Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Harvey Weinstein (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33705508)

Mick 11-10-2017 15:27
Harvey Weinstein
 
Question:

Are those who knew about his alleged sexual conduct towards many female actors over the years and not speak out, complicit in keeping his sexual harassment allegations secret for years, and I am talking mainly about male actors, who knew, but said nothing?

Quote:
Harvey Weinstein's wife has announced she is leaving him following a series of sexual harassment claims made against the Hollywood mogul.

British fashion designer Georgina Chapman described her husband's behaviour as "unforgivable" and said "my heart breaks for all the women who have suffered tremendous pain".

It comes amid claims Weinstein raped three women and admitted groping a model in a recording obtained by The New Yorker magazine.
http://news.sky.com/story/harvey-wei...epens-11075467

Warning: Listen with caution, very disturbing audio of Weinstein up to perverted sexual conduct with female that is strongly not consenting to his advances


Damien 11-10-2017 15:37
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Seems like he had a lot of power over people who were worried he could ruin their careers. I also suspect many of those who knew only knew of part of the story and without the larger picture it wouldn't have been enough to bring him down. We've seen what happens before when women makes accusations, they in turn get accused of lying to win cash. You need a lot of testimony to make such an accusation stick and until someone investigates, as someone now has, then everyone is too afraid.

There could also be an element of the Saville about it too. People knew of the rumors without the accusations. It was clearly an open secret. Look at this joke:



Probably many more out there in Hollywood too. I mean Polański still gets jobs.

Kabaal 12-10-2017 17:12
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Apparently MacFarlane did that in the video above because Weinstein tried it on with one of his freinds :
Quote:
MacFarlane claims Jessica Barth -- who he's worked with on "Family Guy" and the "Ted" films -- confided in him in 2011 about Weinstein's attempted advances ... and it pissed off Seth so much, he ripped Weinstein at the Oscar noms event.

"I couldn't resist the opportunity to take a hard swing in his direction. Make no mistake, this came from a place of loathing and anger. There is nothing more abhorrent and indefensible than abuse of power such as this."
From the stories that are coming out Weinstein seems to be a bit delusional. He's wanting to go to 'sex rehab' then come back and get a second chance, as if a few months at something like that gives him a clean slate.

Mick 12-10-2017 20:49
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Apparently, News network NBC tried to quash this story....

Quote:
In mid-August, Ronan Farrow, an NBC News contributor, had secured an interview with a woman who was willing to appear on camera, in silhouette, her identity concealed, and say Harvey Weinstein had raped her, according to four people with close knowledge of the reporting. It was a pivotal moment in a testy, months-long process of reporting a story that had bedeviled a generation of media and Hollywood reporters.

Farrow had a lot of material already. In March, he had acquired a damning and much-coveted audio recording in which Weinstein admits to having groped an Italian model. He had interviews with former executives and assistants who’d worked closely with Weinstein who spoke about the culture of harassment and abuse he perpetrated. And now he had someone ready to accuse Weinstein of rape, on camera.

But at that moment Farrow was also caught in the pincers of an NBC News edict. He had been told by executives at NBC News that he didn’t have enough reporting to go on air with his Weinstein story, according to four sources, and he had been told by the network to stop reporting on it. NBC tried to put a stop to the interview with the woman accusing Weinstein of rape. The network insisted he not use an NBC News crew for the interview, and neither was he to mention his NBC News affiliation. And so that was how Ronan Farrow wound up paying out of his own pocket for a camera crew to film an interview.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0eb18af059685

I have no issue with freedom of the press to report on anything they choose, but to side step a major story of such allegations, I do have an issue with and again it is all about balance.

Stuart 13-10-2017 11:59
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 35919841)
Seems like he had a lot of power over people who were worried he could ruin their careers. I also suspect many of those who knew only knew of part of the story and without the larger picture it wouldn't have been enough to bring him down. We've seen what happens before when women makes accusations, they in turn get accused of lying to win cash. You need a lot of testimony to make such an accusation stick and until someone investigates, as someone now has, then everyone is too afraid.

