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.

Mario wrote:
And what does that "fame" usually get them. Nothing besides abuse. Who would want to bet their future on such odds? Might as well try to win a million dollar by running through a minefield. Sure, occasionally somebody makes it (if they are lucky) but on average it's just a lot of pain with no upside.

Kaching
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers

I might not go on record making false accusations (but no charges) for the price of a good home. I'd be tempted though.

Bran Dawri wrote:
So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution
Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.

Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.

Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.

I beleive I heard that the "president" of this new group would be Law Professor Anita Hill. Yes, THAT Anita Hill!

Edit: Judge now steps down due to misconduct allegations: https://twitter.com/mattzap/status/942763217734037510

This is touching every part of government and civilian life.

Actually even a 'gentlemans club' of senior execs from different studios may well work,

if only because sinking a rival studio in bad press because of the behaviour of a colleague is just the sort of think that will appeal to the sort of alpha personalities that get these jobs

 =Angel= wrote:

Mario wrote:
And what does that "fame" usually get them. Nothing besides abuse. Who would want to bet their future on such odds? Might as well try to win a million dollar by running through a minefield. Sure, occasionally somebody makes it (if they are lucky) but on average it's just a lot of pain with no upside.

Kaching
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-lawyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers

I might not go on record making false accusations (but no charges) for the price of a good home. I'd be tempted though.

“Donors reached out to my firm directly to help some of the women I represented,” said Bloom, whose clients have also included accusers of Bill Cosby and Bill O’Reilly.

Bloom said her goal in securing money was not to pressure the women to come forward, but rather to help them relocate or arrange security if they felt unsafe during the waning days of a vitriolic election. She declined to identify any of the donors.

“Our standard pro bono agreement for legal services provides that if a media entity offers to compensate a client for sharing his or her story we receive a percentage of those fees. This rarely happens. But, on occasion, a case generates media interest and sometimes (not always) a client may receive an appearance fee,” she said.

Sounds reeeeeally tempting

Not even that, but nothing in the article suggests any of the women were being coaxed to make false accusations. From the article at worst a lawyer was being sleazy in trying to capitalize on their story.

But, but... muh narrative!

How else am I supposed to dismiss dozens of credible accusations out of hand, though?

 Ouze wrote:
How else am I supposed to dismiss dozens of credible accusations out of hand, though?

The lizardmen.

Bran Dawri wrote:
So, Hollywood is now setting up an anti-abuse committee. Good idea. Bad execution
Because who is in these commissions? The CEOs of Disney, Warner Bros, Unviersal Music Group, Paramount, Sony, and a high-up from Netflix.

Basically, the people in power are head of the committee that's supposed to stop sexual abuse by people in power.

Note: I'm not claiming that any of these people are abusers themselves. Merely pointing out the logical inconsistency.

It's actually a gender equality committee, which was being worked towards for a long time before the sex abuse allegations came to light. Originally it was more focused about getting equal pay for men and women.

And its worth noting that the committee has more people on it than just the major studio heads, although it is definitely weighted towards studio power players, rather than activists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Not even that, but nothing in the article suggests any of the women were being coaxed to make false accusations. From the article at worst a lawyer was being sleazy in trying to capitalize on their story.

It isn't ideal that accusers aren't all making their claims with money never being raised, but this is the real world. It says something that the person who did look for some money was the women who'd been through it before. She knew how the media and accused's reactions can cost the accuser a small fortune.

So rather than insist that accusers accept being out of pocket a lot of money just to keep their accusation completely pure, what we should do is just look at the accusation and see if it is credible. With almost 20 women making allegations against Trump, if they were lying there should be plenty of holes to find. Yet there's none found. There's reasons for that.

Well, how can we say the accusers are "Not Credible" when we have a tape of Trump himself saying that he does harrass women when he talked with Billy Bush. It was the good old Access Hollywood tape.

