Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[beninho]

First topic message reminder :

I think bailly does look a good prospect, but he is pretty raw. The spurs pairing is probably the best in tge league as a partnership. I think mendy looks an immense left back, alonso also good, I think rose is better then bertrand though, when fit. I remember a time when full backs had to defend!

[navyblueshorts]

Ray 

A little like super you don't seem to like the idea that fostering an environment of credibility for people coming forward about sexual harassment is a positive. It is about letting people know that they will not be made to feel embarrassment when reporting these incidents. ...

Did you have a straight face writing this? Do you think this (which I agree with) is the same as making ridiculous social media allegations or simply believing someone that says something on the back of zero evidence? You think it's reasonable to tar someone on the back of no evidence? Wreck careers? Families? You're a card...

[McLaren]

Navy 

What case are you talking about? With wienstien, spacey. LCK, fallon, and a few other high profile cases the perpetrators have admitted at least part of what they were accused of. It seems the claims so far have been very credible.

So what do you have in mind when you say we need to be super vigilant for false accusations?

[super_realist]

Ray 

A little like super you don't seem to like the idea that fostering an environment of credibility for people coming forward about sexual harassment is a positive. It is about letting people know that they will not be made to feel embarrassment when reporting these incidents. 


Super is obsessed with the idea that treating allegations seriously means assessing the evidence like you would in a court case pretty much sends the signal that victims might as well stay quiet unless they have gone to the trouble of compiling a dossier of such evidence. What a strange prohibitive position to take.

Mac, I explained in great detail exactly WHY you cannot have a situation where the claim of harassment is treated in a way which favours the one making a claim. You'd have to be a colossal idiot NOT to think that EVERY claim has to be treated the same. You cannot show favouritism to any claim without placing bias on that particular case. If you don't understand why, then you don't understand the law.

If someone has a claim to make, why on earth would you reveal that claim on social media? If the claim is serious, then the victim should be taking it down the proper channels. Why risk libelling someone just to reveal it to people?

We have a perfectly good system at present providing the one making the claim goes down the proper channels. We already have a system where abuse can be reported. In what way is our current system lacking anything? Have you ever made a claim?

Everything you say is simply anti-establishment. You're like Wolfie Smith. Nothing society does could ever be good enough for you, because people like you think you know how the law should be, despite it being demonstrably damaging.

[McLaren]

Super 

Again I will ask you why the obsession with treating every aspect of the issue like a court case? If it goes down the legal route that of course has to happen,but there are so many other ways to support someone who has been sexually harassed.

[super_realist]

Mac, I'm not talking about a court case, you simply CANNOT show favouritism to a specific type of claim based on stats. How on earth do you think it is logical to record and investigate a claim if you already have an assumption about it?

You have to treat every allegation the same and you have to investigate it the same way. You cannot say that because most instances of sexual harassment might be true then the next one is likely to be.

If I toss a coin and get 100 heads in a row, it doesn't mean the next one is more likely to be tails. You cannot when it comes to any claim have any assumption that the claim is true, or even likely to be true.

If you're just talking about being sympathetic to someone who makes a claim, then yes, you would, but that still doesn't mean I'd take their word as being true simply because they told me.

Again, no wonder you don't have a good job when you admit to being credulous.

Would you really be happy to accept what someone said or would you ask questions like:

"What happened?"
"Where?"
"When?"
"Who?" etc
How can you believe a claim just because someone tells you?

Why don't you ask Craig Charles or Neil and Christine Hamilton when people approach claims like you have.

[beninho]

Surely, everyone can agree that every accusation of sexual assault or harassment should be taken seriously, whether on twitter, the guardian or to the police. These should be investigated. Some cases will be taken forward like Weinstein, saville, harris etc. Some may not proceed. The lines are what is being alleged as assault or harrasment and why was it not reported at the time. A lot of cases appear to me men trying it on with women, who now are making allegations. These take away the focus from the r*** or serious sexual assault cases. The case against the luton mp seems crap, I read something about hoffman that seemed rubbish, the case in wales seemed rubbish and resulted in death. Even the louis ck isnt that bad. Spacey just seems to have done what lots of gay men have done. Its a bit witvh hunty, I dont like that.

