Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

One thing I'm somewhat (pleasantly) surprised by is that there hasn't been anything thrown at Feldman yet.

Hammer89

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing I'm somewhat (pleasantly) surprised by is that there hasn't been anything thrown at Feldman yet.

You have to assume he's not stupid enough to beat this drum if he himself had the same skeletons in his closet.

Neyite

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh Corey has always been aware of that (see below for a Time article he retweeted last year) but seems he felt he had enough information to have Charlie investigated I believe. Outing him should be enough to ensure he never works again anyway. Can't see him being given an acting role anyway.

https://twitter.com/Corey_Feldman/status/736075883476176896

I'd say you are spot on, current social climate where Spacey is getting removed post-production from completed works, nobody is going to hire Sheen.

His career was waning slightly since his Two-and-a-Half Men days I think. Anger Management was fairly short lived, some bits and pieces of guest appearances in 2015 by the looks of thing, he did nothing at all in 2016 (probably due to the HIV diagnosis being made public and the resultant fallout from recent sex partners to contend with) and has two projects this year.

What I'm not seeing is any outing of people at the top of their game in Hollywood yet.

The good thing about Charlie Sheen is that he's destroyed his career long before the Haim allegations. This will just add fuel to the fire.

retro:electro

Neyite wrote: »

Unfortunately they have to - it's outside of the statute of limitations, isn't it? So even if it was true and irrefutable proof was presented, they still would be unable to prosecute.

It's really sad, isn't it? They could do with taking a leaf from our book in that sense. We have no statute of limitations for victims child abuse.

Neyite

anna080 wrote: »

It's really sad, isn't it? They could do with taking a leaf from our book in that sense. We have no statute of limitations for victims child abuse.

It's a law that's very convenient for predators of children given that it often takes years of abuse, followed by years of substance abuse and erratic behaviour, then several more years of perhaps rehab and trauma counselling for those children to feel emotionally resilient enough to report and prosecute their attacker(s). They are too little/ fcuked up to realise the clock is ticking and when they finally do, time is up.

It's a law that's almost tailor made in favour of child predators.

Red_Wake

anna080 wrote: »

Neyite wrote: »

Unfortunately they have to - it's outside of the statute of limitations, isn't it? So even if it was true and irrefutable proof was presented, they still would be unable to prosecute.

It's really sad, isn't it? They could do with taking a leaf from our book in that sense. We have no statute of limitations for victims child abuse.

Tbf, we're soft on child molesters in other ways.

Shurimgreat

Looks like more accusers of Roman Polanski have come forward.

I know its been said before but surely this must end his career.

Also, while many actors and actresses in Hollywood have disgraced themselves through association with Polanski, you'd have to question the French and Swiss courts who refused to extradite him, even though he admitted himself he was guilty.

The Nal

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Looks like more accusers of Roman Polanski have come forward.

I know its been said before but surely this must end his career.

Also, while many actors and actresses in Hollywood have disgraced themselves through association with Polanski, you'd have to question the French and Swiss courts who refused to extradite him, even though he admitted himself he was guilty.

Well hes in his mid 80s so hes gotten away with it regardless. What always confused me was how many people were willing to work for a man who drugged and raped a child. Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Johnny Depp, Adrian Brody, Kim Cattrall, Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet etc.

Agent - "Here, fancy being in the new Polanski movie?"

"The child rapist?"

Agent - "Him yeah"

"Sure ok".

branie2

Woody Allen was accused, but nothing was proved, thankfully

valoren

Said it in passing at work yesterday to someone upon learning about Charlie Sheen.

