Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

retro:electro

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It gets worse...Polanski has openly admitted a lot of this stuff. With little or no sign of remorse.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/17/16156902/roman-polanski-child-rape-charges-explained-samantha-geimer-robin-m

I just read all of that and it's so disturbing. I always knew what happened but to hear his words, so unapologetic and sanguine... To think that Meryl and co stood and applauded this beast is just beyond disgusting. No morals. Money talks. Fcuk everything else.
Absolute shame on them. Zero integrity.

_Dara_

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

It gets worse...Polanski has openly admitted a lot of this stuff. With little or no sign of remorse.

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/17/16156902/roman-polanski-child-rape-charges-explained-samantha-geimer-robin-m

anna080 wrote: »

I just read all of that and it's so disturbing. To think that Meryl and co stood and applauded this beast is just beyond disgusting. No morals. Money talks. Fcuk everything else.
Absolute shame on them. Zero integrity.

Yeah, I’ve read that about him before. He was in a relationship with Nastassja Kinski that started when she was only 15 and he was 43.

Suckit

Tallaght Times wrote: »

Also I don't think the comparison with the groupie scene of the 70s with Wesintein today is fair. Men like Jimmy Page, Mick Jagger, David Bowie were the gods of their era, they were on every girl's bedroom wall and so the groupies wanted to be with them.

I don't think any girls want to be with gross creepy old movie producers.

I think the point is............. That an 11, 12 or 13 year old girl, even up to 15 is not up to making their own decisions.. (I believe the law may be 17)
Rolf Harris is (to my knowledge) locked up for grossly feeling up more than one 16 year old, ( I use that age, because i think that she was the youngest, i could be massively mistaken).
Gross in your opinion or not, while i do get where you are coming from, they took advantage of very young girls. When you start to think that they did not, that is where the trouble begins.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah, I’ve read that about him before. He was in a relationship with Nastassja Kinski that started when she was only 15 and he was 43.

We should probably start phrasing things to more accurately reflect their reality. He wasn't in a relationship with a 15 year old, he was a middle aged sexual predator exploiting his position of power over a teenager.

He's a sickening person.

Venom

Noel82 wrote: »

Ben Affleck, the virtue signalling extraordinaire. There's another video of him on TRL grabbing some chicks boob.

The actress in that clip claims its taken completely out of context.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anne-marie-losique-says-her-ben-affleck-interview-is-being-taken-context-1047745

"The Canadian TV personality, a singer and owner of Vanessa Media, told The Hollywood Reporter that the interview was an act. "This was for the camera," she said. "You have to understand that we have done dozens and dozens of interviews like that. It was for a show I was producing, so I was not at all a victim. When the cameras rolled, we would start to do that game. As soon as it stopped rolling, there was none of that. He never touched me in any improper way. He was very respectful, I must say."

Junkyard Tom

Tallaght Times wrote: »

Nothing wrong with finding teen girls alluring (and nothing wrong with having sex with them once their over the consent age).

Unless it's some middle-aged ****er slobbering over your seventeen year-old niece/sister, right? Then you're going to be clenching your fists, aren't you? Or would you be sitting there agreeing with Mr Lecher saying 'fair play to you'.



They mostly come out at night, mostly.

server down

Venom wrote: »

The actress in that clip claims its taken completely out of context.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anne-marie-losique-says-her-ben-affleck-interview-is-being-taken-context-1047745

"The Canadian TV personality, a singer and owner of Vanessa Media, told The Hollywood Reporter that the interview was an act. "This was for the camera," she said. "You have to understand that we have done dozens and dozens of interviews like that. It was for a show I was producing, so I was not at all a victim. When the cameras rolled, we would start to do that game. As soon as it stopped rolling, there was none of that. He never touched me in any improper way. He was very respectful, I must say."

Well then, shame on whoever posted it as real news.

ceadaoin.

Jake1 wrote: »

Just came across this ( apologies if already posted)

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/oct/02/roman-polanski-on-case-sentence-as-far-as-what-i-did-its-over

“As you know, Samantha Geimer has been asking for over 30 years for this thing to end,” Polanski said to the Hollywood Reporter. “But, I’m sorry the judges who dealt with it the last 40 years were corrupted, one covering for the other. So I don’t [sic] maybe one of them will [eventually] stop doing it.”

