Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

retro:electro

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'm not a woman so I can't know for sure why they did this, but I just don't understand why these women stood there while this monster pleasured himself on front of them. Why was there no swift kick between the legs and then do a runner?

Why did these actresses feel the need to degrade themselves in the hope of getting a role? Surely most women would just stand up and walk out as soon as talk turned sexual?

On one level the whole thing is bizarre.

It can be easy to think in hindsight damn I should have Kung Fu'd him in the nuts and got the hell out of there. When in reality there are all sorts of conflicting emotions at play. Your eyes are trying to assess the threat of the situation first of all, and then minimise any perceived threat to yourself. Mix this in with a level of awkwardness about the whole thing and how utterly mortified you'd be.

I've had a few unpleasant experiences over the years but one that I compelely froze in was when I was living in student accommodation, and was woken at about 3am with a stranger in my room. Now I'm not a confrontational person- but I'm no shrinking violet either- but my instinctual reaction was to completely freeze. It's like my body just told me to play dead and he'll be gone in a minute. He stumbled and fumbled around the room for a few minutes and then he wandered out. It was like the situation confronting me overwhelmed my coping capacities and left me paralysed in fear. If I jumped out of bed I could have made the situation a lot worse for myself.

Shurimgreat

The fear is 6 months from now Weinstein will be old news and he'll probably still be in "therapy" until it all dies down at bit. Being the coward he is, he will only feel safe then to emerge from his hideout. Then he might try call in some old favours. He may even have some dirt on prosecutors or police chiefs.

He likely will cut some deal or a plea bargain, admitting to a few counts. His previous "good behaviour" will be taken into account. Its possible he may never see the inside of a jail cell. Its possible he mightn't even see the inside of a court room. Everything is possible in America when you have money and rich friends. I'd be personally shocked for all the serious allegations against him, he ever goes to jail, even though that's where he belongs.

Shurimgreat

anna080 wrote: »

It can be easy to think in hindsight damn I should have Kung Fu'd him in the nuts and got the hell out of there. When in reality there are all sorts of conflicting emotions at play. Your eyes are trying to assess the threat of the situation first of all, and then minimise any perceived threat to yourself. Mix this in with a level of awkwardness about the whole thing and how utterly mortified you'd be.

I've had a few unpleasant experiences over the years but one that I compelely froze in was when I was living in student accommodation, and was woken at about 3am with a stranger in my room. Now I'm not a confrontational person- but I'm no shrinking violet either- but my instinctual reaction was to completely freeze. It's like my body just told me to play dead and he'll be gone in a minute. He stumbled and fumbled around the room for a few minutes and then he wandered out. It was like the situation confronting me overwhelmed my coping capacities and left me paralysed in fear. If I jumped out of bed I could have made the situation a lot worse for myself.

Fair enough Anna and its good to get the female perspective on this. The second part is why a lot of these women didn't report it at the time to police and possibly also kept it quiet from friends and family. Maybe the shame or the mortification.
From my own experience of a working environment, if you kick up a fuss or complain, etc you get a reputation as difficult to work with. If you get let go from a job, its like a black mark on your CV that follows you around and makes it harder to get the next job.

The fact that some of the women who complained got blacklisted not just with Miramax but across the board is very telling.

Bambi985

The level of deflection and minimising that's done when someone speaks out about sexual assault is pretty scary. It's why it's taken over 30 years and dozens if not hundreds of women's stories for Weinstein to finally be in the spotlight for this bullsh1t. We saw the same thing with Bill Cosby. People knew and weren't surprised but didn't really know.

So many people simply don't believe victims almost as a default, or play it down, or engage in whataboutery or "it wasn't rape so it's not that bad" or "that's just silly old Harvey" or "but you went to his hotel room" and on and on and on - and that's before you consider the fact that these guys were the richest and most powerful men in Hollywood. Speaking out suddenly throws a spotlight of scrutiny on a victim that is statistically unlikely to result in prosecution and not everyone is equipped to handle that.

Outlaw Pete

Martin Clunes behaving very badly..........

Actor Martin Clunes accuses actresses of flirting with film producers — and describes it as ‘a form of prostitution’

The Doc Martin star, 55, worked with disgraced film mogul Weinstein in 1998 hit Shakespeare In Love.

He said at a charity event: “Some of these actresses, there are some draped over him in a club.

“If I did that to them I’d be . . . I don’t know.

“It’s not news that these predators allowed some people to . . . I don’t know.

“Of course it’s absolutely ghastly. It’s a form of prostitution — the oldest game in the book.”

Shurimgreat

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Martin Clunes behaving very badly..........

Interesting take from Clunes.
It looks like the producers have all the power in Hollywood, even more so than directors and big stars. The producers can decide everything.

blinding

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Martin Clunes behaving very badly..........

The man has to be given credit for giving us a broader picture of what goes on in Hollywood .