"Did you hear the news about Charlie Sheen?"
"No, what?"
"Remember Corey Haim? Charlie had anal sex with him when he was 13 in the mid-80's"
"No, I don't believe that for a second"

:rolleyes:

retro:electro

Poor Corey Haim

branie2

Remember the thrills video about Corey Haim?

https://youtu.be/tzhZzIzJqek

mzungu

branie2 wrote: »

Remember the thrills video about Corey Haim?

https://youtu.be/tzhZzIzJqek

Trying really hard to forget about The Thrills tbh! :pac::pac:

Bambi985

Neyite wrote: »

It's a law that's very convenient for predators of children given that it often takes years of abuse, followed by years of substance abuse and erratic behaviour, then several more years of perhaps rehab and trauma counselling for those children to feel emotionally resilient enough to report and prosecute their attacker(s). They are too little/ fcuked up to realise the clock is ticking and when they finally do, time is up.

It's a law that's almost tailor made in favour of child predators.

True. Through all of this coverage I really am realising that being the victim of a sexual assault and/or rape must be the absolutely lowest place you can be, not just emotionally and from a trauma standpoint, but also in terms of how low you are in the pecking order from a societal and a legal perspective too.

The jump to disbelieve victims unless it's at a Bill Cosby/Jimmy Savile/Weinstein level and there's an international reputable media organisation leading the charge. The statute of limitations stateside that is completely tone-deaf to the nature of sexual abuse trauma and how it prevents victims from reporting their crimes in the immediate aftermath. The scrutiny of victims not just in society but in the courtroom too.

It feels like in all of this, the actual gravity of these crimes get lost. We stop thinking about the brutality and violation of sexual assault on victims, and how it's a life long battle to find any kind of peace or happiness or self-esteem as a result. Instead the jump is to focus on what they should and shouldn't have done. I read a quote about it recently - it's like if men were going around setting women on fire, and instead of going "WTF?? What kind of sick b@stard is this?" and instead started blaming women for going around being all flammable and stuff. It's bizarre.

I know at this stage we are all in full agreement about Weinstein, and Spacey (well most of us), as we were eventually with Savile and Cosby. But we didn't reach that point until decades of constant allegations being silenced or shouted down and dozens if not hundreds of victims raising their heads above the parapet.

pitifulgod

kunst nugget wrote: »

His hobby when he was younger was beating up minorities in racially motivated attacks and he nearly got prosecuted for attempted murder because of the severity of one of his attacks. But he's got a winning smile and a great Boston accent so no one brings up his scumbag past.

In fairness, he's been very open about that and went out of his way to apologise to the guy he attacked in recent years.

brooke 2

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yes. In the documentary An Open Secret it seems that some of the victims go on to be recruiters themselves once they get too old to be as "valuable". They become part of the abuse ring and use the same tactics that were used on them to bring in new victims. making them a part of it also ensures that they will keep their silence. Possibly something similar with Sheen?

It was horrifying to see that some of the abusers who did actually go to jail for their crimes, were able to resume working in the film industry after their release from prison.

Hande hoche!

Seems like Louis CK is the next one. Remember some rumours a while back.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

SnakePlissken

Hamlet. wrote: »

You may need it since you cast little Marky Mark in the lead role.

That's Oscar nominated Marky Mark to you.

JP Liz V1

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Seems like Louis CK is the next one. Remember some rumours a while back.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

http://people.com/tv/louis-ck-accused-sexual-misconduct/

5 against him so far

Hande hoche!

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

http://people.com/tv/louis-ck-accused-sexual-misconduct/

5 against him so far

Very slimy individual.

RabbleRouser2k

Hande hoche! wrote: »

Seems like Louis CK is the next one. Remember some rumours a while back.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/09/arts/television/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

Actual plot of his film, 'I love you Daddy'....

When a successful television writer's daughter becomes the interest of an aging filmmaker with an appalling past, he becomes worried about how to handle the situation.

Wow, that is creepily prophetic.

I don't think anyone's surprised by these allegations. Some people, when talking about creeps were always like 'Please God, not Louis CK'-I'd always respond 'google him-there's many allegations'.

