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.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bystanders role isn't to protect the victim, it's to protect the community.

Had a bystander spoken up about it, it could have prevented more victims.

A predator never stops at just one.

I agree that it is good to break cultures of silence and stop similar things happening to other people, but the fact remains you have no right to choose to make the crime public when the victim is not choosing to do that right now. "Hey everyone, Judy is keeping it quiet but she got raped" is an obvious dick move.

Yeah... well, maybe if the guys ex-wife had done more then just move on with her life, and pretended he'd never do it again, I wouldn't have been raped as a child.

*She wasn't a victim, she was the bystander. The guy was a serial child molester. She was aware of it.

I get it, coming forward when a victim might not want you to can be seen as a dick move. It's a pretty hard proven fact though that sexual predators will repeat their actions. They will find new victims. That is why it is everyone's responsibility to try to stop the process, whether you were a victim, or a bystander.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah... well, maybe if the guys ex-wife had done more then just move on with her life, and pretended he'd never do it again, I wouldn't have been raped as a child.

Things are very different when the victim is a child.

And there is a massive difference between not making public what a victim is currently keeping private, and doing nothing.

Children are different and not what is being talked about. There are laws that explicitly state that if one knows something is happening to a child they are legally obliged to report. Even if one isn't sure but just suspects abuse to a child they are legally obligated to report it. If one works around or with kids that is basic training.

Adults are a different story.

 Ahtman wrote:
Children are different and not what is being talked about. There are laws that explicitly state that if one knows something is happening to a child they are legally obliged to report. Even if one isn't sure but just suspects abuse to a child they are legally obligated to report it. If one works around or with kids that is basic training.

Adults are a different story.

I disagree. Sexual assault is sexual assault. Do you think it's any less damaging to an adult then it is to a child? I'd wager it can be more so. Children are resilient, they are more likely to recover from injury. I still have some quirk's in my life due to my circumstance, but by and large, what happened then has almost no effect on me today, and that was with zero counselling or the like.

If we want to look at examples of how changing a system to make bystanders more involved in everything, we can look at the US military, and how they've responded to sexual assaults over the last number of years.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1167971/sexual-assaults-in-military-drop-reporting-goes-up-annual-report-reveals/

Rates have dropped by as much as 25%. Want to know whats changed in the last several years about our training? An emphasis on bystanders getting involved. That's been the largest target of focus, and it's working.

 djones520 wrote:
I disagree.

Whether you agree or not it doesn't change the law. Laws can be weird like that.

Sexual assault is sexual assault.

That is nice of you to say but sort of pointless as a retort since no one has argued otherwise.

Do you think it's any less damaging to an adult then it is to a child?

Who argued it was either? The statement had nothing to do with quantity or qualitative measurement of emotion and/or physical pain or some other ridiculous measure it only had to do with how the law approaches abuse of a child versus how it approaches it as an adult.

I can't imagine you suddenly woke up a few minutes ago to the fact that the law, and not just in the US, treats children and adults differently so this sudden attempt at deflection from that fact seems a bit feckless.

as for the incident being discussed it is less a "Hollywood" thing than a power thing. It wasn't that long ago the British found out about Jimmy Saville being a horrible pedophile. Taken from another forum:

This reminds me of the whole Jimmy Saville business over here in the U.K., the difference really is he was marginally powerful in comparison and he liked his victims waaay younger.

He was a political donor too ( though he was Conservative) comedians would occasionally get in a joke at his expense when the opportunity presented itself which was rarely since he was known to be litigious.

Then when the news broke (not long after he died) it turned out he had enjoyed his position of power to gain access and then silence his victims and had even had Cops or The BBC for example squash any stories before they got out.

After that it was like toppling dominoes and as many of his peers of that time were charged for similar, you rarely get someone so sleazy in a position of power without that level of sleaze being far more institutionalised.

 djones520 wrote:
I disagree. Sexual assault is sexual assault. Do you think it's any less damaging to an adult then it is to a child? I'd wager it can be more so. Children are resilient, they are more likely to recover from injury. I still have some quirk's in my life due to my circumstance, but by and large, what happened then has almost no effect on me today, and that was with zero counselling or the like.

It isn't about whether a child or an adult is more precious, it's about letting an adult make their own life choices, while knowing children need adults to make many decisions for them.

Rates have dropped by as much as 25%. Want to know whats changed in the last several years about our training? An emphasis on bystanders getting involved. That's been the largest target of focus, and it's working.

