Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

....what the fcuk does an abuser actually have to do to be condemned by you?

Well, if you feel I don't condemn abusers, then you really just haven't being paying much attention to my posts. Granted, I don't tend to go in for the name calling all that much. Although I did call Adam Johnson a prick, Spacey a scumbag and Wienstein a dickhead, but did my doing that further the discussion all that much? I don't think so and so in general I don't tend to bother with it and tbh, I tend to speed read a lot of the users' posts that regularly indulge in that kind of stuff as I find it boring. "What a bastard, I hope he rots, throw away the key" Yawn Yawn Yawn.

I'm sorry if that comment seems unfair but there is only so far I'm willing to bend in order to understand your perspective.

It's all good, feel free to say whatever you want to me, but if you are genuinely interested in seeing my perspective, along with measuring just where my level of condemnation lies, then look no further than to what it is I feel should happen next and like I said:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If he is found to have done anything illegal, then he should be brought to bear for it.

So as you can see, in this particular case, with what we know so far, all I can say is that if he broke the law, and it appears he did (with one guy at least) then he should pay his dues. Do I think it's justified to call him a predator yet? No I don't but that may change.

There is no such fcuking thing as an adult having a "consentual relationship" with a 14 year old.

That's just inaccurate.

In Canada (for example) a 18 year old can legally have sex with a 14-year-old (given that a 14-year-old can consent to sex with anyone that is less than five years older than they are (and who is not in a position of trust). In Germany that age jumps up a little and a 21-year-old can legally have sex with a 14-year-old there.

This kind of thing should not be tolerated by anyone on any level of any society ever- no matter what orientation, colour, gender- ANYTHING.

Well tbh, I think Canada's age of consent laws are far more sensible than our own, particularly with regards to males.

If this is going to be a continual theme here with you defending this kind of sh!t then I've no interest in taking this conversation any further.

No problem, anna. All the best.

ceadaoin.

strandroad wrote: »

I agree, anyone but him. Take Tom Hanks even but leave us Keanu...

I've read that keanu may have a horrible story of his own from early in his career, with him being the victim By all accounts he is a really nice guy

Also, apparently Hanks is not so nice

razorblunt

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I've read that keanu may have a horrible story of his own from early in his career, with him being the victim By all accounts he is a really nice guy

Also, apparently Hanks is not so nice

Purple monkey yellow dishwasher.

Ralf and Florian

Bambi985 wrote: »

That's an interesting link that you should post here for the thread that's in it.

That's Jian Ghomeshi interviewing Leguizamo there, former CBC radio star who was the subject of one of the most high profile sexual assault trials in Canadian history a few years back. He was acquitted in the end which was a major shock to the entire country given the amount of women that had described his abusive and sexually violent behaviour against them and the former staffers of his radio show "Q" who described the horrifying culture that existed within the team that was left unchecked because Jian was the "talent" and the face of the CBC.

More than 20 women came forward with allegations of being slapped, punched, bitten, choked, or smothered by him. Sexual assault aside, Ghomeshi was an out-and-out bully by all accounts, one staffer said anyone who disagreed with him would be cut out and anyone that confronted his behaviour would be targeted. But he was the CBC's cash cow and his dulcet tones and socially progressive and "thoughtful" interviews meant he was never pulled up for smacking the arses of his colleagues or telling his producers he wanted to "hate fcuk' them.

I knew some people who worked in the CBC before his fall from grace and the consensus was that everyone knew he was "a creepy dude" but the CBC decided to roll their eyes and look the other way because hey, he knew how to sell a crowd.

I was reading about that case when it broke. Horrible pr!ck.

retro:electro

Pete- like I said earlier, I've no interest in the back and forth, but if you are going to link articles to prop up your agenda, at the very least you should make sure they are up to date. The Sexual Offences Act 2017 has been amended since your article there- and the law has now been made gender neutral. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

enfant terrible

Bambi985 wrote: »

That's an interesting link that you should post here for the thread that's in it.