The balls on this nonce

:rolleyes:

Samantha Geimer did an AMA on Reddit a while ago and the way she speaks of Polanski is quite disturbing. She seems to think he is being persecuted and the he is the victim in all of this

5ive

Tallaght Times wrote: »

Depends. In Spain it's legal to have sex with a 13 year old. I don't for second think Jimmy Page was taking advantage because the girls that came to him saw him as an idol. They wanted to be with him, not like he had to force himself on them.

And I really don't think young women heading to LA in to be groupies in 1973 were super sweet angels who had no idea what they were getting into.

I agree... I was obsessed with a band when in my early teens and would have done ANYTHING required of me if I met them..... even though I didn't even understand anything beyond kissing at the time.
The onus is on the older person to have some sort of moral code; but I'm sure the drugs available in the 70s would have clouded alot of sense too.

server down

Times change. When bill wyman, at 47, started dating the 13 year old Mandy Smith - who he subsequently married - it was frowned upon but not seen as reprehensible as it would be today.

In any case the charges against Weinstein are mostly sexual harassment of adults

Suckit

Tallaght Times wrote: »

Depends. In Spain it's legal to have sex with a 13 year old. I don't for second think Jimmy Page was taking advantage because the girls that came to him saw him as an idol. They wanted to be with him, not like he had to force himself on them.

And I really don't think young women heading to LA in to be groupies in 1973 were super sweet angels who had no idea what they were getting into.

Whether or nor i agree with you is not the point.
We would both treading on very thin ice if we were to say that if a14 year old girl does want sex she should have it. If it was the 1970's or the 1790's or a different Country.
For the larger part i understand what you are saying and i do not disagree, but when they brought in the law, it is now to be frowned upon. There are many (David Icke forum ---- Yiikkkeess!!!) names mentioned that may or may not have been breaking laws. It is presumed, if a child has sex, that they do not have the capability to decide it (which i agree with).
Then a child is by law presumed a victim. (correctly).

It is just hard to say if when to prosecute. The 70's? If not, the 60's? Or the 50's?


If David Bowie had a group of girls/Women, why choose a 13 year old?

It would be completely naive of me to assume that 14 year old girls and boys are not having sex today.

But i would be repulsed if I knew a 20+ or especially a 30+ year old that had sex with them.

Junkyard Tom

Tallaght Times wrote: »

You're telling me you don't take notice of good looking you ones when you're out and about? Or are you going to pretend you're some kind of sexless puritan?

Noticing a young person's prettiness is not the same as wanting to ride them to them, lots of fashion models are girls under the age of consent, aren't they?

Suckit

Tallaght Times wrote: »

If you're telling me you don't find a 16 year old girl sexually attractive (especially when she's out in her provocative attire) then you're a liar or a homosexual.

Or a parent.

retro:electro

Tallaght Times wrote: »

If you're telling me you don't find a 16 year old girl sexually attractive (especially when she's out in her provocative attire) then you're a liar or a homosexual.

You don't get to speak for other people, nor do you get to degrade and insult them when they don't conform to your perverse desires.

Suckit

Tallaght Times wrote: »

Yeah you suddenly lose your sex drive when you become a father. Yeah I believe that.

No, but the reality of how naive a teenager is, might make you realise that you are taking advantage.
Our pictures are not on teenagers walls, and we are not perceived as Gods. If we were to have sex (or even try) with them, it would probably not be consentual. (Even if an under 17 year old could give consent).

Junkyard Tom

Tallaght Times wrote: »

If you're telling me you don't find a 16 year old girl sexually attractive (especially when she's out in her provocative attire) then you're a liar or a homosexual.

Attraction is different to sexuality and beauty. Attraction is a combination of many factors. I'd say the vast majority of men are not motivated solely by their libidinal instincts.

Billy86

Tallaght Times wrote: »

That's what's I've been saying. Me or you or the average dude has no chance with fit young ones unless we rape, which is totally wrong.

Ehh, what??

RobertKK

CNN questioning Hillary Clinton and the Obamas in saying they didn't know about Weinstein when it was an open secret in Hollywood and they are very close to Hollywood.

ceadaoin.