Its certainly not a place to be taking guidance from , especially moral guidance .

tylercheribini

I think the whole sweeping presumption of many child stars (no evidence majority of time) going off the rails because of sexual abuse is rather simplistic. Much like sports stars for instance, substance abuse seems to occur when their careers are no longer existent and not at its peak, they need something to fill that huge gap. Even astronauts have suffered similar problems after the high of space travel.

blinding

tylercheribini wrote: »

I think the whole sweeping presumption of many child stars (no evidence majority of time) going off the rails because of sexual abuse is rather simplistic. Much like sports stars for instance, substance abuse seems to occur when their careers are no longer existent and not at its peak, they need something to fill that huge gap. Even astronauts have suffered similar problems after the high of space travel.

Would sending all addicts into space permanently be the answer .

They would be High and all together annoying the fook out of each other .

That might cure em .

tylercheribini

blinding wrote: »

Would sending all addicts into space permanently be the answer .

They would be High and all together annoying the fook out of each other .

That might cure em .

Haha no doubt their skeletor frames would crash into satellites/spaceships/stations, still wreaking havoc wherever they go.

blinding

tylercheribini wrote: »

Haha no doubt their skeletor frames would crash into satellites/spaceships/stations, still wreaking havoc wherever they go.

I was going to give them a Space Ship :eek:

Whether they would keep it together enough to keep the space ship in operation would remain to be seen :eek:

take everything

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah... don't hold your breath there. Two very recent statements here on women who have accused him:

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/10/the-evolution-of-harvey-weinsteins-statements/543690/
He's basically gone straight to playing legal chess rather than considering any real form of apology that might be seen as admitting guilt.

What a piece of **** he is.
Obviously discussed it at length with his lawyers and instead of going on the offensive he's employing a bizarre charm offensive (with continued implied threat of "you won't be a ”brilliant actress” if you persist with this" using whatever remnant of power/sway he has left. I'm sure he's not completely powerless- he probably has serious goods on everyone who aided and abetted him (in and around the Weinstein company) for one.

Cesspool.
That Meryl Streep one fcuking annoys me no end. Hypocrite of the highest order.

RabbleRouser2k

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Interesting take from Clunes.
It looks like the producers have all the power in Hollywood, even more so than directors and big stars. The producers can decide everything.

Yep-some people I know have worked in films (one worked on set construction for films and another in the Pre-production/ Postproduction special effects division). The Director is the guy saying 'let's do this' while the producer is the one saying 'No way-it's done' and writes the cheques.
Some times you will meet the person who is like 'whatever they ask for, pay em' (For a film like Star Wars for example, money isn't an object, as they'll make it back with everything from lunchboxes to action figures) whereas another film will have them saying 'no-that's it'.
If the director is an indecisive weenie (Rupert Sanders, for example, the guy who directed Snow White and the Huntsman, and Ghost in the Shell live action, is one such director) the producer will bring in an editor to finish the film.
You can see why a producer can so easily abuse their power.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I'm not a woman so I can't know for sure why they did this, but I just don't understand why these women stood there while this monster pleasured himself on front of them. Why was there no swift kick between the legs and then do a runner?

Why did these actresses feel the need to degrade themselves in the hope of getting a role? Surely most women would just stand up and walk out as soon as talk turned sexual?

On one level the whole thing is bizarre.

As others noted, the fight, flight or freeze kicks in.

Also, as Blair speaks about-it was either lie there while he masturbated inside his pants-or he could potentially get more aggressive, violent and rape her.
She didn't know which.
And she was young as well-no career to speak of, yet. I will admit it is bizarre, but sadly not uncommon. (Even for guys they will be asked to disrobe.)

tylercheribini wrote: »

I think the whole sweeping presumption of many child stars (no evidence majority of time) going off the rails because of sexual abuse is rather simplistic. Much like sports stars for instance, substance abuse seems to occur when their careers are no longer existent and not at its peak, they need something to fill that huge gap. Even astronauts have suffered similar problems after the high of space travel.

Mara Wilson tells a few stories about her experiences as a child actor-including one where a reporter asked her a very, very sexual question in front of her dad (she was still a child). He cut the reporter off and moved her along. She gradually fell out of love with acting, but maintained contact with those who stayed in the business, including the late Robin Williams.

RabbleRouser2k

Actress Annabella Sciorra has also come forward to say Harvey raped her-and continued to torment her for years afterwards. This is...this is..this is just horrible.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/weighing-the-costs-of-speaking-out-about-harvey-weinstein

She filmed one movie with Weinstein, The Night we Never met, in 1993. Which is round about the time Harvey raped her. That same year her marriage ended, and I have no doubt Harvey's actions contributed to it.
He also ended her career, essentially-both psychologically, in the aftermath, and also by telling producers she was 'difficult'.
Just lock the guy away, for eternity.

Ellen Barkin (in the article above) even talks about how Harvey verbally insulted her on the set of Into the West-may very well have threatened her then husband Gabriel Byrne's career too. (That's what Harvey did-he even did it to Ioan Gruffudd's then girlfriend, now wife).

tara73

why in gods name is this person still not in jail? Honest question, not just rhetorical. Isn't here anybody who's familiar with the law in the States? Is there any real reason from the legal side they can't arrest this man? Over 50 or how many cases came forward and still not enough to put him in imprisonment on remand?

It seems possible to do this, remember the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case? He was pulled out of a plane and put in solitary confinement on Rikers Island. Why can't this be applied to this piece of sh** Weinstein?

Not looking for discussion here, would like to know from anybody with real knowledge about the law if there's a reason they can't arrest him.