[super_realist]

If someone makes an allegation on Twitter there's no reason it should be investigated. That isn't a proper channel for making it. The Police have no obligation to follow up such a claim made in that way and simply don't have the resources to do so.

[beninho]

Doesn't have to be the police, that investigate. If someone makes an accusation on twitter against some one employed, I would expect tgeir employer to carry out an investigation.

[super_realist]

Are you suggesting that people become vigilantes in regard to twitter claims? An employer might suspend you pending a proper investigation, but that's about all they can do until a claim is proven.

Claims which break the law are only subject to action by the police.

[McLaren]

I think a few people are misunderstanding the point of campaigns like #metoo. People discussing sexual assault/harassment in those discussions are probably not saying their tweet should be used as the starting point for an investigation, all they are doing is highlighting the prevalence of harassing behavior and the type of behavior they would like to see stop.

Listening to peoples concerns in such campaigns is a really easy learning experience, women are just trying to tell us what they don't consider appropriate contact. Why be so offended?

[beninho]

You also have to accept that just because someone wasn't prosecuted does not mean it did not happen.

[super_realist]

You also have to accept that just because someone wasn't prosecuted does not mean it did not happen.

Of course, which is why they are found not guilty and not found innocent.

[super_realist]

I think a few people are misunderstanding the point of campaigns like #metoo.  People discussing sexual assault/harassment in those discussions are probably not saying their tweet should be used as the starting point for an investigation, all they are doing is highlighting the prevalence of harassing behavior and the type of behavior they would like to see stop.

Listening to peoples concerns in such campaigns is a really easy learning experience, women are just trying to tell us what they don't consider appropriate contact.  Why be so offended?

Mac, because when does it stop? At the moment there are some dreadful claims which if true must have been harrowing experiences. However, we have people jumping on the bandwagon in a way with far less severe claims which is doing nothing but trivialising the original claims.

So when does it stop? Is asking someone out sexual harassment? Is bad sex sexual harassment? Is glancing at someone by accident harassment?

The point is that bundling all sexual harassment/assault into one #metoo movement somewhat detracts from actually reducing levels.

One thing I would ask though is, and I'm not saying anyone brought it on themselves, but why on earth would someone go to Weinstein's bedroom? What did they expect to happen? How naïve can someone be?

[McLaren]

The point is that bundling all sexual harassment/assault into one #metoo movement somewhat detracts from actually reducing levels.

Well that's your opinion, many of the survivors of abuse and women in general appear to disagree with you. But you could be right.

[beninho]

One thing I would ask though is, and I'm not saying anyone brought it on themselves, but why on earth would someone go to Weinstein's bedroom? What did they expect to happen? How naïve can someone be?[/quote]

Rich, powerful, influential man, uses it all to his advantage and sexually assaults women. Thats the whole point of the issue with weinstein. Victim blaming is not a good thing. They were not asking for it.

[super_realist]

Yes Ben, but why would a woman go to a fat old man's bedroom and not expect there to be sexual harassment and for it to be an innocent meeting? The "venue" should have been ringing alarm bells all over the place.

Of course no one deserves to be harassed, but it's a bit like putting your head in a crocodiles mouth and expecting not to be bitten isn't it? Surely you know it's not a wise thing to be doing?

Would you go to a creepy fat old mans bedroom for a "business meeting"? Of course you wouldn't.

It's not an excuse for Weinstein's behaviour, but I can't believe that any woman would think they were going to Weinstein's bedroom for a "business meeting". Wouldn't alarm bells ring?

I'm not blaming the women, but they have to be at best incredibly naïve.

[beninho]

You say bedroom like he was inviting them to a room in the premier inn.

I dont really accept where you are coming from. Oh well.

[Plunky]

I don't think Weinstein ever invited somebody into his bedroom for a business meeting.  From what I've read it was mostly aspiring actresses who were invited to a hotel suite for a "script reading" or something similar, and who accepted on the assumption that more people would be there.  Others have accused him of forcing his way into their apartment.  " So when does  it stop ? Is asking someone out sexual harassment?".   Of course it isn't, unless you're hitting on someone you work with or for.