Apparently 3 more people are about to exposed as abusers - dan Schneider, the Nickelodeon producer that everyone knows about, Bryan singer and a "billionaire Mogul"

Billy86

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently 3 more people are about to exposed as abusers - dan Schneider, the Nickelodeon producer that everyone knows about, Bryan singer and a "billionaire Mogul"

Good, the worry is this would stop with Weinstein while the others would hold their places and get others to keep quiet. Singer's is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood, it's even a prominent part of his Wikipedia page. A shame when I saw it since I've never been into superhero movies that much but really liked his X-Men films dating back to 2000, but something about his accusations strike me as probably being quite accurate... and they're even worse than Weinstein's. Children involved and often quite violent, by the sounds of it.

_Dara_

Candie wrote: »

We should probably start phrasing things to more accurately reflect their reality. He wasn't in a relationship with a 15 year old, he was a middle aged sexual predator exploiting his position of power over a teenager.

He's a sickening person.

Just going by what they both describe it as. I didn’t say I approved of it.

_Dara_

Tallaght Times wrote: »

Depends. In Spain it's legal to have sex with a 13 year old. I don't for second think Jimmy Page was taking advantage because the girls that came to him saw him as an idol. They wanted to be with him, not like he had to force himself on them.

And I really don't think young women heading to LA in to be groupies in 1973 were super sweet angels who had no idea what they were getting into.

The low age of consent in some countries is to cover teenagers going at it.

_Dara_

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Unless it's some middle-aged ****er slobbering over your seventeen year-old niece/sister, right? Then you're going to be clenching your fists, aren't you? Or would you be sitting there agreeing with Mr Lecher saying 'fair play to you'.

Interestingly, I recently read Lynn Barber’s memoir ‘An Education’ where she describes her parents actually liking her 30-something conman boyfriend that she had when she was sixteen. She seemed quite resentful of them in the book though which I read as her being angry that they didn’t put their foot down more. People are weird.

RubyGlee

It’s normal to be attracted to 13 and 14 year old teenage girls?? There not even fully developed yet. My 13yr will happily play with dolls with her little cousin. Please tell me I’ve read that wrong and ye mean 18 and 19 yr old teenage girls

retro:electro

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently 3 more people are about to exposed as abusers - dan Schneider, the Nickelodeon producer that everyone knows about, Bryan singer and a "billionaire Mogul"

Oh I'd say this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hollywood in it's entirety is under the microscope now.
Anyway all of that about Harvey heading to rehab in Europe was all just PR spin. I just saw pictures of him there in LA giving the middle finger to photographers.

Billy86

_Dara_ wrote: »

Interestingly, I recently read Lynn Barber’s memoir ‘An Education’ where she describes her parents actually liking her 30-something conman boyfriend that she had when she was sixteen. She seemed quite resentful of them in the book though which I read as her being angry that they didn’t put their foot down more. People are weird.

She could have been acting out or on some subconscious/indirect level crying for attention that something wasn't right, teens are prone to those. Or it could have just dawned on her later as she matured and realised that relationship was wrong for her; in those instances the parents really should try to put the foot down and tell their kids "trust me you'll thank me when you're older" as unpopular a line as that is with them at that age.

Not really too appropriate a topic for humour, but one of the lads I work with has two teenage girls and he learned off the first one exactly how to deal with a boyfriend he's weary of... be as nice as possible, try to be the boyfriend's best friend, invite him over for the football on the weekends, offer lifts to training or wherever else etc... go the whole hog. The daughters lose interest quicker than you'd imagine! Makes you wonder if they just see these lads entirely to try piss off their parents, or if seeing the boyfriend (a kid her age) being sucked into the 'family unit' just makes it a bit... weird for her!

Either way it's genius, but it's bound to bite him on the arse badly once the girls get past that stage and he's stuck with some young fella he doesn't like that he's after making best friends with... only to find out the daughters actually like parental approval! :pac:

gitzy16v

Would this make pizzagate more a reality,less a conspiracy?
It's obviously a lot deeper than the public have been told!

Billy86

How much Harvey feels for his victims, right here (the LA airport picture alluded to a few posts up).

Billy86

gitzy16v wrote: »

Would this make pizzagate more a reality,less a conspiracy?
It's obviously a lot deeper than the public have been told!