Wibbs

I know, it's crazy. With every passing day this guy looks to be one of the most "successful" serial abusers and rapists of women ever discovered. I can't think of anyone else that comes close?

Maybe it's quite simply that somebody has to go to the police and press charges? A lot of women are publicly coming forward, but has anyone actually tried to press charges/lodge a legal case against him or his company yet?

The other difficulty might be the jurisdictions involved. It seems this guy raped his way across at least four countries, never mind different states in the America.

Underground

http://news.sky.com/story/rose-mcgowan-on-sex-abusers-name-it-shame-it-call-it-out-11101651

I'm not sure I'm on board with how this is playing out. The whole #metoo thing seems to trivialise a very serious matter into yet another #prayfor #alsicebucketchallenge #nomakeupselfie etc etc. Also, some people seem to be revelling in this. I have no idea what it would be like to be subjected to that kind of awful experience of being raped / sexual harassed, but I can imagine it's probably quite cathartic for some victims to finally speak out and name and shame their culprits, it's understandable. However to stand there on stage with your fist balled up in the air like some sort of black panther, I dunno, this just seems off to me.

I'm all for exposing Hollywood's toxic culture, it's damn past time people stopped evangelising these people, but as someone mentioned earlier, I get the feeling that when this all blows over (and it will), people won't care. I can't help but think history is going to continue to repeat itself and powerful people within the industry will continue to take advantage of vulnerable actors / actresses and nobody will have learned a damn thing from this.

Outlaw Pete

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe it's quite simply that somebody has to go to the police and press charges?

This is just it. Very few of these women have gone to the Police.

UK actress, Lysette Anthony, has reported him to UK Police alleging that he raped her in the mid 80's alright, but I highly doubt it will ever see the inside of a court room given that her actions in the forthcoming years were incongruent with her having been raped in the first place (not saying she wasn't). Enough so at least to raise a doubt in a jury's mind and that's all that would be needed.

I think Harvey will be another Cosby. 60+ accusers and yet he still hasn't done time. A retrial of one case in the new year but it doesn't look very strong.

Wibbs

Y'know the way America has class action suits where(as I understand it) a group of individuals can come together as one legal entity and sue a company or individual. If the authorities are dragging their heels for whatever reason, could a group of women(and women and men witnesses) come together and sue him and the company?

The only women I can think of that have gone to the authorities are the English lass Anthony and the Italian model? Though said model got the repellent bastard on tape with the help of the NYPD and the bastard got the investigation stopped and "coincidently" the DA involved got a nice little cash injection into their political campaign. Coincidently. Heads should roll over that, but won't. I suspect that this story goes even deeper and with many more heads that could be in the firing line and the outpouring of tutting by some is in the hope that people have short memories and it'll blow over. Money talks and in American society it positively fcuking screams. In Hollywood that's all there is and more so than ever. The "art" is the thin crust on top of a toilet filled with excrement. Poke through it and the stench comes out.


It seems crazy to me that this guy is in the open now with literally dozens of women accusing him and with detail and contemporary witnesses and yet the authorities seem to be doing little. I suspect whatever hope there is to charge this bastard it'll come from outside the US, which hopefully shames authorities within the US into actually doing something.

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

UK actress, Lysette Anthony, has reported him to UK Police alleging that he raped her in the mid 80's alright, but I highly doubt it will ever see the inside of a court room given that her actions in the forthcoming years were incongruent with her having been raped in the first place (not saying she wasn't). Enough so at least to raise a doubt in a jury's mind and that's all that would be needed.

Incongruent how P? Your link is behind a paywall so I can only read the first couple of paragraphs.

strandroad

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Actress Annabella Sciorra has also come forward to say Harvey raped her-and continued to torment her for years afterwards. This is...this is..this is just horrible.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/weighing-the-costs-of-speaking-out-about-harvey-weinstein

This should be required reading for anyone who still keeps asking why wouldn't they report him, why would they deal with him afterwards etc. because Annabela Sciorra, Daryl Hannah, Ellen Barkin, Rosie Perez all have stories to explain that:

Sciorra never spoke to the police. Neither did the anonymous woman who alleged rape in the earlier New Yorker article, although two others did. The anonymous woman said that, although “I regret not being maybe stronger in the moment,” her fears that charging Weinstein publicly might change her life permanently were too great. “It’s hard to know. . . . It’s like choosing a different life path.”
Some of the obstacles that Sciorra and other women believed they faced were related to Weinstein’s power in the film industry. Sciorra said that she felt the impact on her livelihood almost immediately. “From 1992, I didn’t work again until 1995,” she said. “I just kept getting this pushback of ‘We heard you were difficult; we heard this or that.’ I think that that was the Harvey machine.”

This retaliation was just for the rape she kept secret.

Also, f*ck George Hook and his enablers. This is what happens when you "accept your part of the blame":

In the weeks and months that followed the alleged attack, Sciorra didn’t tell anyone about it. “Like most of these women, I was so ashamed of what happened,” she said. “And I fought. I fought. But still I was like, Why did I open that door? Who opens the door at that time of night? I was definitely embarrassed by it. I felt disgusting. I felt like I had ****ed up.” She grew depressed and lost weight. Her father, unaware of the attack but concerned for her well-being, urged her to seek help, and she did see a therapist, but, she said, “I don’t even think I told the therapist. It’s pathetic.”