That's Jian Ghomeshi interviewing Leguizamo there, former CBC radio star who was the subject of one of the most high profile sexual assault trials in Canadian history a few years back. He was acquitted in the end which was a major shock to the entire country given the amount of women that had described his abusive and sexually violent behaviour against them and the former staffers of his radio show "Q" who described the horrifying culture that existed within the team that was left unchecked because Jian was the "talent" and the face of the CBC.

More than 20 women came forward with allegations of being slapped, punched, bitten, choked, or smothered by him. Sexual assault aside, Ghomeshi was an out-and-out bully by all accounts, one staffer said anyone who disagreed with him would be cut out and anyone that confronted his behaviour would be targeted. But he was the CBC's cash cow and his dulcet tones and socially progressive and "thoughtful" interviews meant he was never pulled up for smacking the arses of his colleagues or telling his producers he wanted to "hate fcuk' them.

I knew some people who worked in the CBC before his fall from grace and the consensus was that everyone knew he was "a creepy dude" but the CBC decided to roll their eyes and look the other way because hey, he knew how to sell a crowd.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi#Trial_and_acquittal

On day one of the trial, the first complainant testified that Ghomeshi made a "sudden switch from charm to brutality", and that he punched her in the head and pulled her hair.[5] The following day, Ghomeshi's defence lawyer, Marie Henein, "questioned the reliability of the complainant's memory and, at times, her honesty".[5] Heinen pointed out differing accounts of the complainant's story to police and during her testimony.[50] The complainant, who had previously testified to having no contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults, was confronted with two emails she had written to Ghomeshi more than a year afterwards, one included a picture of her in bikini; she described them as "bait" to get him to explain why he attacked her.[50]

On day three, Lucy DeCoutere testified, telling the court of a date with Ghomeshi in July 2003. She alleged that "he slapped her without warning and choked her until she couldn't breathe".[5] During cross-examination, Henein presented court with a series of emails written by DeCoutere in the hours following the alleged assault to years later, including an email written hours after the alleged assault which read "You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to **** your brains out", a handwritten letter that said "I love your hands",[51] and a photo of her "fellating" a beer bottle in October 2005.[52]

The third complainant, who could not be named because of a publication ban, testified that Ghomeshi put his hands and teeth on her neck while they kissed on a park bench. Days before testifying, she said that after inadvertently hearing that emails from the previous complainants were read out in court, she told police about a date she had with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault in which she had a consensual sexual encounter with him that she did not disclose earlier. Under cross examination, Heinen accused the complainant of lying to police in her initial statement, while the complainant called it "an omission". Heinen also questioned her about her friendship with DeCoutere, including exchanging 5,000 text messages and sharing a lawyer and a publicist.

Two of the accusers spend a lot of time communicating on Facebook before going to the police. The messages included "Please be getting fat." "It's time to sink the prick". They saw themselves as a team working together to bring him down.

On March 24, 2016, the judge delivered the verdict. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice William Horkins stated that the inconsistency and "outright deception" of the witness' testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution's case.[55] ""Each complainant," he wrote, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." Referring to a witness' excuse that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkins replied "'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."[56]

Bambi985

enfant terrible wrote: »

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi#Trial_and_acquittal

On day one of the trial, the first complainant testified that Ghomeshi made a "sudden switch from charm to brutality", and that he punched her in the head and pulled her hair.[5] The following day, Ghomeshi's defence lawyer, Marie Henein, "questioned the reliability of the complainant's memory and, at times, her honesty".[5] Heinen pointed out differing accounts of the complainant's story to police and during her testimony.[50] The complainant, who had previously testified to having no contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults, was confronted with two emails she had written to Ghomeshi more than a year afterwards, one included a picture of her in bikini; she described them as "bait" to get him to explain why he attacked her.[50]

On day three, Lucy DeCoutere testified, telling the court of a date with Ghomeshi in July 2003. She alleged that "he slapped her without warning and choked her until she couldn't breathe".[5] During cross-examination, Henein presented court with a series of emails written by DeCoutere in the hours following the alleged assault to years later, including an email written hours after the alleged assault which read "You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to **** your brains out", a handwritten letter that said "I love your hands",[51] and a photo of her "fellating" a beer bottle in October 2005.[52]

The third complainant, who could not be named because of a publication ban, testified that Ghomeshi put his hands and teeth on her neck while they kissed on a park bench. Days before testifying, she said that after inadvertently hearing that emails from the previous complainants were read out in court, she told police about a date she had with Ghomeshi after the alleged assault in which she had a consensual sexual encounter with him that she did not disclose earlier. Under cross examination, Heinen accused the complainant of lying to police in her initial statement, while the complainant called it "an omission". Heinen also questioned her about her friendship with DeCoutere, including exchanging 5,000 text messages and sharing a lawyer and a publicist.

