Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Venom

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

There's a school of thought that all of Weinstein's past advances on women are only coming fully into the public domain as the result of a power play by his brother. No sympathy for the sleazey git either way - but if that is the case then this will likely begin and end with him.

I'v seen similar stories pop up regard this all coming to light due to his brother wanting to take over the company and leaking details to certain media sources.

cnocbui

backspin. wrote: »

I can't help think of them all sitting in their finery at the Golden Globes or the Oscars talking down to the trump supporters and lambasting trump himself. How many of them have been abusers or have known about the abusers and said nothing. Sitting there as if they are the pillars of morality. Sickening really.

Would you rack off with this disgusting nonsense of equating those cognisant of a rumour with the actual abusers. The really complicit culprits are the DA's, Police and others in authority positions whos jobs are to see that laws are complied with and enforced, and who have not done their job down through the decades.

Penn

Venom wrote: »

I'v seen similar stories pop up regard this all coming to light due to his brother wanting to take over the company and leaking details to certain media sources.

I'd doubt it to be honest. The blowback on The Weinstein Company has been huge and wouldn't have been unforeseen. They moved quickly to try and distance themselves from him but it's definitely a stink that will stick to them going forward, and to Bob especially.

kunst nugget

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Personally, I find the phrase "sacrificial lamb" to be troubling.

It hints at one person being punished and the rest of the degenerates getting away with it.

I'd love to see the whole diseased, corrupt temple fall down on all their heads.

Which is why I used the phrase in the first place. Call me a cynic but I don't see this changing anything about the practices going on Hollywood. They'll throw Harvey Weinstein under the bus, wipe themselves down and keep doing what they're doing.

AllGunsBlazing

Penn wrote: »

I'd doubt it to be honest. The blowback on The Weinstein Company has been huge and wouldn't have been unforeseen. They moved quickly to try and distance themselves from him but it's definitely a stink that will stick to them going forward, and to Bob especially.

They'll change the name of the company and undergo a PR makeover. Probably appointing a female CEO will be the first step. Hollywood is fickle and has a notoriously short memory. One box office success and you're back in the game.

Crea

No mention of the rampant child sex abuse as highlighted by Coey Feldman and Elijah Wood

Outlaw Pete

Venom wrote: »

This is what I just don't get. You have women like Jolie, Paltrow and now Jane Fonda who have more money and fame than god, have the attention of the worlds media at their feet yet never once choose to speak up until now?

Seriously, at what point when you become so insanely rich and so world famous, don't you feel like its pay back time on people like Weinstein who abused you and other actors you know and continues to abuse new actors entering the industry?

Agree 100% and it's the elephant in the room really isn't it.

Rose McGowan is on Twitter all week posting tweets directed at men, such as the following:


https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/918622636485124096


But why is she only addressing men?? Why not the women of Hollywood too.

Or indeed, why doesn't she look in the mirror. Rose claims that Harvey raped her in 1997 and yet what did SHE do about it? And don't give that crap about her being a young naive starlet who feared she'd never work again or that nobody would believe her. I mean, I don't doubt she may never have worked for the Weinsteins again (she did by the way) or that people may have doubted her but so what, surely this was a serious situation and worth risking all that if there was a producer raping vulnerable actresses. She was a big star on the back of being in Scream at that stage and so had some clout. Yet instead of going to the Police and saying she was raped, even if just to prevent him doing it to another girl.... she accepted a payment of $100,000 to say nothing more of it.

Oh and she wasn't alone. Let's carve another slice of this all too present elephant shall we.

In 2013 28-year-old Lauren O’Connor became an assistant to the Weinsteins. She began to witness a plethora of the type of incidents we are all now aware of. She suspected that she and other female Weinstein employees were being used to facilitate liaisons with “vulnerable women who hope he will get them work.” Overtime (roughly two years) she began feeling more and more compelled to do something about it.... so she did and in 2015 she wrote a stinging 'memo' to the board, however.................

After reaching a settlement with Mr. Weinstein, Ms. O’Connor withdrew her complaint and thanked him for the career opportunity he had given her.

So why did SHE not go public or to the Police? Why does Rose McGowan expect a standard from men that she's seems perfectly happy to overlook when it's lacking in a female.

Any of these people that took settlements should be ashamed of themselves.

al87987

The hush money angle really pisses me off too.

retro:electro

al87987 wrote: »

The hush money angle really pisses me off too.

Rose is also pictured with Harvey at events, smiling with him almost 10 years after taking money from him. She most likely would still be silent even now, only for his own brother was the one to throw him under the bus. She took the money and kept her mouth shut, yet is now shaming others who did the same.
I feel for her, I really do- but there's so much about this whole fcuking thing that I do not understand.