Well no. A crazed lunatic went in to expose the pizza gate place with a shotgun and found precisely nothing. Overall systemic issues quite possibly, but pizza gate? No.

gitzy16v

Billy86 wrote: »

Well no. A crazed lunatic went in to expose the pizzagate place with a shotgun and found precisely nothing.

Not so much the actual location but the network supposedly behind it.
The premise of a group of paedophiles organising sick sh1t seems more likely now than before.
Especially with the seeming impunity they've acted with in hollywood

RabbleRouser2k

sabat wrote: »

Roman Polanski drugged and sodomised a child-do you really have to be "pro woman" (whatever the fúck that's supposed to mean) to have a problem with that?

Yet Meryl Streep gave him a standing ovation when he won an Oscar 13 years ago.
(He wasn't there himself-can't set foot in the USA since his conviction or he'll be thrown in jail).

http://www.snopes.com/meryl-streep-applaud-roman-polanski/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNrsV_o0KYo

She also once said she was sorry Roman Polanski was in jail.

(I hate having to post that link-but it's the only one with the video I need-the rest is pro Trump, anti-Hillary. and I'm pro neither.).

And this is Kim Cattrall also defending Polankski. Even mentions how he is 'controlling'-Hollywood is a sick place.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fPlyeQJYkU

Let's not forget the guy who directed the films Powder, and Jeepers Creepers is a convicted paedophile too-filmed himself molesting and abusing a child actor, went to prison, and then made films like Powder and Jeepers Creepers. (The cast of Powder were unaware of his conviction-then his victim protested the movie-you can imagine how horrified they were).

Venom wrote: »

The actress in that clip claims its taken completely out of context.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anne-marie-losique-says-her-ben-affleck-interview-is-being-taken-context-1047745

"The Canadian TV personality, a singer and owner of Vanessa Media, told The Hollywood Reporter that the interview was an act. "This was for the camera," she said. "You have to understand that we have done dozens and dozens of interviews like that. It was for a show I was producing, so I was not at all a victim. When the cameras rolled, we would start to do that game. As soon as it stopped rolling, there was none of that. He never touched me in any improper way. He was very respectful, I must say."

Also comedian John Mullaney's wife tweeted this.

https://twitter.com/amtendler/status/918209320977911808

B.A._Baracus

Hollywood is a weird place.
99% of things will never come out. You will either be black-balled or sued. I guess in this case, as others have said, the wind has blown the other way and Weinstein doesn't have the same pull he once had.

nacho libre

RobertKK wrote: »

CNN questioning Hillary Clinton and the Obamas in saying they didn't know about Weinstein when it was an open secret in Hollywood and they are very close to Hollywood.

Yes it was an open secret, all these people now coming out saying they never knew, are liars. They all knew but put their head down lest it affect their careers.

brooke 2

Billy86 wrote: »

It's been largely covered, basically your career would be ruined, your name in general driven through the mud, and quite likely you would be taken to court because what legal aid can an out of work actress afford compared to the hundreds of millions (or even billions if bandied together because Weinstein is far from the only one) of dollars these guys?

Terry Crews, a 240lb former NFL linebacker who pops up randomly in a lot of things covered the shame aspect of it too, since he got sexually assaulted by a Hollywood bigwig but new there was absolutely nothing he could do about it.

Joel Schumacher seems to be hiding in plain sight. Interesting reading about the two Coreys - Corey Feldman and the late Corey Haims.

RabbleRouser2k

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently 3 more people are about to exposed as abusers - dan Schneider, the Nickelodeon producer that everyone knows about, Bryan singer and a "billionaire Mogul"

Singer is known about-look at the documentary an Open Secret. You telling me that a guy who hangs around with so many convicted paedophiles has a clean sheet? Sincerely doubt it. (Also, one shot in Singer's Apt Pupil where the camera lingers far too long on a naked, 15/ 16 year old Brad Renfro in a shower. It's seriously creepy). There was a case that was dropped, years ago-but I imagine there were many more who didn't speak up.

Dan Schneider-I don't know about this one. Like, most of what's been said is speculation. And so much of it is anonymous too-like some people have taken videos/ photos as 'proof' are out of context photos.
It's not 'Being grabbed by Weinstein in a very 'look at the power I have over you' moment'. Or the many, many digs at Weinstein in shows like Entourage, or 30 Rock, or even the Oscars, to name a few.