[super_realist]

Either way plunky, if the reason is anything other than an invitation to some rogerisation why on earth would you go to some sleazy fat creeps hotel room/suite/bedroom?

There's no excuse for Weinstein's behaviour, but these women are blatantly putting themselves into a pretty suspicious environment.
Of course a woman should be safe wherever she goes, but just like you wouldn't walk down an alley late at night, why would you go to someones hotel room, and why when everyone else is leaving and you're the last one left wouldn't you leave too?

These women might not have brought it on themselves, but they are stupid/or desperate for their career to take off by putting themselves in a situation they must realise is shady.

Have you ever gone for a job interview to someone's bedroom or hotel room? Of course you haven't.

[beninho]

These people were raped because they were stupid and desperate.

That it a fuking horrendous thing to say. If thats your view, which is what you said, you are clearly a c&nt.

[McLaren]

Spot on Ben.


Super

Whose responsibility is it to avoid r***/sexual assault?

[pedro]

Think you are over-analyzing ben. Out of the dozens of women Weinstein harassed only 1-2 have accused him of r***. Not that any of it is ok tho.

[beninho]

whether it be r***, sexual harassment or sexual assault. You should not say it happened to them because they were stupid and/or desperate. I truly believe that it is a horrendous thing to say. And is tantamount to saying it is their own fault.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-41580010

at least six accusations of r*** in this article alone.

[Diggers]

The irony of the "stupid or desperate" comment is that it shows you are just as influenced by social media as anyone Super. You are obviously making judgements using social media as the basis, whilst stating that's exactly what we shouldn't do.

[Plunky]

Either way plunky, if the reason is anything other than an invitation to some rogerisation why on earth would you go to some sleazy fat creeps hotel room/suite/bedroom?

There's no excuse for Weinstein's behaviour, but these women are blatantly putting themselves into a pretty suspicious environment.
Of course a woman should be safe wherever she goes, but just like you wouldn't walk down an alley late at night, why would you go to someones hotel room, and why when everyone else is leaving and you're the last one left wouldn't you leave too?

These women might not have brought it on themselves, but they are stupid/or desperate for their career to take off by putting themselves in a situation they must realise is shady.

Have you ever gone for a job interview to someone's bedroom or hotel room? Of course you haven't.

YES I have !  Not an interview , but business meetings and as I said before it's a hotel suite, not room or bedroom.  It's not uncommon for a business person who is visiting town to conduct business in their hotel suite (we're talking reputable hotel, not sleazy motel).  The bedroom door was shut, the bathroom door was shut, and you're in a room with table and chairs -- perfect for a business meeting.  In  each case I was with a colleague and there was also somebody else I'd met before (the broker) present.  If my colleague had called off at the last minute I would still have gone because it's a business meeting and it was my job.   If the broker had left the room and if the business man had made some sort of indecent proposal I would have been shocked, confused, and obviously left asap ,which is what happened to most of the Weinstein accusers.  But what if the business person had been a highly respected powerful figure in the industry ?  Who would I tell ?  Would I be believed ?  How might it have affected my career ?  I get what you're saying -- the "casting couch" has been a joke in Hollywood for as long as Hollywood itself has been around.  But it's not as black and white as you think.

[Diggers]

Having worked in TV and film PR, virtually every press meeting takes place in a hotel suite, it's the industry norm.

[McLaren]

For once total silence from Super.

[super_realist]

You might notice I don't post during the day Mac.

Fair enough if people have them in hotel suites. I still think being left alone in them is rather odd when every hotel that has suites also have conference facilities and meeting rooms. There really is no need to be in a sleazy fat slugs "suite".

[super_realist]

These people were raped because they were stupid and desperate.

That it a fuking horrendous thing to say. If thats your view, which is what you said,  you are clearly a c&nt.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that choosing to go to such a venue is clearly risky as it is not an open environment, nor is it neutral ground.
Their willingness to either "please the producer"  by acceding to their request for a meeting in a private room to further their career is overriding their normal sensibilities to be safe.

