Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
I’m pretty sure that I have heard rumors about Lindsey Lohan being so messed up because her parents whored her around to important people in the business to “help” her career.

It honestly sounds plausible enough to be true, and I would be shocked if she would be the only one.

Interesting that you mentioned her specifically. I heard on the radio this morning that she has voiced her support for Weinstein.

 d-usa wrote:
Jimmy Kinmel’s response to a certain family member really was perfect.

There is no way this thread won’t become political, since the whole issue has been normalized and made acceptable by politics. Im guessing that the political implications (he was a heavy donor to the left, who mostly stayed silent since the news broke) is part of the reason why whembly was interested enough in this event to start a thread.

With that said it’s an absolute shame that so many people were unable to come out right away and condemn these actions. This was such a softball opportunity to differentiate yourself from people who make excuses for this kind of behavior and to make yourself stand in stark contrast to someone who brags about grabbing people by the pussy. And instead there is stunning silence.

Heartbreaking really, I don’t care how much money he pushed their way. Their silence after the fact is a stain on all of them.

As a victim of sexual abuse, it took me 8 years before I was able to come forward and talk about it. I'm sorry D, but you can't attack the victim for being silent about it. To have something like that done to you, it's nearly as traumatic as they come, and the best way I've reconciled it, is that your brain would just rather file it away, and forget about it, then make an issue of it.

Today I'm open about it. I was a child when I was raped, on a repeated basis, for a number of weeks. I had no control over the situation, I could do nothing to stop it. I don't feel guilt over it. Plenty of anger still there, but no guilt. As an adult, I can completely understand there being plenty of guilt involved, because the logical side of your brain is telling you that you have the power to end this, yet for some reason you aren't doing it. It's easier to just pack it away and "forget" about it. As Terry Crews said in his tweets (and I feel he's absolutely right about it), sometimes it takes one person to show that courage, to give others the courage they need to finally come forth about it, and no one should denigrate them for it.

You know, in a crappy roundabout way, this might improve the US for the better. Look at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, for example, and the conversation that was started about workplace sexual harassment. The net gain was that people are now generally far more aware that they don't need to tolerate this kind of behavior in the workplace, just as Justice Thomas was able to cast a deciding vote in weakening legal protections for sexual harassment in the workplace... um, well, there is more awareness now, anyway, I guess is the silver lining I was fishing for.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jimmy Kinmel’s response to a certain family member really was perfect.

There is no way this thread won’t become political, since the whole issue has been normalized and made acceptable by politics. Im guessing that the political implications (he was a heavy donor to the left, who mostly stayed silent since the news broke) is part of the reason why whembly was interested enough in this event to start a thread.

With that said it’s an absolute shame that so many people were unable to come out right away and condemn these actions. This was such a softball opportunity to differentiate yourself from people who make excuses for this kind of behavior and to make yourself stand in stark contrast to someone who brags about grabbing people by the pussy. And instead there is stunning silence.

Heartbreaking really, I don’t care how much money he pushed their way. Their silence after the fact is a stain on all of them.

As a victim of sexual abuse, it took me 8 years before I was able to come forward and talk about it. I'm sorry D, but you can't attack the victim for being silent about it. To have something like that done to you, it's nearly as traumatic as they come, and the best way I've reconciled it, is that your brain would just rather file it away, and forget about it, then make an issue of it.

Today I'm open about it. I was a child when I was raped, on a repeated basis, for a number of weeks. I had no control over the situation, I could do nothing to stop it. I don't feel guilt over it. Plenty of anger still there, but no guilt. As an adult, I can completely understand there being plenty of guilt involved, because the logical side of your brain is telling you that you have the power to end this, yet for some reason you aren't doing it. It's easier to just pack it away and "forget" about it. As Terry Crews said in his tweets (and I feel he's absolutely right about it), sometimes it takes one person to show that courage, to give others the courage they need to finally come forth about it, and no one should denigrate them for it.

Kimmel's holier-than-thou spiel is getting old though...

However, totally onboard in never blaming those who didn't speak out about this.

I can see that there's frustration in this that others has tried to speak up about: See Cory Feldman and Elijah Woods.

At the same time, this is an industry that requires you to know the right people to be successful... and it appears, that many of those "people" abuse their position of power in despicable ways.

