Oprah acted as a madam for Weinstein

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:55 am

Oprah Winfrey may believe that she's primed for a 2020 presidential run after her "empowering" Golden Globes speech heralding a new era in women's equality, free of abusive and manipulative entertainment industry mega-moguls. But when it comes to the most notorious offender among alleged Hollywood harassers — Harvey Weinstein — Oprah may have some explaining to do before she hits the campaign trail.

Like Meryl Streep, who also received flack for her longstanding relationship with the Miramax head — so longstanding, it seems impossible Streep was somehow excluded from hearing rumors of Harvey's misbehavior — Oprah has been close friends with Weinstein for decades, palling around with the producer at industry events and political fundraisers. She even co-produced "The Butler" with Weinstein, just a few short years ago.

And according to one of Weinstein's victims, Harvey was so close to Oprah, he used the relationship to seduce young actresses, taking them to parties where he could demonstrate his power by charming the daytime talk show host.

British actress Kadian Noble is one of several women suing Harvey Weinstein personally for what they say was predatory and harassing behavior. She claims Weinstein seduced her at a party where he introduced her to supermodels, and where Oprah was “swinging off his arm.”

“I thought, obviously, this man has something amazing in store for me. I felt completely played,” she said.

She says Weinstein found her again at a party in Cannes, where he invited her up to his hotel room to give her career advice. She says he touched her inappropriately, then forced her to perform sexual acts on him in the bathroom in front of a mirror.

After allegations against Weinstein surfaced, Oprah found herself in the cross-hairs, forced to explain how she'd worked with and supported Weinstein for years, while somehow failing to notice he'd been known to prey on young women. When she gave her statement, she, like Meryl Streep, threw the focus off of Weinstein and the pair's friendship, focusing instead on how Weinstein's "outing" was a "watershed moment" for women, and how the focus should be on the strength of his accusers, not on the depths of Harvey's depravity.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25532/flashback-harvey-weinstein-accuser-says-he-used-emily-zanotti?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=benshapiro

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:14 pm

Sooo...Weinstein was a prostitute?

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:Sooo...Weinstein was a prostitute?

ACTED as madam not was his madam

pay attention and stop letting your emotions control your reasoning

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:17 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Sooo...Weinstein was a prostitute?

ACTED as madam not was his madam

pay attention and stop letting your emotions control your reasoning

The guy doesn't read. He sees something and just starts typing.

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:23 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

ACTED as madam not was his madam

pay attention and stop letting your emotions control your reasoning

The guy doesn't read. He sees something and just starts typing.

Makes you wonder how many innocent people he sent down in his judge dredd days

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:32 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Maddog wrote:

The guy doesn't read. He sees something and just starts typing.

Makes you wonder how many innocent people he sent down in his judge dredd days

I'm a bit skeptical that he was ever a judge.

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Makes you wonder how many innocent people he sent down in his judge dredd days

I'm a bit skeptical that he was ever a judge.

I say that with a boat load of salt.

I'm not convinced he was a judge either, not convince his law degree extends be young watching things like Franklin and bash

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:44 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Sooo...Weinstein was a prostitute?

ACTED as madam not was his madam

pay attention and stop letting your emotions control your reasoning

Whose madam was she? How is it relevant to Weinstein?

by Original Quill Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:45 pm

Maddog wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Makes you wonder how many innocent people he sent down in his judge dredd days

I'm a bit skeptical that he was ever a judge.

I have never been a judge, nor claimed to be. I have arbitrated cases.

by Maddog Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I'm a bit skeptical that he was ever a judge.

I have never been a judge, nor claimed to be. I have arbitrated cases.

I don't believe a word you say. Wink

by Guest Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:08 pm

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:45 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

I have never been a judge, nor claimed to be. I have arbitrated cases.

I don't believe a word you say.

Haha...it's of no concern to me. I don't own that problem. Oprah acted as a madam for Weinstein 2190311264

by Guest Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:38 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I don't believe a word you say.

Haha...it's of no concern to me. I don't own that problem.

You do own it.

Its your lie after all

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:58 pm

You are describing your own state of mind, Russ. Nothing to do with me.