Getting involved, yes. Contacting the victim to say they know what happened and will support them if they come forward, yes. Deciding they will make the event public when that is not what the victim wants right now? feth that.

Why do you keep saying 'make public' without the consent of the victim. I'm talking about going to the bloody police not the papers.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Why do you keep saying 'make public' without the consent of the victim. I'm talking about going to the bloody police not the papers.

Yeah, so police investigate. Now given we're talking about you making a statement without her agreement, either that knock on the door from the police comes out of the blue to the victim, or it comes after you discussed it with her and she told you not to. Either way that's more people who know about something she had not yet decided to tell people about. So that's great for the victim.

And then what? For this new process to be useful to anyone it doesn't just end with a complaint. It need to get turned in to a charge, and an arrest, and prosecution. These are not things done in private.

Heard on the news this morning that Weinstein was even forcing women to wear specific brands of dresses on the red carpet. Particularly from his wife's brand.

 Ouze wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:
I never heard anyone say he threatened them just bribe them....

The one girl I seen said she did things for a job and money..... Doesn't that just mean she is just a prostitute.

Your opinions are consistently garbage and you should be ashamed for expressing them in a public forum.

They did an act for money and roles, whether you consider that act reasonable is upto you but ovbiously they did.

Also no shame in not following the sheep. In my book he is a pig for doing such things while married and deserves to lose everything and they are flewzies who will do anything for a moment of fame.

Question everyone because everyone lies to make their sins look less evil then an others.

Also just because I disagree with you please reframe from trying to insult me, do grow up and understand a public forum is for debate ( multiple sides of a point discussing a topic and showing their view point) not everyone posting I agree. If you do want that pull a face book delete all posts that do not agree with you.

I would gladly agree that he is a rapist and a sex criminal if someone can provide a sample where the acts the preformed did not provide any benifit or no payment was recieved. By lawsuit or otherwise.

OgreChubbs wrote:

I would gladly agree that he is a rapist and a sex criminal if someone can provide a sample where the acts the preformed did not provide any benifit or no payment was recieved. By lawsuit or otherwise.

Stipulating that someone must have sex with you if they want to work in the business is definitely coercive. It doesn't matter if the work they then went on to do was of benefit to the women, it's still rape.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Heard on the news this morning that Weinstein was even forcing women to wear specific brands of dresses on the red carpet. Particularly from his wife's brand.

That's not necessarily strange, although that kind of marketing should be up to the actor/acrtress in question and be paid for. Requiring his wife's brand rather smacks of nepotism, but that is nowhere near the level of scumbaggery he's being accused of now.

OgreChubbs.jpg wrote:*snip*

So... Many... Errors. Must... Constrain... Inner... Grammar Nazi...

I also do not agree that someone who sues for rape and consequently settles out of court is suddenly a prostitute because they settled for whatever reason.

 sebster wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Why do you keep saying 'make public' without the consent of the victim. I'm talking about going to the bloody police not the papers.

Yeah, so police investigate. Now given we're talking about you making a statement without her agreement, either that knock on the door from the police comes out of the blue to the victim, or it comes after you discussed it with her and she told you not to. Either way that's more people who know about something she had not yet decided to tell people about. So that's great for the victim.

And then what? For this new process to be useful to anyone it doesn't just end with a complaint. It need to get turned in to a charge, and an arrest, and prosecution. These are not things done in private.

That's a bunch of nonsense. If you know a serious crime, like assault or rape has occurred you have an obligation to report it to the police. It's not ok to ignore criminals committing violent crimes and we have rape shield laws to protect the anonymity of victims. When you don't stop rapists and child molesters they keep on assaulting people. Look at the Sandusky case, the Penn State administration knew Sandusky was raping kids but didn't go to the police, 10 years later a school principal discovers Sandusky is raping students there and calls the police. In the intervening decade between McQueary's witnessing Sandusky molesting a kid at Penn State and the school principal calling the police Sandusky raped multiple children. Why was that allowed to happen? Because Penn State administrators in the athletic department didn't want to deal with the negative publicity of a criminal case against Sandusky. It's inexcusable to enable sexual predators to victimize more people.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Heard on the news this morning that Weinstein was even forcing women to wear specific brands of dresses on the red carpet. Particularly from his wife's brand.

That's not necessarily strange, although that kind of marketing should be up to the actor/acrtress in question and be paid for. Requiring his wife's brand rather smacks of nepotism, but that is nowhere near the level of scumbaggery he's being accused of now.