To make a comparison which even someone as dense as Mac might be able to understand, it's about the same as taking a short cut down a dodgy dark alley.
It doesn't mean by taking that route you're asking to be attacked or mugged, but it does increase the likelihood over taking a well lit and more public route. Effectively, you're accepting a higher risk to get to your destination quicker.

I'm really not sure why people are finding it so hard to grasp the concept that you can increase your risk  but that doesn't mean you are asking for it yourself.

If you smoke cigarettes, you aren't asking to get cancer, but you know you are increasing the risk of getting it. Can't people understand the simile?

That isn't remotely saying that someone is asking to be r***d and only a halfwit would think that's what I'm saying.

Diggers, I'm not remotely making a judgement, but there has to be a reason for compromising your safety in the company of a man who was known to have a dodgy reputation. Virtually every woman I've heard has said themselves in numerous interviews that they thought they had to be there and go along with it because if they thought they didn't then it would HARM their career. So it's not me saying they're willing to risk their safety, it's them.
Many were strong enough to extricate themselves, who knows how many were not.

[beninho]

You have a very good point, I see what you mean. If you smoke and get cancer uts your fault, if you take a dodgy alleyway and something happens its your fault, if you gave a meeting with a famous poweful film.producer in his hotel suite and ge sexually assaults harrases or rapes you its your fault.

Goid points, well made.

[beninho]

From what I read, a lot didn't report it due to risks it would harm there career and blacklist them. I would imagine pretty much none thought they would go to his room ready to be assaulted in some way. The lack of reporting was due to his stature in tge indusrty and what kept it so covered fir years and therefore more people being assaulted.

[Plunky]

If I accept the invitation of a fat sleazy guy I meet in a bar to go up to his room to see his etchings, then I am engaging in behavior similar to smoking. There's risk involved, there's no good reason to take that risk, and there's no downside to declining it. This is not remotely similar to taking a business meeting in a hotel suite.

[super_realist]

You have a very good point, I see what you mean. If you smoke and get cancer uts your fault, if you take a dodgy alleyway and something happens its your fault, if you gave a meeting with a famous poweful film.producer in his hotel suite and ge sexually assaults harrases or rapes you its your fault.

Goid points, well made.

Are you stupid Beninho? I'm not saying that at all and only an idiot would think. I'm saying you are increasing your risk by taking such a chance, you aren't asking for anything.

You'd have to be incredibly naïve or willing to take a risk to go to a "business meeting" in a well known sex pest's "hotel room". (again, it's not your fault if something happens)

It doesn't mean you are asking for it, it means you are risking a potentially dangerous situation.

Of course, we all take risks, but the potential cost is not usually getting bummed into next week.

This "business meeting" concept is the problem. It's a parody of itself, and you could hardly call such a meeting a "Business meeting" with a straight face.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy 

What case are you talking about? With wienstien, spacey. LCK, fallon, and a few other high profile cases the perpetrators have admitted at least part of what they were accused of. It seems the claims so far have been very credible.

So what do you have in mind when you say we need to be super vigilant for false accusations?

Stop moving the goalposts. Your attitude isn't prefaced by referring to Weinstein etc. You think you should believe anyone that makes a claim, in public, regardless of evidence. It's wrong and you know it.

[navyblueshorts]

I think a few people are misunderstanding the point of campaigns like #metoo.  People discussing sexual assault/harassment in those discussions are probably not saying their tweet should be used as the starting point for an investigation, all they are doing is highlighting the prevalence of harassing behavior and the type of behavior they would like to see stop.

Listening to peoples concerns in such campaigns is a really easy learning experience, women are just trying to tell us what they don't consider appropriate contact.  Why be so offended?

More goalpost movement. Stop it.

[navyblueshorts]

These people were raped because they were stupid and desperate.

That it a fuking horrendous thing to say. If thats your view, which is what you said,  you are clearly a c&nt.

If you're going to start insults of this nature, I'll close this thread down now....

[navyblueshorts]

You have a very good point, I see what you mean. If you smoke and get cancer uts your fault, if you take a dodgy alleyway and something happens its your fault, if you gave a meeting with a famous poweful film.producer in his hotel suite and ge sexually assaults harrases or rapes you its your fault.