One person in that tape got fired and has no career, the other is now President. Let's think about that for a moment. I would like to think we would hold politicians to a higher standard than Hollywood types, but I know that idea is incredibly naive. Ideally, we hold them all to a high standard and act accordingly when they do not meet those standards.

.... but her Emails.

We should talk more about how European Politics leads to World Wars. It lowers my blood pressure.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/12/19/t-j-miller-accused-sexual-assault/


..a beer bottle ?!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
UK rape trial collapsed spectacularly this week when the police were forced to admit they had not divulged the alleged victim's mobile phone messages which showed how much she enjoyed sex with the man she later accused of rape.

False accusations do happen, but it is rare compared to the number of real rapes and assaults.

Though enjoying sex with someone doesn’t mean you can’t be raped by them, what was the strength of other evidence in the trial? It’s not been discussed, but it hugely undermines the validity of all case evidence when the police were excluding a large volume of material that didn’t suit the prosecution. The implication made by one BBC article is that after years of police not believing rape victims and wanting to improve the poor conviction rates on rape, are now overcompensating by going the other way and believing everything a victim says and assembling the evidence in a manner required to get a conviction. They can’t seem to get a reasonable middle ground on this.

 sebster wrote:
With almost 20 women making allegations against Trump, if they were lying there should be plenty of holes to find. Yet there's none found. There's reasons for that.

 Easy E wrote:
Well, how can we say the accusers are "Not Credible" when we have a tape of Trump himself saying that he does harrass women when he talked with Billy Bush. It was the good old Access Hollywood tape.

Never happened. He specifically explained that (in his experience as a star, and around stars) women consent to any and all advances by stars- offering an extreme hypothetical of grabbing them by the nethers.

If you haven't found any holes in the accuser stories then you've not been paying attention.
We can say the accusers are not credible when they claim Trump cornered them in dressing rooms which were crowded and chaperoned with zero witnesses.
We can say the accusers are not credible when after the alleged misconduct they reached out to Trump for aid in promoting products or services or otherwise remained good friends.
We can say the accusers are not credible when they make claims decades old right before a presidential election, providing zero evidence or witnesses that could be challenged to confirm their stories/clear his name.
Crucially, when charges are not filed, the accusation is certainly an appeal to the court of public opinion rather than to any court of justice. Without any formal investigation. allegations will linger indefinitely and can always be called upon when needed to smear a mans name.

Rowanne Brewer Lane, Trump's former girlfriend, was quoted at length in the article and was featured in the opening anecdote. Following the article's publication, Brewer Lane accused The Times of taking her quotes out of context and said that she was "flattered" and not insulted by Trump. Trump spokesperson Barry Bennett responded to the story by stating: "They talked to 50 women and managed to put seven or eight in the story. Over half of them had great things to say. The one that had great things to say, they twisted it and called her debased which is not how she feels." The Times defended the story and said Brewer Lane was "quoted fairly, accurately and at length"

Wow I think he's serious.

Edit: Well I gave myself some time to think of a response that wouldn't into US politics but I got nothing.

Smear a man's name? Trump and his supporters obviously couldn't care less. So why would they keep up 'fake' accusations that don't even do anything useful in the polarized political climate.

But sure, dozens of women are all lying because they love being smeared themselves and receiving death threats! No downsides at all besides those sweet 15 minutes of fame right?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Wow I think he's serious.

Edit: Well I gave myself some time to think of a response that wouldn't into US politics but I got nothing.

Agreed. I didn't want a thread lock so am just moving on from this.

SAD!

Old new now, but Matt Lauer is being replaced by Hoda Kotb.

This will be the first female/female host group on TV and format breaking.

Tina Johnson was one of the women who came forward with an accusation against Roy Moore during the Alabama special election. Last Tuesday, 2nd Jan, her home burned down in suspected arson.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/05/roy-moore-accuser-home-burns-down-arson-investigation-327078

So please no-one ever ask again why women don't come forward with accusations straight away. Against anyone with the slightest hint of status or respectability there is tremendous danger in making an accusation.

 =Angel= wrote:
If you haven't found any holes in the accuser stories then you've not been paying attention.