Oh, I agree, taken on its own, the red carpet thing would normally just be seen as a simple trade of favors: "be a walking billboard for my wife's new clothing line and I'll get you a movie part." But it's when you add it in with all the rest of his acts that it becomes just one more shameful act demonstrating how he used his influence to dominate and control women.

 sebster wrote:
Within a couple of days we've got from insinuations against the media that they were part of the cover up because they hadn't reported on Weinstein in the past, and now people are attacking the media for trying and convicting the guy before he's had his day in court. This is fething ridiculous.

Why are people shopping around to blame the victims, or the media, or the Democrats, and even Obama? What in the feth is going on? Where did this fething nonsense start, and where will it end? Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator, and he should be condemned, and anyone who acted to cover up his crime should be just as roundly condemned. That's the list of actual, real villains in this. But a person is not a villain if they learn something horrible happened to a victim, see that victim is remaining silent, and don't go make the decision to make that victim's suffering public. A person is not a villain if they received a story on this, but decided a single anonymous source wasn't sufficient to accuse someone of a crime in a newspaper article. A person is not a villain if they took money from a donor who turned out to be a villain. And no, the media are not now villains because they are reporting on this now with an assumption that the dozens of women who've come forward probably aren't all lying.

The victims are always blamed, it's the American way, it's on the bingo card for a reason. You can't have a rape trail without the obligatory "look how she is dressed" defense. Look at how the women accusing trump were treated.

Blaming Obama & the dems is just a cheap political attack to keep their base riled up and afraid of "those" liberals. It's what keeps them going to the polls and voting R. They believe the girls accusing Clinton, but not the ones accusing Trump nor O'reilly. I bet Weinstein won't get his job back ever, but it's amazing how fast O'reilly did. Can't let a good spin doctor go to waste it seems.

A general reply to people who replied to my earlier comments.

For the record, I'm not downplaying the horrific crime of sexual abuse, but one point needs to be made:

We don't know that these people are victims until Weinstein is charged, due process occurs, the defence and prosecution make their case in a court of law, and finally a judge and jury decide Weinstein's guilt or innocence. If Weinstein is found guilty, then, and only then, can these people be called victims IMO.

For sure, in some types of crime, there are obviously victims. A guy found dead with a knife in his back is obviously a murder victim. Somebody who is assaulted, is obviously a victim of assault etc etc

But in specific instances such as this, when accusations are often based on rumour, hearsay, evidence is lacking, and it's X's word against Y, etc etc then I feel we have to be careful before we label people criminals or victims. None of this is clear cut, black and white.

As I said earlier, I don't give two hoots for Weinstein, and the sheer number of people accusing him of crimes, is probably an example of where we can apply the law of averages.

All I'm saying is that ancient, hard fought rights, the foundation of Western Civilisation, should not be sacrificed for the sake of some media circus.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Within a couple of days we've got from insinuations against the media that they were part of the cover up because they hadn't reported on Weinstein in the past, and now people are attacking the media for trying and convicting the guy before he's had his day in court. This is fething ridiculous.

Why are people shopping around to blame the victims, or the media, or the Democrats, and even Obama? What in the feth is going on? Where did this fething nonsense start, and where will it end? Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator, and he should be condemned, and anyone who acted to cover up his crime should be just as roundly condemned. That's the list of actual, real villains in this. But a person is not a villain if they learn something horrible happened to a victim, see that victim is remaining silent, and don't go make the decision to make that victim's suffering public. A person is not a villain if they received a story on this, but decided a single anonymous source wasn't sufficient to accuse someone of a crime in a newspaper article. A person is not a villain if they took money from a donor who turned out to be a villain. And no, the media are not now villains because they are reporting on this now with an assumption that the dozens of women who've come forward probably aren't all lying.

The victims are always blamed, it's the American way, it's on the bingo card for a reason. You can't have a rape trail without the obligatory "look how she is dressed" defense. Look at how the women accusing trump were treated.

Blaming Obama & the dems is just a cheap political attack to keep their base riled up and afraid of "those" liberals. It's what keeps them going to the polls and voting R. They believe the girls accusing Clinton, but not the ones accusing Trump nor O'reilly. I bet Weinstein won't get his job back ever, but it's amazing how fast O'reilly did. Can't let a good spin doctor go to waste it seems.

Victim blaming is as common as accusation is proof of guilt.

What happened to innocent til proven guilty? Until convicted of a crime one should not be allowed to public accuse someone of it. I believe that's called inflamitory remarks.

OgreChubbs wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Within a couple of days we've got from insinuations against the media that they were part of the cover up because they hadn't reported on Weinstein in the past, and now people are attacking the media for trying and convicting the guy before he's had his day in court. This is fething ridiculous.

