Harvey Weinstein

Tex said:
Careful marra.
These are pretty much the same two points I was trying to make a lot earlier in the thread and they didn’t go down too well with some.
Click to expand...
I know it’s me you were referring to. Can you not see that attitudes like that are one of the reasons victims find it hard to come forward? You’ve been raped. You’re in a state of shock. You’re worried about disease and pregnancy. But you know from the way you’ve seen people talk about other victims that if you speak out, you may be treated with huge suspicion, even be suspected - bizarrely, but the evidence is on this thread - of being some kind of prostitute.

Tex said:
Fair comment Janie.
Would these be damages awarded in a criminal or a civil court?
And in either case, is the survivor still allowed to out their attacker, or are damages awarded on condition that the survivor must keep schtum about his/her attacker?
Click to expand...
From what I can make out these are legally negotiated settlement agreements, agreed on legal advice. There is no obligation to accept a confidentiality clause, but perps will want one and won’t pay otherwise, they’d rather take their chance in court. The legal advice to the victims will have been “its a good offer, as much as you’d get in damages, but you get it now not in two years. You avoid litigation risk, and you also avoid the perp’s lawyers doing everything they can, in open court, to prove you are a slag”. What would you do? We’d all like to think we’d be the hero and not take the deal, but I have to look at myself: I’m a decent, principled, courageous person who has had to speak truth unto power a couple of times in my career, with resultant effects on my career. And I didn’t speak out for years.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Didn't realise how many films he had been involved in

Shame some of the big hitter actresses didn't feel able to spill the beans to the authorities he's ago
 
janiep said:
I know it’s me you were referring to. Can you not see that attitudes like that are one of the reasons victims find it hard to come forward? You’ve been raped. You’re in a state of shock. You’re worried about disease and pregnancy. But you know from the way you’ve seen people talk about other victims that if you speak out, you may be treated with huge suspicion, even be suspected - bizarrely, but the evidence is on this thread - of being some kind of prostitute.


From what I can make out these are legally negotiated settlement agreements, agreed on legal advice. There is no obligation to accept a confidentiality clause, but perps will want one and won’t pay otherwise, they’d rather take their chance in court. The legal advice to the victims will have been “its a good offer, as much as you’d get in damages, but you get it now not in two years. You avoid litigation risk, and you also avoid the perp’s lawyers doing everything they can, in open court, to prove you are a slag”. What would you do? We’d all like to think we’d be the hero and not take the deal, but I have to look at myself: I’m a decent, principled, courageous person who has had to speak truth unto power a couple of times in my career, with resultant effects on my career. And I didn’t speak out for years.
Click to expand...


Good post.

Paragraph 1. No I’m not referring to you specifically, just trying to keep an aspect of this discussion open to the fact that, as I keep saying, it’s an enormously complex issue and beyond the deserved castigation of anyone guilty of rape or sexual assault etc. there are a lot more elements to these situations. I re-state the example of Jane Fonda, who took enormous risks to her personal safety as well as her career when she advocated the North Vietnam cause during the Vietnam War. She’s now an icon of Hollywood, hugely wealthy and one would expect not at risk of personal, career or monetary ruin by speaking her mind and yet admits that she knew about Harvey Wankstain (yes, thank you!) a year ago and TO HER SHAME said nothing. I have to wonder why?

Paragraph 2. I’m not trying to make any trenchant point in asking that, I’m curious to know more and your
Answer has shed some light on that so thanks!

And while some readers might object to my posts in this thread or even judge me negatively there’s an interesting and enlightening discussion to be had here. You obviously have a vested interest and provide some personal and heartfelt perspective that may bias your input but still provides a profound value in its perspective that most of us are naive to.

I also think that while sexual assault is gruesome in any form by its very nature, the fact that these people in the current news story are priveleged and enormously wealthy adds another layer of complexity. Shag Harvey on his casting couch and the door is open to a life of unbelievable wealth, fame and fantasy. Accuse him of being a pervy predator and it’s back to being a check out girl at Walmart and playing summer stock in the drama club. How can we ordinary Joes and Jills assimilate that kind of scenario? Obviously that’s a crass illustration but it’s how some ‘mere mortals’ in the peanut gallery view things. Just because the accusers are rich some people think they don’t deserve a fair crack of Justice, same way I read on here people saying ‘saw a bloke in a Ferrari get pulled over - serves him right the rich twat!’
 