Billy86

Crea wrote: »

Sadly I think you're right. Once Weinstein has been dealt with they'll convince themselves that all is right in Hollywood again whereas it's common knowledge from the testimony of Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood that child abuse is systematic in the Hollywood system.

I'd expect a small handful of others to go to, at most 1-2 high profile names but likely maybe 6-12 people we've barely/never heard of who are more on the 'off the camera' side of things. Makes it a bit easier to declare "problem solved!" even though it clearly won't be.

goose2005

Vojera wrote: »

I agree with this sentiment. To many women it's not shocking that it happens, just shocking that it's out in the open.

However, I disagree vehemently with Thompson's description of it as "extreme masculinity". To me, masculinity has nothing to do with it; it's abuse of power and taking advantage of vulnerable people. When I think of the men in my life, no matter how masculine they are, they would never engage in something like this. This is about ****ty people, and I don't think it helps for people like Thompson to describe it as being part of "masculinity" that this happens.

It's not very different from all the people who will make the connection between the abuse and the *cough* ethnoreligious background *cough* of all these Hollywood movers and shakers...

Ipso

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I'm sure David icke has it covered from years ago

According to him he would, but not much else.

fryup

scumbag? rapist? i don't know it seems to me the lynch mob are out for him....he's a randy old [email]b*stard....if[/email] you were surrounded by beautiful sexy women on a daily basis wounldn't you be tempted...he just needed more cold showers

pitifulgod

Thighgap and Sideboob wrote: »

Ultimately most people look out for number one, Rose saw thst 100k and looked out for number one. How different is Rose to Harvey, if she were Harvey she would be still looking out for number one and that might include the same things Harvey did.

Do you always blame victims of rape? Savile victims remained silent, victims of abuse in the church remained silent, silence as a result of fear of powerful people is not new. To liken her to Weinstein is pretty nasty, she was in the infancy of her career and early twenties. He was a billionaire who could destroy careers and lives. He's well documented as doing so. Women from far more powerful backgrounds were intimidated by him.

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

Rose is also pictured with Harvey at events, smiling with him almost 10 years after taking money from him. She most likely would still be silent even now, only for his own brother was the one to throw him under the bus.
I feel for her, I really do- but there's so much about this whole fcuking thing that I do not understand.

Absolutely, and this is another thing that winded me up. I am from her generation and I remember her only too well and she was not the demure girl she is (for whatever reason) attempting to suggest she was back then with tweets like this:

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/917139398101106689


I think when most people look back this is the Rose they remember, hanging off Marilyn Manson's arm at the MTV Awards in '98.





If she was raped, of course I feel for her but it still doesn't excuse taking money to keep quiet about it. Had she been much younger and broke, you could wrap your head around someone taking the cash but she wasn't hurting for it. My sense of it all is that (and this is just an opinion) is that Harvey forced himself on her in '97 but like two of the other women (from the original article) went along with it. Then overtime, what with her career not exactly going from strength to strength, and her not becoming the star she perhaps felt she should, she's after her slice of flesh as it were.

Maybe Harvey refused to oblige her with a role or two which she feels she deserved. Last decent film she was in Tarnantino's Grindhouse in 2007 which Harvey produced. Only time I heard of her in the media since then was she tweeted out a request that Adam Sandler's company had emailed regarding clothing for an audition. Her agency fired her over it.

Far too many actresses making complaints now for Harvey nor to be guilty of sexual assault at the very least and hope he has to be pay his dues in the but some of the accusations I for sure would have my doubts about (with regards to the complete truth being told at least) and her's is one of them. Ashley Judd another. What was she said she shouted at Harvery as she left his hotel room after refusing his advances? Something like "Get me an Oscar, Harvey, then you can touch me". A joke she claims, to avoid alienating him.

retro:electro

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you always blame victims of rape? Savile victims remained silent, victims of abuse in the church remained silent, silence as a result of fear of powerful people is not new. To liken her to Weinstein is pretty nasty, she was in the infancy of her career and early twenties. He was a billionaire who could destroy careers and lives. He's well documented as doing so. Women from far more powerful backgrounds were intimidated by him.

To liken the impuissant Saville and Church abuse victims to over paid, over privileged, powerful celebrities with the world media at their feet is also disproportionate.

The Rape of Lucretia

Quite a media frenzy, and roll call of the good and the penitent at the moment.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone though....