Why are people shopping around to blame the victims, or the media, or the Democrats, and even Obama? What in the feth is going on? Where did this fething nonsense start, and where will it end? Harvey Weinstein is a sexual predator, and he should be condemned, and anyone who acted to cover up his crime should be just as roundly condemned. That's the list of actual, real villains in this. But a person is not a villain if they learn something horrible happened to a victim, see that victim is remaining silent, and don't go make the decision to make that victim's suffering public. A person is not a villain if they received a story on this, but decided a single anonymous source wasn't sufficient to accuse someone of a crime in a newspaper article. A person is not a villain if they took money from a donor who turned out to be a villain. And no, the media are not now villains because they are reporting on this now with an assumption that the dozens of women who've come forward probably aren't all lying.

The victims are always blamed, it's the American way, it's on the bingo card for a reason. You can't have a rape trail without the obligatory "look how she is dressed" defense. Look at how the women accusing trump were treated.

Blaming Obama & the dems is just a cheap political attack to keep their base riled up and afraid of "those" liberals. It's what keeps them going to the polls and voting R. They believe the girls accusing Clinton, but not the ones accusing Trump nor O'reilly. I bet Weinstein won't get his job back ever, but it's amazing how fast O'reilly did. Can't let a good spin doctor go to waste it seems.

Victim blaming is as common as accusation is proof of guilt.

What happened to innocent til proven guilty? Until convicted of a crime one should not be allowed to public accuse someone of it. I believe that's called inflamitory remarks.

Sure and I bet you think Paddock is innocent as well right? he was never convicted of anything, so he's as innocent as they come. Don't call Paddock a mass murderer, that's inflammatory.

Not all crimes end up in a criminal trial, the rich rapists and molesters like to settle out of court, including certain churches, so that basically means there are no priests that rape children, none of them were ever found guilty so don't talk about it at all

What you're proposing in this situation is really just another layer of victim blaming.

Yes sweep it all under the rug! :sideeye:

So... secret trials then? After all, for a public trial, one needs a public accusation first. That's not inflammatory, that is all part of due process. I'll take the messiness we have over a secretive criminal justice system anytime and every time.

OgreChubbs wrote:

What happened to innocent til proven guilty? Until convicted of a crime one should not be allowed to public accuse someone of it. I believe that's called inflamitory remarks.

Weinstein being a rapist has been an open secret for decades.

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bystanders role isn't to protect the victim, it's to protect the community.

Had a bystander spoken up about it, it could have prevented more victims.

A predator never stops at just one.

I agree that it is good to break cultures of silence and stop similar things happening to other people, but the fact remains you have no right to choose to make the crime public when the victim is not choosing to do that right now. "Hey everyone, Judy is keeping it quiet but she got raped" is an obvious dick move.

If this is knowledge of the crime after the fact, then you are right. If I witness it, the victim has no say. As a mandated reporter, I am required by law to report all abuse that I witness, regardless of what the victim says. If not, I can face legal consequences.

 Red Harvest wrote:
So... secret trials then? After all, for a public trial, one needs a public accusation first. That's not inflammatory, that is all part of due process. I'll take the messiness we have over a secretive criminal justice system anytime and every time.

We can have public trials while still shielding the identity of the victim. It's generally required if the victim is underage.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bystanders role isn't to protect the victim, it's to protect the community.

Had a bystander spoken up about it, it could have prevented more victims.

A predator never stops at just one.

I agree that it is good to break cultures of silence and stop similar things happening to other people, but the fact remains you have no right to choose to make the crime public when the victim is not choosing to do that right now. "Hey everyone, Judy is keeping it quiet but she got raped" is an obvious dick move.

If this is knowledge of the crime after the fact, then you are right. If I witness it, the victim has no say. As a mandated reporter, I am required by law to report all abuse that I witness, regardless of what the victim says. If not, I can face legal consequences.

Yup... samething with institutions who deals with kids (ie, elementary schools).

I remember playing LA Noire for the first time. A mission on the Traffic Desk goes in to this and as this story comes back I can't help think about this. It only make me think of Roman Polanski, how they all stood up and applauded him as Harrison Ford stood there, no emotion on his face. Polanski having been convicted raping a young underage girl in a hot tub of a friends home, another director whom escapes my name. He then ran off to Canada and hasn't come back since, a wanted criminal. And I can only think how they, the Hollywood elite, liberal in much a sense gave this man a God damn award.

This does seem a little different than some of the other recent case.