A Little Pony

Someone will make a movie based on him, his rise to power and his empire and his abuse of that position and ultimately his downfall, could sell.

strandroad

Robert Rodriguez explains how "Grindhouse" and McGowan's character in it was an intentional FU to Weinstein:

http://variety.com/2017/film/news/robert-rodriguez-rose-mcgowan-harvey-weinstein-1202600946/

Incensed at what I heard, I told Rose that she was not blacklisted from MY movies and that Harvey couldn’t tell me who to cast. The reason was that Harvey didn’t work on my movies, I made movies all those years for Dimension and Bob Weinstein. So I explained that if I cast her in my next film, Harvey couldn’t suddenly tell me no, because my first question would be “Oh, really? Why can’t I cast her?” And I was sure he would not want to tell me why.

I then revealed to Rose right then and there that I was about to start writing a movie with Quentin Tarantino, a double feature throwback to 70’s exploitation movies, and that if she was interested, I would write her a BAD ASS character and make her one of the leads. I wanted her to have a starring role in a big movie to take her OFF the blacklist, and the best part is that we would have Harvey’s new Weinstein Company pay for the whole damn thing.

Just as I finished telling Rose this, I saw Harvey walking around the party! I called Harvey over to our table, and as soon as he got close enough to see that I was sitting with Rose, his face dropped and went ghostly white. I said, “Hey Harvey, this is Rose McGowan. I think she’s amazing and really talented and I’m going to cast her in my next movie.” Harvey then dribbled all over himself in the most over the top performance I’d ever seen as he gushed, “Oh she’s wonderful, oh she’s amazing, oh she’s fantastic, oh she’s so talented… You two should definitely work together.” And then he skittered off. I knew right then that every word Rose told me was true, you could see it all over his face.

A Little Pony

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Martin Clunes behaving very badly..........

Interesting take from Clunes.
It looks like the producers have all the power in Hollywood, even more so than directors and big stars. The producers can decide everything.

What is laughable about it was the sheer uproar of all these people when Trump was elected, the moral outrage they came out with while knowing that the same place they work in is full of abusers, pedophiles and rapists. Huge stars either turning a blind eye or who knows, maybe even covering it up.

Outlaw Pete

Wibbs wrote: »

Incongruent how P? Your link is behind a paywall so I can only read the first couple of paragraphs.

Oh I didn't realise that, I'll quote some of the relevant passages below:

What I meant by her actions being incongruent with having been raped by Harvey was in the context of a trial and how her behavior (in the forthcoming years) would be most likely be seen as being inconsistent with someone having been raped by the person they claim to have. Like I said, doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but I know if I was on the jury her later interactions with Harvey would absolutely be more than enough to raise a doubt in my mind as to whether that person was actually raped at all.

Lysette met Weinstein in early 1982 after she was chosen for a leading role in Krull, a swashbuckling science fiction fantasy notable for early screen appearances by Liam Neeson and Robbie Coltrane. Columbia Pictures flew her to New York to do publicity for the US release.

“I was excited to be going to New York first class. I arrived at a smart hotel and the publicist told me I had to go out with a record producer or promoter. I was only about 19 and it never occurred to me not to do what I was told. I was introduced to Harvey Weinstein in the hotel lobby.”

They got into a tourist horse-drawn carriage “to clip-clop along to a restaurant”, but Lysette started succumbing to jetlag and begged to go back to her hotel.

“Apologetically I told him I needed to get some sleep. Out of embarrassment for not having dinner with him, I gave Harvey my phone number and told him to call me in London some time,” she said.

That proved the start of a nightmare. “I’ve buried this story for so long that dredging it all up feels as if I’m piecing together a jigsaw made up of smashed shards of glass,’’ she told me.

The next thing she remembers is ­Harvey coming to a party in her flat in Hammersmith, west London; then a glitzy do at the Waldorf or the Ritz — she can’t remember which — where she ended up leaving alone and taking the bus home in her evening gown.

Over the next few years she would have lunch with Harvey from time to time when he was in London. At that point she experienced nothing untoward: “The lunches were invariably in hotel suites but I felt comfortable in Harvey’s company. We had become friends.’

One night she met Harvey for a drink and ended up at his rented house in Chelsea: “I’m so nosy about other people’s houses and I was having a good snoop round. The next thing I knew he was half undressed and he ­grabbed me. It was the last thing I expected and I fled. I blamed it on myself because I was tired, a bit drunk and ­therefore so completely off my guard. He was a so-called friend I’d known for years and the clumsy fumble was the last thing I saw coming.”

That was when the stalking began. Once she was at home in the evening with a friend when the doorbell rang. It was Harvey, but her friend answered the door and sent him away. Some time later, at about 10 in the morning, there was another ring on the doorbell. “I was in my dressing gown and I answered the door to find Harvey standing there,” Lysette said.

“He pushed me inside and rammed me up against the coat rack in my tiny hall and started fumbling at my gown. He was trying to kiss me and shove inside me. It was disgusting.”