Also, some allege things like 'Oh, he fathered JAmie Lynn Spears' baby', when it's like 'you telling me two teens who are attracted to one another never had unprotected sex leading to a baby?'. Other's use the Amanda Bynes being mentally ill as another example-uh, that's insulting to both Bynes and people with severe mental illnesses. Many of these illnesses just happen, like being born bipolar.

I've no doubt he oversexualises young girls/ women, but a paedophile? There's more than him working on those shows.

HandsomeBob

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently 3 more people are about to exposed as abusers - dan Schneider, the Nickelodeon producer that everyone knows about, Bryan singer and a "billionaire Mogul"

Singer should be an interesting one, as I recall only recently enough someone accusing him and it getting utterly quashed. His situation could end up more comparable to Savile than Weinstein's does.

RabbleRouser2k

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Singer should be an interesting one, as I recall only recently enough someone accusing him and it getting utterly quashed. His situation could end up more comparable to Savile than Weinstein's does.

As was the documentary. Pushed out of cinemas too-one of the agents profiled was Corey Haim's agent-and we all know what happened with Haim.

The people behind the documentary, among them Amy Berg, made the Oscar nominated Deliver us From Evil about the abuse within the Catholic Church. They're not some kind of crackpot crew-they did the work.
And this was released in cinemas too. But was very quietly 'pushed' after a limited showing.

Unpleasant that we're here in the first place, but since it exists - Thankfully the dark, seedier, life-ruining side of Hollywood is finally getting a mainstream light shone on it. The casting couch culture didn't start with Harvey Weinstein and probably won't end with him, but his uncovering might put off at least some other men in the future from engaging in such behaviour wilful abuse so easily.

It's amazing to see some of the actors who are clamouring to save their own skin here, rather than using their knowledge to further galvanise the movement to banish this behaviour from Hollywood. The likes of George 'We actors are often accused of being out of touch' Clooney and Meryl 'Harvey is a God, Roman is my mate' Streep with their "We're shocked, we never knew, this is reprehensible" routine. These pontificators, it's so fúcking obvious what they are doing.

Around a year ago, I was on a drive and there was an interview with Meryl Streep on Newstalk radio. It was in relation to the release of her then latest movie, Suffragette. Rather than it just being a one on one interview, the Newstalk presenter was in a press room with other interviewers for 'An audience with Meryl' type of set-up over in London. All of the interviewers were fawning in Meryl's presence, and the whole thing made for some sickly-sweet listening at times.

Listening to Meryl speaking from her chair pedestal, it was as if she was one of the suffragettes herself. Like her starring in this movie and using her name to shine a light on their plight was some huge humanitarian effort akin to the work of Gandhi. As if some other actor just wouldn't have played her part if she didn't. During the interview, Meryl mentioned a few times that she felt it a privilege and her duty to tell the story of these afflicted women from a century ago.

This all was after she called Harvey Weinstein a God at an awards ceremony. After she made her latest unwavering gesture of support for the unrepentant Roman Polanski. Never mind 100 years ago in England, what's wrong with highlighting the plight which women in Hollywood have been going through and still are in the modern day?

Don't get me wrong, these men are fully to blame for their actions and Meryl Streep isn't. However, Harvey Weinstein was enabled by the likes of her and a room full of megastars regularly giving him a standing ovation and high approval at awards ceremonies. If you're the pig of a specimen that is Harvey Weinstein and you are constantly getting that adornment from your peers, you are hardly going to think "Geez, maybe I am hurting a lot of people and should have a hard look at myself'.

So many observers and colleagues knew, and never mind kept quiet which would be somewhat understandable given Weinstein's ruthless reputation, they continued to praise him. Now many of them are suddenly so concerned and are scurrying to distance themselves from him, not for the victims or the personal offence they feel, but for their own profile, image and/or stock.

The Weinstein board - Fúck off, you all fúcking knew and probably enjoyed Harvey's stories.

Harvey Weinstein's 'wife' and his defense attorney - They put up with it and profited from it until the press came in force to their doors.

Meryl Streep, George Clooney and the rest of the "That's a bad Harvey, I honestly never knew myself even though I knew" brigade - Fúck off and please continue to just be good at pretending to be someone else in front of a camera.

