the victim will see him as a sick evil predator. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I just get frustrated that it in any discussion over such cases, if you don't instantly condemn Polanski as a sick peado rapist you get condemned yourself as a rapist sympathiser and accused of approving of rape.

When you're talking about a relationship between a 43 years old adult and an influenceable minor the question of whether she was forced to take them or willingly accepted the offer of them changes nothing.  Nobody's accusing you of approving rape and it's a good thing to keep an open mind however I feel in this case you've let that cloud your judgement on what is clearly a case of grooming and abuse of authority at best. I doubt you'd be so generous as to call it a poorly judged misadventure if a man in his forties seduced your 13 year old daughter, if that's 'all' that happened.

Edited 7 February 2018 by Carl the Llama

[Babylon]

Love how he brings up the morals of Europe and not America, like we're all cool with ****ing kids over here.

[Jon the Hat]

There is no such thing as a consenting 13 year old - that is the whole point.

[Captain...]

47 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

There is no such thing as a consenting 13 year old - that is the whole point.

There is in some countries. (Just sayin')

 

That is not the point Tarantino is making, he is not saying she consented so that is ok, he is making the distinction between 2 crimes, that of violent rape committed by serial rapists and that of unlawful sex with a minor that was consensual. Now he is clearly glossing over certain aspects of the case and choosing to believe Polanski's version of events. It is his way of justifying his association with Polanski. Clearly what he did was wrong but QT views it as a mistake/serious lapse in judgement and something he can forgive him for in a way he wouldn't a violent rapist. Now it's hard to read the victim's account and not feel like Polanski is a sick pervert, but RP's account is very different and it seems to be an isolated account. Again this doesn't make it right, but it is enough for someone like Tarantino and others in Hollywood to look past it and work with him on a professional level. Personally I think he should stand trail for it and be convicted and punished as is deemed appropriate.

[Jon the Hat]

53 minutes ago, Captain... said:

There is in some countries. (Just sayin')

 

That is not the point Tarantino is making, he is not saying she consented so that is ok, he is making the distinction between 2 crimes, that of violent rape committed by serial rapists and that of unlawful sex with a minor that was consensual. Now he is clearly glossing over certain aspects of the case and choosing to believe Polanski's version of events. It is his way of justifying his association with Polanski. Clearly what he did was wrong but QT views it as a mistake/serious lapse in judgement and something he can forgive him for in a way he wouldn't a violent rapist. Now it's hard to read the victim's account and not feel like Polanski is a sick pervert, but RP's account is very different and it seems to be an isolated account. Again this doesn't make it right, but it is enough for someone like Tarantino and others in Hollywood to look past it and work with him on a professional level. Personally I think he should stand trail for it and be convicted and punished as is deemed appropriate.

And who wouldn't love to live in those countries.  Hmmm.

 

The distinction you are defending is absolute bullshit though.  Slimy mother****as who get a 13 years olds to trust them, get them high and drunk and then rape them are really just as bad as those who grab someone off the street into the bushes.  Yes there may be degrees, but his is not a guy getting mixed messages for ****s sake.

Edited 7 February 2018 by Jon the Hat

[Captain...]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

And who wouldn't love to live in those countries.  Hmmm.

 

The distinction you are defending is absolute bullshit though.  Slimy mother****as who get a 13 years olds to trust them, get them high and drunk and then rape them are really just as bad as those who grab someone off the street into the bushes.  Yes there may be degrees, but his is not a guy getting mixed messages for ****s sake.

Yes, if you take the victim's testimony as fact he is a disgusting scumbag pervert. 

 

Tarantino obviously knows him, has worked with him and believes his version of events which is different. He claims he didn't get her drunk or high or force her to take anything. Anything she took or did was her choice. There is no evidence to support the victim, nor to support Polanski's version of events. It is one persons word against another. 

 

I'm not defending the distinction, just that Tarantino has a different perspective he knows Polanski, he has his version of events, he's probably been in situations where young girls are taking drugs and throwing themselves at him and other famous people. I'm just saying that by working with Polanski doesn't make Tarantino guilty by proxy.

 

Anyway, I'm going to leave it here. I really don't care that much about any of them. The weird thing is if Polanski had followed through with the plea bargain that was agreed and taken the punishment we probably wouldn't even be talking about it. 

[Benguin]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

There is no such thing as a consenting 13 year old - that is the whole point.

Agreed. So many areas of law out with the scope of sex, state that under 16's don't have the capacity to consent. Personally prefer to call Polanski a peado though.