Two of the accusers spend a lot of time communicating on Facebook before going to the police. The messages included "Please be getting fat." "It's time to sink the prick". They saw themselves as a team working together to bring him down.

On March 24, 2016, the judge delivered the verdict. Ghomeshi was acquitted of all charges, on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice William Horkins stated that the inconsistency and "outright deception" of the witness' testimony had irreparably weakened the prosecution's case.[55] ""Each complainant," he wrote, "demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion." Referring to a witness' excuse that she was merely trying to "navigate" the proceeding, Horkins replied "'Navigating' this sort of proceeding is really quite simple: tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."[56]

enfant terrible

Bambi985 wrote: »

Aploogies, should of just quoted this statement "He was acquitted in the end which was a major shock to the entire country"

How anyone could be shocked he was acquitted after following that trial would shock me.

I'm still shocked the accusers had not been charged with perjury.

Outlaw Pete

anna080 wrote: »

Pete- like I said earlier, I've no interest in the back and forth...

I said 'all the best'. Up to you if you reply or not.

if you are going to link articles to prop up your agenda at the very least you should make sure they are up to date. The Sexual Offences Act 2017 has been amended since your article there- and the law has now been made gender neutral.

Well, first of all, I don't have an agenda, quit trying to make the discussion personal. I haven't done that with you and so would appreciate if you didn't with me.

Secondly, as far as I'm aware, the new amendments only made the prosecution of adults gender neutral, not the prosecution of those under 17 and it is them that I was referring to. It would appear that that law is very much still on the statute books:

"A female child under the age of 17 years shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse."

Anyway, so I take it you're conceding that you were incorrect when you said:

anna080 wrote: »

There is no such fcuking thing as an adult having a "consentual relationship" with a 14 year old.

By the way Canada, Germany etc are all just examples, there are quite a few others. Austria, Brazil, China etc all have an age-of-consent of 14. Course, Spacey was 24 when he (allegedly) had sex with the 14 year old and so his sexual encounters with the boy wouldn't be legal even with close-in-age exemptions in place. But, like I say, if he was aware that the age-of-consent to marry was 14 in NY at the time, it would be reasonable for him to assume that was the age of consent was that age also, especially considering that in some states at the time it was 14 even without close-in-age range exemptions and I think this is what people need to take into account when judging Spacey, and Don, and Elvis etc. They were different times, which is why I say that if it comes about that Spacey was pursing 14-year-old boys in his later years, much different story.

gitzy16v

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Course, Spacey was 24 when he (allegedly) had sex with the 14 year old and so his sexual encounters with the boy wouldn't be legal even with close-in-age exemptions in place. But, like I say, if he was aware that the age-of-consent to marry was 14 in NY at the time, it would be reasonable for him to assume that was the age of consent was that age also, especially considering that in some states at the time it was 14 even without close-in-age range exemptions and I think this is what people need to take into account when judging Spacey, and Don, and Elvis etc. They were different times, which is why I say that if it comes about that Spacey was pursing 14-year-old boys in his later years, much different story.

Do you not think you are being even the tiniest bit naive regarding Spaceys intentions.

