Jump to content
rllmuk
kerraig UK

Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood predators

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, witchypoos said:

He said in his apology letter that he always "asked for permission" first, but that might not be entirely true.

 

Even if it is true that doesn’t change much.  It’s not an uncoerced yes, trapped in his hotel room what happens if they say no?  That’s the calculation these women are making, not do I want to see Louis masturbate but how do I survive this.  It’s the implication from Alwsys Sunny.  

 

Also, on the leaked shit from his show I saw this on FB and thought it made an interesting point.  I just took the relevant sections the rest is related to US politics.

 

1D7054B9-B718-4BA2-A850-4E004D867587.thumb.jpeg.7be5e934db4b1834565fef2929ce8ca6.jpeg

 

C7B43373-BA6A-49D2-B535-DE4DFE18AA2F.jpeg.1220d35b513cd357a15589ad7ca58ad6.jpeg

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original case.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/us-judge-dismisses-judd-claim-against-weinstein-20190110-p50qoy.html

 



 

Los Angeles: A federal judge in Los Angeles has dismissed actor Ashley Judd's sexual harassment claim against movie producer Harvey Weinstein, but says she can proceed with a defamation claim against him.

Judd had accused Weinstein of defaming her in 1998 after she refused what she said were his sexual advances a year earlier.

n her lawsuit, filed in April 2018, the Double Jeopardy actor accused Weinstein of smearing her reputation by discouraging director Peter Jackson from casting her in his blockbuster movie franchise The Lord of the Rings.

Judd, one of the first women in October 2017 to publicly accuse Weinstein of sexual misconduct, had accused the Hollywood movie mogul of sexual harassment in violation of a California law barring such conduct by a person in a "business, service or professional relationship" with another.

In a footnote to his ruling, US district judge Philip Gutierrez said he was not determining whether Judd was sexually harassed by Weinstein "in the colloquial sense of the term."

But Gutierrez said that Judd's relationship as an actress with the film producer was not covered under the California statute she had sued under, nor under a 2019 amendment.

"We have said from the beginning that this claim was unjustified, and we are pleased that the court saw it as we did. We believe that we will ultimately prevail on her remaining claims," Weinstein's lawyer, Phyllis Kupferstein, said in a statement.

But Judd's attorney, Theodore Boutrous jnr, said the ruling did not upend Judd's complaint.

"Nothing about today's ruling changes that Ms Judd's case is moving forward on multiple claims," Boutrous said in a statement late Wednesday, Los Angeles time.

"We look forward to pursuing the three claims for relief that the court has already ruled can move forward," he also said.

Weinstein is to stand trial in May in New York on five charges, including rape, involving two other women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hub2 said:

What the fuck is wrong with Disco?!!? :angry:

 

That did not get overlooked:

 

 

Also look who else turned up in those replies:

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an odd choice of reference given that one of the most prominent events in American disco history was the time a stadium full of people burned huge piles of disco records because they didn't like this new music of gay origin, and wanted rock to be popular again.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, K said:

It's an odd choice of reference given that one of the most prominent events in American disco history was the time a stadium full of people burned huge piles of disco records because they didn't like this new music of gay origin, and wanted rock to be popular again.

 

There's an argument that this means that The Martian was unconsciously anti-queer, anti-POC due to its joke about Competent STEM Man Matt Damon being stranded on Mars with only his hated disco music:

 

http://abigailnussbaum.tumblr.com/post/151621723965/cocoveredlady-zora-zen

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 part documentary on R Kelly was shown this week on tv in America and is dragging all his dirty laundry back out in public view there. Called Surviving R Kelly its as depressing as you can imagine. Its making noise though with talk of new investigations into his behaviour. Hopefully he gets the book thrown at him. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today’s Golden Gillette Razor has gone to Brad Bird for his defence of John Lasseter.

 

Quote

“I don’t at all put John in a category with Weinstein,” he continues.

“You’re navigating a world where men have acted a certain way for thousands of years. Way too late, but all of a sudden, they’re expected to change that on a dime and it’s necessary and it’s right. But it’s a little bit a gray area. It’s not as hard of a cut as people want to make it. I’m an old friend of John’s and I don’t see him in black and white. I see him as a person like anyone else. He was a person who was very protective of us at a time when we needed it. So my feelings are a little bit more complicated.”

 



“It’s often like a pendulum,” he continues. “If people had been historically insensitive, the pendulum goes to hypersensitive. I understand where it came from and it’s fine. I just want to go to the other world where people don’t care about this kind of stuff so much. I just mean that once everybody has a fair shot, then it becomes about the work. That’s the place I want to get to. I don’t want people to be singled out because of whatever their particular slant is, or kept from opportunities because of it. I want a place where everybody gets to do everything and it’s now about the work.”

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/brad-bird-talks-the-incredibles-2-superhero-sequel-fatigue-and-john-lasseters-redemption

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is going to overshadow everything else in this thread for a while perhaps.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/25/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland?

 

Content warning for everything else at this link.

 

It only takes about two minutes into the four-hour documentary Leaving Neverland to realise that Michael Jackson’s legacy is never going to be the same again. After a brief introduction, praising him for his indisputable talent, one of his accusers looks into the camera and lists the ways in which the singer helped him. He then states: “And he sexually abused me for seven years.”