There could also be an element of the Saville about it too. People knew of the rumors without the accusations. It was clearly an open secret. Look at this joke:



Probably many more out there in Hollywood too. I mean Polański still gets jobs.
That's the problem. And apparently Rosanna Arquette has blamed the fact she rejected his advances for her career faltering. She rejected his advances at around the time Pulp Fiction was released, and that *should* have boosted her career. All of a sudden, the job offers stopped.

As with Jimmy Saville, it was an open secret, but he made a lot of money for a lot of people. Some people are quite happy to forgive or forget most things if the money coming in is enough.

Regarding the actors involved, they had a choice. Risk the shame and emotional distress of abuse, possibly even rape, or risk having the career they have (in some cases) spent most of their lives building up destroyed because they said no.

I am not defending Weinstein, those who actively helped him, or those who were in a position to do something and merely turned a blind eye. In fact, I have nothing but contempt for them. He should have stopped, or have been stopped. It's useless wittering on about sex addiction now he has been caught. That's an excuse. That's so he can say "I'm ill, I'm seeking help" and hoping we forgive him before his career is totally destroyed. If he was ill, he should have sought treatment years ago.

Not that I believe he is a sex addict. If you are inferring to someone that their job hangs on performing certain favors to you, that's not a sexual thing. That is exerting power over them.

Oh, and blaming the victims because they didn't speak up earlier, that's not on.

Damien 13-10-2017 12:43
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35919987)
Apparently, News network NBC tried to quash this story....



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0eb18af059685

I have no issue with freedom of the press to report on anything they choose, but to side step a major story of such allegations, I do have an issue with and again it is all about balance.
Further stuff here: http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/nbc-...ed-1202586648/ Lots of recriminations going on.

---------- Post added at 12:43 ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35920041)
That's the problem. And apparently Rosanna Arquette has blamed the fact she rejected his advances for her career faltering. She rejected his advances at around the time Pulp Fiction was released, and that *should* have boosted her career. All of a sudden, the job offers stopped.

As with Jimmy Saville, it was an open secret, but he made a lot of money for a lot of people. Some people are quite happy to forgive or forget most things if the money coming in is enough.

Regarding the actors involved, they had a choice. Risk the shame and emotional distress of abuse, possibly even rape, or risk having the career they have (in some cases) spent most of their lives building up destroyed because they said no.

I am not defending Weinstein, those who actively helped him, or those who were in a position to do something and merely turned a blind eye. In fact, I have nothing but contempt for them. He should have stopped, or have been stopped. It's useless wittering on about sex addiction now he has been caught. That's an excuse. That's so he can say "I'm ill, I'm seeking help" and hoping we forgive him before his career is totally destroyed. If he was ill, he should have sought treatment years ago.

Not that I believe he is a sex addict. If you are inferring to someone that their job hangs on performing certain favors to you, that's not a sexual thing. That is exerting power over them.

Oh, and blaming the victims because they didn't speak up earlier, that's not on.
Weinstein is also alleged to have been very litigious so anyone making any public claim would have to be very careful and ready to go to court. Really any one person speaking out would have been risking a lot. It took 10 months of reporting, a great legal department, the testimony of several different people and a organisation ready to take the risk even with all they had to break the story.

You're right that people are being unfair in asking why any specific person didn't come out. Everyone knows part of the story, or just what happened to them, or the rumors they've heard. All of which doesn't amount to lot it isolation if you're going up against one of the most powerful people in your industry who also has lawyers he isn't afraid to use.

Again same with Saville. Everyone 'knew' but very few people actually knew and then even didn't know the extent. When that story first came out some people were saying the women were lying trying to get rich! You have to be very brave to make such allegations as it is, let alone when the person in question is famous and you can be publically attacked.

Maggy 13-10-2017 14:28
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
He's not a sex addict. He's a sexual predator.