I hope there are legal actions forthcoming with this... let 'em have their day in court, but by god if the allegation is true that Weinstein raped these women, and it was his staff that help orchastrated it... they all fething need to go to prison.

 whembly wrote:


I guess the whole "Casting Couch™" genre in porn is hitting pretty close to reality...eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casting_couch

It has been hitting the door for many years now. It has always been there, but people prefer to look away from it.

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jimmy Kinmel’s response to a certain family member really was perfect.

There is no way this thread won’t become political, since the whole issue has been normalized and made acceptable by politics. Im guessing that the political implications (he was a heavy donor to the left, who mostly stayed silent since the news broke) is part of the reason why whembly was interested enough in this event to start a thread.

With that said it’s an absolute shame that so many people were unable to come out right away and condemn these actions. This was such a softball opportunity to differentiate yourself from people who make excuses for this kind of behavior and to make yourself stand in stark contrast to someone who brags about grabbing people by the pussy. And instead there is stunning silence.

Heartbreaking really, I don’t care how much money he pushed their way. Their silence after the fact is a stain on all of them.

As a victim of sexual abuse, it took me 8 years before I was able to come forward and talk about it. I'm sorry D, but you can't attack the victim for being silent about it. To have something like that done to you, it's nearly as traumatic as they come, and the best way I've reconciled it, is that your brain would just rather file it away, and forget about it, then make an issue of it.

Today I'm open about it. I was a child when I was raped, on a repeated basis, for a number of weeks. I had no control over the situation, I could do nothing to stop it. I don't feel guilt over it. Plenty of anger still there, but no guilt. As an adult, I can completely understand there being plenty of guilt involved, because the logical side of your brain is telling you that you have the power to end this, yet for some reason you aren't doing it. It's easier to just pack it away and "forget" about it. As Terry Crews said in his tweets (and I feel he's absolutely right about it), sometimes it takes one person to show that courage, to give others the courage they need to finally come forth about it, and no one should denigrate them for it.

My complaint about the silence was aimed at the people he donated to. They should have spoken out against him the day the story broke and dumbed his money as fast as they could.

Victims are often silent for many reasons: shame, feeling blame, feeling powerless. Seeing how long he’s been able to get away with it before getting nailed (mostly because his shield of success hit a dry spell), it would be hard to blame his victims for feeling the way they did.

Victims are always victims, silent or not, and I won’t blame them for his behavior nor for the behavior of others like him.

Ok, I misunderstood where you were going with that.

The real problem is this slimeball is so powerful and his production company so successful that even A-Listers were afraid to publicly call him out - they would be blacklisted and never work again. It has taken a brave nobody to come out and now the floodgates have burst open. You will have a lot of big (bigger?) names coming out with stories. It is such a shame he held so much power to keep it hidden so long.

He belongs in jail for a long time.

A brave nobody made no difference. Reporters have been pushing this story for over a decade and were shot down. It’s been general knowledge in the industry.

The only difference now is that his success dried up. A successful rapist is tolerable, but if you don’t deliver awards and success to yourself and those working with you, then you end up having to account for your actions.

 MDSW wrote:
The real problem is this slimeball is so powerful and his production company so successful that even A-Listers were afraid to publicly call him out - they would be blacklisted and never work again. It has taken a brave nobody to come out and now the floodgates have burst open. You will have a lot of big (bigger?) names coming out with stories. It is such a shame he held so much power to keep it hidden so long.

He belongs in jail for a long time.

He may lose some civil suits ( he won't, they will settle), but he will never spend a minute in handcuffs. The hyperwealthy do not go to jail.

 d-usa wrote:
A brave nobody made no difference. Reporters have been pushing this story for over a decade and were shot down. It’s been general knowledge in the industry.

The only difference now is that his success dried up. A successful rapist is tolerable, but if you don’t deliver awards and success to yourself and those working with you, then you end up having to account for your actions.

Success is the big reason why people stay quite. Heck, Hollywood as a whole has on multiple occasions cheered, celebrated, and awarded an ADMITTED child rapist that fled the jurisdiction. Some of the stars currently speaking up knew about him and willingly worked with him. Had Polanski been a mid-level B-movie producer, they would have shunned him like a leper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:


He may lose some civil suits ( he won't, they will settle), but he will never spend a minute in handcuffs. The hyperwealthy do not go to jail.