More allegations against Jeremy Piven.

http://people.com/tv/jeremy-piven-accused-sexual-assault-tiffany-bacon-scourby/

Ed Westwick has stated he is working with authorities, and that he is doing everything to clear his name and find the real culprit.

http://people.com/tv/ed-westwick-denies-second-rape-allegation/

I'm gonna put my neck on the chopping block-but this story sounds suspicious. Similar details, not in the rape, but rather 'their boyfriends reactions'-in this case the second accuser of Westwick did the same 'it was your fault' response-the only difference being her ex boyfriend is Mark Salling, aka that guy from Glee who's now in jail for child porn.

Part of me suspects foul play on the part of the producer and Salling-as in 'introduce them to a guy who looks like Westwick-who's actually a sex fiend'. If a hollywood producer/ actor says 'this is Ed Westwick' when he only has a passing resemblance...well, that could easily be used to trap a starstruck up and comer.

tylercheribini

God Louis C.K made a career out of chastising Catholic church sexual abuse, hiding in plain sight.

RabbleRouser2k

tylercheribini wrote: »

God Louis C.K made a career out of chastising Catholic church sexual abuse, hiding in plain sight.

CK also did jokes claiming he was a feminist and that he 'stood up' for women. There's a pattern there-nearly all these pests were 'I wuv da women'. Your usual 'I'm a feminist, therefore not a creep'.
Also, another creepy thing so many of these people have in common-all of em have daughters.

RabbleRouser2k

https://twitter.com/BAKKOOONN/status/928740614518140928

This is actually a really, really positive thread-people asking 'name a celebrity who's not a creep'. Well, some of these are seriously inspiring. Danny Devito and Rhea Perlman helped look after Mara Wilson (Matilda) while her mom was getting cancer treatment is just one of them.

RabbleRouser2k

Matthew Weiner-creator of Mad Men is accused of sexual harassment.

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/11/matthew-weiner-accused-sexual-harassment-assistant-kater-gordon-mad-men-1201895936/

He essentially ended this woman's career. Many questions were asked at the time about her firing, as she had just won an Emmy. This makes it all too clear now.

I'm only scanning stories.

But from the little I've read I think one has to be careful to distinguish Weinstein (rape, threatening careers) and Spacey (underage) and Sheen (where does one start) with Louis CK (disturbing and gross, but no issue with age, no threats etc.). It's unacceptable, just presumably not something that might result in jail.

HandsomeBob

Looks like Haim's mother has torpedoed the accusations against Charlie Sheen.

Obviously she knew her son best but I'd question, regardless of how open her son was with her, the assumption that he would have disclosed a deeply traumatising and confusing period of his life to her.

There seems to be such a consistent level of corroboration coming out of the set of the film in question that it's criminal that Sheen is protected from even being questioned due to the statute of limitations.

AllGunsBlazing

Steven Seagal will be one of the one's that sails through all this mess. His entire career revolves around straight to dvd action flicks and schlock tv shows. He was always kinda odd ball to begin with and it might actually raise his profile a bit.


I'd wager a lot of people probably thought he was dead.

Mokuba

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Part of me suspects foul play on the part of the producer and Salling-as in 'introduce them to a guy who looks like Westwick-who's actually a sex fiend'. If a hollywood producer/ actor says 'this is Ed Westwick' when he only has a passing resemblance...well, that could easily be used to trap a starstruck up and comer.

Wierdly enough, people worked out that he wasn't in the country it seems at the time of the second incident, so she edited her original Facebook post to change the month from July to August.

He says he has provable evidence that neither happened. If this is true, then I hope that these girls are jailed for as long as an actual rapist would be. Lying about rape is a horrific crime which hurts the innocent party involved and also the actual victims of rape.

Obviously nothing has been proven either way yet.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm only scanning stories.

But from the little I've read I think one has to be careful to distinguish Weinstein (rape, threatening careers) and Spacey (underage) and Sheen (where does one start) with Louis CK (disturbing and gross, but no issue with age, no threats etc.). It's unacceptable, just presumably not something that might result in jail.