These actors, who knew, chiming in now to save their own faces. I wouldn't mind if they were regular acclaimed directors, screenwriters, songwriters, or anyone who puts pen to paper regularly to express an original vision or opinion. Or if they didn't like to regularly pontificate from their awards podiums. However, I don't need to know what Madeline from Death Becomes Her or Danny Ocean have to think on this lurid matter. Not once it's just a hollow quote to try save their own public image, rather than meaningful information or opinion to further highlight the Hollywood problem.

And there is a Hollywood problem. The industry in that town was unfortunately built on the likes of what Harvey Weinstein practiced in. Harvey didn't invent the sleazy wheel, he was just one of its biggest spinners in the modern day. At this stage, such behaviour has been long normalised and is now just 'part of the game'.

Moving pictures and their commercialisation were a great thing. But this was also something which gave great power to a few individuals over the hordes of hopefuls who wanted to be in these moving pictures. 100 years later, we have the world coming together on social media to out the likes of predators like Harvey Weinstein and wannabes like Harry Knowles. To shine a light on the horrific possibilities which linger with Digital Network and that whole crew (watch the documentary An Open Secret for more on that) and we're starting to see that this Silver Screen is made up of some very dark fabric indeed.

Hollywood and the American film industry have produced some amazing stories onscreen, some genuinely awe-inspiring experiences over its lifetime. However, the millions of (mostly young) people's real lives who were exploited, damaged and/or ruined in the process of producing this 'magic' and driving the industry is the ultimate story itself. One which deserves far more attention, and these latest developments are a start.

Ulysses Gaze

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Apparently 3 more people are about to exposed as abusers - dan Schneider, the Nickelodeon producer that everyone knows about, Bryan singer and a "billionaire Mogul"

If the rumours about Schneider are true, he deserves to be boiled in oil....

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Venom wrote: »

The actress in that clip claims its taken completely out of context.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anne-marie-losique-says-her-ben-affleck-interview-is-being-taken-context-1047745

"The Canadian TV personality, a singer and owner of Vanessa Media, told The Hollywood Reporter that the interview was an act. "This was for the camera," she said. "You have to understand that we have done dozens and dozens of interviews like that. It was for a show I was producing, so I was not at all a victim. When the cameras rolled, we would start to do that game. As soon as it stopped rolling, there was none of that. He never touched me in any improper way. He was very respectful, I must say."

server down wrote: »

Well then, shame on whoever posted it as real news.

I posted the original video, and I'll admit I messed up the video links. I had assumed that was the video people were referring to when they were talking about Affleck groping a reporter.

The first video in now a confirmed spoof/joke between the two, and I'm happy to clarify that I was wrong. In fact, the video showing the REAL groping was this one, and Affleck has since apologised for the incident:

For anyone interested in the rumours and scandal, there is a website below that lists various celebrities and their allegations. Some of the allegations are sexual, others involve physical abuse i.e. Charlie Sheen, Mickey Rourke etc.

I would stress that some of the accusations are merely that; accusations.
Some are absolutely historically proven, but it is important to remember that paper doesn't refuse ink either.
So use your own discretion and do your research, unless you want to end up looking like an idiot like I did above.

https://www.lipstickalley.com/threads/brad-pitt-at-26-with-his-underaged-teen-girlfriends.577453/



In the meantime, Kevin Spacey is the subject of persistent rumours regarding aggressive, sleazy sexual behaviour towards other men.



Gawker has a list of confidential emails from random people who have allegedly been harassed by Spacey:
http://defamer.gawker.com/people-keep-telling-us-about-kevin-spacey-s-aggressive-1686507320

Penn

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

In the meantime, Kevin Spacey is the subject of persistent rumours regarding aggressive, sleazy sexual behaviour towards other men.

I only started hearing about that when news of Weinstein first broke.

sbsquarepants

I have two words for you

Vigilant Citizen

He's bat shít crazy mind - but he's on to something. The whole world of showbiz is rotten to the core. Great website to pass an hour or 2.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Penn wrote: »

I only started hearing about that when news of Weinstein first broke.

Yes the rumours about Spacey seem to be very credible, the same with John Travolta it would appear.


On another note, it makes you wonder if our own former child star Saoirse Ronan is being protected properly in Hollywood? God knows what sort of weirdos she has been working with...