Now you titled this thread "Re: Oprah acted as a madam for Weinstein." If Weinstein has need of a madam, it can only mean that he is a prostitute.

Or, do you simply not know how to construct a sentence in English? All those verbs, gramitical exceptions and that strange syntax. A little of that Russo-Hun background creeping in, ya?

by Syl Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:14 pm

Disregarding the ridiculous OP title, I do wonder why Oprah has suddenly put herself into the spotlight as a spokesperson for the Hollywood women who have been sexually abused, put down, and treated like lesser beings.

The Weinstein scandal, which seems to have triggered her off, was apparently known by many insiders, just as Saville's behaviour was known here by many, for decades.

Oprah is one of the most powerful women in America, and has been for ages, she must have known women who were mistreated by him and others, she must have known people who knew a lot but kept quiet, she knew Weinstein very well herself.

She is certainly not one of the women afraid to speak out for fear she will be ostracised, or sacked, or laughed at.....odd that she is at the forefront now its fashionable to speak out.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:27 pm

Frankly Syl, I don't think Oprah did anything but give a speech among many that night. If her excellent public speaking skills put her in any spotlight, well...she's good. No fault in that.

As to what she knew, I have no idea. But I have to question when this cloud of 'Everyone knew...' descends on the whole community. I never heard about it before the story broke, tho I must say it sounds like he was a pathetic creep. I only live some 400-miles to the north of Hollywood.

by Syl Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:Frankly Syl, I don't think Oprah did anything but give a speech among many that night. If her excellent public speaking skills put her in any spotlight, well...she's good. No fault in that.

As to what she knew, I have no idea. But I have to question when this cloud of 'Everyone knew...' descends on the whole community. I never heard about it before the story broke, tho I must say it sounds like he was a pathetic creep. I only live some 400-miles to the north of Hollywood.

Her speech was brilliant Quill, no denying that, and there's no denying she will be listened to.
I just think its a pity that she didn't stand up and say the same thing years ago.

I think many people in the profession did know, how could they not? and I do think it has similarities with the Saville case here, which opened a huge can of worms for the BBC, where sexual abuse had been carrying on and known about by many for years.

Once the wall of silence has been broken its amazing how many people stand proud to condemn what happened, a little belatedly imo.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:09 pm

Putting aside what any one person knew, there is a lot of truth to the notion: It's an idea whose time has come. Whether its Pearl Harbor, or the 60's cultural revolution, something triggers a certain sentiment to wash over a population and go critical. It's difficult to criticize someone who doesn't wait until the "time has come" doctrine.

Without the 'time has come' criticality, people look around and see that no one cares. It's normalized. Haha ... Weinstein thinks he's such a cocksman!

Then, when an idea whose time has come, goes critical, everyone is all up in arms. Why didn’t people speak up? Well, no one would have listened.

There were thousands of victims, too, who didn't stand up and resist...or at least shout. Are they to be criticized? Unless the time is right, they won't be heard.

by Original Quill Wed Jan 10, 2018 7:17 pm

Incidentally, I'm a little wary of the 'me-too' women's movement currently washing over American society. I'm suspicious. How many of those women will turn around and vote for Trump next cycle?

It's not only, how broad is such a movement, but how deep is the conviction it leaves. Last time around, not only did those women know that Trump was a child rapist, but they had a female alternative in Hillary.

by Guest Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:You are describing your own state of mind, Russ. Nothing to do with me.

Now you titled this thread "Re: Oprah acted as a madam for Weinstein." If Weinstein has need of a madam, it can only mean that he is a prostitute.

Or, do you simply not know how to construct a sentence in English? All those verbs, gramitical exceptions and that strange syntax. A little of that Russo-Hun background creeping in, ya?

I think you might be confused about the role a madam plays

by Guest Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:Putting aside what any one person knew, there is a lot of truth to the notion: It's an idea whose time has come. Whether its Pearl Harbor, or the 60's cultural revolution, something triggers a certain sentiment to wash over a population and go critical. It's difficult to criticize someone who doesn't wait until the "time has come" doctrine.

Without the 'time has come' criticality, people look around and see that no one cares. It's normalized. Haha ... Weinstein thinks he's such a cocksman!

