Harvey Weinstein

[Legend83]

Unless I am being blind, no thread on this pervert?

Reckon he must be on suicide watch - his name is now mud in Hollywood, his own company fired him and now his wife has left him.

I find the accusations levelled at some of the female stars of not coming forward sooner because they were happy to be bank-rolled a little distateful.

[Legend83]

Shakermaker said:

I am surprised this hasn't come out sooner, now that I am reading about it.

Alison Owen (film producer) was on R4 yesterday and said Weinstein had agreed to accompany her to a private screening of In The Cut (she was simultaneously friends with Jane Campion and trying to get Weinstein to buy into a film) - she thought it was strange as he is such a busy man.

Apparently he was giddy with excitement then got angry with the bloke in the projector booth to "get to the bit where she gets her tits out". Then when the scenes with Meg Ryan nude came on she said he disappeared behind a curtain and basically w*nked off. He was about 10 feet away from her and she could here him grunting.

[Legend83]

techiedave said:

I don't know if this has been mentioned as to be blunt I don't want to wade back through several pages of well known posters choosing to belittle each other.

I do think that the press are now in the titillation phase of it all and are now skewering things to add in a Harvey angle
This caught my eye and it was clearly designed to:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/jenson-butto...

Inflammatory story and writing used to sell new book shocker.

[Legend83]

Cold said:

Surely "trying" once is enough provocation to sharpen the pitchforks and light the torches?

Indeed - how long before going in for the mis-read, hopeful kiss and being brushed off constitutes "assault"?

[Legend83]

Zod said:

This is a complex, worrying mess at the moment. If Fallon really did only put his hand on JHB's knee, then it's open season on just about any senior(ish) man who is not asexual. Apparently, many of the 40 Tory MPs on the list are in consensual relationships with the people towards whom they supposedly behaved inappropriately. Many (most?) relationships begin in ways that if they did not become consensual relationships could be portrayed as inappropriate.

It's not even just men. There was a female partner at my old firm who would only take female trainees and was known for the sort of thing that various male partners also did at the time. My wife had a female banker try it on with her when she was on secondment at a US investment bank.

In short, only those without sexual feelings will be immune if this hysteria carries on towards its logical conclusion. That will also mean that, being lumped in with people whose behaviour is normal, will mean that the true menaces do not receive the opprobrium they deserve.

Couldn't agree more.

[Legend83]

Lord Marylebone said:

You think putting your hand on someone's knee at work is appropriate?

I'll give you some free advice: It isn't appropriate.

It's not that black and white though is it? And this is why we are seeing this issue of women being projected to about how they should feel.

There is sufficient difference between a gropey old man drunkenly chancing his arm and a guy who has built a relationship with a colleague to the extent that at the Christmas party he might, rightly or wrongly attempt some low-level physical affection (hell, the counterparty might be disappointed if he didn't make a move!), that it is still a grey area.

I agree with a lady I heard on R4 this morning who suggested that the outrage at every indiscretion is masking the true horrific "crimes" and that the outrage should be scaled based on perceived seriousness e.g. a lewd text (which is all over the media this morning) is basically nothing compared to actual physical rape.

[Legend83]

Lord Marylebone said:

This isn't directed at you Mark, but I often wonder if those protesting so much about women coming out with complaints, are the sort who are thinking "Crap. Ive done some of these things. Smutty jokey comments, touching people's legs, being a bit inappropriate at the Christmas party" and so on.

Quite probably - and for every 1 that had genuine creepy, perverted undertones and intentions, there will be 100 that assumed it was innocent banter.

The point is, which should come under more scrutiny?

[Legend83]

BMWBen said:

The thing is... it's not really a grey area. There is nuance, but it's not grey. If you've been getting on well at a personal level with a colleague and have been flirting, it's not the same as sidling up to someone and touching them inappropriately on the grounds that you're a powerful company director and therefore all women are automatically wet for you.

If you have misinterpreted the flirting and you're a normal well adjusted person, then when your colleague expresses her horror at your clumsy move you would be mortified and apologise profusely for reading things the wrong way.

In none of these "minor" instances has the accused said "yes, I remember that incident, I misread the situation and when I discovered that I had caused offence I apologised immediately and sincerely". I wonder why? Perhaps it's because it was the second type of incident and not the first.

I totally agree, and that was my point - those "types" of incident are at risk of becoming blurred and we end up in a situation where there is so much outrage that the "clumsy move", as you put it, becomes just as fair game for accusations of "inappropriate behaviour".