JupiterKid

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Quite a media frenzy, and roll call of the good and the penitent at the moment.
Let him who is without sin cast the first stone though....

Is it though? The focus of the reports is solely on Weinstein and McGowan. Nothing at all about a wisespread culture of sleaze, hypocrisy and abuse in Hollywood. The US news networks really don't want this whole sordid cesspit exposed. They knows who pays the piper. Depressing stuff.

pitifulgod

anna080 wrote: »

To liken the impuissant Saville and Church abuse victims to over paid, over privileged, powerful celebrities with the world media at their feet is also disproportionate.

She was raped, it's extraordinarily low to attack her and liken her to Weinstein, no less.

ceadaoin.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, and this is another thing that winded me up. I am from her generation and I remember her only too well and she was not the demure girl she is (for whatever reason) attempting to suggest she was back then with tweets like this:

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/917139398101106689


I think when most people look back this is the Rose they remember, hanging off Marilyn Manson's arm at the MTV Awards in '98.





If she was raped, of course I feel for her but it still doesn't excuse taking money to keep quiet about it. Had she been much younger and broke, you could wrap your head around someone taking the cash but she wasn't hurting for it. My sense of it all is that (and this is just an opinion) is that Harvey forced himself on her in '97 but like two of the other women (from the original article) went along with it. Then overtime, what with her career not exactly going from strength to strength, and her not becoming the star she perhaps felt she should, she's after her slice of flesh as it were.

Maybe Harvey refused to oblige her with a role or two which she feels she deserved. Last decent film she was in Tarnantino's Grindhouse in 2007 which Harvey produced. Only time I heard of her in the media since then was she tweeted out a request that Adam Sandler's company had emailed regarding clothing for an audition. Her agency fired her over it.

Far too many actresses making complaints now for Harvey nor to be guilty of sexual assault at the very least and hope he has to be pay his dues in the but some of the accusations I for sure would have my doubts about (with regards to the complete truth being told at least) and her's is one of them. Ashley Judd another. What was she said she shouted at Harvery as she left his hotel room after refusing his advances? Something like "Get me an Oscar, Harvey, then you can touch me". A joke she claims, to avoid alienating him.

So what are you saying? She was happy to get her arse out once so she couldn't have been raped?

She was raped. For whatever reason she didn't feel able to name her attacker until now. There can be many reasons for this. It doesn't mean that she was complicit in HW being able to continue abusing women. It doesn't make HW any less guilty. He is a rapist and a serial sexual abuser. That's all on him, not any of his victims. To bring an outfit she wore 20 years ago as a reason to insinuate that she is lying is pretty disgusting tbh

There is no "correct" way for a person who has suffered abuse to behave. Let's not forget that she also had a pretty messed up childhood being raised in the children of God cult which was known to abuse children. It can take a while to come to terms with these things and she shouldn't be judged for it

The Rape of Lucretia

ceadaoin. wrote: »

She alleges she was raped.

As far as we know at the moment.

pjohnson

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So what are you saying? She was happy to get her arse out once so she couldn't have been raped?

She was raped. For whatever reason she didn't feel able to name her attacker until now. There can be many reasons for this. It doesn't mean that she was complicit in HW being able to continue abusing women. It doesn't make HW any less guilty. He is a rapist and a serial sexual abuser. That's all on him, not any of his victims. To bring an outfit she wore 20 years ago as a reason to insinuate that she is lying is pretty disgusting tbh

There is no "correct" way for a person who has suffered abuse to behave. Let's not forget that she also had a pretty messed up childhood being raised in the children of God cult which was known to abuse children. It can take a while to come to terms with these things and she shouldn't be judged for it

I think you badly missed his post.

ceadaoin.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

As far as we know at the moment.

Yes, allegedly. What's known is that she did receive a settlement. And the settlements to several other women don't mean that HW is a serial sexual abuser. Not at all. I suppose it's possible that dozens of women suddenly decided to make stuff up to get attention and money. Even the anonymous ones.

Bambi985

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So what are you saying? She was happy to get her arse out once so she couldn't have been raped?

She was raped. For whatever reason she didn't feel able to name her attacker until now. There can be many reasons for this. It doesn't mean that she was complicit in HW being able to continue abusing women. It doesn't make HW any less guilty. He is a rapist and a serial sexual abuser. That's all on him, not any of his victims. To bring an outfit she wore 20 years ago as a reason to insinuate that she is lying is pretty disgusting tbh

There is no "correct" way for a person who has suffered abuse to behave. Let's not forget that she also had a pretty messed up childhood being raised in the children of God cult which was known to abuse children. It can take a while to come to terms with these things and she shouldn't be judged for it

Yeah, holy jesus like the victim blaming. "Oh this is the Rose I remember, y'know the one hanging out with dodgy fellas getting her arse out, she's not as innocent as she looks that one" - this is the exact attitude that prevents a phenomenal amount of women from saying a fcuking thing after some degenerate has sexually assaulted and raped them, add an extreme power dynamic and fame-hungry pressure cooker and complete lack of regulation of an industry dominated by rich and powerful men whose behaviour goes unchecked and you've got the Harvey Weinstein story.