Then, when an idea whose time has come, goes critical, everyone is all up in arms. Why didn’t people speak up? Well, no one would have listened.

There were thousands of victims, too, who didn't stand up and resist...or at least shout. Are they to be criticized? Unless the time is right, they won't be heard.

Meryl streep didn't stand up and resist that's for sure

by veya_victaous Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:41 pm

I think previously many just saw it as part of the industry, casting couch jokes are so old they are cliché. A lot of the more open misconduct would have occurred behind closed doors. women like Oprah and Streep may have had an inkling but not really known.

by Maddog Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:42 pm

veya_victaous wrote:I think previously many just saw it as part of the industry, casting couch jokes are so old they are cliché. A lot of the more open misconduct would have occurred behind closed doors. women like Oprah and Streep may have had an inkling but not really known.

You don't think girls "talk"?

Do you think they are taking a shit the entire time they are in the bathroom together?

by Syl Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:43 pm

veya_victaous wrote:I think previously many just saw it as part of the industry, casting couch jokes are so old they are cliché. A lot of the more open misconduct would have occurred behind closed doors. women like Oprah and Streep may have had an inkling but not really known.

The casting couch existed, Marilyn Monroe spoke about it happening to her, but that was back in the day when homosexuality was illegal, men were at liberty to rape their wives with impunity and black people were often segregated from whites.

Times have changed, and to find out the casting couch is still making and breaking careers whilst others know and keep quiet....is sickening.

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:21 am

Maddog wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:I think previously many just saw it as part of the industry, casting couch jokes are so old they are cliché. A lot of the more open misconduct would have occurred behind closed doors. women like Oprah and Streep may have had an inkling but not really known.

You don't think girls "talk"?

Do you think they are taking a shit the entire time they are in the bathroom together?

do you think a young wannabe starlet is having Deep and Meaningful conversation with established older ladies like Oprah and Streep in the loos?

I think there is every chance that Oprah and Streep didn't know the extent of it.
and a vague suspicion is easily written off as gossip and part of the industry particularly If the Person behaves differently in your presence.

others said the same about CK Lewis, they heard rumours but they never saw anything and assumed some of it could exaggerated gossip.

by Maddog Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:29 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Maddog wrote:

You don't think girls "talk"?

Do you think they are taking a shit the entire time they are in the bathroom together?

do you think a young wannabe starlet is having Deep and Meaningful conversation with established older ladies like Oprah and Streep in the loos?

I think there is every chance that Oprah and Streep didn't know the extent of it.
and a vague suspicion is easily written off as gossip and part of the industry particularly If the Person behaves differently in your presence.

others said the same about CK Lewis, they heard rumours but they never saw anything and assumed some of it could exaggerated gossip.

It's been going on so long that many of Weinsteins victims were no longer wannabes.

You think it was some dark secret.

Fine by me.

by veya_victaous Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:52 am

no, I think it was so Cliché that many of the abused would have just accepted it and never really said anything (since it also implies they didn't get the role based on their acting)

Oprah progressed through a non standard channel, she was never the sexy young starlet and probably didn't experience it herself, it is entirely possible she never knew for sure or enough to make a big deal out of it.

If Weinstein had always been appropriate with her and they where friendly, then there is every chance that she would give him the benefit of the doubt over gossip, it is normal for people to judge someone on their own interaction with them over reports. how many abusers or even murderers get away with it for years cause they're friendly, helpful and/or respectable according to neighbours/colleagues.

by HoratioTarr Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:14 am

by HoratioTarr Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:18 am

Of course she knew. Everybody did, just as everyone knew about Jimmy Savile but nobody had the balls to come forwards, and those that did weren't listened to. This a woman with her finger on just about everyone's pulse, it's what she does. She's made a living from it.

by Guest Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:20 am

veya_victaous wrote:I think previously many just saw it as part of the industry, casting couch jokes are so old they are cliché. A lot of the more open misconduct would have occurred behind closed doors. women like Oprah and Streep may have had an inkling but not really known.

Having an inkling is knowing.

