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.

Spetulhu wrote:

 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.

Just being nitpicky here, by the time I report something, the crime cannot be prevented, it has already happened.

Also, I believe you can still get in trouble as a normal citizen for seeing or witnessing a crime, but not reporting it. I could be wrong, may be flashing up some Law and Order stuff here on mistake or something that used to be a law I read about.

However, if I do not and they find out I did not, I am pretty boned. Way worse off than the normal citizen. This is to deter somebody from seeing abuse in the workplace and turning a blind eye. Lose licenses, huge fine. Possible jailtime. Basically, blacklisted. It is kind of like somebody having a heart attack and asking for a doctor, but the doctor keeps eating his steak and then asks for more wine. Not good. You gotta stay sharp out there.Always be watching! Because people are fething idiots.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 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.

Looks like you're OK with him having done these things if he wasn't married, and the women he coerced are equally guilty, huh?

4 of the women involved have now accused him of flat-out rape.

I feel very, very comfortable in reiterating that the opinions you expressed here are both hot garbage, and consistent with your posting habits.

Considering this industry, most should go to jail probably.

I know whose posts I'm exalting...


The one that got me was Andy Signore of Honest Trailers. I like his show and never would have guessed he was a sexual predator. There's still a part of me who wants it all to be a misunderstanding, so I can see how hard it can be to believe the accusations when they first start. Only once there is a substantial number of corroborating stories does it really feel true.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:



The one that got me was Andy Signore of Honest Trailers. I like his show and never would have guessed he was a sexual predator. There's still a part of me who wants it all to be a misunderstanding, so I can see how hard it can be to believe the accusations when they first start. Only once there is a substantial number of corroborating stories does it really feel true.

Awww come on.

I am disappoint

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
There's still a part of me who wants it all to be a misunderstanding, so I can see how hard it can be to believe the accusations when they first start. Only once there is a substantial number of corroborating stories does it really feel true.

I know exactly how you feel, because that is how I feel about Louis CK.

Are we going to need a thread for celebrities who disappointed us this year to pair up with the thread about the dead ones?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I know whose posts I'm exalting...


The one that got me was Andy Signore of Honest Trailers. I like his show and never would have guessed he was a sexual predator. There's still a part of me who wants it all to be a misunderstanding, so I can see how hard it can be to believe the accusations when they first start. Only once there is a substantial number of corroborating stories does it really feel true.

Wow... he always struck me as that loveable teddy bear type of guy. They come in all shapes and sizes I guess.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Just being nitpicky here, by the time I report something, the crime cannot be prevented, it has already happened.

Also, I believe you can still get in trouble as a normal citizen for seeing or witnessing a crime, but not reporting it. I could be wrong, may be flashing up some Law and Order stuff here on mistake or something that used to be a law I read about.

Could be different in different countries ofc, but over here a citizen isn't required to report crimes that have already happened. If they find evidence of a serious crime people will still usually report it because it's the right thing to do. They are, however, by law required to report something like a guy planning a murder, rape etc, the "can still be prevented" part. And ofc we're by law required to render aid to people in danger even if all we can do is call the emergency number and wait.

So as not to go too far off topic.... If I had worked security for the movie company here (under Finnish law) I would have been required to report any suspicions of the big boss raping prospective movie stars or employees even if the victims were unwilling to speak about it. Which would have led absolutely nowhere except for the termination of my contract and probably a libel lawsuit. I'd likely lose my job if it turned out I didn't report it too, but it would cost me less money.

 Ouze wrote:

OgreChubbs wrote:

 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.

Looks like you're OK with him having done these things if he wasn't married, and the women he coerced are equally guilty, huh?

4 of the women involved have now accused him of flat-out rape.

I feel very, very comfortable in reiterating that the opinions you expressed here are both hot garbage, and consistent with your posting habits.

If you feel that way so be it but do keep it to yourself please and do not be rude. I am not one to get emotional about this stuff or instantly say someone is wrong because several others say he is. Once proof is given more so then word of mouth, then he is guilty.

Right now, we have an accused person yet to be proven guilty of any crime already being called a rapist. Word of mouth proof is as strong as the paper it is written on.

I will not jump on any band wagon until all the chips are played, then I will make an informed choice and stand by it. I am not saying they are liers or he is guilty.