Rowanne Brewer Lane

Here's a list of Trump's accusers*
Jessica Leeds
Jill Harth
Kristen Anderson
Lisa Boyne
Cathy Heller
Temple Taggart
Mariah Billado
Karena Virginia
Bridget Sullivan
Tasha Dixon
Melinda McGillivray
Jennifer Murphy
Rachel Crooks
Natasha Stoynoff
Ninni Laaksonen
Jessica Drake
Samantha Holvey
Summer Zervos
Cassandra Searles


You know what's missing from that list? The person you chose to talk about. She isn't one of Trump's accusers. Your argument becomes 'someone who isn't listed as one of Trump's accusers disputes the media's reporting of her story, therefore the actual accusers shouldn't be believed'. It's an argument of the most incredible nonsense. It is so plainly absurd, so extraordinarily terrible that I think you, me, and everyone else who is engaged in US politics in any way needs to spend a lot of time thinking about what you just tried to argue. Because if we can get just a little understanding in to why you posted something so utterly bonkers, then maybe we'll be a step closer to understanding the thought patterns that led to something as ridiculous as Donald Trump's presidency.

*Ivanka Trump not included as it is hard to know what to make of that one. Unlike every other accuser on that list, Ivanka had plenty to gain when she made her original accusation, as she was in the process of divorcing Donald. And she retracted her accusation, sort of, but even the retracted version is rapey. So whatever actually happened there it's probably best just to leave it off the list and focus on the other 19 women who's cases form a clear pattern of molestation on the part of Trump.

 sebster wrote:
It's an argument of the most incredible nonsense.

I think we have a new tag line for OT. It also encapsulates why we can't, and don't deserve at this time, a US Politics thread.

 sebster wrote:
Tina Johnson was one of the women who came forward with an accusation against Roy Moore during the Alabama special election. Last Tuesday, 2nd Jan, her home burned down in suspected arson.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/05/roy-moore-accuser-home-burns-down-arson-investigation-327078

So please no-one ever ask again why women don't come forward with accusations straight away. Against anyone with the slightest hint of status or respectability there is tremendous danger in making an accusation.

While I can respect what you’re saying, lets hold off on the conspiracy or sensationalism in this case.

Below is from the source linked in your article. The relevant details that somehow didn’t make it into the Politico article :

That fire is still under investigation by the Etowah County Arson Task Force," said Natalie Barton, public information officer with the Etowah County Sheriff's Department. "A suspect of interest is being spoken to. But there have been no charges, to my knowledge, related to the fire at this time."

Barton later released a statement, saying, "The ongoing investigation does not lead us to believe that the fire is in any way related to Roy Moore or allegations made against him. More details will be released when warrants are obtained."

According to Johnson and neighbor Kevin Tallant, other neighbors witnessed a young man who had a history of public intoxication walking around the house before and during the blaze.

"He's been trouble in the neighborhood for a while," said Tallant, who lives across the street from Johnson and her family. He got a call from another neighbor that morning who said smoke was coming from the home and that somebody might be inside.

"I threw on my coveralls and took off down the driveway," he said. His wife called 911 at 8:26 a.m. but the dispatcher said they'd already received a call about the fire. "I got up there," he said, "and (the fire) was already pretty well started. When the fire department got there, I started helping them."

Johnson said she has not yet heard from law enforcement how or why the fire started, except that it started at the back of the house.

She said a woman neighbor told her that the young man in question approached her as she was getting in her car that morning and asked if she thought Johnson's house was going to burn. The neighbor didn't know what he was talking about, she said, because flames weren't visible at the time.

I find it hard to believe it was total coincidence it was her and not any other house in the neighborhood. No conspiracy needed, just an angry (and drunk?) Moore supporter.

 nels1031 wrote:
While I can respect what you’re saying, lets hold off on the conspiracy or sensationalism in this case.