Maybe not the gory details of his rapes but they knew what he was and did nothing, not until it was time to enhance their careers

by 'Wolfie Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:39 am

smelly-bandit wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:I think previously many just saw it as part of the industry, casting couch jokes are so old they are cliché. A lot of the more open misconduct would have occurred behind closed doors. women like Oprah and Streep may have had an inkling but not really known.

Having an inkling is knowing.

Maybe not the gory details of his rapes but they knew what he was and did nothing, not until it was time to enhance their careers

Oprah acted as a madam for Weinstein 3489511464

"..enhance their careers." -- yet more daft SmellyKlutzBrain trashtalking...

Meryl Streep's career peaked a couple of decades ago;
Oprah has over $3 billion$ -- more money than she knows what to do with..

You really are getting desperate here, SmellyBum' !

by Syl Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:32 pm

HoratioTarr wrote:Of course she knew. Everybody did, just as everyone knew about Jimmy Savile but nobody had the balls to come forwards, and those that did weren't listened to. This a woman with her finger on just about everyone's pulse, it's what she does. She's made a living from it.

That is exactly my way of thinking.

by Guest Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:54 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Frankly Syl, I don't think Oprah did anything but give a speech among many that night. If her excellent public speaking skills put her in any spotlight, well...she's good. No fault in that.

As to what she knew, I have no idea. But I have to question when this cloud of 'Everyone knew...' descends on the whole community. I never heard about it before the story broke, tho I must say it sounds like he was a pathetic creep. I only live some 400-miles to the north of Hollywood.

Her speech was brilliant Quill, no denying that, and there's no denying she will be listened to.
I just think its a pity that she didn't stand up and say the same thing years ago.

I think many people in the profession did know, how could they not? and I do think it has similarities with the Saville case here, which opened a huge can of worms for the BBC, where sexual abuse had been carrying on and known about by many for years.

Once the wall of silence has been broken its amazing how many people stand proud to condemn what happened, a little belatedly imo.

i thought it was a pile of guff. she's got an even bigger ego than trump and i never thought that possible that anyone could.

she going on about sydney poitier award which was in 1964. 1964 was over 50 years ago and she acts like nothings different and black women are still oppressed and she has fought a massive battle and is the only black american woman to have achieved anything

tina turner, whitney housten, serena and venus williams, michelle obama, snitta, janet jackson, Beyonce, and they are just a few of the famous ones. there are countless other black women who have become successful in the field of medicine, law, business etc and who will ALL no doubt inspire young black girls but oh no no no, it's all about oprah and her poncey eyed golden globe award that these young girls will be sat in awe struck wonder about, yeah

and she's been very canny about what she says. she's good at connecting and pulling on heart strings etc but i could not see her in politics. i think she would be pulled apart very quickly tbh

by Original Quill Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:56 pm

It's one thing to hear about it, another thing to experience it. In all likelihood, Oprah just didn't experience it.

by Syl Thu Jan 11, 2018 4:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:It's one thing to hear about it, another thing to experience it. In all likelihood, Oprah just didn't experience it.

Quill, she is the most powerful woman in Hollywood, probably America. Laughing

I actually think her pledge that no other woman should ever again have to say "Me too", should apply to everyone who knew what was happening.
Though I doubt they will all stand up and say "Me too"....if asked if they knew people were being bribed, raped and sexually abused just to get a screen role.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:06 pm

Syl wrote:
Original Quill wrote:It's one thing to hear about it, another thing to experience it. In all likelihood, Oprah just didn't experience it.

Quill, she is the most powerful woman in Hollywood, probably America.

I actually think her pledge that no other woman should ever again have to say "Me too", should apply to everyone who knew what was happening.
Though I doubt they will all stand up and say "Me too"....if asked if they knew people were being bribed, raped and sexually abused just to get a screen role.

It's one thing to actually know; quite another when it's come by a chain of gossip. Oprah reminds me of someone who wouldn't be cowed by the shenanigans of a cheap little bastard like Weinstein. Her reputation probably preceded her. Unfortunately, that removed her from the loop.

Speaking of well-known things, people have known about non-disclosure agreements (NDA's) for ages. They are a part of every insurance settlement ever written, and most private agreements, pro forma. This is a situation in which normalcy is creeping a bit to the left. It's like smoking tobacco. NDA's are not new; people are just realizing how harmful they can be.

by Syl Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:18 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:

Quill, she is the most powerful woman in Hollywood, probably America.