She tried pushing him off but he was too heavy. “Finally I just gave up. At least I was able to stop him kissing me. As he ground himself against me and shoved inside me, I kept my eyes shut tight, held my breath, just let him get on with it. He came over my leg like a dog and then left. It was pathetic, revolting. I remember lying in the bath later and crying.”

Lysette told me it did not occur to her at the time to call the police or even a friend: “There hadn’t been a knife. He wasn’t a stranger. I was disgusted and embarras­sed, but I was at home. I thought I should just forget the whole disgusting incident. I blamed myself. I’d been an idiot to think he and I were just friends.”

She did not see Weinstein again until about a year later, when she was in Milan doing publicity for a 1989 television ­adaptation of Barbara Cartland’s novel The Lady and the Highwayman, in which Lysette had starred with Hugh Grant.

Weinstein contacted her and took her out to dinner. She described him as “perfectly charming” and he insisted on buying her a coat on the way home.

“I thought it was his unspoken way of apologising for what had happened,” Lysette said. “I assumed that was that and we went our separate ways.”

By the time she heard from Weinstein again he had become what she described as the “superstar of indie cinema”.

“What you have to understand is that no one turned down an opportunity to meet Harvey Weinstein. No one. I’d never told my agent about the rape, so it was impossible to explain why I didn’t want to see him.

“The meetings would start with a chat in a hotel suite. The assistants would disappear and then he’d disappear and return in a robe demanding a massage. By then I’d just given up. I knew I was powerless and at least I wouldn’t have to do much. I was just a body, young flesh. It wouldn’t take long and no one knew.”

Lysette was married twice in the 1990s but both marriages ended in divorce. It was not until 2002 that Weinstein “finally let go of me” and she did not see him again until she bumped into him at a film premiere in 2009. “He leant forward and stroked my face. It was the first time he’d ever shown me a hint of affection. As he walked away I thought I heard him say, ‘I don’t do that stuff any more.’”

blinding

Its not a good look for Hollywood . Men abusing their positions of power .

And young women often doing stuff they should not be doing just to claw their way to ‘ Stardom "

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

There's a statute of limitations in definitely California and I'm not sure about what other States. He can't be charged with some of those crimes. The situation is different in the UK, AFAIK the Met is looking into Lysette Anthony's allegations with a view to preparing a case.

I'd imagine whatever legal team he puts together will be no slouches and there's a lot, a depressing and horrifying amount of stuff to go through. If, IF the **** faces charges, it'll be slow.

Outlaw Pete

strandroad wrote: »

Robert Rodriguez explains how "Grindhouse" and McGowan's character in it was an intentional FU to Weinstein:

Interesting reading that and particularly that Rose donated the $100,000 to an abused shelter. Absolutely puts the settlement in a different context and one wonders why she herself didn't make that known before now given that she has taken criticism, both online and in articles, for having done so.

A few things though:

1) It will be disputed for sure that Harvey 'buried' Grindhouse given it was considered at the time that too much money was being spent on it. Same with Death Proof in which Tarantino cast her shortly after Grindhouse. Love the latter myself (indeed went to a special screening here in Dublin that QT himself attended and stayed throughout despite having a scheduled Late Late appearance) but it too was panned and thought to have had too much money ploughed into it. Did Harvey even have the power to bury Dimension films? On one hand Rodriguez implies 'no' but on another 'yes'. An interesting statement from him overall, but somewhat contradictory in places too.

2) Rodriguez talks about being aware of a 'sexual assault' and not a rape and that would fit in with Ben Affleck's remarks right after also.

3) With the following Rodriguez suggest that himself and Rose were almost joined at the hip and that she was involved in all steps of the process:

But because of the NDA Rose told me she had signed, at Rose’s request I had to keep it quiet from everyone until now as to why we were even making that film together, especially Harvey. We knew that strategically we couldn’t rub it in his face why we were REALLY doing this movie, because then he’d just bury the movie, not sell it well, and everyone would lose. To our horror, Harvey buried our movie anyway, and because we did not want to risk getting sued, we never spoke publicly about the matter. It would have been much easier on both of us if we could have just revealed why we were doing it.

But yet this 2016 tweet would suggest a different narrative altogether:

https://twitter.com/rosemcgowan/status/786723576275664896

tara73

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

There's a statute of limitations in definitely California and I'm not sure about what other States.

yes, sure there are some of these come to play. But I would guess there are a lot of recent incidences.

rossie1977

A Little Pony wrote: »

What is laughable about it was the sheer uproar of all these people when Trump was elected, the moral outrage they came out with while knowing that the same place they work in is full of abusers, pedophiles and rapists. Huge stars either turning a blind eye or who knows, maybe even covering it up.

Just like the moral outrage on Fox news these past few weeks over Weinstein especially from people like Sean Hannity who for years worked for Roger Ailes and brings back Bill O'Reilly on his show as a ratings booster just the other week.

This shouldn't be political but amazingly those in America have turned it into a right and left issue to try and win points with their supporters. The behavior of Trump should have been highlighted. Weinstein, O'Reilly, Ailes should be condemned for their despicable actions

Outlaw Pete

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

AFAIK the Met is looking into Lysette Anderson's allegations with a view to preparing a case.