Shame on her for not saying a thing and accepting hush money to stay quiet? When her life and livelihood relied on her not saying a thing and no-one would believe her or back her up because she got her arse out this one time and Weinstein is a career god to the world around her and she no doubt had an army of intimidating lawyers with a gun to her head? Seriously? Shame on you and your total bloody ignorance.

There is such a demonstrated lack of basic understanding of the incredible psychological impact that sexual assault has on a human being throughout all of this Weinstein coverage. Rape victims usually believe it was their fault. Rape victims know they won't be believed. Rape victims are scrutinised far more than their perpetrators. Rape victims often need to bury their trauma in order to get through the day. I fcuking despair sometimes around here, I really do.

retro:electro

pitifulgod wrote: »

She was raped, it's extraordinarily low to attack her and liken her to Weinstein, no less.

I agree, it was. But your own comparison was also impaired.

strandroad

Bambi985 wrote: »

There is such a demonstrated lack of basic understanding of the incredible psychological impact that sexual assault has on a human being throughout all of this Weinstein coverage. Rape victims usually believe it was their fault. Rape victims know they won't be believed. Rape victims are scrutinised far more than their perpetrators. Rape victims often need to bury their trauma in order to get through the day. I fcuking despair sometimes around here, I really do.

I especially like it when the same posters cr*p on rape victims and then blame them for not coming forward at the time.

pitifulgod

anna080 wrote: »

I agree, it was. But your own comparison was also impaired.

It really wasn't, untouchable powerful people making victims fearful of ever publicly coming forward. When they eventually reveal it, people invariably accuse them of lying or question why it took them so long to come forward. They're always attacked. McGowan is being attacked by certain users for absolutely no justifiable reaction.

You yourself portray her as privileged and rich, that has nothing to do with the fact that she was raped. Weinstein still was far more powerful and used that power to intimidate. This applies to many women who faced the same intimidation from Weinstein.

retro:electro

pitifulgod wrote: »

It really wasn't, untouchable powerful people making victims fearful of ever publicly coming forward. When they eventually reveal it, people invariably accuse them of lying or question why it took them so long to come forward. They're always attacked. McGowan is being attacked by certain users for absolutely no justifiable reaction.

You yourself portray her as privileged and rich, that has nothing to do with the fact that she was raped. Weinstein still was far more powerful and used that power to intimidate. This applies to many women who faced the same intimidation from Weinstein.

Of course it being rich has nothing to do with the fact she was raped. I never ever even implied as much.
My whole point was based around her being shamed into silence, yet she is shaming all of those around her for not speaking up either when she is herself is cut from the same cloth. Maybe she should lend others the same empathy she wishes to be treated with herself. It's not easy after all, right?

Don't expect everyone around you to have a social conscience when you yourself didn't have one. I understand why she did what she did, she was powerless and against the system.
I don't understand why she's shaming others for not doing what she herself didn't do. I just don't get it. It's confusing and I'm admitting there is parts here that I don't fcuking understand. That is all.

For what it's worth I DO NOT agree with Pete's comment or picture about Rose's dress sense. I had nothing to do with that comment so please don't involve me in it.

pjohnson

anna080 wrote: »

My whole point was based around her being shamed into silence, yet she is shaming all of those around her for not speaking up either when she is herself is cut from the same cloth. Maybe she should lend others the same empathy she wishes to be treated with herself. It's not easy after all, right? Don't expect everyone around you to have a social conscience when you yourself didn't have one. I understand why she did what she did, she was powerless and against the system.
I don't understand why she's shaming others for not doing what she herself didn't do.

I 89% sure this is what Pete meant aswell. I guess Rose can never ever ever be questioned again tho.

strandroad

anna080 wrote: »

Don't expect everyone around you to have a social conscience when you yourself didn't have one. I understand why she did what she did, she was powerless and against the system.
I don't understand why she's shaming others for not doing what she herself didn't do.

She said she was raped by a powerful producer many times, and in the context when it was easy to connect the dots. She named him to some people too, for example to Amazon execs as recently reported. She did much much more than others, so yes it would be good if they stepped up ti her level at least.