RabbleRouser2k

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I've read that keanu may have a horrible story of his own from early in his career, with him being the victim By all accounts he is a really nice guy

Also, apparently Hanks is not so nice

If you're talking about the David Geffen ones-I don't believe it. Keanu made the movie Knock, Knock, which features a rape scene (female on male rape). I don't think Keanu would be able to do a movie like that if he was a victim. It would trigger PTSD. He also produced the movie. Even joked about rape when 'The Gift' came out-said 'I think some women enjoy it'-he was talking about filming the scene, but the feminists jumped on it. (You can use the Asia Argento example-but even she changed the outcome compared to what actually happened.).They don't understand that for an actress, that's a challenge that some relish, because it's acting after all. Reeves also still takes the subway, and has no issue talking to people on the train.

Tom Hanks-I can't find a single unkind thing about him. Seriously. So I would like a link to those stories.

Other nice people-Dave Chapelle. He will just walk out, talk to people, and stay way after hours. Signs autographs, does selfies-most he'll ask for is 'anyone got a cigarette?'

Gina Rodriguez from 'Jane the Virgin' is another who is very, very generous. A fan asked her where she got one of her dresses so she could get a similar dress for her prom. Rodriguez sent her the dress. (Washed it beforehand, no doubt).

Also Steve Buscemi is another nice guy. He has no ego. Used to be a firefighter, before acting, and returned to it during 9/11.

And Ryan Gosling is another guy who's known to step in and break up a fight. Also, he was super nice to fans at the Oscars. And he's never shy about mocking himself.

Ditto Hugh Jackman, very nice guy, very down to earth. Willing to make fun of himself at the drop of a hat.

Riddle101

Deleted User wrote: »

Who isn't a scumbag? Or a creep?

I know David Schwimmer got praise for asking whether an interviewer would like a chaperone to do an interview in his bedroom, after the place they were in was too noisy

Keanu Reeves seems like an utterly lovely gentleman. If allegations come out against him, I'll just give up.

David Schwimmer is actually an active director of a Rape Treatment Center. He works very closely with rape victims from what i've read so I can see why he is so respectful. Seems like a good man by all accounts. Would like to hear his opinion of Harvey Weinstein, although I imagine he does not think highly of him.

Outlaw Pete

gitzy16v wrote: »

Do you not think you are being even the tiniest bit naive regarding Spaceys intentions.

I don't recall suggesting Spacey had any other intention but to have sex with these boys and so how could I be naive in that regard? You emboldened my suggestion that perhaps Spacey felt the age of consent was 14 but I have already point out why I think that is a possibility (and that's all I have said it was by the way) and that's because the boy that said Spacey had sex with him said that he had stayed away from him when he was 12 but that now that he was 14 things were different. Seems a strange thing to say if you still thought someone was not legally able to consent.

Meanwhile, to get back to the man of the hour..............

Would appear Weinstein hired some ex-spies to dig dirt on the girls that had dirt on him:

https://twitter.com/RonanFarrow/status/927680764115898371

Harvey Weinstein’s Army of Spies

In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives “highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,” according to its literature.

Two private investigators from Black Cube, using false identities, met with the actress Rose McGowan, who eventually publicly accused Weinstein of rape, to extract information from her. One of the investigators pretended to be a women’s-rights advocate and secretly recorded at least four meetings with McGowan. The same operative, using a different false identity and implying that she had an allegation against Weinstein, met twice with a journalist to find out which women were talking to the press. In other cases, journalists directed by Weinstein or the private investigators interviewed women and reported back the details.

The explicit goal of the investigations, laid out in one contract with Black Cube, signed in July, was to stop the publication of the abuse allegations against Weinstein that eventually emerged in the New York Times and The New Yorker. Over the course of a year, Weinstein had the agencies “target,” or collect information on, dozens of individuals, and compile psychological profiles that sometimes focussed on their personal or sexual histories. Weinstein monitored the progress of the investigations personally. He also enlisted former employees from his film enterprises to join in the effort, collecting names and placing calls that, according to some sources who received them, felt intimidating.

In January, 2017, a freelance journalist called McGowan and had a lengthy conversation with her that he recorded without telling her; he subsequently communicated with Black Cube about the interviews, though he denied he was reporting back to them in a formal capacity. He contacted at least two other women with allegations against Weinstein, including the actress Annabella Sciorra, who later went public in The New Yorker with a rape allegation against Weinstein. Sciorra, whom he called in August, said that she found the conversation suspicious and got off the phone as quickly as possible. “It struck me as B.S.,” she told me. “And it scared me that Harvey was testing to see if I would talk.” The freelancer also placed calls to Wallace, the New York reporter, and to me.