It's Lysette Anthony. The chick from old Bryan Adams videos. Run To You, Summer of 69, Heaven etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6TtwR2Dbjg

Sierra Oscar

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/924214506187870208

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/924215231894773761

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/924216101252292608

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/924217000230113280

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/924217659545341953

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/924218153768538112

https://twitter.com/ciarakellydoc/status/924218525203431424

Watch this space.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tara73 wrote: »

yes, sure there are some of these come to play. But I would guess there are a lot of recent incidences.

I'd be pretty confident there's loads.

But a lot of the specific allegations with named accusers are from the 90s.

And the story only broke this month. Multiple jurisdictions, multiple accusers, huge public attention, very powerful and rich accused. Even if there is some foot dragging, I'd imagine that building the case very slowly and carefully is the way to go. Even if he somehow had been charged by now he'd be on bail. It could be years before he sees the inside of a prison cell if he ever does.

Billy86

So a male Irish celebrity/public figure who is both on Twitter and would have to be at least in their sixties...

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It's Lysette Anthony. The chick from old Bryan Adams videos. Run To You, Summer of 69, Heaven etc:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6TtwR2Dbjg

Oops, thanks I'll fix it. Before my time in my defence.

Outlaw Pete

Well, I did say old Bryan Adams videos

She was more recently in Hollyoaks, perhaps more your era.

scopper

tara73 wrote: »

why in gods name is this person still not in jail? Honest question, not just rhetorical. Isn't here anybody who's familiar with the law in the States? Is there any real reason from the legal side they can't arrest this man? Over 50 or how many cases came forward and still not enough to put him in imprisonment on remand?

It seems possible to do this, remember the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case? He was pulled out of a plane and put in solitary confinement on Rikers Island. Why can't this be applied to this piece of sh** Weinstein?

Not looking for discussion here, would like to know from anybody with real knowledge about the law if there's a reason they can't arrest him.

There are a few reasons why this happens with bigger cases. There might be debate over *where* to arrest him, this guy operated on a national scale, so they may be discussing where is best.

They likely know it's going to be a complicated case and that W will be lawyered up, so they need to consider who has the best skillset to break that down.

Then there is a 'celeb' issue, you don't want another spectacle like OJ, where he freaks out and goes on the run.

But I would not be too concerned. They are just being sensible and what is he going to do anyway, he's hugely famous, he's not going to be able to jump on a plane without being noticed.

Hammer89

Ugh, utterly embarrasing.

Because of Ciara Kelly's revelation, this 'IrishWeinsteing' hashtag is going to pop up everywhere; from tweets about a female employee being complimented by a male employer, to some young lass getting her hole groped in Coppers by someone from Kilkenny. Suddenly there's going to be a lot of Weinstein-esque monsters in Ireland. Just watch.

I have no problem with speaking up, but I do have a problem with Ciara claiming there's an 'IrishWeinstein' on the basis that some celebrity invited her to Costa and continuously slid into her DMs when she refused. Everything else - the rape accusation, the broken passenger door, the wife-beating - isn't factual. It's her repeating rumours.

Plus, why was she so afraid of speaking out before this Weinstein thing broke? Was this mystery pervert going to get her medical license revoked? Was he going to have her kicked off her sh*tty radio show? If not then he's not an 'IrishWeinstein' because that's where his power comes from, the fact he can make or break a young woman's entire career if she didn't play ball. That's one of the reasons why it's such a massive, f*cked up story.

This Irish bloke, whoever he is, is just some sick f*ck if those rumours turn out to be a true, but there really is no need to link it to what's going on in Hollywood, just to try and make it a bigger story than it is. Ridiculous.

tara73

scopper wrote: »

There are a few reasons why this happens with bigger cases. There might be debate over *where* to arrest him, this guy operated on a national scale, so they may be discussing where is best.

if so, they are discussing for a whole lot of time now, for 3 or 4 weeks.

scopper wrote: »

They likely know it's going to be a complicated case and that W will be lawyered up, so they need to consider who has the best skillset to break that down.

I hope so, but that could also be done with him behind bars already.

scopper wrote: »

Then there is a 'celeb' issue, you don't want another spectacle like OJ, where he freaks out and goes on the run.

celeb or not, it's about a dangerous, evil man who needs to be locked up. Taking preventive measure shouldn't be an issue for a developed country like the U.S.

scopper wrote: »

But I would not be too concerned. They are just being sensible and what is he going to do anyway, he's hugely famous, he's not going to be able to jump on a plane without being noticed.

It's exactly about this!! He's a serial rapist!! From all we know he could have raped another dozen women at his time in his nice 'Rehab place' and could be at it the moment I write this!!
But hey, who cares, it's just women and their lives and souls destroyed.

tara73

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

Even if he somehow had been charged by now he'd be on bail.

I'm pretty sure there are also in the U.S. laws in place for criminals who are highly dangerous and where's the risk they commit these crimes again when on bail (or also trying to flee the country) to suspend the grant of bail.

I guess it comes all back to corruption. The 'big player'' i.e. his cronies don't want him to be arrested, so he is not arrested.
This world makes one sick again and again.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tara73 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there are also in the U.S. laws in place for criminals who are highly dangerous and where's the risk they commit these crimes again when on bail (or also trying to flee the country) to suspend the grant of bail.