Outlaw Pete

ceadaoin. wrote: »

So what are you saying? She was happy to get her arse out once so she couldn't have been raped?

Predictable tripe. No, that is not what I am saying.

She was raped.

Allegedly. I'm sure he's guilty of a lot of what he has been accused of, rape though? I'm not as convinced.

For whatever reason she didn't feel able to name her attacker until now. There can be many reasons for this. It doesn't mean that she was complicit in HW being able to continue abusing women.

I respectfully disagree. She was a 24-year-old woman that took $100,000 to keep her mouth shut and so absolutely there is a level of complicity there. If I took a £100,000 when I was 24 years old (after having been sexually assaulted by someone in a position of power) to not report it and then sat back for 20-years while hearing story after story about that same person sexually assaulting others, would that not make me complicit? I think it would.

It doesn't make HW any less guilty.

Show me where I said it did? In fact I explicitly said I hope he gets his comeuppance.

To bring an outfit she wore 20 years ago as a reason to insinuate that she is lying is pretty disgusting tbh

I did not highlight what she wore for the reasons that you are claiming. I highlighted them as Rose is portraying herself as this demure naive innocent girl back then when it fact she was a mid twenties intelligent sharp woman. I believe that is calculated on her part to in order to give her version of events more credence.

This is an accusation of rape, let's not forget that. #IBelieveHer may be deemed the suitable response on Twitter and Facebook, but in a broader discussion of the topic, many aspects of events will be referenced. To hone in on one and then pretend that it was done solely to discredit the accusation itself is.... mischievous at best.

There is no "correct" way for a person who has suffered abuse to behave.

Yes, we all know the well trotted out lines thank you, I don't recall saying or implying there was but how someone behaves is bound to be discussed. It's not quite as irrelevant as you'd like it to be.

Let's not forget that she also had a pretty messed up childhood being raised in the children of God cult which was known to abuse children.

That's something I could well tell you not to forget.

jimbobalob309

rose is clearly a bit mentally stressed at the moment and her twitter hysterics certainly isnt helping matters but to imply you posted that picture of her half naked and say its to show that she's a "intelligent smart woman" is just the funniest thing ive heard all day. especially when put in context wit the rest of ur post which is basically 'she wasn't raped because she didnt take the man down straight away and she took money instead" - not a donkey's arse of a notion of the complexities of sex crimes and their victims so.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Allegedly. I'm sure he's guilty of a lot of what he has been accused of, rape though? I'm not as convinced.

well thats that sorted so. /end thread. next.

Outlaw Pete

jimbobalob309 wrote: »

....to imply you posted that picture of her half naked and say its to show that she's a "intelligent smart woman" is just the funniest thing ive heard all day.

Again: Rose posted a picture on Twitter of herself all demure, with a flower in her hair, and said that was the girl hurt by the monster. I said I certainly don't remember her like that (I'm of her generation) and then posted the image of how most people my age group would remember her (in her Marilyn Manson dating days).

As for my saying she is intelligent and sharp back then, she was, go watch any of her old interviews from back then and you'll see she was and so that begs the question why is being so manipulative and trying to get us to see late 90's Rose as this naive young girl. As does her appearing in many photos with Harvey over the coming years and going on to work with him again, beg the question: how could she do that after what she has alleged he has done.

strandroad wrote: »

She said she was raped by a powerful producer many times, and in the context when it was easy to connect the dots.

Well, let's look at what she said right after she claims Harvey raped her:


https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/917848581540757504

Now, assuming Rose told Ben the truth, that would mean Ben Affleck (on hearing that Harvey raped her) effectively said:

GODDAMNIT! I TOLD HIM TO STOP [raping girls]”

Or...

GODDAMNIT! I TOLD HIM TO STOP [sexually assaulting girls]”

Doesn't it make more sense that Rose had a pretty much similar experience to all the other women? Don't Ben's comments make far more sense in the context of Harvey having asked her to watch him shower or for a massage or whatever and she reluctantly agreed. Just doesn't add up that Affleck would respond that way after having been told what she now claims she told him. If it turns out I'm wrong and he did rape her, then I hope he does time for it.

I can't stand Ben Affleck by the way. Asshole of the highest order but don't think he's such an asshole that he would be so blasé about a young woman being sexually assaulted / raped.

People can behave in inexplicable ways when they're traumatized.

There's little to be gained from trying to discern the level of criminality of any act from snippets of interviews, later tweets, minor points of wording, and least of all from the attire of a person who may or may not have been acting out after what may (or may not) have been a brutal assault. It's all so very easy to judge, when it's not you.