A few people I watch are coming forward more now to call out others, albeit on the smaller sphere. - EG Internet media, indie films, tv films.

I can't help but think it's still ultimately a geo political game, like it was referred to earlier.

On the other hand, this is real people, who have suffered terrible things.

Although, I did just read a tweet that probably shows how this will end up turning out.

"This whole Harvey Weinstein situation is upsetting but wait until you see how many projects titled "Undercover Models" just got greenlit"


Naturally, there's an implied sarcasm tag there, in case anyone was unsure...

Or in a sense how known it was to the point of them making an entire joke about it on 30 Rock, years back.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bystanders role isn't to protect the victim, it's to protect the community.

Had a bystander spoken up about it, it could have prevented more victims.

A predator never stops at just one.

I agree that it is good to break cultures of silence and stop similar things happening to other people, but the fact remains you have no right to choose to make the crime public when the victim is not choosing to do that right now. "Hey everyone, Judy is keeping it quiet but she got raped" is an obvious dick move.

If this is knowledge of the crime after the fact, then you are right. If I witness it, the victim has no say. As a mandated reporter, I am required by law to report all abuse that I witness, regardless of what the victim says. If not, I can face legal consequences.

Depending on the job, one doesn't even have to witness the crime in order to be mandated to report it. For example, I teach at a university and one of the policies put in place in the last five years is mandatory reporting of suspicion of an abuse. For instance, if I am talking to a student, and in our conversation they let slip a bit of info of some sort of physical or sexual or verbal abuse or possible self harm, even in passing, I am obligated to tell the student I have to report what they said to student affairs and I have to report it. Failure to do so can result in termination. When people complain politically about universities being "safe spaces", that is one of the main points of what the university policy actually means. Of course, the people complaining often don't really understand the policy at all and regard the concept of "safe spaces" as some sort of infringement on speech.

As another example, it has long been the policy for primary shcool teachers in the US to have to report suspicion of abuse among their students to their superiors.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
A bystanders role isn't to protect the victim, it's to protect the community.

Had a bystander spoken up about it, it could have prevented more victims.

A predator never stops at just one.

I agree that it is good to break cultures of silence and stop similar things happening to other people, but the fact remains you have no right to choose to make the crime public when the victim is not choosing to do that right now. "Hey everyone, Judy is keeping it quiet but she got raped" is an obvious dick move.

If this is knowledge of the crime after the fact, then you are right. If I witness it, the victim has no say. As a mandated reporter, I am required by law to report all abuse that I witness, regardless of what the victim says. If not, I can face legal consequences.

Depending on the job, one doesn't even have to witness the crime in order to be mandated to report it. For example, I teach at a university and one of the policies put in place in the last five years is mandatory reporting of suspicion of an abuse. For instance, if I am talking to a student, and in our conversation they let slip a bit of info of some sort of physical or sexual or verbal abuse or possible self harm, even in passing, I am obligated to tell the student I have to report what they said to student affairs and I have to report it. Failure to do so can result in termination. When people complain politically about universities being "safe spaces", that is one of the main points of what the university policy actually means. Of course, the people complaining often don't really understand the policy at all and regard the concept of "safe spaces" as some sort of infringement on speech.

As another example, it has long been the policy for primary shcool teachers in the US to have to report suspicion of abuse among their students to their superiors.

This is true. If a person over 18 comes to me and asks me for help, I have to report it. If they come to confide in me, all I can do is encourage them to seek help. If somebody under 18 comes to me and says somebody has been abusing them at home, I have to call that in. If I witness somebody abusing somebody under 18, I am probably going to stop it and then call it in. If you witness abuse with your own eyes, even if the victim says not to, you better be calling that gak in. You just witnessed a crime and you are letting a criminal walk away to do it again.

As far as work goes, yeah I have to report everything somebody tells me that could be abuse immediately. Don't have to witness it, just have to hear about it.

Remember guys, your healthcare workers are looking out for you in the community as well as in the clinical setting. Remember that the next time you are a dick to one of us FOR WE ARE LEGION!

Help us, pay us more. We are so poor! They make us work for days at a time for little food and money! We don't even get regular potty breaks!

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Depending on the job, one doesn't even have to witness the crime in order to be mandated to report it.

Exactly so. It's not that long since our lawmakers decided that people working as private security - in whatever function but with the same basic license - have a more comprehensive duty to report crimes than other citizens. I'm supposed to report a long series of severe crimes if I happen to see or hear something that leads me to believe such have taken place, while a regular citizen isn't obligated to report them unless the crime can still be prevented.