I guess it comes all back to corruption. The 'big player'' i.e. his cronies don't want him to be arrested, so he is not arrested.
This world makes one sick again and again.

There are, but there are also laws against assaulting, raping, and abusing your employees and anything with a nice face and 2 x chromosomes in your general vicinity and yet here we are. There are cases where the argument for why someone gets bail is that basically they're really rich so jail would be really hard. He could make a legitimate argument for his safety too seeing as the case is a high profile sexual crime one.

I'm sure there are people who are still stalling on his behalf, but I'm sure there are also people who are conscientiously working on the case and people for whom it's a career godsend. Where he's arrested and charged, what specifically he's charged with, how thoroughly the t's are crossed and i's dotted are all very important things to consider right now considering the legal defense he'll be able to afford. It'd be a tragedy if say, he's acquitted of a certain charge where he could have been convicted of others and in ten years people will be on here saying "well it's important to remember he was never actually convicted of anything".

If there's still no movement by the end of the year it'd be one thing, but 4 weeks for a process involving law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions and different continents, with multiple accusers, accusations ranging across decades, NDAs, and an accused who's this rich and powerful doesn't seem unreasonable under the circumstances. The circumstances aren't great like, but they're there.

tara73

Hammer89 wrote: »

Ugh, utterly embarrasing.

Because of Ciara Kelly's revelation, this 'IrishWeinsteing' hashtag is going to pop up everywhere; from tweets about a female employee being complimented by a male employer, to some young lass getting her hole groped in Coppers by someone from Kilkenny. Suddenly there's going to be a lot of Weinstein-esque monsters in Ireland. Just watch.

I have no problem with speaking up, but I do have a problem with Ciara claiming there's an 'IrishWeinstein' on the basis that some celebrity invited her to Costa and continuously slid into her DMs when she refused. Everything else - the rape accusation, the broken passenger door, the wife-beating - isn't factual. It's her repeating rumours.

Plus, why was she so afraid of speaking out before this Weinstein thing broke? Was this mystery pervert going to get her medical license revoked? Was he going to have her kicked off her sh*tty radio show? If not then he's not an 'IrishWeinstein' because that's where his power comes from, the fact he can make or break a young woman's entire career if she didn't play ball. That's one of the reasons why it's such a massive, f*cked up story.

This Irish bloke, whoever he is, is just some sick f*ck if those rumours turn out to be a true, but there really is no need to link it to what's going on in Hollywood, just to try and make it a bigger story than it is. Ridiculous.

the only thing which is ridiculous and utterly embarrasing is your post.

so allegations from people in Hollywood are trustworthy and true but women in Ireland speaking up are not to bebelieved and making this up. What an utter embarrasing crap from you. And guess what, there are 'Weinstein Monsters' everywhere in the world, salso in Ireland

and you have no problem with people speaking up. wow, how honorable from you.
Who are you to know what happened to this woman and judge about it.
Your attitude is disgusting!

tara73

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

If there's still no movement by the end of the year it'd be one thing, but 4 weeks for a process involving law enforcement agencies in different jurisdictions and different continents, with multiple accusers, accusations ranging across decades, NDAs, and an accused who's this rich and powerful doesn't seem unreasonable under the circumstances. The circumstances aren't great like, but they're there.

My question wasn't why there's not a trial on yet, my question was why he's not in jail in imprisonment on remand for example like every serial rapist would be, I guess.
Anyway, I answered this question to myself in my last post.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tara73 wrote: »

My question wasn't why there's not a trial on yet, my question was why he's not in jail in imprisonment on remand for example like every serial rapist would be, I guess.
Anyway, I answered this question to myself in my last post.

Yeah but in a previous post you were saying three or four weeks was a long time for what should be happening.

And I addressed your point here in the rest of the post. Specific charges to be decided on. International co-operation needed. Jurisdiction to be argued over. Paperwork and due process to be exceedingly careful over. He can't be placed on remand until he's actually charged with something. And I doubt he'll be anywhere worse than under house arrest event then.

Him having money is part of it but it's not likely to be the sole reason.

Hammer89

tara73 wrote: »

the only thing which is ridiculous and utterly embarrasing is your post.

so allegations from people in Hollywood are trustworthy and true but women in Ireland speaking up are not to bebelieved and making this up. What an utter embarrasing crap from you. And guess what, there are 'Weinstein Monsters' everywhere in the world, salso in Ireland

and you have no problem with people speaking up. wow, how honorable from you.
Who are you to know what happened to this woman and judge about it.
Your attitude is disgusting!

No there's not many people like Harvey Weinstein and that's precisely the point. There's many people who indulge in the same behaviour, but they don't routinely get away with it for DECADES. That's what separates him.

Whoever this chap is, he is NOT an Irish Harvey Weinstein. He won't have the same amount of money, power, network or profile as Harvey Weinstien. He wouldn't have been in the position to subtly blackmail women for decades like Harvey Weinstein. He won't have the same amount of collaboraters and complicit assistants as Harvey Weinstein.

Not every high-profile rapist or sexual abuser is akin to Harvey Weinstein and that's why the hashtag is so utterly idiotic.