There were alleged threats from the agent representing Louis C.K. and careers curtailed.

Shurimgreat

One thing I have noticed about these harassment claims is generally its never a one off with these guys. If they did it to one, you can bet they did to others, who have remained silent out of fear or are yet to come forward.

server down

server down wrote: »

There were alleged threats from the agent representing Louis C.K. and careers curtailed.

One of the allegations is from 15 years ago when he was a relative nobody. Not somebody who could make or break a career.

By all accounts he asked for consent (to jerk off) and they gave it. If they didn't give it he apologised and didn't do anything.

Sounds like he is a bit of a weirdo but I wouldn't put him in the same category as Weinstein.

server down

[Deleted User] wrote: »

One of the allegations is from 15 years ago when he was a relative nobody. Not somebody who could make or break a career.

By all accounts he asked for consent (to jerk off) and they gave it. If they didn't give it he apologised and didn't do anything.

Sounds like he is a bit of a weirdo but I wouldn't put him in the same category as Weinstein.

The article clearly says his agent Mr Becky is powerful though.

Also Louis has had a long career. He was headlining venues at that time. Going global, being on TV took longer but he was successful enough.

Of course he isn’t Weinstein. That’s hardly the criteria though.

Shurimgreat

Looks like the careers of all these guys are finished, thankfully.

Time for some clean cut stars to step up to the plate in Hollywood.

Neyite

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Looks like Haim's mother has torpedoed the accusations against Charlie Sheen.

Obviously she knew her son best but I'd question, regardless of how open her son was with her, the assumption that he would have disclosed a deeply traumatising and confusing period of his life to her.

There seems to be such a consistent level of corroboration coming out of the set of the film in question that it's criminal that Sheen is protected from even being questioned due to the statute of limitations.

Thing is, that you have to take family dynamics into account. People in these cases usually ask where the parents were, why they let their child go to parties unsupervised, and given that they were 'in' the industry, must have heard rumours swirling about the powerful people and the things that they were rumoured to do. But, some parents - not necessarily Haim's - were content to turn a blind eye as long as the money rolled in. Or they were groomed as well.

Child abusers are usually people close to the family. Sometimes the parent's are fully aware and even actively facilitating it. Some don't want to rock the boat when their child does disclose because they like the lifestyle or social standing they have and don't want to lose it.

Children who were protected are the ones like Elijah Wood, who's parents never let him attend orgies adult parties alone. Then you have the Lindsey Lohans, Corey Haims, and Drew Barrymores who were allowed to have an adult lifestyle before even puberty.

To be honest, I'd take what Mrs. Haim says with a big pinch of salt. There is too much corroboration of her son's abuse from other sources. Too many people have similar stories to Haim's about the same people who abused him. Of course she's going to deny that her son was passed around to paedophiles, and that there was basically unlimited and unsupervised access to the child and that the whole of Hollywood, including every child predator, knew it. To say otherwise would raise serious questions about her duty as his guardian.

strandroad

Shurimgreat wrote: »

One thing I have noticed about these harassment claims is generally its never a one off with these guys. If they did it to one, you can bet they did to others, who have remained silent out of fear or are yet to come forward.

There must be many many more one offs (not everyone had the leverage to act with such impunity), it's just that single victims are still finding it difficult to come forward. Mass molester victims have the advantage of strength in numbers.
Ironically, it might be harder for a single victim to get justice and their ordeal might be diminished now we are getting used to seeing double/triple digit lists of allegations against one abuser.

server down

Talking of Louis, I suppose there aren't that many jokes on late night american TV ( which I don't watch unless someone sends me a link) about him. I imagine though that pretty much anybody else in the public eye who got naked and masturbated in front of two women might have had some routines. He was to appear on Colbert, so I assume Colbert took up the time making fun of him...

bloodless_coup

All these great men being taken down by unsubstantiated allegations.