I think the issue is the statute of limitation. I think the limit on that is 5 years, which puts most of the accusers far outside the ability to press charges.

Affleck and Damon now catching heat, with accuser saying they knew all about it but said nothing.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ben-affleck-matt-damon-become-guest-stars-harvey-weinstein-scandal-171213233.html

I predict this will go away quickly. Too many powerful people implicated, like the Madame list of Hollywood clients.

 Frazzled wrote:

I predict this will go away quickly. Too many powerful people implicated, like the Madame list of Hollywood clients.

I don't know, this may be the tipping point on exposing all of this crap in Hollywood. We may learn a lot about some of our favorite stars we didn't want to learn.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I predict this will go away quickly. Too many powerful people implicated, like the Madame list of Hollywood clients.

I don't know, this may be the tipping point on exposing all of this crap in Hollywood. We may learn a lot about some of our favorite stars we didn't want to learn.

It's hard to believe in "tipping" points anymore...

I'm glad that this is finally getting attention, but I agree with D-USA: He only was stopped when he no longer was as influential.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the issue is the statute of limitation. I think the limit on that is 5 years, which puts most of the accusers far outside the ability to press charges.

I had hoped after the Cosby case we'd have seen a wider removal on the statue of limitations on sexual assault - there was, but only a little in a few states. Perhaps this will spur a little more in that direction.

Good gods... does nobody remember Stanford White, or the Fatty Arbuckle case?

This is not a new story, it is the same story, over, and over, and over again.

The Auld Grump

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the issue is the statute of limitation. I think the limit on that is 5 years, which puts most of the accusers far outside the ability to press charges.

I had hoped after the Cosby case we'd have seen a wider removal on the statue of limitations on sexual assault - there was, but only a little in a few states. Perhaps this will spur a little more in that direction.

I REALLY don't want statutes of limitations to be lifted. I want these women to have justice, but not at the expense of due process and the rights of the accused to have a fair trial. For example, in the Cosby case, I think the guy is a total POS, and likely did it. However, if I was on a jury I'd probably vote not guilty based on the time it took to come forward. Speaking as a someone who was also victimized, I sympathize, but prosecution must happen in a timely manner.

 Frazzled wrote:
Affleck and Damon now catching heat, with accuser saying they knew all about it but said nothing.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/ben-affleck-matt-damon-become-guest-stars-harvey-weinstein-scandal-171213233.html

I predict this will go away quickly. Too many powerful people implicated, like the Madame list of Hollywood clients.

Affleck is catching some other heat too;
http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/11/entertainment/ben-affleck-apology/index.html
https://www.aol.com/article/entertainment/2017/10/11/ben-affleck-asks-tv-host-to-expose-her-breasts/23240385/

While I think it is worthwhile looking at the culture surrounding Weinstein, this remains a particularly limited look at workplace sexual harrassment. Right now Bill O'Reilly is back at FOX News, doing work as a guest commentator, and no-one seems all that bothered about it. How the hell is this happening, where there's such righteous outrage, entirely justified, about Weinstein actions and the surrounding cover ups, but then with another sexual predator who's crimes were also covered up in exactly the same way there was no attempt to expand the coverage beyond O'Reilly, and then silence when he was welcomed back in to the fold at FOX?


Anyhow, as to how things like this can go on for so long, Gwyneth Paltrow's story is quite telling. As a young actress she was manipulated by Weinstein in to meeting alone in his hotel room for a script reading for Emma. After the reading he invited her in to his bedroom, where he tried to initiate something. She left.

She didn't tell anyone, in addition to feelings of vulnerability and foolishness, she knew he had ended the careers of girls who had much more work to their name than Paltrow had at that stage of her career in a second. Weinstein had torpedoes Mira Sorvino's career after she tried to speak out*. Paltrow told a few people, her partner at the time Brad Pitt made threats against him. But the thing is - she kept working with Weinstein. She remained on with Emma, her first leading role in a prestige movie. This launched Paltrow's career, and afterwards she continued working with Weinstein. It was in Weinstein's Shakespeare in Love that Paltrow won her Academy Award.

So that's the power that people like Weinstein wield. If you go along he can give a career. If you speak out he can end it just as fast. No wonder he was able to get away with it so long, and no wonder it only ended when his successes dried up and his power diminished.