What are people's opinions regarding the reports that apparently many many people in the profession knew all about his behaviour, many had heard stories, some had even told others about their experiences and one actor (can't remember who) even made a 'joke' / remark about it during an awards ceremony - which most of the people in the room recognised/ got?

I totally get that a less powerful victim will be anxious about reporting events of this nature and that he was a very powerful individual - albeit his power took a very rapid tumble once a couple or three people actually reported him - but his behaviour would appear to have been an 'open secret' amongst people who themselves are not without influence and credence. How can that be? The only explanation I can come up with is industry wide tacit acceptance.
 
Tex said:
Good post.

Paragraph 1. No I’m not referring to you specifically, just trying to keep an aspect of this discussion open to the fact that, as I keep saying, it’s an enormously complex issue and beyond the deserved castigation of anyone guilty of rape or sexual assault etc. there are a lot more elements to these situations. I re-state the example of Jane Fonda, who took enormous risks to her personal safety as well as her career when she advocated the North Vietnam cause during the Vietnam War. She’s now an icon of Hollywood, hugely wealthy and one would expect not at risk of personal, career or monetary ruin by speaking her mind and yet admits that she knew about Harvey Wankstain (yes, thank you!) a year ago and TO HER SHAME said nothing. I have to wonder why?

Paragraph 2. I’m not trying to make any trenchant point in asking that, I’m curious to know more and your
Answer has shed some light on that so thanks!

And while some readers might object to my posts in this thread or even judge me negatively there’s an interesting and enlightening discussion to be had here. You obviously have a vested interest and provide some personal and heartfelt perspective that may bias your input but still provides a profound value in its perspective that most of us are naive to.

I also think that while sexual assault is gruesome in any form by its very nature, the fact that these people in the current news story are priveleged and enormously wealthy adds another layer of complexity. Shag Harvey on his casting couch and the door is open to a life of unbelievable wealth, fame and fantasy. Accuse him of being a pervy predator and it’s back to being a check out girl at Walmart and playing summer stock in the drama club. How can we ordinary Joes and Jills assimilate that kind of scenario? Obviously that’s a crass illustration but it’s how some ‘mere mortals’ in the peanut gallery view things. Just because the accusers are rich some people think they don’t deserve a fair crack of Justice, same way I read on here people saying ‘saw a bloke in a Ferrari get pulled over - serves him right the rich twat!’
Click to expand...
A considered post, just one quick reply. I don’t think it’s right to single out Jane Fonda as you’ve done. The board of his company, including his own brother, knew since at least 2015 and did nothing. @George Kaplan gets it right - there was institutional wilful blindness, many no doubt had the attitude that they were somehow “asking for it” (which is what in effect you are saying).
 
janiep said:
A considered post, just one quick reply. I don’t think it’s right to single out Jane Fonda as you’ve done. The board of his company, including his own brother, knew since at least 2015 and did nothing. @George Kaplan gets it right - there was institutional wilful blindness, many no doubt had the attitude that they were somehow “asking for it” (which is what in effect you are saying).
Click to expand...

I’m only mentioning Fonda as a prominent person who seemingly could have been more proactive in bringing this to light sooner. I’m sure there were plenty others. George Kaplan made a good post, I agree.

Are you concluding that I’m one of those claiming ‘they were asking for it’ or are you stating that this is the problem that those in the know who said nowt reckon the survivors were ‘asking for it’. I hope it’s not the former as this is fundamentally NOT what I believe and have tried to word my posts to state this.

PS @George Kaplan it was when Seth ‘Family Guy’ McFarlane was hosting the oscars. He read out the list of best actress nominees and said ‘congratulations to you all, you no longer have to pretend to be nice to Harvey Wankstain’.

That was in March 2013 IIRC.
 
Last edited:
Tex said:
PS @George Kaplan it was when Seth ‘Family Guy’ McFarlane was hosting the oscars. He read out the list of best actress nominees and said ‘congratulations to you all, you no longer have to pretend to be nice to Harvey Wankstain’.

That was in March 2013 IIRC.
Click to expand...

Yes I recall now. I don't recall the name of the actress who told him about her experiences with Weinstein but swore him to secrecy.