Underground

Hammer89 wrote: »

Ugh, utterly embarrasing.

Because of Ciara Kelly's revelation, this 'IrishWeinsteing' hashtag is going to pop up everywhere; from tweets about a female employee being complimented by a male employer, to some young lass getting her hole groped in Coppers by someone from Kilkenny. Suddenly there's going to be a lot of Weinstein-esque monsters in Ireland. Just watch.

I have no problem with speaking up, but I do have a problem with Ciara claiming there's an 'IrishWeinstein' on the basis that some celebrity invited her to Costa and continuously slid into her DMs when she refused. Everything else - the rape accusation, the broken passenger door, the wife-beating - isn't factual. It's her repeating rumours.

Plus, why was she so afraid of speaking out before this Weinstein thing broke? Was this mystery pervert going to get her medical license revoked? Was he going to have her kicked off her sh*tty radio show? If not then he's not an 'IrishWeinstein' because that's where his power comes from, the fact he can make or break a young woman's entire career if she didn't play ball. That's one of the reasons why it's such a massive, f*cked up story.

This Irish bloke, whoever he is, is just some sick f*ck if those rumours turn out to be a true, but there really is no need to link it to what's going on in Hollywood, just to try and make it a bigger story than it is. Ridiculous.

She even threw in the old chestnut that she was "literally shaking" whilst writing the tweets.

Like you said, I'm all for speaking up, but this brand new hashtag will just trivialise an issue that deserves proper discussion.

tara73

Hammer89 wrote: »

No there's not many people like Harvey Weinstein and that's precisely the point. There's many people who indulge in the same behaviour, but they don't routinely get away with it for DECADES. That's what separates him.

Whoever this chap is, he is NOT an Irish Harvey Weinstein. He won't have the same amount of money, power, network or profile as Harvey Weinstien. He wouldn't have been in the position to subtly blackmail women for decades like Harvey Weinstein. He won't have the same amount of collaboraters and complicit assistants as Harvey Weinstein.

Not every high-profile rapist or sexual abuser is akin to Harvey Weinstein and that's why the hashtag is so utterly idiotic.

again, who are you to have this great wisdom to know this and be so 100% sure? Are you this guy she's talking about or what:mad:

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hammer89 wrote: »

I have no problem with speaking up, but I do have a problem with Ciara claiming there's an 'IrishWeinstein' on the basis that some celebrity invited her to Costa and continuously slid into her DMs when she refused. Everything else - the rape accusation, the broken passenger door, the wife-beating - isn't factual. It's her repeating rumours.

This is exactly the kind of minimising that was going on in the days immediately after the Harvey Weinstein story broke. This is exactly the kind of minimising and dismissal which can prevent victims coming forward and speaking out. If there is an Irish media figure who has plenty of money, power and connections and abused his position to sexually assault women, negatively affect their careers and who did so with impunity, then the comparison is valid. There were nasty, vindictive rumours about HW for years. And Jimmy Saville. And Woody Allen.

Plus, why was she so afraid of speaking out before this Weinstein thing broke? Was this mystery pervert going to get her medical license revoked? Was he going to have her kicked off her sh*tty radio show? If not then he's not an 'IrishWeinstein' because that's where his power comes from, the fact he can make or break a young woman's entire career if she didn't play ball. That's one of the reasons why it's such a massive, f*cked up story.

If you honestly think the media and particularly the broadcast media in this country isn't largely run on handshakes, reputation, access journalism, family connections etc then good luck to you. An established person absolutely could break someone's career. Finding someone to report allegations can be difficult. You're very naive.

This Irish bloke, whoever he is, is just some sick f*ck if those rumours turn out to be a true, but there really is no need to link it to what's going on in Hollywood, just to try and make it a bigger story than it is. Ridiculous.

This is one of the biggest sex abuse stories in years. It's a busy few weeks for the rape crisis centres, same as it is after something like the Cloyne report comes out or there's a high profile rape case in the press. In my personal life, it's opened up conversations, I've learned some things I was horrified about and I've spoken about some things with friends which I would never normally have brought up. People don't like this fact for some reason, but things like this DO make people open up more and have the confidence to come forward. If what she's alleging is true, taking advantage of the social momentum that's there right now is a perfectly sensible thing to do.

CatFromHue

Kelly is looking for women who may have been sexually assaulted by this individual to contact her so as, I presume, she can help them get justice.

She's not got anything herself to go to the Gardai on but has heard others might.

Hammer89

Sabrina Future Burger wrote: »

If there is an Irish media figure who has plenty of money, power and connections and abused his position to sexually assault women, negatively affect their careers and who did so with impunity, then the comparison is valid.

You're spot on but that's putting the cart way before the horse. We don't know about his profile, his money, his connections or whether he abused his position of power to subtly blackmail women for his sexual gains, do we? Only after we know these things can we gauge the Weinstein comparison and decide whether the 'IrishWeinstein' hashtag is valid. For me, it's completely stupid at the moment.

tara73 wrote: »

again, who are you to have this great wisdom to know this and be so 100% sure? Are you this guy she's talking about or what:mad:

Yes, it's me. She's only speaking up because I threatened to get her axed from Operation Transformation if she did.