This may be hard for the modern Internet era where everything is decided with in 5 seconds and that's that. What I know so far is word of mouth and a girl tried a wire tap and the cops saying not enough to show intent of rape.

Knee jerk reactions are rarely correct ones.

Damn tablet turning mispelled words into something else after I click submit.

Oh btw I always take the unfavourable opnion side over any other simply because all sides of any argument should be seen to make the best choice. I am very pro anti-abortion but when people say thing like no abortion ever and such and most agree I was on the side of abortion due to the fact that in some cases they are needed to save lives, ect. So I understand you may find me annoying and that's ok but it is who I am.

You either believe in forced birth or not.

OgreChubbs wrote:

I will not jump on any band wagon until all the chips are played, then I will make an informed choice and stand by it. I am not saying they are liers or he is guilty.

This may be hard for the modern Internet era where everything is decided with in 5 seconds and that's that. What I know so far is word of mouth and a girl tried a wire tap and the cops saying not enough to show intent of rape.

Knee jerk reactions are rarely correct ones.

Weinstein has been a known rapist for decades. Everyone in Hollywood knew what he was like but couldn't do anything because he was powerful enough to destroy their careers in retaliation. This is not a knee jerk reaction, it has been brewing for thirty god damn years.

Rosebuddy wrote:
Everyone in Hollywood knew what he was like but couldn't do anything because he was powerful enough to destroy their careers in retaliation.

And you don't even have to be a movie producer for that, it's enough that you're a big popular movie star. Clint Eastwood's partner Sondra Locke was pretty much blacklisted from acting/directing after they split up, for example. And like Weinstein her complaints against Clint and Warner Bros were both settled out of court.

LordofHats wrote:Are we going to need a thread for celebrities who disappointed us this year to pair up with the thread about the dead ones?

Make it one thread "The literary (both definitions) dead"

It could become a Schrödinger's thread. You'll only know if the person is actually dead or just a huge donkey-cave if you ask.

Mario wrote:
literary (both definitions)"

I'm book noting this for future use. I sense I will need it someday

It could become a Schrödinger's thread. You'll only know if the person is actually dead or just a huge donkey-cave if you ask.

Literally brilliant

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


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.

Yeah, it doesn't make him any less of a donkeycave.
Also, for all the people saying innocent until proven guilty:

I approve of the sentiment, but didn't the guy basically already publically admit to being guilty? In which case the innocent until proven guilty is kinda not necessary here...

Bran Dawri wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:


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.

Yeah, it doesn't make him any less of a donkeycave.
Also, for all the people saying innocent until proven guilty:

I approve of the sentiment, but didn't the guy basically already publically admit to being guilty? In which case the innocent until proven guilty is kinda not necessary here...

Not really? He definitively claims he never raped anyone, and also denies criminal sexual harassment or sexual assault, and claims it was consensual. Or at least any sex was consensual. It sounds like weasel words to me.

The incidents he seems to admit are true involve a lot of badgering (in some cases long sessions of badgering), coercion, blackmail-ish behavior and a looming-but-vaguely-indirect threat of 'you will lose your job/film/sponsorship,' and seems to believe that constitutes consent.
Not 100% sure if he really believes that or is just saying it for legal purposes so he isn't admitting he's guilty of rape, but it is abhorrent either way.

It's a pretty cut and dry thing, really- an acting job, film funding or other backing doesn't have any reason to involve massages, groping, or watching the guy masterbate. It's LA- he can go find someone willing after the business meeting, or talk his wife into some light roleplay. There is zero excuse for any of this.

He says he didn’t do anything, but will seek treatment to stop doing the things he says he didn’t do.

I dunno about the Louis CK thing. It is a bunch of rumours from sites like Jezebel "quoting" some other comedians, and when directly asked about it, they all directly say, "it wasn't Louis I was referring to." This Weinstein thing is a bit different as women are directly claiming he did this to them and are willing to say it out loud and on the record.

That said, it's easier to hate on Weinstein as he is just a money man producer, and not a person with the sort of talent I respect. (Granted, I guess arm twisting for recognition and money is a talent in its own right, I just don't really respect it the same way). Polanski, Cosby, Nicholson, Allen, et. al. might all be horrible humans too, but at least I can separate their art from their personal behavior in some strange way (maybe that's a weird way to look at it). Typing it sure felt weird.

Fox News is running an op-ed that states that a media company that harbors serial sexual harassers should be shut down.