There was quite another actor who was tweeting support for the actresses who'd told their stories and was told to 'fuck off' on twitter by one of the actresses - who reported that she'd told him all about it at the time.

So some people knew and were talking to each other about it.

Bloke on radio 4 this morning was talking about how he'd felt the need to warn Weinstein about his behaviour and be careful about how he did business with him. But he said it was in the context of bullying behaviour. The sex allegations were news to him, ...he said. But when pressed he said that an agent would never arrange a solo face-to-face meeting between a producer and an actress. here would be casting directors, directors, scriptwriters and other minions and associates present. He only supposed that when the meetings occurred from whence the allegations of impropriety arose, the Weinstein entourage and support personnel left the room.

I've also read a tale from another actress (I'm obviously crap at names because I don't recall who) who reported that she was driven by his assistants to a hotel for a drink and they slowly departed one by one to leave them alone in his room where he propositioned and assaulted her.

Tacit acceptance from some and downright collusion and conspiracy from some others if this is true
 
George Kaplan said:
Yes I recall now. I don't recall the name of the actress who told him about her experiences with Weinstein but swore him to secrecy.

There was quite another actor who was tweeting support for the actresses who'd told their stories and was told to 'fuck off' on twitter by one of the actresses - who reported that she'd told him all about it at the time.

So some people knew and were talking to each other about it.

Bloke on radio 4 this morning was talking about how he'd felt the need to warn Weinstein about his behaviour and be careful about how he did business with him. But he said it was in the context of bullying behaviour. The sex allegations were news to him, ...he said. But when pressed he said that an agent would never arrange a solo face-to-face meeting between a producer and an actress. here would be casting directors, directors, scriptwriters and other minions and associates present. He only supposed that when the meetings occurred from whence the allegations of impropriety arose, the Weinstein entourage and support personnel left the room.

I've also read a tale from another actress (I'm obviously crap at names because I don't recall who) who reported that she was driven by his assistants to a hotel for a drink and they slowly departed one by one to leave them alone in his room where he propositioned and assaulted her.

Tacit acceptance from some and downright collusion and conspiracy from some others if this is true
Click to expand...
Re the bullying: it was reported last week (Radio 4 PM programme) that some time ago Peter Capaldi said he based Tucker in part at least on Weinstein. My guess is that he did bully, and again there was a conspiracy of silence around it.

Edit:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George Kaplan said:
Yes I recall now. I don't recall the name of the actress who told him about her experiences with Weinstein but swore him to secrecy.

There was quite another actor who was tweeting support for the actresses who'd told their stories and was told to 'fuck off' on twitter by one of the actresses - who reported that she'd told him all about it at the time.

So some people knew and were talking to each other about it.

Bloke on radio 4 this morning was talking about how he'd felt the need to warn Weinstein about his behaviour and be careful about how he did business with him. But he said it was in the context of bullying behaviour. The sex allegations were news to him, ...he said. But when pressed he said that an agent would never arrange a solo face-to-face meeting between a producer and an actress. here would be casting directors, directors, scriptwriters and other minions and associates present. He only supposed that when the meetings occurred from whence the allegations of impropriety arose, the Weinstein entourage and support personnel left the room.

I've also read a tale from another actress (I'm obviously crap at names because I don't recall who) who reported that she was driven by his assistants to a hotel for a drink and they slowly departed one by one to leave them alone in his room where he propositioned and assaulted her.

Tacit acceptance from some and downright collusion and conspiracy from some others if this is true
Click to expand...

Last paragraph spot on. There’s no way HW could operate the way he has done with so many people for so long without what you say happening.

janiep said:
Re the bullying: it was reported last week (Radio 4 PM programme) that some time ago Peter Capaldi said he based Tucker in part at least on Weinstein. My guess is that he did bully, and again there was a conspiracy of silence around it.

Edit:
Click to expand...
Dunno who Tucker is but wasn’t there a character in ‘Entourage’ who is a big fat blowhard and all the lads are shit scared of him? Can’t remember his name in the show but I always took that to be Weinstein if not in name then certainly in proxy.
 
Last edited:
A bloke on the radio yesterday claimed this is all coming out now because Weinstein's career has waned. he no longer has the degree of influence he once held.
 

Back
Top