Two sources close to the effort and several documents show that the same freelancer received contact information for actresses, journalists, and business rivals of Weinstein from Black Cube, and that the agency ultimately passed summaries of those interviews to Weinstein’s lawyers. When contacted about his role, the freelancer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that he had been working on his own story about Weinstein, using contact information fed to him by Black Cube. The freelancer said that he reached out to other reporters, one of whom used material from his interviews, in the hopes of helping to expose Weinstein. He denied that he was paid by Black Cube or Weinstein.

RabbleRouser2k

So Seagal was creepy with a 16 yr old Katherine Heigl.

No...just...ugh...

Outlaw Pete

Ah, Katherine's not the worst

Seagal saying that about her being 16 reminded me of Letterman (I think it was) interviewing Cindy Crawford about 1990 or so, and she starts telling him about this time she wore denim shorts to try and impress some security at an event she wanted to attend in her home town when 14 and Dave starts saying 'Oh boy, what a tough break for those security guys, 14-year-old Cindy Crawford comes by in denim shorts, they had to be thinking to themselves, she's worth the prison time' or words to that effect.

As I was watching the clip couldn't help wonder what all the laughter was about given what's been going on the past few weeks or so (as I'd just assumed it was a clip from this week) but then looked at the date and see that it was from seven months or so back. Amazing what difference a short space of time can mean as if that had been this week the interview (assuming they would have still showed the Seagal pics) would have went faaaar different. Even the audience reaction I feel would have been much different.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

The plot thickens. Weinstein hired ex-Mossad investigators (I suspect the 'ex' might not necessarily be the case) to spy on his victims and reporters in order to gather information.

In the fall of 2016, Harvey Weinstein set out to suppress allegations that he had sexually harassed or assaulted numerous women. He began to hire private security agencies to collect information on the women and the journalists trying to expose the allegations. According to dozens of pages of documents, and seven people directly involved in the effort, the firms that Weinstein hired included Kroll, which is one of the world’s largest corporate-intelligence companies, and Black Cube, an enterprise run largely by former officers of Mossad and other Israeli intelligence agencies. Black Cube, which has branches in Tel Aviv, London, and Paris, offers its clients the skills of operatives “highly experienced and trained in Israel’s elite military and governmental intelligence units,” according to its literature.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/harvey-weinsteins-army-of-spies
https://archive.fo/wEIer#selection-1063.0-1069.813

So Black Cube is an 'ex-spies for hire' operation that will run dirty tricks on the victims. What's the betting they don't just stop at spying, but will happily engage in intimidation and worse in order to suppress the story?

I had previously explained that there is often an intelligence agency angle when it comes to organised prostitution involving VIPs (as we saw with Kincora and the French underage prostitution scandal involving Robert De Niro). I suspect Black Cube might be a cut-out (man in the middle) operation for Mossad directly.

Now, the above isn't proof of anything yet. But what's the betting that an intelligence agency was controlling the whole Hollywood scene in order to gain information on the big movers and shakers?

Time will tell. This was simply too big for it to be a one man power show.

Mr.Wemmick

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Totally in awe of Reeves. In the brilliant J. Wick 2 it was pure joy to see him and Fishburne together again. Matrix movies, John Constantine, could watch over and over.

He really is his own man. No one can touch him.

some people are too nice for celebrity full stop, he's actually too decent a human being. A big fan of him myself. see below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMB1EOnUwX8

mikeysmith

A labour politician caught up in the Westminster scandal has been found dead

JP Liz V1

mikeysmith wrote: »

A labour politician caught up in the Westminster scandal has been found dead

Carl Sargeant, thought he was fighting to clear his name

Penn

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Carl Sargeant, thought he was fighting to clear his name

BBC News saying it appears to have been a suicide, and he was facing "a number of allegations."

