Sassy Colin
Death or the gladioli!
I can only assume the implication is that women are all gold diggers anyway, and are happy to prostitute themselves when it suits them but cry foul when it doesn't.
I can only assume the implication is that women are all gold diggers anyway, and are happy to prostitute themselves when it suits them but cry foul when it doesn't.
OK then but in that case what has his wife actually got to do with it? If the actions of one woman dont have implications for the motives of another why are you bringing these two wives into it at all?
Im sure its more a than b but in practice the two probably go together. Someone in that situation faces two options: a protracted battle against someone with almost limitless resources, who will drag your name through the mud, dig up every embarrassing secret you have that can be used to make you look "loose" or like you were "asking for it", or otherwise unreliable - like any former depression or use of drugs etc; go after family members as a way to pressure you to drop the case; and use their connections to ensure you never work in Hollywood again. Or, option 2, you take $100,000. Or $1m. Or whatever it is. Hard to blame someone for taking the easy way out if those were the options.Yeah, but someone needs to report them first eh? They don't just randomly investigate people without reason. And also the legal system has to hold up it's end. And that includes the plaintiffs.
How many times did Weisntein get taken to court only to settle outside of it? 6-7 was it? Which means one of two things:
a) Plaintiffs felt it was a case they wouldn't win or it would drag too long and thus opted to settle for damages. Or...
b) They were happy to take a huge payment and keep quiet thus allowing this predator to continue his nasty work.
I'm guessing here, but most cases must be falling under a). No one wants to be involved in lengthy litigation battle especially against someone with a lot more wealth and influence. Which is a problem of the legal system and a reason why people in Weinstein's position feel they are above the law. The b) category is just sad.
I can only assume the implication is that women are all gold diggers anyway, and are happy to prostitute themselves when it suits them but cry foul when it doesn't.
Im sure its more a than b but in practice the two probably go together. Someone in that situation faces two options: a protracted battle against someone with almost limitless resources, who will drag your name through the mud, dig up every embarrassing secret you have that can be used to make you look "loose" or like you were "asking for it", or otherwise unreliable - like any former depression or use of drugs etc; go after family members as a way to pressure you to drop the case; and use their connections to ensure you never work in Hollywood again. Or, option 2, you take $100,000. Or $1m. Or whatever it is. Hard to blame someone for taking the easy way out if those were the options.
You've answered your own question here.Yeah, but someone needs to report them first eh? They don't just randomly investigate people without reason. And also the legal system has to hold up it's end. And that includes the plaintiffs.
How many times did Weinstein get taken to court only to settle outside of it? 6-7 was it? Which means one of two things:
a) Plaintiffs felt it was a case they wouldn't win or it would drag too long and thus opted to settle for damages. Or...
b) They were happy to take a huge payment and keep quiet thus allowing this predator to continue his nasty work.
I'm guessing here, but most cases must be falling under a). No one wants to be involved in lengthy litigation battle especially against someone with a lot more wealth and influence. Which is a problem of the legal system and a reason why people in Weinstein's position feel they are above the law. The b) category is just sad.
Are you being facetious Colin? He has been reported previously, hence the hush money.How, without an allegation in the first place.
You've answered your own question here.
He was evidently reported for sexual assault in the past, given the settlements. This often transpires when sexual predators are caught. Take Jimmy Saville, who was reported to multiple police departments without facing any charges whatsoever. "Why didn't the victims speak up?" should really be replaced with "why did no one listen?"But gave a different answer to you.
Yes, I think that point does stand.Right, but the point stands it's not the job of the police alone to stop Weinstein. It takes a victim to file a report, the police to investigate and file charges, a judge and jury to stay impartial and a plaintiff that has, metaphorically speaking, the balls to stick their neck out and see it through to the end.
That, and, you know, a sex pest.Expecting the police to actively hunt down sex pests is a fantasy, given that such behaviour is to be found to some degree everywhere. If a complaint is made they investigate, but since resources are limited they have to make some preliminary judgements about credibility, likelihood of a conviction etc., and, of course, no one should end up in court based on an unsubstantiated accusation made by a single other individual.
The police are not to blame. In this case, a selfish culture of compliance and complicity is to blame.
That, and, you know, a sex pest.
Without denying that women in positions of power can be absolute assholes too: I expect the main points here rather to be a) changing the social climate in Hollywood by dissolving a deeply encrusted tradition of alpha-male dominance, and b) differences in male/female socialisation when it comes to sexual aggression.
Don't really have a formed opinion on this, but I'm sure it's not as stupid as you assume.
No, I didn't. Why do you ask?Did you watch tonights Newsnight and the men are all bestial comment by the man they had on ?
Mind-blowing sexist shite, unchecked and pretty outrageous except now it isn't.
No, I didn't. Why do you ask?
I was merely stating my view on the final question in your post. I thought I was rather polite, too.Because you were kind of dismissive and if you had watched it, it might give you pause.
I was merely stating my view on the final question in your post. I thought I was rather polite, too.
Okay, in that sense I'm pretty sure I'll continue to be dismissive of what appears to be your point. At the moment I don't really have much to add to what I've written in that post.Your manners where impeccable my friend. I just don't agree with your evaluation.
Cosby and Polanski still members....
You aren't far wrong in this instance. Excesses, idolisation of youth and beauty, dodgy financial practices and of course, crimes.Hollywood: America's moral conscience.
Damn, the guy didn't hold back did he?
I love it when people cherry pick bollocks out of religous texts. This is nothing new and is more inline with Hollywoods rich history of rich older men in positions of power taking advantage of poorer young women to further their careers. The sexist attitude in film making is prevalent throughout even down to crew level.How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sexual abuse scandals
Harvey Weinstein is just another case of a powerful man abusing women because we live in a society that lets him get away with it, but we can change that
- Weinstein is a symptom of the greater disease of arrogance, unaccountability and societal apathy Getty
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...xual-assault-rape-womens-rights-a8001521.html
How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sexual abuse scandals
Harvey Weinstein is just another case of a powerful man abusing women because we live in a society that lets him get away with it, but we can change that
- Weinstein is a symptom of the greater disease of arrogance, unaccountability and societal apathy Getty
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...xual-assault-rape-womens-rights-a8001521.html