You're right. I read a piece the day before (I think) that didn't have that extra police statement. When I got on dakka I just went and grabbed a new link for everyone, but didn't check the if any new information had been added. As a result I went with the more sensationalist early take. Cheers for picking up my mistake.

We can wait and watch to see how this develops. No value speculating right now, like I did.

Well, Ben Vereen is now on the list. The only good thing is that he does not deny the accusations and offers a full apology.

Allegations this morning were made against Craig McLachlan. To be honest the guy is only marginally famous in Australia, so this is hardly a big story. What's interesting is how closely it mirrors so many other stories. McLachlan has been a regular in lots of TV shows, but has never been a huge TV star despite beinga household name since the 80s. But McLachlan regularly headlines in performances of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, where he is a big draw and a major reason the show is a reliable cash cow for decades. That's where McLachlan is alleged to have kissed and groped his female costars. Like so many others, when McLachlan was confronted he used his star power to threaten the women, telling them he could ruin them. Like in so many other cases, the show runners ignored complaints, likely because they didn't want to lose their meal ticket. And like in so many other cases, as his behaviour went unchecked McLachlan got worse and worse.

Like in so many other cases, we have many women making these statements, and two who have now made formal complaints to the police. Like in so many other cases, McLachlan denies it, saying the women are looking for money or notoriety, and asking why none of these women came forward before now.

It's just the same story, playing out almost exactly the same as it did everywhere else.


http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/hes-calculated-and-manipulative-a-predator-craig-mclachlan-accused-of-indecent-assault-20180107-h0enst.html

Its almost like their is a template to these things.... like a Kabuki theatre.

Here's a new one, and it adds an even nastier twist to the reasons why women don't come forward to report these things.

Eliza Dushku (Buffy, Dollhouse, etc.) has come forward about being molested by the stunt coordinator while making True Lies.

So this adds a new reason to keep quiet: sometimes the scumbag literally holds your life in his hands. I think we all understood women kept quiet in Hollywood because it was about making or breaking your career in the game of influence. But, damn, what do you do when the gakhole could theoretically get you killed and make it look like an accident?

Oh well...

Aziz Ansari accused of sexual misconduct!

But it's ok everyone because he "Already apologised".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh well...

Aziz Ansari accused of sexual misconduct!

But it's ok everyone because he "Already apologised".

Who said that last line? Certainly not anyone in that article you cited.

This was, I thought, a pretty fair article on it. Maybe a little heavy handed on one side ("assassination" seems like a strong word).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh well...

Aziz Ansari accused of sexual misconduct!

But it's ok everyone because he "Already apologised".

The #metoo movement is an important step in recognizing the ongoing problem of sexual harassment and molestation of women, often brought about because of unequal power dynamics. It is a very good thing that women's stories are being brought into the open for people to see, as it's the only way it will be solved.

This story... does not help do that. This is a story about a woman who didn't say no wondering why her non-verbal signals were completely missed and having sex anyway, with someone who had no power of position over her, nor had made any threats against her. It does show that women must be able to say "No" explicitly, and be taught that, especially in sexual encounters with a person you don't know very well, you cannot rely on non-verbal signals alone. Well, a slap would work, but that's still assault if nothing has been done to you. This story is not what needs to be focused on, like Weinstein or Spacey, or even the Orange Menace, along with hundreds of others who use their positions to push others into sex under duress.

While the Aziz Ansari is not about workplace harassment, it definitely was about him ignoring her feelings and statements and continuing to pressure her to get what he wanted. If you read her original statement on Babe.net, she told him she was uncomfortable and asked him to stop pressuring her multiple times. He said they would just "chill," wait a few moments, and then start pressuring her again.

The reason why people are upset about his behavior is because he wrote a book about dating that basically said not to do crap like that and respect what the woman says.

It doesn't help that articles are ignoring the verbal communication that she said multiple times. She told him “I said I don’t want to feel forced because then I’ll hate you, and I’d rather not hate you.” He acknowledged her statement, stopped for a little while, then started right back up again.

While it is not a workplace harassment issue, it is totally a part of the conversation.