Goid points, well made.

[navyblueshorts]

You have a very good point, I see what you mean. If you smoke and get cancer uts your fault, if you take a dodgy alleyway and something happens its your fault, if you gave a meeting with a famous poweful film.producer in his hotel suite and ge sexually assaults harrases or rapes you its your fault.

Goid points, well made.

Are you stupid Beninho? I'm not saying that at all and only an idiot would think. I'm saying you are increasing your risk by taking such a chance, you aren't asking for anything.

You'd have to be incredibly naïve or willing to take a risk to go to a "business meeting" in a well known sex pest's "hotel room". (again, it's not your fault if something happens)

It doesn't mean you are asking for it, it means you are risking a potentially dangerous situation.

Of course, we all take risks, but the potential cost is not usually getting bummed into next week.

This "business meeting" concept is the problem. It's a parody of itself, and you could hardly call such a meeting a "Business meeting" with a straight face.

It's a good one this, isn't it? I doubt anyone would have a problem with not leaving their brand new laptop on the rear seat of their car in a car park, for all to see, while they go to the shops would they? No, it's not your fault the car window is broken and laptop stolen on your return, but you can mitigate the risk of that happening, can't you?

[pedro]

It's called course management.

[beninho]

Does anyone honestly believe that these people attended meetings with Weinstein in the knowledge that there was a risk of being sexually assaulted?

Victim blaming is a very ugly trait.

[beninho]

You have a very good point, I see what you mean. If you smoke and get cancer uts your fault, if you take a dodgy alleyway and something happens its your fault, if you gave a meeting with a famous poweful film.producer in his hotel suite and ge sexually assaults harrases or rapes you its your fault.

Goid points, well made.

Are you stupid Beninho? I'm not saying that at all and only an idiot would think. I'm saying you are increasing your risk by taking such a chance, you aren't asking for anything.

You'd have to be incredibly naïve or willing to take a risk to go to a "business meeting" in a well known sex pest's "hotel room". (again, it's not your fault if something happens)

It doesn't mean you are asking for it, it means you are risking a potentially dangerous situation.

Of course, we all take risks, but the potential cost is not usually getting bummed into next week.

This "business meeting" concept is the problem. It's a parody of itself, and you could hardly call such a meeting a "Business meeting" with a straight face.

But if people don't know he is a sex pest, and this has only all come out within the last few months, why would they think there was any risk at all. From what I understand he covered his tracks, paid people off, I read he had a team to silence people. Some people knew, but it was kept very quiet. Meetings and discussions are held in Hotel Suites all the time in the film industry, its not unusual for an actor to meet a producer at one, as they travel the world and stay in the best hotels.

a "bummed into next week" what are you 12 years old?

[McLaren]

Navy

I don't understand what "goalposts" you think have been moved. I have been consistent with my views throughout this thread.


I also wonder if you see your wife/gf/boyfriend or whatever you are into as property like you do a laptop. If not, then what an odd comparison. I am obviously pretty deep into the sgw rabbit hole but even I wouldn't suggest you give a laptop the same rights as a human.

Could you also explain how slightly insulting a man degrading women who are victims of sexual abuse gets pulled up but the man using terms like "desperate" or "bummed into next week" about sexual assault cases goes unnoticed?


Ben

Yes, I think super and Navy think those women meeting with Wienstien thought they were going to get abused but that it was a risk they wanted to take. Haven't they admitted as much several times. I mean, navy thinks that if you leave a woman in the back seat of a car she can't complain about getting raped.

[McLaren]

Super

Bummer about getting a crappy job. I remember being in a lowly job during uni summer holidays that was so restrictive you couldn't get on the internet while there. It really sucks. Although I am surprised you have sunk so low that you can't at least use your phone.

[McLaren]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42107701

Seems pretty ridiculous given that she knew the risks and should have been wearing a bullet proof vest to go to the loo in the middle of the night. What was he supposed to do?

[pedro]

People knew Weinstein was a dodgy character. At least most in the industry did. It was a public secret. Just as the casting couch was something that did / does exist. So yes, it is/was an integral part of the industry, not only in Hollywood. Men with power and young beautiful women with aspirations. And yes, meetings take place in hotel suites all the time, nothing unusual about that.