JP Liz V1

Ed Westwick accused of rape

http://www.dailyedge.ie/ed-westwick-3684507-Nov2017/

razorblunt

Penn wrote: »

BBC News saying it appears to have been a suicide, and he was facing "a number of allegations."

Labour never told him what the accusations were though. Which is a tad strange, but maybe it's part of their process.

_Dara_

Kinda funny to me that the lid was blown on the cesspit that is in Hollywood in the same year as that nauseating love letter to Hollywood, 'La La Land', cleaned up at the Oscars. Of course, it's no surprise that it did well, Hollywood luvvies love the oul back-slapping, so they do. That's the whole point of the Oscars. Wonder how they'll gloss over all this at next year's ceremony?

Penn

razorblunt wrote: »

Labour never told him what the accusations were though. Which is a tad strange, but maybe it's part of their process.

Could be part of trying to protect the identities of those who made the allegations, eg. if they said what the accusations were he might be able to determine who made the allegations.

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

Could be part of trying to protect the identities of those who made the allegations

Might be an idea if in society we protected the identity of the accused too.

From what I have read a website called LibDemsToo published alegations about him.This is kind of crap that shouldn't be legal. Have at it when someone is found guilty but people should be entitled to their day in court before their name gets dragged through the mud.

Boom_Bap

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Ed Westwick accused of rape

http://www.dailyedge.ie/ed-westwick-3684507-Nov2017/

I'm not dismissing this claim, but it's odd that she doesn't name the producer who is an accomplice.

Also, he has come out and denied this has happened.

Odhinn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Might be an idea if in society we protected the identity of the accused too.

Absolutely.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

The slow train of justice is finally pulling out of the station. I don't think Weinstein can buy or bully his way out of this one:

Harvey Weinstein rape case will be presented to a grand jury next week by Manhattan District Attorney's office after NYPD investigation finds Paz de la Huerta's sex assault allegations 'credible'

The fate of Harvey Weinstein may soon be up to a jury of his peers.

NBC New York reports that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office is looking to present a case next week to the the grand jury in hopes of indicting Harvey Weinstein on a number of charges stemming from his alleged rapes of actress Paz de la Huerta in 2010.

Weinstein is accused of sexually assaulting the actress on two occasions, but has denied any and all allegations of non-consensual sex through his spokesperson.

The actress reported the incidents to authorities on October 25, and was found to be a strong and credible witness.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5059513/Harvey-Weinstein-rape-case-presented-grand-jury.html

I just hope he sings like a canary and takes down the whole damn rotten corrupt bunch with him.

Mokuba

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'm not dismissing this claim, but it's odd that she doesn't name the producer who is an accomplice.

Also, he has come out and denied this has happened.

Some of this is seriously dangerous.

Serious criminal allegations shouldn't be aired to Twitter or Facebook. It is completely detrimental and absolutely dangerous. She has just made an actual trial 50 times more difficult. Does it bother nobody else that people can accuse others of heinous crimes on social media before going to the authorities? And that the mere accusation of these crimes can ruin a life and career whether true or not? And that society tells you to automatically side with the accuser no matter what?

I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm not saying he did. But this way he doesn't get a trial (not yet at least) - he gets branded as guilty by the public without a shred of evidence in a (currently) "he said-she said" case.

Innocent until proven guilty is and should be the foundation of our justice system - and it is not a concept that applies in the Court of Social Media.

mikeysmith

Mokuba wrote: »

Some of this is seriously dangerous.

Serious criminal allegations shouldn't be aired to Twitter or Facebook. It is completely detrimental and absolutely dangerous. She has just made an actual trial 50 times more difficult. Does it bother nobody else that people can accuse others of heinous crimes on social media before going to the authorities? And that the mere accusation of these crimes can ruin a life and career whether true or not? And that society tells you to automatically side with the accuser no matter what?

I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm not saying he did. But this way he doesn't get a trial (not yet at least) - he gets branded as guilty by the public without a shred of evidence in a (currently) "he said-she said" case.

Innocent until proven guilty is and should be the foundation of our justice system - and it is not a concept that applies in the Court of Social Media.

Prob just wants to out him

Mokuba

mikeysmith wrote: »

Prob just wants to out him

What does that achieve?