*I wonder if this is where that horrible rumour that Sorvino's name was read out incorrectly for her Oscar win, denying her the respect that should have come?

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the issue is the statute of limitation. I think the limit on that is 5 years, which puts most of the accusers far outside the ability to press charges.

I had hoped after the Cosby case we'd have seen a wider removal on the statue of limitations on sexual assault - there was, but only a little in a few states. Perhaps this will spur a little more in that direction.

Yeah... in my aforementioned situation, I learned that the statute of limitations had passed in Florida, by the time I was ready to come forward about it. That burned me a bit.

Granted, I get there comes a certain point where it becomes really hard to prove, and it can boil down to little more then one word against the other.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
I think the issue is the statute of limitation. I think the limit on that is 5 years, which puts most of the accusers far outside the ability to press charges.

I had hoped after the Cosby case we'd have seen a wider removal on the statue of limitations on sexual assault - there was, but only a little in a few states. Perhaps this will spur a little more in that direction.

I REALLY don't want statutes of limitations to be lifted. I want these women to have justice, but not at the expense of due process and the rights of the accused to have a fair trial. For example, in the Cosby case, I think the guy is a total POS, and likely did it. However, if I was on a jury I'd probably vote not guilty based on the time it took to come forward. Speaking as a someone who was also victimized, I sympathize, but prosecution must happen in a timely manner.

What exactly is the value to society of giving sex offenders a free pass if you wait long enough?

 Ouze wrote:
What exactly is the value to society of giving sex offenders a free pass if you wait long enough?

It becomes harder to test the validity of a story as time goes on. If an accusation is made immediately, you can get statements straight away, and those statements can be checked against evidence and also checked for internal consistency. But if that statement comes 25 years after the event, there's going to be little evidence to check, and internal consistencies may simply be because it happened 25 years ago and things have been remembered incorrectly.

That said, I'm not a fan of statutes of limitations. It seems the concerns above can be factored in by a judge or jury in considering doubt. It makes sense that such delays would make a conviction harder, not that it would always make a conviction so impossible that we should remove the ability to even try. And the fact that some crimes are exempted from these statutes is evidence that we know we can overcome these limitations and still build a case sufficient for conviction.

Yeah I've definitely on the side of no statute of limitations for some crimes, and sexual assault seems like a no-brainer to me, especially given how we now understand that there are a variety of compelling reasons victims do not come forward right away.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I REALLY don't want statutes of limitations to be lifted. I want these women to have justice, but not at the expense of due process and the rights of the accused to have a fair trial. For example, in the Cosby case, I think the guy is a total POS, and likely did it. However, if I was on a jury I'd probably vote not guilty based on the time it took to come forward. Speaking as a someone who was also victimized, I sympathize, but prosecution must happen in a timely manner.

16 states in the US already have no SOL for rape or sexual assault. 27 states extend the SOL if DNA comes forward. Some of the states that do have a SOL extend it out as far as 30 years. This isn't a particularly new or extreme idea, and I'd like to see it streamlined across the rest of the country.

I live on the Iowa/Illinois border, and I can't see the sense that if a child is molested and doesn't come forward for 4 years, the perpetrator will be prosecuted here, but would be free to molest again if they live 5 miles away across the river.

Honestly I find it bizarre that we base statue of limitations on when the offense occurred instead of on when an accusation is made. The idea of due process is that legal proceedings shouldn't be drawn out and thus a detriment to the life of the accused, which is funny because the best first line of defense in the courts is drag out proceedings for as long as remotely possible. Anyway I think it's backwards.

The timer for statutory limitations shouldn't kick in until a police report is filed, or an investigation opened (something like that). A defendant isn't in danger, or their life negatively impacted, but no accusing them of anything so to me its always been a bit silly that the timer can run while law enforcement and the courts don't even know that something may or may not have happened.

Why do we focus on asking why victims didn't come forward when there must be scores of others that know. Words like 'open secret' are used because you have other people in film crews and production, with that many projects it defies belief that it wasn't known to go on by a significant number of people. People who know what it means when he 'invites women to his room' and the manner of what goes on but look the other way.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Why do we focus on asking why victims didn't come forward when there must be scores of others that know. Words like 'open secret' are used because you have other people in film crews and production, with that many projects it defies belief that it wasn't known to go on by a significant number of people. People who know what it means when he 'invites women to his room' and the manner of what goes on but look the other way.