I actually think her pledge that no other woman should ever again have to say "Me too", should apply to everyone who knew what was happening.
Though I doubt they will all stand up and say "Me too"....if asked if they knew people were being bribed, raped and sexually abused just to get a screen role.

It's one thing to actually know; quite another when it's come by a chain of gossip. Oprah reminds me of someone who wouldn't be cowed by the shenanigans of a cheap little bastard like Weinstein. Her reputation probably preceded her. Unfortunately, that removed her from the loop.

Speaking of well-known things, people have known about non-disclosure agreements (NDA's) for ages. They are a part of every insurance settlement ever written, and most private agreements, pro forma. This is a situation in which normalcy is creeping a bit to the left. It's like smoking tobacco. NDA's are not new; people are just realizing how harmful they can be.

I think Oprah would be far too powerful a woman to be cowed by the likes of Weinstein, which put her in a very good position to speak out....he was never in control of her future.
She suffered horrendous sexual abuse herself when she was young, raped from the age of nine.., had a baby at 14, her only child who died soon after birth. She does campaign for the underdog, so its sad she...and many others, have left it till now, when its all front page news, to speak out.

Rumour and gossip cant really be ignored if it comes from many different sources over many years...that's exactly how Saville and co managed to get away with it here for decades.

by Guest Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:33 pm

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Having an inkling is knowing.

Maybe not the gory details of his rapes but they knew what he was and did nothing, not until it was time to enhance their careers

"..enhance their careers." -- yet more daft SmellyKlutzBrain trashtalking...

Meryl Streep's career peaked a couple of decades ago;
Oprah has over $3 billion$ -- more money than she knows what to do with..

You really are getting desperate here, SmellyBum' !

Oprah is planning on running for president

that sounds like an enhancement on "game show host"

by Original Quill Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:43 pm

Syl wrote:I think Oprah would be far too powerful a woman to be cowed by the likes of Weinstein, which put her in a very good position to speak out....he was never in control of her future.

To speak out, but ironically, she was probably too powerful to experience it firsthand. It’s in the perception of it, that I think the flaw exists…if it didn’t happen to you, it’s remote.

Syl wrote:Rumour and gossip cant really be ignored if it comes from many different sources over many years...that's exactly how Saville and co managed to get away with it here for decades.

But, how do you address rumor and gossip? Assuming you want to press charges, it’s hearsay if you did not witness it first hand. Similarly, if you want to speak out, you expose yourself to civil liability without corroboration, made worse if you merely are passing on rumor and gossip.

by Original Quill Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:44 pm

smelly-bandit wrote:
WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

"..enhance their careers." -- yet more daft SmellyKlutzBrain trashtalking...

Meryl Streep's career peaked a couple of decades ago;
Oprah has over $3 billion$ -- more money than she knows what to do with..

You really are getting desperate here, SmellyBum' !

Oprah is planning on running for president

that sounds like an enhancement on "game show host"

It certainly was for Trump, eh?

by Guest Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
smelly-bandit wrote:

Oprah is planning on running for president

that sounds like an enhancement on "game show host"

It certainly was for Trump, eh?

difference is that trump has what it takes

oprah made her fame by giving people gifts

trump made his fame by challenging people to get a job

by Syl Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:I think Oprah would be far too powerful a woman to be cowed by the likes of Weinstein, which put her in a very good position to speak out....he was never in control of her future.

To speak out, but ironically, she was probably too powerful to experience it firsthand. It’s in the perception of it, that I think the flaw exists…if it didn’t happen to you, it’s remote.

But that's a bit 'I'm all right Jack' mentality.
Looking the other way because it didn't happen to you personally but it happened to someone far more vulnerable allows abuse to flourish.

Syl wrote:Rumour and gossip cant really be ignored if it comes from many different sources over many years...that's exactly how Saville and co managed to get away with it here for decades.

But, how do you address rumor and gossip? Assuming you want to press charges, it’s hearsay if you did not witness it first hand. Similarly, if you want to speak out, you expose yourself to civil liability without corroboration, made worse if you merely are passing on rumor and gossip.