We have no way of knowing who is telling the truth.

He could still do the same to someone else if the allegations are true.

If they aren't true then she has ruined his life and he has no recourse.

mikeysmith

Mokuba wrote: »

What does that achieve?

We have no way of knowing who is telling the truth.

He could still do the same to someone else if the allegations are true.

If they aren't true then she has ruined his life and he has no recourse.

All of your points can be argued either way

Outing him may achieve the same as a criminal prosecution

Mokuba

mikeysmith wrote: »

All of your points can be argued either way

Outing him may achieve the same as a criminal prosecution

Yeah, except without the trial that he should be entitled to? You know, the foundation of the justice system - innocent until proven guilty and the right to a fair trial and not one in the court of social media.

While I obviously feel for her if she is telling the truth, this story should have been handed to the authorities and not to a Facebook post. That way we can determine if she is actually telling the truth.

Because one persons word against another isn't proof of guilt.

RabbleRouser2k

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I'm not dismissing this claim, but it's odd that she doesn't name the producer who is an accomplice.

Also, he has come out and denied this has happened.

She has named him in another post, or a follow up. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5058623/Gossip-Girl-star-Ed-Westwick-accused-raping-actress.html
Kaine Harling, I think his name is.

I don't agree with how she has 'revealed' this-nor do I believe someone would just blame a person for being raped. Parts of her story aren't adding up.

Westwick has come out and said he has no idea who she is, nor would he ever force himself on anyone, or rape anyone. It's very bizarre. Either she's misremembering who he is (could very well be someone who looks like him) lying outright, or he's lying outright.

HandsomeBob

Mokuba wrote: »

Some of this is seriously dangerous.

Serious criminal allegations shouldn't be aired to Twitter or Facebook. It is completely detrimental and absolutely dangerous. She has just made an actual trial 50 times more difficult. Does it bother nobody else that people can accuse others of heinous crimes on social media before going to the authorities? And that the mere accusation of these crimes can ruin a life and career whether true or not? And that society tells you to automatically side with the accuser no matter what?

I'm not saying he didn't do it. I'm not saying he did. But this way he doesn't get a trial (not yet at least) - he gets branded as guilty by the public without a shred of evidence in a (currently) "he said-she said" case.

Innocent until proven guilty is and should be the foundation of our justice system - and it is not a concept that applies in the Court of Social Media.

I would have thought it was illegal but it's up to the accused to pursue it. Why they wouldn't is the question for me. If I was that Gossip Girl actor and if I thought I was innocent, I would absolutely come out swinging to defend myself like he has and to pursue criminal proceedings.

That's what I've found so alarming by Spacey's and Weinstein's reactions, in that they very much had the whiff of someone who knew they had been getting away with something for far too long, and looked utterly pathetic. They are the actions of 2 men who know that they are guilty as fcuk.

Mr.Wemmick

Cory Feldman has done it! Good on him.

DavidLyons_

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Cory Feldman has done it! Good on him.

Well done that man. I really hope that the LAPD perform their duty properly here and all involved receive the appropriate justice.

Neyite

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Well done that man. I really hope that the LAPD perform their duty properly here and all involved receive the appropriate justice.

It's a very different world from 1993 when he first tried to report it.

By putting it on Twitter that he's made a statement it's publicising it so they can't 'lose' the report, or not investigate correctly.

Plus the current political and social climate has also changed dramatically. I was a school girl in the 90's and dirty auld fella's habitually tried to grope you as you passed their seat in the bus. A garda would have rolled their eyes if you tried to report it. A lot of casual stuff that was accepted even then is no longer acceptable. I don't even think grooming was understood. School children often got blamed for attracting the abuse somehow.

Police force awareness and training in the area of sexual abuse and violence has come on an awful lot since the nineties so I really hope that this time, and for CF, that full justice is served.

I think he was right to go via official channels rather than name names on twitter or social media.

razorblunt

Penn wrote: »

Could be part of trying to protect the identities of those who made the allegations, eg. if they said what the accusations were he might be able to determine who made the allegations.