Predictable though.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Kaya Jones, one of the earlier members of the Pussycat Dolls music band, has implied that she was forced into a prostitution ring while in the band. She also publicly questions why another member of the band committed suicide:



Please excuse the awful link to Perez Hilton. The dailyedge.ie had a link but deleted it...

http://perezhilton.com/2017-10-13-kaya-jones-pussycat-dolls-prostitution-ring-sexual-harassment/?from=post
https://www.dailyedge.ie/pussycat-dolls-kaya-jones-abuse-3646069-Oct2017/

There have been rumours too regarding certain modelling agencies, (one in particular) that is supposedly little more than a front group for high level prostitution for rich Middle Eastern businessmen, powerful brokers, movie moguls etc. They say the organisation is..."heavenly" wink wink.


Here's an article from a few weeks ago that might have passed into history without notice until the events this week. It makes you wonder about what is going on behind the surface in modelling too. Rumours and allegations have been a common feature regarding alleged abuse...

A young model has claimed prostitution is rife within the fashion industry after she was offered cash to sleep with wealthy men.

London-based model Jazz Egger, who recently turned 20, makes the extraordinary claim that 'big agencies' and 'established models' are involved in seedy underground dealings, with young women paid up to $2million (£1.54million) to spend the night with male clients.

Shockingly, Jazz claims she was even told that two young supermodels who have become household names have 'spent time' with men for money in order to get ahead in their career.

Austrian-born Jazz said she was first propositioned last summer after meeting an agent at an exclusive London club, who offered her an 'image modelling job' which involved a Greek yacht trip with three 'millionaires'.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4832268/Model-exposes-prostitution-fashion-industry.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK


IMO, if grown adults are mutually consenting to exchanging gifts and money for sex, that is their business.

But it's the one who are being pressured, bullied, intimidated, and forced into it that concerns me.
And from what I'm hearing, that number is shockingly large.

Earthhorse

It seems to me like lots of people are coming forward saying they've been victims but are still unwilling to take that final step and name the perpetrator. I get how difficult that is but nothing will change until naming the guilty becomes the norm.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Here's an interesting 10 point list regarding paedophilia and alleged abuse in Hollywood. Interesting reading regarding former child star Leonardo DiCaprio's former manager:

Bob Villard was one of the biggest child managers in the industry. He represented some of the most famous young names in Hollywood, including Leonardo DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire—but if the system had worked correctly, he would not have been allowed anywhere near any of them.Even before DiCaprio started acting, in 1987, Villard was charged with possession of child pornography. The prosecution, though, failed to prove it in court—and so Villard went free and kept working with kids.

It took until 2001 before they got him in jail. Villard was caught with a whole collection of sexually explicit pictures of young boys. He lost the case, went to jail, and the world became a safer place—for a while anyway, until Villard got out and immediately went right back to managing children.It did not take long before Villard hurt someone. By 2005, he was caught sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy he had courted as a client. Villard was sent back behind bars and his career finally ended—but there is no telling how many other clients he may have assaulted that never came forward.The courts did not seem particularly surprised by Villard’s abuse. “That’s what’s done,” the District Attorney told the press. “This is all normal in the industry.”

https://listverse.com/2017/02/26/10-disturbing-stories-about-hollywoods-pedophile-problem/

:eek:

retro:electro

Jesus that last line is horrific.

Ulysses Gaze

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Kaya Jones, one of the earlier members of the Pussycat Dolls music band, has implied that she was forced into a prostitution ring while in the band. She also publicly questions why another member of the band committed suicide:



Please excuse the awful link to Perez Hilton. The dailyedge.ie had a link but deleted it...

http://perezhilton.com/2017-10-13-kaya-jones-pussycat-dolls-prostitution-ring-sexual-harassment/?from=post
https://www.dailyedge.ie/pussycat-dolls-kaya-jones-abuse-3646069-Oct2017/

There have been rumours too regarding certain modelling agencies, (one in particular) that is supposedly little more than a front group for high level prostitution for rich Middle Eastern businessmen, powerful brokers, movie moguls etc. They say the organisation is..."heavenly" wink wink.


Here's an article from a few weeks ago that might have passed into history without notice until the events this week. It makes you wonder about what is going on behind the surface in modelling too. Rumours and allegations have been a common feature regarding alleged abuse...



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-4832268/Model-exposes-prostitution-fashion-industry.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK


IMO, if grown adults are mutually consenting to exchanging gifts and money for sex, that is their business.