You don't pass it on in the form of gossip, you support the person who claims it happened to them by reporting it to the appropriate authorities. One voice may be ignored, several might be noticed, hundreds have to be listened to.

Sexual abuse in the film industry will be taken more seriously now (hopefully) but it amazes me that the people who cheered Oprah on probably knew as much if not more than she did....I just find it all hypocritical.

by Syl Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:11 pm

Sorry about the pink /\....I thought it was red. Laughing

by Guest Thu Jan 11, 2018 7:54 pm

Seal calls out Oprah ignoring rumors on Harvey Weinstein

Seal has lashed out at Oprah Winfrey following her inspirational Golden Globes speech, claiming she knew about the rumors surrounding Harvey Weinstein but did nothing.

The talk show queen's widely-applauded speech on Sunday night focused on the plight of sexually abused women and the 'MeToo' movement.

But the the 'Kiss From A Rose' singer accused the media maven of being an example of 'sanctimonious Hollywood'.

He took to Instagram Wednesday, sharing a shot of Oprah with the disgraced producer at two events with a meme that read: 'When you have been part of the problem for decades... but suddenly they all think you are the solution.'

The 54-year-old singer took it one step further, captioning the meme that Oprah knew about the various sexual misconduct allegations against Weinstein, writing 'You'd heard the rumours but you had no idea he was actually serially assaulting young stary-eyed actresses who in turn had no idea what they were getting into. My bad.'

For an added point he hash-tagged the post with '#SanctimoniousHollywood.'

It is unclear if Seal could say with certainty that Oprah was aware of the varied claims against Weinstein that erupted into the public discourse in 2017 following bombshell reports that sent the producer fleeing Hollywood for a sex rehab in Arizona.

However, in the days following those reports, Oprah addressed the burgeoning allegations against him in an October Facebook post.

The media maven wrote at the time: 'I’ve been processing the accounts of Harvey Weinstein’s hideous behavior and haven’t been able to find the words to articulate the magnitude of the situation,' before sharing a quote from filmmaker James Schamus.

She thanked the victims that had come forward and prophetically added 'I believe a shift is coming.'

Oprah Winfrey's speech earned her a ovation at the Golden Globes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5256725/Seal-calls-Oprah-ignoring-rumors-Harvey-Weinstein.html

by Original Quill Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:45 am

Syl wrote:But that's a bit 'I'm all right Jack' mentality. Looking the other way because it didn't happen to you personally but it happened to someone far more vulnerable allows abuse to flourish.

No doubt. How do you communicate that?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:48 am

Syl wrote:You don't pass it on in the form of gossip, you support the person who claims it happened to them by reporting it to the appropriate authorities. One voice may be ignored, several might be noticed, hundreds have to be listened to.

Sexual abuse in the film industry will be taken more seriously now (hopefully) but it amazes me that the people who cheered Oprah on probably knew as much if not more than she did....I just find it all hypocritical.

Yeah, it's a shame.

by Syl Fri Jan 12, 2018 12:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Syl wrote:You don't pass it on in the form of gossip, you support the person who claims it happened to them by reporting it to the appropriate authorities. One voice may be ignored, several might be noticed, hundreds have to be listened to.

Sexual abuse in the film industry will be taken more seriously now (hopefully) but it amazes me that the people who cheered Oprah on probably knew as much if not more than she did....I just find it all hypocritical.

Yeah, it's a shame.

No...its a crime.
And everyone who looked the other way when they knew it was happening was and is complicit in the abuse.

Including Oprah.

by Original Quill Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:09 pm

I go back to our exchange, above:

Original Quill wrote:To speak out, but ironically, she was probably too powerful to experience it firsthand. It’s in the perception of it, that I think the flaw exists…if it didn’t happen to you, it’s remote.

Syl wrote:But that's a bit 'I'm all right Jack' mentality. Looking the other way because it didn't happen to you personally but it happened to someone far more vulnerable allows abuse to flourish.

You miss the point. It's not that she escaped, but that she doesn't have first-hand knowledge. Hearing something from the gossip chain is just more words.