It's the victim who has to come forward. If a third party sees something happen, it is not their place to make a public declaration when the victim hasn't yet made the choice to make it public. That is the victim's choice. Certainly if the victim goes public then the third party has a responsibility to provide whatever evidence he has, but it isn't up to him to decide for the victim that it should be made public.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Why do we focus on asking why victims didn't come forward when there must be scores of others that know. Words like 'open secret' are used because you have other people in film crews and production, with that many projects it defies belief that it wasn't known to go on by a significant number of people. People who know what it means when he 'invites women to his room' and the manner of what goes on but look the other way.

It was widely known. The whole board of his company knew about it but only cared to say anything when they could use the accusations to kick him out and take over. That Hollywood is run by rapist men is obvious. Media doesn't care much because, hey, guess who are pals with media company executives.

I couldn't give two hoots for Weinstein, but what annoys the hell out of me is the trial by media.

We have such a thing as innocent until proven guilty, in the Western world. Give the man a chance to defend himself in a court of law before we start passing judgement.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Jimmy Kinmel’s response to a certain family member really was perfect.

There is no way this thread won’t become political, since the whole issue has been normalized and made acceptable by politics. Im guessing that the political implications (he was a heavy donor to the left, who mostly stayed silent since the news broke) is part of the reason why whembly was interested enough in this event to start a thread.

Weird there wasn't a thread for Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly or Eric Bolling though, huh?

I guess there are some very fine people on both sides.

 d-usa wrote:
Heartbreaking really, I don’t care how much money he pushed their way. Their silence after the fact is a stain on all of them.

Yes, it's terrible. I will never understand why people go to bat for people who do stuff like this. The last wave of Roman Polanski news, and there were still people defending a man who drugged and raped a child. There are still people who claim that Bill Cosby is innocent and that all those women made it up for money, despite the fact if 9 out of 10 of them were making it up (an utterly impossible number), you'd still have like 6 rapes.

As an update, Harvey Weinstein's wife has announced she is filing for divorce.

Bill Cosby is innocent until a judge and jury say otherwise. It's the only way for society to function, otherwise we have mob justice and nobody wants that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I couldn't give two hoots for Weinstein, but what annoys the hell out of me is the trial by media.

We have such a thing as innocent until proven guilty, in the Western world. Give the man a chance to defend himself in a court of law before we start passing judgement.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies in court. As individuals not acting as representatives of the state we have every right to look at the evidence so far and conclude that the is pretty clearly guilty and treat him as such.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly I find it bizarre that we base statue of limitations on when the offense occurred instead of on when an accusation is made. The idea of due process is that legal proceedings shouldn't be drawn out and thus a detriment to the life of the accused, which is funny because the best first line of defense in the courts is drag out proceedings for as long as remotely possible. Anyway I think it's backwards.

The timer for statutory limitations shouldn't kick in until a police report is filed, or an investigation opened (something like that). A defendant isn't in danger, or their life negatively impacted, but no accusing them of anything so to me its always been a bit silly that the timer can run while law enforcement and the courts don't even know that something may or may not have happened.

It makes sense because we really don't want to make a habit of digging up old cases from decades ago, where evidence hasn't been preserved, witness memories are no longer reliable, etc. I mean, do you really think there's going to be anything resembling a fair and accurate trial if someone finally makes an accusation 75 years after the crime occurred?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I couldn't give two hoots for Weinstein, but what annoys the hell out of me is the trial by media.

We have such a thing as innocent until proven guilty, in the Western world. Give the man a chance to defend himself in a court of law before we start passing judgement.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies in court. As individuals not acting as representatives of the state we have every right to look at the evidence so far and conclude that the is pretty clearly guilty and treat him as such.

Well, that's your right to hold such a viewpoint, but over the years, I've always stuck to 3 key points in these situations:

1. Accusation does not equate guilt.

2. Trial by media is never a good thing

3. innocent until proven guilty.

We've had a few high-profile cases of celebrities in the UK being accused of child abuse, their reputations dragged through the gutter, only for the whole thing to collapse, usually due to the police trying to make a name for themselves.

If Weinstein is guilty of these crimes, I'll be the first to point the finger at him, but hysterical media trials, are not good for Western society IMO.