But it's the one who are being pressured, bullied, intimidated, and forced into it that concerns me.
And from what I'm hearing, that number is shockingly large.

Google Sanela Jenkins Room 23

NIMAN

Can I play devil's advocate here?

If this man has raped women then he needs to be dealt with the full force of the law and do time.

But......

If he said to women, "you need to have sex with me to get a job" and they agree and do it, I think it's rather hypocritical for them to do it, get a decent career, then years after the event, when they are rich and famous, start complaining.

They could always have said no and turned their back on him.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

And before I go to bed, a quick reminder that Robert De Niro was arrested in Paris in 1998 as part of an investigation into a vice ring that was trafficking girls as young as 15 years old into prostitution. (There are no indications that De Niro is into underage girls though, it appears he was merely an unsuspecting 'john' of regular high class hookers.)

The case uncovers the brutal methods used to snare young women - some as young as 15 - into a call-girl agency specialising in wealthy, high- profile clients. It also exposes attempts by the French government machine to block an investigation which might embarrass senior politicians and damage French interests abroad.

Six people are charged with the running of an international prostitution ring, whose call-girls entertained the actor Robert de Niro, the former tennis player, Wojtek Fibak, two senior (but unnamed) French politicians and several Gulf princes. The agency specialised in tricking, or trapping, star-struck teenage girls into selling their bodies with the promise of careers as models or actresses.

At one point, according to the report of the investigating judge, the agency became a kind of approved dealer in girls, operating with the connivance, if not the blessing, of the French foreign ministry and French secret services. By steering Middle East arms clients towards girls from a known, and closely watched, agency, there was thought to be a reduced risk of blackmail, or the leaking of secret negotiations.

The French Brigade de Repression de Proxenetisme (the equivalent of the Vice Squad) traced 89 young women - would-be models or actresses - who said they had been tricked or sometimes physically constrained by Ms Brumark and Mr Bourgeois into working for them. According to the judicial report, the girls were sometimes "sold on like cattle" to other call- girl agencies.

The files of clients' names seized by the police are said to include many well-known members of the sports and show-business jet-set on both sides of the Atlantic. The only names to emerge so far are De Niro, Fibak and the French film producer, Alain Sarde.

Pay special attention to the bold print. This is not a new technique for the intelligence services, as we saw with the Kincora boys home scandal and MI5.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/the-sex-scandal-that-wouldnt-lie-down-1185127.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/de-niro-held-questioned-in-paris-over-vice-ring-1.134173

Wibbs

Aye the modelling world has long had rumours of that kinda pimping out of young women to rich and powerful men. Within the business it's certainly acknowledged that, just like Hollywood, a section of the industry is very bloody greasy and not just at the lower end either(through a couple of contacts in said biz I've heard some stories I can tell you). The music business has a similar dark and sordid underbelly. Basically any industry where you have a long queue of young people desperate to get into the business, with massive financial rewards for that tiny percentage who do "make it" and with powerful gatekeepers of access and success, it's almost a guarantee of repellent behaviour among some of the gatekeepers. And just like pedophiles will naturally gravitative to a "target rich environment" that has more children around, so sexual and power predators will also naturally gravitative to a target rich environment like the film/fashion/music/entertainment industries.

Billy86

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Kaya Jones, one of the earlier members of the Pussycat Dolls music band, has implied that she was forced into a prostitution ring while in the band. She also publicly questions why another member of the band committed suicide:

Unfortunately that would explain a lot about one of the most baffling acts I have ever seen - and I don't intend that as a sneer at their singing abilities etc, but the actual makeup of the group/groups/lineups/whatever we're calling them.

Wibbs

On that point of power. It often remains hidden because one could argue that such power hungry types are also more likely to be actually good at what they do and make the big bucks for the backers. Harvey a perfect example of that. And so long as they remain discrete then so long as the greasy till keep ringing...

And from what I'm gathering about all this is that it was all about the power with him, rather than the sexual. I mean no matter how gross you are, if you're a rich and powerful man a) there will be a percentage of women who will be into that and b) you can pay for "professionals" that would give you all the sexual release you might want, if that's what you want. Horrid Harvey could have paid any number of nubile young women to watch him shower or give him a back rub.

Prostitution is also a dirty and open secret of Hollywood. Men like Charlie Sheen were at least (mostly)honest about it. Remember Heidi Fleiss? And all the A, B and c listers her "girls" were servicing? That was a "scandal" too, yet bugger all changed. I'll bet if anything it's more rife today. The "sugar daddy" thing is also in play where sexual contracts are drawn up(did I read somewhere earlier than some woman or other was approached by Horrid Harvey for just such a contract?). The woman gets her gaff and lifestyle paid for off book and the men get whatever jollies they're into(and oddly in many cases it's not even sex). THat's something common enough even with high flying(and not so high flying) business executives outside of the entertainment field.