Totally, wholeheartedly agree, guys.

 Ouze wrote:
Fox News is running an op-ed that states that a media company that harbors serial sexual harassers should be shut down.

Totally, wholeheartedly agree, guys.

Fox News, paragons of "wait and see how the investigation into this cop shooting/fraud accusation/treason allegations" is demanding that a company be shut down and sold off to alleged victims before any investigation has even concluded?

Shocking. Just shocking.

Who-da-thunk the guy that was known as "Lufa" in his own office would be a non entity in this discussion. When Bolling was on did anybody not think Gulfoyle wasn't giving him a hummer just to get on air? Bob Beckett is just sitting in the corner, saying "yeah, I'm an alike, but damn, Erik, you can do whatever you want, just let them taste that golden cock" "? Nobody? I mean the woman was married to the mayor of San Francisco, and she had some sort of life experience epiphany that told her to work at fox because she really believes that crap? Nope. Just a smart woman looking for a job.

What I find interesting is the contrast between Werdenstein and the recent story about deputy USA President Mike Pence.

Both are powerful men who have been criticised for their treatment of women. One used his power over women to get sexual favours, and the other takes quite dramatic steps to avoid finding himself in those situations.

Now I'm sure we would all like to think of ourselves as 'good people', but let's be honest, many men today and throughout history have abused power for the sexual attentions of women; it simply doesn't wash with me to dismiss them all just 'bad people'.

What is clear to me is this; if you are a man in any sort of position of power you have to be honest and say this temptation will occur and that it is one that many good men have been unable to resist through will power alone.

So to return to my original point, as a Tory I probably unreasonably 'swoon over Pence’s supposed old-school propriety' (an elegant little line from Jessica Valenti of the Guardian newspaper)
However, I think the premise that we all put a little bit more thought into how we can avoid putting ourselves (and our lady friends/ colleges) in these potentially compromising situations is a sound one :-)

Alternatively, as a human being capable of reason, one could be seen as being in control of ones actions and therefore take responsibility for ones own actions.

 Compel wrote:
Alternatively, as a human being capable of reason, one could be seen as being in control of ones actions and therefore take responsibility for ones own actions.

Well I don't disagree, but like any element of emotional intelligence it isn't enough to just tell someone to be something.

For example, looking at my EQi (Emotional Quotient) I can see that I am impulsive to a fault.

Now when my boss tells me in personal development meetings to 'just be a little more considered', that isn't very helpful as you can imagine!
I need to look at strategies and exercises to limit the negative effects of my impulsiveness in the workplace (and personal life!) and work on being more considered.

So we need to have a similar attitude to abuse of power imo, just saying 'oh if he was a better person he wouldn't have done this, powerful men just need to be better people' isn't helpful in the exact same way as my boss :-p

The idea that you can't be in a room with a woman who isn't your wife is weird AF, and as a professional, it's more than a bit unreasonable to exclude women from business dinners and other functions because you're afraid you can't control yourself. They're people, not objects with magical powers.

I'm pretty comfortable in saying that if you use your position of power to coerce sexual favors from someone, you lose your Good Person Card.

Pence is a whole different basket of creepy issues, but that's what happens when you want to run a fundamentalist theocracy.

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that you can't be in a room with a woman who isn't your wife is weird AF, and as a professional, it's more than a bit unreasonable to exclude women from business dinners and other functions because you're afraid you can't control yourself. They're people, not objects with magical powers.

It's the idea you are in a room Alone with another female employee, and it is not in the work environs is what is problematic and should be limited.

Yea you totally do, but this happens constantly, everywhere (e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/13/harvey-weinsteins-worked-for-kept-quiet-meg-rosoff)

So either most men are bad people (which I don't except) or there is something seriously wrong with the way we approach the concept of power.

My main point with the Pence thing was to highlight that this is the one instance of someone trying to change the way he interacts with his underlings (albeit in a misguided fashion) and all the papers can talk about is how old fashioned he is. Instead they should be talking about/ suggesting how this whole culture of misusing power can be challenged.

 Spinner wrote:
I'm pretty comfortable in saying that if you use your position of power to coerce sexual favors from someone, you lose your Good Person Card.

Pence is a whole different basket of creepy issues, but that's what happens when you want to run a fundamentalist theocracy.

a theocracy run by someone who never went to church and has been accused of harassment by multiple people?