Shurimgreat

doylefe wrote: »

All these great men being taken down by unsubstantiated allegations.

When there is more than one accuser, the credibility of the accusations go up.

These accusers are taking a huge gamble. In the past they would simply have been labelled difficult to work with by Weinstein and co. and found their career slowly slide. So they do not make their allegations public lightly. Hollywood is still run by men and I'd say there are still a few influential predators yet to be exposed.

branie2

Steven Seagal has just being revealed as the latest harasser

Mokuba

Shurimgreat wrote: »

When there is more than one accuser, the credibility of the accusations go up.

These accusers are taking a huge gamble. In the past they would simply have been labelled difficult to work with by Weinstein and co. and found their career slowly slide. So they do not make their allegations public lightly. Hollywood is still run by men and I'd say there are still a few influential predators yet to be exposed.

Louis CK - I'm not sure what he has done that's illegal here. Pervy/wierd/disgusting, absolutely. Illegal? I'm not so sure.

Case 1 and 2 - He asked them, they seemed to think it was a joke and laughed - when it started they were "holding onto each other, screaming and laughing in shock." Laughing could certainly be implied as consent. He did not force them to do anything.

Case 3 - He is on the phone and she claims he is masturbating. Even if he was - not illegal.

Case 4 - He asks, she says no. How is this a claim?

Case 5 - She gave consent. She wasn't physically forced or blackmailed into doing this. She implies that she does it because of his status or something.

DaithiMa

Anyone that has any doubts about Corey Feldman's claims needs to watch 'An Open Secret'. The most disturbing thing about it is that most of the perpetrators have got away scot free and in some cases are STILL working on kids TV shows/networks. The place is a cesspit.

mollygreene

Mokuba wrote:

Laughing could certainly be implied as consent.

I sincerely hope you're joking. Never heard of nervous laughter?

Outrageous statement imo

branie2

branie2 wrote: »

Steven Seagal has just being revealed as the latest harasser

Of Feldmen? Or just general harassment?

If of Feldmen, then what the f*ck was happening? Dude seemed to have just been passed around.

Mokuba

mollygreene wrote: »

I sincerely hope you're joking. Never heard of nervous laughter?

Outrageous statement imo

They gave him a thumbs up while laughing when he asked, laughed through it and stayed until the end.

I'm wondering what the issue is on their end.

kingtiger

branie2 wrote: »

Steven Seagal has just being revealed as the latest harasser

thats hardly news though, take this first Google hit from 2010

http://www.today.com/id/36446224/ns/today-today_entertainment/t/seagal-sued-allegedly-keeping-sex-slaves/

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

Of Feldmen? Or just general harassment?
.

No, Seagal has been accused of harassment by women. As far as I can recall, he's not connected in any way to the Coreys. But the rumours of Seagal have swirled around for years. He's by all accounts not a nice bloke and even less nice if you are an attractive woman.

server down

Mokuba wrote: »

They gave him a thumbs up while laughing when he asked, laughed through it and stayed until the end.

I'm wondering what the issue is on their end.

Clearly shock.

If you are ok with someone **** in front of their work colleagues I think you may want to reevaluate your morality.

Mokuba

server down wrote: »

Clearly shock.

If you are ok with someone **** in front of their work colleagues I think you may want to reevaluate your morality.

Where did I say I was ok with it? Did you read my original comment? This isn't really about morality - I presume they are releasing these stories in an attempt to get justice - for what though? All of the 5 stories aren't really examples of sexual abuse. There was consent in all of them, and when there wasn't, there was no act. The other was over the phone.

How can you determine that they were in shock? He asked, they gave him permission. If they assumed he was joking, they could have made every effort to leave when it became clear he wasn't, but they didn't. They laughed before and during.

It seems like an example of jumping on the bandwagon. One of the 5 stories was over the phone. It is a bit ridiculous.