RabbleRouser2k

anna080 wrote: »

Rose is also pictured with Harvey at events, smiling with him almost 10 years after taking money from him. She most likely would still be silent even now, only for his own brother was the one to throw him under the bus. She took the money and kept her mouth shut, yet is now shaming others who did the same.
I feel for her, I really do- but there's so much about this whole fcuking thing that I do not understand.

Her 'Women Boycott Twitter' hashtag is also something that I just rolled my eyes at. As are those who partook in it.
Others notably called them out for it-noting they did nothing for Leslie Jones, or for Jemele Hill, and no boycott for Trayvon Martin either, to name a few.
But the moment a privileged white woman has her account shut down for a genuine breach (incl a phone number in a tweet, a violation) they act.

And other women are stating 'you complain about women having no voice, so stay silent? Doesn't make sense. Should be encouraging people to speak up, encourage women, nay, everyone, to use their voice.

Frankly, as others have noted-it wasn't some 'we have to stop Weinstein' call to action that uncovered his crimes. Instead, it was that his films are no longer hits or profitable. He's had a sparse 6 years, or more, with his most recent film (released this year) having sat on a shelf for 3 yrs. The moment Harvey no longer was bankable, he was dead weight.

seenitall

Wibbs wrote: »

The "sugar daddy" thing is also in play where sexual contracts are drawn up(did I read somewhere earlier than some woman or other was approached by Horrid Harvey for just such a contract?). The woman gets her gaff and lifestyle paid for off book and the men get whatever jollies they're into(and oddly in many cases it's not even sex).

Yeah, that kind of deal is part of the Hollywood folklore, with that weirdo Howard Hughes as one well-known specimen - with any number of young hopefuls fresh off the Midwest train. A proud Hollywood tradition, so to speak.

Harry Palmr

Colin Farrell and Jane Fonda are on Norton's show right now, dunno if anything has been said though.

retro:electro

Ugh. I've just read a headline "Gweneth Paltrow thanks her peers for support as she's applauded for her first appearance since Weinstein revelations".

Guess what she was speaking about? "The Power of Women". Sorry but BS like this just makes me bloody mad. And then I end up looking like a psychic cnut. But I'm not. Why is she being applauded? Why? For staying silent about abuse that she KNEW was going on? She didn't need him for anything- she secured fame due to her parents and family ties. She had all the power in the world to do something and she did nothing. Go away and sh!te Gweneth with your "Power of Women" event. Pretty convenient to come out now and speak from your hole about how we can all come together and kumbaya the abuse away- but where were you and where was your voice in exposing and shaming the dirty underbelly of the industry you work in and have worked in for decades? Why not use your power as a women to help those other more vulnerable, less powerful women from exploitation when you know they are being abused?
Beyond annoying.

I think we have to be careful here not to transfer responsibility for stopping abuse from the abuser to the victims. Most victims will have many reasons for either coming forward or not, and when it's a 'not', often embarrassment and shame are involved, if not out and out trauma and fear.

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened. You could also hold Brad Pitt to task, since he knew too. I don't think a crime was committed against her, so it's not like she could take a case.

In fact you could blame all his victims for not stopping the abuse, but it's much fairer to blame the abuser. The focus should stay on him, not what his victims are up to since he encountered them.

Wibbs

Candie wrote: »

In Paltrows case, it's a he-said-she-said involving a powerful older figure and a woman starting her career who escaped an unsavoury proposition, it's not really fair to hold her accountable for not taking it further since nothing more tangible than that happened.

I would agree C with regard to pretty much all of the women that prick abused. but Paltrow was Hollywood "royalty". Her family were steeped in the business. It was the family business and she had grown up within it. She was a "princess" of the royal family out of the gate. Of all the women in the mix she could have destroyed his position with a few quiet words to the people she knew from childhood. But didn't. That bit is actually more troubling. That this part of the business was so engrained and accepted that even someone like her figured move on and shut up.

You could also hold Brad Pitt to task, since he knew too.

TBH I take him more to task. He was a guy of huge profile and box office cache, where two of his exes(that we know of) had the same experiences of Horrid Harvey and yet he did jack sh1t about taking him to task and kept on benefiting from the environment. Don't tell me he didn't know. Ditto for his friend Clooney.