Original Quill wrote:But, how do you address rumor and gossip? Assuming you want to press charges, it’s hearsay if you did not witness it first hand. Similarly, if you want to speak out, you expose yourself to civil liability without corroboration, made worse if you merely are passing on rumor and gossip.

Syl wrote:You don't pass it on in the form of gossip, you support the person who claims it happened to them by reporting it to the appropriate authorities. One voice may be ignored, several might be noticed, hundreds have to be listened to.

Authorities deal in evidence, not in gossip. There's a unique problem with law: you are dealing, not with the event itself, but with the recreation of the event. Thus, we have need of rules of evidence, one of which is that we don't accept hearsay. The authorities would not take anyone seriously who came to them with gossip.

Syl wrote:Sexual abuse in the film industry will be taken more seriously now (hopefully) but it amazes me that the people who cheered Oprah on probably knew as much if not more than she did....I just find it all hypocritical.

Big deal. That and a couple 'o bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

Rumor and gossip is like smoke: You reach out to grab it and it and it evaporates. You treat it as a 'tip' and you still have need of evidence. You interview the malefactor, and he denies it. You try to interview the victim, and there's the non-disclosure agreement. And if that isn't enough, if its rumor and gossip it probably an old story...and the statute of limitations has run.

Syl, you're loaded with the right spirit, but spirit won't get you anywhere. You need tangible evidence.

by Maddog Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:24 pm

Original Quill wrote:I go back to our exchange, above:

Original Quill wrote:To speak out, but ironically, she was probably too powerful to experience it firsthand. It’s in the perception of it, that I think the flaw exists…if it didn’t happen to you, it’s remote.

Syl wrote:But that's a bit 'I'm all right Jack' mentality. Looking the other way because it didn't happen to you personally but it happened to someone far more vulnerable allows abuse to flourish.

You miss the point. It's not that she escaped, but that she doesn't have first-hand knowledge. Hearing something from the gossip chain is just more words.

Original Quill wrote:But, how do you address rumor and gossip? Assuming you want to press charges, it’s hearsay if you did not witness it first hand. Similarly, if you want to speak out, you expose yourself to civil liability without corroboration, made worse if you merely are passing on rumor and gossip.

Syl wrote:You don't pass it on in the form of gossip, you support the person who claims it happened to them by reporting it to the appropriate authorities. One voice may be ignored, several might be noticed, hundreds have to be listened to.

Authorities deal in evidence, not in gossip. There's a unique problem with law: you are dealing, not with the event itself, but with the recreation of the event. Thus, we have need of rules of evidence, one of which is that we don't accept hearsay. The authorities would not take anyone seriously who came to them with gossip.

Syl wrote:Sexual abuse in the film industry will be taken more seriously now (hopefully) but it amazes me that the people who cheered Oprah on probably knew as much if not more than she did....I just find it all hypocritical.

Big deal. That and a couple 'o bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

Rumor and gossip is like smoke: You reach out to grab it and it and it evaporates. You treat it as a 'tip' and you still have need of evidence. You interview the malefactor, and he denies it. You try to interview the victim, and there's the non-disclosure agreement. And if that isn't enough, if its rumor and gossip it probably an old story...and the statute of limitations has run.

Syl, you're loaded with the right spirit, but spirit won't get you anywhere. You need tangible evidence.

Even without evidence, she could have kept her distance from the scumbag, she didn't.

I don't need proof someone is scum to stay away from them. Do you?

by Original Quill Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:45 pm

Maddog wrote:Even without evidence, she could have kept her distance from the scumbag, she didn't.

I don't need proof someone is scum to stay away from them. Do you?

It's not about me. If it were me, I would have to say I had no knowledge, nor hint that Harvey Weinstein was bedding young actresses. I wasn't privy to the channels that the gossip was taking.

I have no information that Oprah didn't stay away from Weinstien. Just because the SAG puts you on the same stage, with several hundred other actors, does not mean you are colluding with him.

And while we are extending the reach of the topic, what do you want to bet the victims in this saga will still vote for Trump (a known child rapist) next time, as they did over Hillary? Here you are criticizing all these by-standers, when the victims themselves won't participate in a real fix. At least it shows you how paltry the issue is for them.

by Sponsored content