  • Upvote 1
  • Empathy 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ll go ahead to voice the negmageddon opinion then: Jackson is innocent. There was way more scrutiny over his behaviour for over 2 decades by the media, FBI and the courts. Everytime he came up innocent.

 

Comparing to R. Kelly where we have video footage of abuse, Cosby where a deluge of people stepped forward with their stories, Weinstein where an entire network of abuse and enablers came up, etc.

 

Sorry, but he’s innocent.

 

*runs to the bunker*

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stigma against men coming forward is incredible. It takes decades for most men to come forward and the end result is either not being believed or being believed and treated with suspicion. 

 

I completely believe these two brave men who’ve come forward risking so much harm.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it amazing that Jackson seems to avoid the mass condemnation that other accused celebrity sex offenders get.

 

In what other situation would we consider it in anyway acceptable that a middle age man admits to regularly sleeping in the same bed as children who stay over with him.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's the fact that it was always boys. If it was how Jackson said - essentially, I missed out on a childhood, so I love spending time with children and being a child with them - then why make it a one gender only type thing. The only logical reason as far as I can see is because it was sexual and that was his preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was a random bloke in his fifties who lived down the road having multiple young boys sleeping in his bed no one would be excusing it on account of him having a dodgy childhood.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bazjam said:

I find it amazing that Jackson seems to avoid the mass condemnation that other accused celebrity sex offenders get.

 

In what other situation would we consider it in anyway acceptable that a middle age man admits to regularly sleeping in the same bed as children who stay over with him.

 

I was at Epcot 5 years ago and went to watch Captain Eo (or whatever it was). It was effectively a shrine to Jackson, and at the end it got a standing ovation.

 

He's basically an American God and there's no way he's getting torn down. 

  • Empathy 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 years or so back I did a documentary with Anne Widdicombe and the main cameraman was the guy who did that Martin Bashir/Jacko documentary. He filmed extensively at Neverland and with Jackson and was 100% certain that he was guilty as hell. Apparently, Jackson's main bedroom could be locked from the inside and there were a number of rooms that only Jackson had access to. Lots of people have rooms that can lock from the inside, but it was the sheer number of locks, the air of creepiness and that the room was fairly impregnable if you were outside. Bashir spoke to a number of the accusers, whose stories weren't included in the documentary and the cameraman totally believed their accounts and thought the evidence they offered was compelling. Anecdotal, granted, but it was enough to convince me. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not disputing the sense of all the above, but don't forget the infamous 'Nick' who made the Westminster allegations and is now up on charges of his own for making it all up

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, linkster said:

Not disputing the sense of all the above, but don't forget the infamous 'Nick' who made the Westminster allegations and is now up on charges of his own for making it all up

 

One false story by one person shouldn’t tarnish genuine survivors.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Unofficial Who said:

 

One false story by one person shouldn’t tarnish genuine survivors.

I didn’t say it should. And it’s hardly just one - it happens to be one that destroyed the lives of innocent men. But the point is, liars lie. Real victims are something else. One doesn’t make the other any less likely.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that story very well, but an important distinction to make it is, I'm not talking about 'accusers' who come forward with stories that are then investigated outside the public eye by the judicial process.

 

I'm talking about people who come forward publicly (such as members of the #metoo movement, as well as these men we're discussing) and go into great detail - exposing their lives to scrutiny - where the only possible gain is to reveal the truth. 

 

There will always be a small subset of fantasists who exploit situations for money or notoriety, but I would hazard a guess that those with an even partway credible story are an even smaller subset within that subset - incredibly rare. It would be equivalent to saying you were - say - a serial killer. When discovered you were lying, it would ruin your credibility and your life. Plus you'd be prosecuted.

 

This 'Westminster Nick' guy provides a false positive: because his story is so rare (piggybacking onto a national scandal for notoriety's sake, at the cost of his freedom and reputation) that very rarity means it hits the papers. Which in turn makes it appear as though there are two stories (#1 a bunch of people come forward for no gain telling the truth; #2 a single bloke comes forward in a similar fashion but lying) and implying a 4:1 or 10:1 ratio or something, whereas in reality it's more like 1,000,000:1.

 

As it's such a tiny subset who meet all these criteria: appear rational, give compelling testimony, have lots of circumstantial evidence, some hard evidence, will receive no monetary reward AND are lying about abuse by another male, that it may as well be discounted. 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2019 at 00:11, Unofficial Who said:

This is going to overshadow everything else in this thread for a while perhaps.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/25/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland?

 

Content warning for everything else at this link.

 

 

 

 

I was always in the Jackson is innocent camp, maybe because the two high profile cases seemed so fishy and I loved his music.

 

but after reading that article, there is little denying it. I’m not sure what to do now, I don’t think I can listen to his music again.

 

Those two victims sound legit and are not looking for money.

  • Upvote 1
  • Empathy 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/01/2019 at 18:51, Pelekophoros said:

 

I was at Epcot 5 years ago and went to watch Captain Eo (or whatever it was). It was effectively a shrine to Jackson, and at the end it got a standing ovation.

 

He's basically an American God and there's no way he's getting torn down. 

 

Woah, I had no idea they’d brought Captain EO back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.