Hom3r 13-10-2017 18:16
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
A question me and my mum want to know is "why are the famous women comeing out of the wood word now?"

ianch99 13-10-2017 18:23
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35920083)
A question me and my mum want to know is "why are the famous women comeing out of the wood word now?"
Evening drinks bit too strong? :beer: :)

heero_yuy 13-10-2017 18:25
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 35920083)
A question me and my mum want to know is "why are the famous women comeing out of the wood word now?"
Safety in numbers?

Whilst each victim thinks they're the only one they can be dominated or bribed into silence.

admars 13-10-2017 21:34
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
I guess a lot of them didn't want to harm their career any further. For example Rosanna Arquette, a lot of actors did very well out of Pulp Fiction, it helped John Travolta etc a lot, but her career didn't pick up, there is speculation why that may be :(

Also, at the time a lot would have been rumours, so "big name actress A" couldn't speak out without knowing for sure others would back up her story :(

Some victims unfortunately feel shame, think it's their own fault, when his is the monster, not them :(

Reminds me of Mike Tyson years ago, some of these celebs are probably so used to some people throwing themselves at them as they want to bang a celeb, they don't expect a refusal to their advances :(

Recently it emerged that Carrie Fisher gave Daisy Ridley advice to be wary of ppl who just want to "have sex with Princess Leia".

Jessica Hynes as well another example, always seemed strange the lads she worked with did so well in Hollywood, now we know why she was "stuck" here.

Some ppl want to gloat they had sex with a famous, some famouses like to add notches to their bedposts.

nomadking 14-10-2017 12:12
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Did he actually hamper any of their careers? Or was it just an idle threat?

Too much bleating "he harmed my career", when for the most part there was no career at that stage to harm.

Just because some others involved in a particular project went on to greater things is irrelevant. Heaven forbid it is because they are more talented. Others also involved in a project may not go to greater things, so what was the reason for them?

pip08456 14-10-2017 12:20
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35920138)
Did he actually hamper any of their careers? Or was it just an idle threat?

Too much bleating "he harmed my career", when for the most part there was no career at that stage to harm.

Just because some others involved in a particular project went on to greater things is irrelevant. Heaven forbid it is because they are more talented. Others also involved in a project may not go to greater things, so what was the reason for them?
He was a powerful figure in the industry and could have impacted their career. Never heard of the Hollywood casting couch? It's been going on for decades and he is just the tip of the iceberg. Expect more names to be exposed.

nomadking 14-10-2017 12:28
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35920141)
He was a powerful figure in the industry and could have impacted their career. Never heard of the Hollywood casting couch? It's been going on for decades and he is just the tip of the iceberg. Expect more names to be exposed.
"Could have" is meaningless. He just as easily "could have not bothered". To actively harm what little careers they had at the time, would have meant involving other people. Is there any sign of that happening? There is no automatic right to a stellar career based on one success that would likely be down to ability of others. Most of them are completely replaceable by others. They largely have no unique or intrinsic ability. They should stop whinging the nonsense about harmed careers.

papa smurf 14-10-2017 12:54
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
why did these people wait until they where famous and well off before complaining .

pip08456 14-10-2017 13:03
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35920143)
"Could have" is meaningless. He just as easily "could have not bothered". To actively harm what little careers they had at the time, would have meant involving other people. Is there any sign of that happening? There is no automatic right to a stellar career based on one success that would likely be down to ability of others. Most of them are completely replaceable by others. They largely have no unique or intrinsic ability. They should stop whinging the nonsense about harmed careers.
Power and influence goes a long way. Consider this.

Quote:
Imdb give Weinstein 331 credits as a producer, which is evidence of the enormous amount of influence he has accrued and the vast number of people he has worked with over the last four decades.
Other producers respect his opinion. Don't employ her would go a long way in Hollywood.

Producers are the ones who make the money available for films to be made they can easily be scared off by another producer who they believe to be more knowledgeable of the actor/actress. e.g. "don't invest in that film unless she/he is replaced, they'll cost you a fortune in delays as they are prima donnas!"

