Harvey Weinstein



I feel there is a difference.

People failing to spread dark rumours about a film producer should not exempt them from being allowed to give their opinion on proven, public admissions of molestation from a person seeking public office, especially an extremely high office. I think it hugely stretches the imagination to see them as the same.

What rumours? Weinstein is guilty as was Polanski.

This is exactly why I take no notice of these Hollywood types when they speak about politics and social issues. Bunch of hypocrites.

George Clooney, Hillary Clinton, Meryl Streep etc going on about women's rights etc while at the same time cosying up to sexual predators like Weinstein (and there will be plenty more like him in Hollywood). Matt Damon and Russell Crowe putting pressure on a journalist to kill a story about Weinstein over a decade ago, the New York Times pulling a story on him because his company are one of their biggest advertisers, the (((creator of SNL))) saying they didn't make jokes about (((Weinstein))) on the latest episode because he's from New York despite them slating Trump every week who is also from New York...doesn't take a genius to work out the real reason.

Hollywood and the media over there are completely rigged by mostly the same people, that's why I don't believe a word from MSM. Absolute hypocrites and degenerates.

Just rumours according to @MattyM 09/109 so it's not a fair comparison.
 
What rumours? Weinstein is guilty as was Polanski.



Just rumours according to @MattyM 09/109 so it's not a fair comparison.


Yes, NOW we know that and NOW the very people you are whinging about ARE speaking out about it. Now its relatively substantiated. Had they spoken out before they would have been repeating unsubstantiated rumour. The same as they didnt publicly attack Trump until that was relatively substantiated too.
 
Yes, NOW we know that and NOW the very people you are whinging about ARE speaking out about it. Now its relatively substantiated. Had they spoken out before they would have been repeating unsubstantiated rumour. The same as they didnt publicly attack Trump until that was relatively substantiated too.

Roman Polanski raping a child isn’t a rumour.
 
Roman Polanski raping a child isn’t a rumour.

Your assertion was

"Funny how loads of the Hollywood luvvies bleat on about Trump yet stuff like this is going on and loads seem to know about it but say nothing."

My comments were pointing out that in the case of Trump they were "bleating on" about something that he had admitted to on camera, while the "knowing stuff was going on" is a completely different situation altogether.

In fact they didnt "know stuff was going on" they were aware of many rumours and reputations, it is only recently that the rumours have been substantiated and those luvvies started "bleating on" about that too. Its in the open, its not legally actionable and speaking about it isnt going to prejudice any legal proceedings in either direction. Its only now that you can really draw any parallel between this situation and the trump situation and everyone is appalled.

That's all I said, your trying to reframe my post to indicate I considered the whole thing just a rumour was obviously daft, as is throwing in another unrelated nugget about Roman Polanski.
 
Talking about something and doing it are two different things, Fatty Weinstein actually did it yet Meryl Streep doesn't seem as eager to condemn him as she did The Donald.

Interestingly Emma Thompson tore a strip off Weinstein and threatened to leave when he upset another actress. Good on her.
He said Hayley Atwell was a fat pig. The lass is as fit as fuck. Dumb bastard.
 
Your assertion was

"Funny how loads of the Hollywood luvvies bleat on about Trump yet stuff like this is going on and loads seem to know about it but say nothing."

My comments were pointing out that in the case of Trump they were "bleating on" about something that he had admitted to on camera, while the "knowing stuff was going on" is a completely different situation altogether.

In fact they didnt "know stuff was going on" they were aware of many rumours and reputations, it is only recently that the rumours have been substantiated and those luvvies started "bleating on" about that too. Its in the open, its not legally actionable and speaking about it isnt going to prejudice any legal proceedings in either direction. Its only now that you can really draw any parallel between this situation and the trump situation and everyone is appalled.

That's all I said, your trying to reframe my post to indicate I considered the whole thing just a rumour was obviously daft, as is throwing in another unrelated nugget about Roman Polanski.

I’ve already posted earlier in the thread people are coming out now saying it was common knowledge Weinstein was a ‘predator’. Damon and Clooney stopping stories being printed etc.

People knew what this bloke was like and said nothing.
 
I’ve already posted earlier in the thread people are coming out now saying it was common knowledge Weinstein was a ‘predator’. Damon and Clooney stopping stories being printed etc.

People knew what this bloke was like and said nothing.

What should they have done? Prepared press conferences and said they had heard the this fella was a pervert and raped actresses? Hell having that in the public, apart from the legal issues for the people shouting it, would mean that if someone did take the twat to court his lawyers would have been able to get any second hand testimony ruled as hearsay and barred from admission.

I'm not sure how you can see people not bringing an at the time unsubstantiated rumour or reputation to public attention as comparable to them responding to a presidential candidates own admission of molestation unless there is a different agenda at work.
 
What should they have done? Prepared press conferences and said they had heard the this fella was a pervert and raped actresses? Hell having that in the public, apart from the legal issues for the people shouting it, would mean that if someone did take the twat to court his lawyers would have been able to get any second hand testimony ruled as hearsay and barred from admission.

I'm not sure how you can see people not bringing an at the time unsubstantiated rumour or reputation to public attention as comparable to them responding to a presidential candidates own admission of molestation unless there is a different agenda at work.

Not calling him a god would be a start.
 
I imagine this is rife across the entertainment industry. Photographer Terry Richardson faced loads of accusations of sexual abuse, to name one.

A foot on the ladder for aspiring models and actresses in return for sex. A bribe at best, sexual assault or even rape at worst.
It's wrong, but it will be massively prevalent.
 

Back
Top