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

The Daily Mail is reporting that the FBI has opened an investigation into Harvey Weinstein:

The FBI has opened an investigation into Harvey Weinstein, DailyMail.com has exclusively learned.

DailyMail.com understands the move came at the behest of the Department of Justice, run by Donald Trump's Attorney General Jeff Sessions, which instructed the bureau to investigate the mounting allegations leveled at the movie mogul.

While it is unknown whether the DOJ order came directly from Sessions, the move is likely to be seen in a political light given Weinstein's friendship with Trump foe Hillary Clinton.

The move by the DOJ came amid rumors that Weinstein was planning on heading to Europe for sex rehab – leading to fears of a Roman Polanski-style situation where he dodges prosecution in the U.S.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4971192/FBI-Harvey-Weinstein-probe-ordered-Trump-Justice-Dept.html

Interesting...Weinstein was originally planning to fly to Europe for sex addiction treatment, but changed to Arizona at the last minute. Maybe he was added to a no-fly list?

It will be interesting to see if Harvey will try to cut a deal in exchange for naming names..

Furthermore, the Police were called to Weinstein's home following concerns that he might be suicidal: https://www.tmz.com/2017/10/11/harvey-weinstein-leaving-for-rehab-talks-to-paparazzi-not-doing-okay/?adid=sidebarwidget-most-popular

silverharp

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

If the rumours about Schneider are true, he deserves to be boiled in oil....

has anyone in the business said anything? he seems like an easy target because he isn't a good looking guy but he gets to work with starlets

Pol seem to think so but they aint reliable

https://twitter.com/polNewsInfinity/status/918317851638943745

optogirl

funny now these creeps only need counselling when they're caught. He didn't realise he was a sex pest, despite numerous payouts and women explaining to him that they were uncomfortable with his behaviour? Now that the wider media have gotten hold of it though he realises he has a problem that needs to be addressed. He's a criminal but 'oh I'm sorry, I'll talk to a therapist' is supposed to cut it. Fook him.

Wibbs

Penn wrote: »

I only started hearing about that when news of Weinstein first broke.

That's been a strong rumour in the business for years. I think now what's happening is because of the focus on Harvey and Hollywood in general, all these other threads are starting to unravel. That bloke from Dawsons Creek is reporting of harassment from older TV execs.

valoren

optogirl wrote: »

funny now these creeps only need counselling when they're caught. He didn't realise he was a sex pest, despite numerous payouts and women explaining to him that they were uncomfortable with his behaviour? Now that the wider media have gotten hold of it though he realises he has a problem that needs to be addressed. He's a criminal but 'oh I'm sorry, I'll talk to a therapist' is supposed to cut it. Fook him.

It's playing the victim. A reflex action for any bully held to account. A sexual bully in this case.

cnocbui

optogirl wrote: »

funny now these creeps only need counselling when they're caught. He didn't realise he was a sex pest, despite numerous payouts and women explaining to him that they were uncomfortable with his behaviour? Now that the wider media have gotten hold of it though he realises he has a problem that needs to be addressed. He's a criminal but 'oh I'm sorry, I'll talk to a therapist' is supposed to cut it. Fook him.

It has nothing to do with 'therapy' and everything to do with being able to tell a judge that you are trying to fix the problem so you can get a stay out of jail card. It's just a legal ploy; a leopard claiming they are seeing a dry cleaner once a week and so the spots should soon be gone, your honour.

tara73

Venom wrote: »

The actress in that clip claims its taken completely out of context.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/anne-marie-losique-says-her-ben-affleck-interview-is-being-taken-context-1047745

"The Canadian TV personality, a singer and owner of Vanessa Media, told The Hollywood Reporter that the interview was an act. "This was for the camera," she said. "You have to understand that we have done dozens and dozens of interviews like that. It was for a show I was producing, so I was not at all a victim. When the cameras rolled, we would start to do that game. As soon as it stopped rolling, there was none of that. He never touched me in any improper way. He was very respectful, I must say."

most probably not true. she's lying, either for money or because she doesn't want to be involved in all this media hype and a life ruining court battle.
everybody can see how uncomfortable she feels and how she's trying to wriggle herself out of this scumbag. it's not an act.

and for which show was this creepy stuff produced? a porn show? absolute BS.