But what you could discuss is why it took so long for some of the women to come out? Women that definitely "made it" later on and had nothing to lose by coming out 5-10 years ago. Wouldn't you want to "warn" your co-sisters against a predator by going public? Could it be because these women already knew the "risk" of meeting with Weinstein, but were still willing to run that "risk" in pursuit of fame? And then just let it pass on to he next girl or took the money and ran? Now the past just comes back to haunt them and they feel they have to go public. Mac, things are not always so black or white.

[beninho]

I have read that lots of women did try and report instances of abuse or harassment against him. And in lots of cases they were advised by attorneys to keep quiet because they will not be believed. Wasn't there a recording from a police sting, when he was heard telling someone to go in the shower with him, yet that did not proceed.

Hollywood has clearly had issues, where rich powerful men have had so much control. Its easy to blame to people for not speaking out, but its all part of the harassment and control that was in place.

Once the dam was broken, it was easier for all to tell their story without fear.

Basically Hollywood was/is rotten.

[pedro]

Yes it’s easy to blame the women for not speaking out, so why don't we? (Well, I do now.) What did the likes of Jolie or Paltrow have to fear? Especially after they "made it". They are clearly more famous than most in Hollywood, one of them even won an Oscar. It's not like they have been in desperate need of a gig lately. Twitter may not have been around 10 years ago but there were plenty of other platforms where they would have been heard. If they speak out against animal abuse we certainly hear all about it and always have. Could it be that they felt in debt to Weinstein, despite him being a pig, and accepted it as being part of the game -- but now have a bad conscience because of all the stories that came out?
It's not the small town girls I'm after, but those who are now divas and movie stars.

[navyblueshorts]

Navy

I don't understand what "goalposts" you think have been moved.  I have been consistent with my views throughout this thread.


I also wonder if you see your wife/gf/boyfriend or whatever you are into as property like you do a laptop.  If not, then what an odd comparison.  I am obviously pretty deep into the sgw rabbit hole but even I wouldn't suggest you give a laptop the same rights as a human.

Could you also explain how slightly insulting a man degrading women who are victims of sexual abuse gets pulled up but the man using terms like "desperate" or "bummed into next week" about sexual assault cases goes unnoticed?


Ben

Yes, I think super and Navy think those women meeting with Wienstien thought they were going to get abused but that it was a risk they wanted to take.  Haven't they admitted as much several times.  I mean, navy thinks that if you leave a woman in the back seat of a car she can't complain about getting raped.

Jesus wept. You essentially said all along that you'd believe anyone who makes a harassment claim, no matter the evidence, have no issue and see no problems with outing alleged harassers on social media platforms. I'm also not equating a laptop as having the same rights as a woman. I'm talking about avoiding a situation where there's risk. I know it's not black/white, but it's pointless discussing nuanced issues with you. Clearly.

Never mind Mac. It's patently obvious you don't get it and 'evidence' is just a word in the Dictionary.

[navyblueshorts]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42107701

Seems pretty ridiculous given that she knew the risks and should have been wearing a bullet proof vest to go to the loo in the middle of the night.  What was he supposed to do?

Now you're just being daft.

[navyblueshorts]

People knew Weinstein was a dodgy character. At least most in the industry did. It was a public secret. Just as the casting couch was something that did / does exist. So yes, it is/was an integral part of the industry, not only in Hollywood. Men with power and young beautiful women with aspirations. And yes, meetings take place in hotel suites all the time, nothing unusual about that.

But what you could discuss is why it took so long for some of the women to come out? Women that definitely "made it" later on and had nothing to lose by coming out 5-10 years ago. Wouldn't you want to "warn" your co-sisters against a predator by going public? Could it be because these women already knew the "risk" of meeting with Weinstein, but were still willing to run that "risk" in pursuit of fame? And then just let it pass on to he next girl or took the money and ran? Now the past just comes back to haunt them and they feel they have to go public. Mac, things are not always so black or white.

They are in his World.

[Sponsored content]