Possibly, but then this comes out today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-41908424


Something definitely isn't right there.

marklazarcovic

I do hope Corey keeps his wits about him now,he's gonna be a target.

I'd hate to see the 'died from apparent overdose' headlines and be constantly Wondering was he taken out,or stuff planted on him to send him to jail.

Neither of which would surprise me

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

marklazarcovic wrote: »

I do hope Corey keeps his wits about him now,he's gonna be a target.

I'd hate to see the 'died from apparent overdose' headlines and be constantly Wondering was he taken out,or stuff planted on him to send him to jail.

Neither of which would surprise me

People laughed when he suggested that someone was trying to kill him. Now that we know that actual ex-Mossad spies were being employed by Harvey Weinstein, maybe the public will actually sit up and take notice.

On another note, one Hollywood star that has stood out head and shoulders above the rest in terms of criticising the sexual assaults and rapists is Jessica Chastain.
Unlike others who waited to see what way the political wind was blowing, Chastain condemned Weinstein pretty much immediately.

Now, she has directed the spotlight onto X-Men and The Usual Suspects producer Bryan Singer. Despite the fact that he is producing her latest movie. That takes balls to call him out like that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5060577/Jessica-Chastain-reveals-called-Bryan-Singer.html

valoren

On the notion of women accusing men via social media, in any such controversy the man will be deemed guilty until proven innocent and the woman will be innocent until proven guilty. Twas ever thus.

Red_Wake

Surely all these lads who are getting accused of sexual harassment, etc, on social media can claim that they can't get a fair trial under such circumstances, and thus get off scot free?

I think in relation to people being called out via twitter/social media, certainly in the UK (before anyone jumps to the keyboard) might not be the worst thing.
England has a long history of granting celebs and the likes with huge injunctions, which undermines real victims and allows, in some cases, business as usual for the offender, sure Max Clifford has admitted keeping shocking stuff out of the public domain, including his own behavior. who knows, it might have been what attracted Mr spacey to working in London for so long, that and Hampstead Heath! whilst the courts keep said celebs name hidden, you have a Max Clifford type throwing money at the victim all whilst telling them, they "wont be believed" and best take the money lest we change our mind and "crush you and your family"!! this is the modus operandi if recent victims are to be believed.

Yes I agree, ousting via social media is a blunt object alright and there will be collateral damage but just remember what Saville told people, " I act with impunity", who's to say there's not worse than him out there. It's a mess alright.

I will say having watched an open secret, that X-men singer guy has skeletons to burn!

Red_Wake

Red_Wake wrote: »

Surely all these lads who are getting accused of sexual harassment, etc, on social media can claim that they can't get a fair trial under such circumstances, and thus get off scot free?

No such thing as getting off "scot free", I don't think. Not with accusations like these. These tend to follow a person around the rest of their lives.

Outlaw Pete

Absolutely, mentioned already of course, but John Leslie is a shining example of that.

Mr.Wemmick

And now Charlie Sheen is outed as one of Corey Haim's abusers.

Neyite

That was rumoured for years on the gossip sites.

Red_Wake

Deleted User wrote: »

Red_Wake wrote: »

Surely all these lads who are getting accused of sexual harassment, etc, on social media can claim that they can't get a fair trial under such circumstances, and thus get off scot free?

No such thing as getting off "scot free", I don't think. Not with accusations like these. These tend to follow a person around the rest of their lives.

But they'd avoid any meaningful trouble with the law, right?

Outlaw Pete

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

And now Charlie Sheen is outed as one of Corey Haim's abusers.

Yup, that's who I was referring to earlier in the thread with the following:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In Corey Feldman's 2013 book Coreyography, he explains the sexual abuse Corey Haim experienced during the filming of Lucas. Allegedly one of the adult men on the set of the film convinced Haim that it was "normal for older men and younger boys in the business to have sexual relations". Haim and the man walked off and went between two trailers on the set and Haim was sodomized by him. Feldman also says the man who did this is still alive and is one of the most successful people in the industry.

Maybe I'm a million miles off here but surely there is only one person who worked on that film, that is today 'one of the most successful people in the industry'. Hhmm.

He's not winning now, eh.