That is the reality of Hollywood.

nomadking 14-10-2017 13:19
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35920146)
Power and influence goes a long way. Consider this.



Other producers respect his opinion. Don't employ her would go a long way in Hollywood.

Producers are the ones who make the money available for films to be made they can easily be scared off by another producer who they believe to be more knowledgeable of the actor/actress. e.g. "don't invest in that film unless she/he is replaced, they'll cost you a fortune in delays as they are prima donnas!"

That is the reality of Hollywood.
So what. Still is a VERY LONG way from showing he actually carried out any "threats".

You agree with my point that it would involve other people. Has anybody actually come forward and said "he advised me not to employ her"? How could he have claimed "X is a prima donna", when X doesn't yet have a career?

It was have been more than a full-time job keeping track of everybody and supposedly sabotaging their non-existent careers.

pip08456 14-10-2017 13:35
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
You have your opinion, I have mine. I don't think we'll ever agree so no point in continuing this discussion.

Osem 25-10-2017 17:57
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
This thing is going to be huge I feel, far bigger than just Hollywood/entertainment. Today there's been stuff in the media about alleged sexual abuse within the House of Commons and European Parliament...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/476027...st-politician/

https://www.politico.eu/article/sexu...ts-own-demons/

Maybe this thread is going to need a change of title...

richard s 25-10-2017 19:17
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Harvey should have his name changed to Swinestein.

Osem 30-10-2017 08:09
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Hollywood star Kevin Spacey has made an apology after being accused of making a sexual advance toward a child actor.
Anthony Rapp, who was 14, said Spacey invited him to a party and seemed drunk when the alleged incident happened.
Spacey, who was 26, said: "I honestly do not remember the encounter... but if I did behave then as he describes I owe him the sincerest apology."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41799026

I can see a whole lot more like this and far worse coming out in the very near future.

Mick 30-10-2017 11:29
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
These actors and directors seem to think they are above redemption. Weinstein thinking his pervy tendencies is an illness that needs curing and Spacey making an half assed apology because he cannot remember if he did or didn’t have sex with a 14 year old boy but last time I heard, having sex with a child, is a crime.

Hugh 30-10-2017 12:32
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35922471)
These actors and directors seem to think they are above redemption. Weinstein thinking his pervy tendencies is an illness that needs curing and Spacey making an half assed apology because he cannot remember if he did or didn’t have sex with a 14 year old boy but last time I heard, having sex with a child, is a crime.
tbf, he is not accused of having sex with a 14 year old, but of making sexual advances.

Still disgusting and illegal, but not the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41799026

papa smurf 30-10-2017 12:40
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35922479)
tbf, he is not accused of having sex with a 14 year old, but of making sexual advances.

Still disgusting and illegal, but not the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41799026
why wait over 30 years to say something ??

nomadking 30-10-2017 12:52
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35922480)
why wait over 30 years to say something ??
1) He was only 14
2) It doesn't sound serious enough to have been a criminal offence
3) Why not aim that comment at all the other adults who didn't say anything when something more serious happened to them.

papa smurf 30-10-2017 12:55
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35920145)
why did these people wait until they where famous and well off before complaining .
like this you mean nomad

nomadking 30-10-2017 13:04
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35922483)
like this you mean nomad
But they didn't complain even when they had become rich and famous.

Gavin78 31-10-2017 02:23
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
I'm not sure I actually believe half of these alligations. How many actors have slept their way to big roles?

I'm not saying he isn't a pervert but how much of it is actually true I don't know. for one I can't believe all these big actors or not so big at the time wouldn't have said anything after all this time inc Rape.

Mick 31-10-2017 08:30
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
Netflix drops Kevin Spacey’s House of Cards.

denphone 31-10-2017 08:49
Re: Harvey Weinstein
 
From several reports it was suggested that the producers had already decided to end the series well before the allegations.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:33.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum