Is the age of the sexual predator coming to an end?

Please treat other members in a friendly and respectful manner: Our Community Guidelines.

  • OSCAR winning actress Emma Thompson has compared Harvey Weinstein to child abuser Jimmy Savile.


    In an interview with Newsnight , Thompson described the allegations as "endemic to the system," adding that Weinstein is the "tip of the iceberg" of what goes on in the movie business.

    I tend to not read stories about crimes, especially ones related to sexual offences, but you'd have to be on Mars not to have read or seen at least one story about Harvey Weinstein, the Hollywood mogul who has spent his whole life using his position to abuse women, according to the many allegations against him.


    From the horrors of Jimmy Saville's actions to these latest lurid allegations against Weinstien, the one positive I take from all these kind of stories is that more and more things are coming out into the open. The light is being shone, where only darkness prevailed.


    People like Saville got away with their crimes due to their position and the power that gave them. They didn't even really hide their actions as many people had suspicious about Saville and again, many people in Hollywood were aware of Weinstein. A joke was even made about this at a awards ceremony a few years ago.


    I think until such a time when science is able to re-wire brains of sexual predators, these crimes will continue, but I do detect a major change in recent years. The change being that those in power who commit these crimes may not get away with them now and increasingly, will get stopped and punished for their actions.


    A lot of focus is on Hollywood and other rumours are abound against other potential predators, although at the moment these are all related to crimes against adults. I've never known Hollywood to use ugly children in their films, just wait for that one to explode...


    From rumours about prominent politicians like Cyril Smith, prime ministers like Edward Heath and even members of the Royal Family like Mountbatten and his alleged actions in Ireland (supposedly this was the reason the IRA gunned him down.) Those in power have always used their positions to carry out their nefarious actions.


    Is the age of the sexual predator coming to an end? What I mean by that, is, not that their won't be any such people in the future, but that when people, especially those in powerful positions, abuse those positions and carry out sex crimes (or other crimes) they will get stopped and meet justice.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Good point Nigel and I'll reserve judgement on this until all the facts are known, but that's the whole point of this thread.


    As I briefly mentioned, at a Oscars or other awards ceremony in Hollywood a few years ago, the hosts made a joke about Weinstein and women, so this was clearly well known about him. After it became public about Saville, loads of people said they knew about him. He was a childhood heero of mine as was Rolf Harris.


    This is what I'm talking about. These people have gotten away with their crimes because of their positions, especially if they're powerful politicians or make a lot of money. I reckon the age of powerful people getting away with these kind of crimes is coming to an end. This kind of stuff is just in the news everyday now.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • People should realise that women, men and children, cannot tell anyone about sexual crimes and if and when they do, few believe them if the criminal is considered a worthy citizen, like a priest or a grandfather or a family friend, a neighbour, a powerful businessman or a politician, etc. Also, criminals lie about their activities, and are protected by people who know what they do and who refuse to believe what they do. The victim is therefore revictimised and punished by in juries and psychological damage for the rest of their lives in cases of rape, especially of children who cannot understand it and experience it as an attack of sheer madness and an attempt to kill them or punish them viciously.


    Like the poor, the criminals will always be with us. And so will the traumatised children and others that they ruin. What is important is not to think that a child is lying when it tells you something and to try not to think of women and men as clever connivers when they report rape. There are a few adults who lie to get others into trouble, but you can tell a victim by the results of the trauma. No one fakes that.

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

  • Yes. It would be like dropping a bomb if those who have this as a life ruining secret were to suddenly speak up. A lot of noses would go out of joint, but it would reveal something that has been eating out lives for centuries. All those Victorian women locked in attics because they had PTSD would be vindicated of the insanity label. All those violent, angry young men who had been raped and molested in schools and children's homes would be understood.


    Instead they have been blamed and labelled.

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

  • Agree LW, but each time these people are exposed I'd hope it makes it easier to speak up about someone else.

    Yep, that's the point I was trying to make.


    Thirty years ago you never got all these stories about all these types of crimes, but like Saville and Weinstein, there obviously were people carrying out these crimes.


    Now, I think these predators have been put on notice, that it doesn't matter how powerful you are, if you commit these acts, your victims will come forward and speak up against you and you will get stopped. That's a very good thing.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Yes. It would be like dropping a bomb if those who have this as a life ruining secret were to suddenly speak up. A lot of noses would go out of joint,

    Good. Roll on more noses getting rearranged, sometimes literally!:)

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Soap on a rope sales are bound to pick up. ^^

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • The organisation behind the Oscars has voted to expel Harvey Weinstein following numerous allegations of sexual assault made against the film producer.

    Looks like he's toast. Hopefully other predators will follow him over the cliff.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I know my posting is too long. By all means tell me that. Meanwhile, I have views which someone who can stay awake to read them might find interesting. If no one comments on what I've posted I will have "got the message" and will try and be less boring in future


    The story or personal account of the victim goes something like this:


    10, 20, 30 years ago, it’s been preying on me all this time, I’m a mental wreck, with nightmares, degraded and with a sense of personal shame. I’ve been afraid to come forward until now. At last I’m able to do so because there is a safety in numbers and those in authority must now listen and pay heed, whether they like to or not. They can’t brush the event – and me - under the carpet, telling me not to rock the boat, or that worst things happen at sea, or to put it behind me.


    All of the above, it might be argued, places the victim on the moral high ground, while the accused is said to deserve the pitiless sensationalist glare of the media spotlight, where it serves him right if he is forced to resign or is fired or suspended from his job, or if the company he founded goes into liquidation.


    That said, is there anyone who shares my concerns, which are:


    1) This is trial by media. The weighing up of evidence or conflicting testimonies from the accuser and accused are completely absent.


    2) Mob psychology and the bandwagon. The stepping forward of other victims may either be judged as powerful corroboration or a symptom of personal publicity-seeking, that pathetic desire in these social media selfie times for a nobody to at least become a somebody. Also, being traumatised or chronically depressed is all the rage. Even if a person didn’t live in the Grenfell Towers but knew someone who did, or knew someone who knew someone who did, or just found all that fire and smoke visually distressing, that’s good enough for psychiatric counselling and various benefits. After all, if young British citizens can go off to the Middle East and join Isis, find that the killing is not as much fun as expected, return to Britain and get free housing, when it comes to benefit eligibility, the joker is wild. As the bandwagon encourages more victims or publicity seekers to climb aboard, the verdict is reinforced that there can be no smoke without fire, certainly not with this amount of smoke. And when the police decide to conduct an investigation (so much more interesting than traffic control) can there be any doubt that the accused is guilty? I mean, the police are absolutely impeccable, diligent and professional, they are never wrong. Right?!


    3) The offence ranges from unmitigated rape (without a shred of “she was asking for it”) to a hand placed on a lady’s knee or shoulder, with no indication that the accused was about to force his attentions on the lady beyond that misjudgement of decorum. There is a need to remove the trivia before having a useful debate.


    4) Power versus bargaining/leverage. The insistence that it is all or mostly about “power” is misleadingly vague. Are we talking about dominant physical power? This overridingly favours men. The consequence being that the slightest tactile gesture from the male, without any indication, even implicitly, of female consent - or of a previous encounter which could be misconstrued as “consent by precedent” – becomes not merely a lack of decorum but may give rise to a frisson of fear of a sexual overture that could escalate beyond the female’s control. Meanwhile, it remains uncertain whether Harvey Weinstein’s use of the time-dishonoured Casting Couch triggered genuine physical fear, physical revulsion or moral indignation of an insulting implied suggestion that that career advancement was conditional on consent to his sexual overtures. Whichever of these types of coercions apply, Harvey Weinstein and all the others who use the transactional power-play of the Casting Couch are utter creeps and are therefore fair game for media exposure. That said, I feel a bit sorry for Harvey Weinstein because I believe he was just using the Casting Couch as career power play. What else does a guy that ugly have to offer? In spite of making clumsy lewd overtures, he insists he always took no for an answer – although one has to say it took him a damn long time. I’m not sure but am inclined to believe him. It was a running joke in Hollywood that he would seek to have sex with any attractive female who entered his office or hotel room. I find it hard to imagine that rape or sexual assault could be kept under wraps to allow this running joke to continue. I fully recognise that these different sexual coercions are not self-contained and mutually-exclusive but rather points along a continuum from trivial and harmless at one end to criminal rape at the other end. When there is a plentiful supply of aspiring starlets or established career-minded stars, and when the Harvey Weinsteins of this world “sexually score” with enough of them to make the game worth the candle, should he be the sole guilty party in this transaction? Both sides of this transaction have let down their side. Coming forward 10, 20 or 30 years later? Gimme a break! Female solidarity shouldn’t need to take that long to gestate.


    5) Emancipation, feminism and liberation have moved the goal posts over the years, leaving many men uncertain how to behave and gain approval of the opposite sex. Opening the door for a woman to enter first and watch her going through with a deadpan expression and not a hint of a word or nod of thanks, can make a man wonder if he has made a social faux pas or is viewed as patronising towards females or a fuddy-duddy from another era or a public school that hasn’t kept pace or, worse still, is trying to ingratiate himself to the female as a prelude to a attempted pick-up. Many men feel they are walking on eggs in making such innocent behavioural decisions. It doesn’t help if a female is tactile by nature and gently lays her hand on the man’s arm as an expression of empathy and approval of something uttered that was witty or profound. The rules of the game are that he dare not respond in the same tactile way, lest it be open to misinterpretation. It doesn’t help that so many females have so many ways of making themselves sexually attractive to the opposite sex in a way that is subtle and seemingly unintentional. Men need to understand that receiving a woman’s admiration, even with a fleeting tactile gesture, is not a green light for making a sexual overture. As long as it is easier for a man than a woman to walk to their car in a deserted underground car park without a sense of fear, this inequality, even if it is at times a double standard, must be considered valid and be heeded. Education is needed rather than just a gormless re-drafting or expanding rules & regulations. This is not an exercise in software reprogramming of androids.


    6) As for the behaviour and attitude of gay men, this is an entirely different universe which I neither understand nor empathise with (although some of my best friends etc….). All I know is that Kevin Spacey was known to be gay by many people in show business and several knew he had a reputation for being somewhat rampant in the way he pursued his predilection. He certainly wasn’t in a stable gay relationship. It would be regrettable, if true, that 30 years ago he tried to make out, unsuccessfully, with what turned out to be a 14 year old gay male who was present in a party of actors. Trying to make it with a fellow gay in a party that has mostly straights brings a new meaning to the hazards of blind dating. (To call it paedophilia is proof that the law is an ass, just as it was in gaoling Chuck Berry for dating a 15 year old whom he met in a night club and crossed the state line). Over the ensuing 30 years this “victim” of Spacey’s “come-on” has managed to remain a comparative nonentity and has finally climbed onto the Weinstein bandwagon and become a famous nonentity. The upshot is that Kevin Spacey’s career is now toast. It is known that gay men who have a misunderstanding with other gay men, such as falling out or not getting to first base, or being loosely promiscuous can be quite “bitchy”. No wonder Kevin Spacey seeks treatment. He may well decide he has had more than enough of such company; and quite possibly them of him.


    I think the way this bandwagon has gathered momentum, spurred on by sensationalist media who haven’t an iota of interest in fair play, and politicians who daren’t defy the mob of voters who are enjoying their licentious morality, has turned this issue into a sick joke. Society today offers a great many sick jokes

  • There is a seperate thread about the Westminster Sex Scandal, but this is the more general thread about sex predators in general and the major story over the last week or so has been this one:

    Actor Anthony Rapp: Kevin Spacey Made A Sexual Advance Toward Me When I Was 14

    Quick on the link (in the orange writing) to read the full story. Rapp gave a interview to BuzzFeed about Spacey and was the first to break the story.


    Then Spacey said this:


    Spacey, who was 26, said: "I honestly do not remember the encounter... but if I did behave then as he describes I owe him the sincerest apology."


    Spacey also revealed he was now living as a gay man after years of refusing to address rumours about his sexuality.

    Spacey didn't deny the incident, but decided now was the time to come out as "gay." If you force yourself on a 14 year old, gay is not the correct term here....:rolleyes:


    Now, the floodgates seemed to have opened, and this is another allegation made against Spacey:


    Kevin Spacey is being investigated by UK police over an alleged sexual assault.


    The Sun newspaper said a man, aged 23 at the time, made a complaint on Tuesday about the alleged incident in the London borough of Lambeth.

    And finally, this:

    Entertainment company Netflix has severed ties with Kevin Spacey, star of its House of Cards show, amid a number of sex assault allegations against him.

    Netflix said it would hold talks with the producers to see if production, which was suspended this week, could resume without Spacey.

    A very quick end to a long career.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • So, the above is the Spacey saga, so far, but then the The Sun is reporting this today:


    Quote

    THE BBC has refused a woman’s plea to investigate DJ Chris Evans over claims he flashed her for two years while at work.

    An ex-colleague listed explosive sexual harassment and bullying claims about the £2million-a-year star in an email to Director General Lord Hall.

    Lets not forget the recent scandal over all the ridiculous amounts of dosh paid to BBC "stars" with Evans being the highest paid.


    There is also another story today about a sex scandal to do with a famous jockey, but going back to the The Sun, I think this will, in time, turn out to me the most significant and serious story coming out of Hollywood:


    COREY Feldman has named two figures he claims were members of a Hollywood "paedophile ring" that molested him when he was a child star.

    He claims actor Jon Grissom and child talent manager Marty Weiss abused him in the 1980s, Page Six reports.

    Corey Feldman along with his friend Corey Haim, were famous child actors in the 80s and starred in films like Stand By Me, Gremlins and the The Lost Boys. Corey Haim killed himself a few years due to drug abuse which Feldman attributed to the abuse they both suffered as child actors.


    Whether it's Jimmy Saville or Harvey Weinstein, what these stories seem to have in common is that these incidents are not minor and just one offs, but continued incidents of rape and assault over many years.


    As I said in post 3, there was even a in-joke made about Weinstein at a Hollywood awards event and supposedly there were many rumours abound about Saville.


    Lets leave aside the victims here for a second, these serial sexual predators carried out their crimes in plain sight, yet no one stopped them. Why? There must be numerous people who knew or suspected what these utter scumbags were doing and chose to do nothing. For me, that is a big a crime, as the actual crimes themselves.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • 1) This is trial by media. The weighing up of evidence or conflicting testimonies from the accuserand accused are completely absent.

    We've not got to that point yet, that will happen when someone who is accused say they are innocent. So far, all the accused have admitted their guilt or admitted something.


    2) Mob psychology andthe bandwagon. The stepping forward ofother victims may either be judged as powerful corroboration or a symptom ofpersonal publicity-seeking, that pathetic desire in these social media selfietimes for a nobody to at least become a somebody. Also, being traumatised or chronicallydepressed is all the rage. Even if a person didn’t live in the GrenfellTowers but knew someone who did, or knew someone who knew someone who did, orjust found all that fire and smoke visually distressing, that’s good enough forpsychiatric counselling and various benefits. After all, if young British citizens can go off to the Middle East andjoin Isis, find that the killing is not as much fun as expected, return to Britainand get free housing, when it comes to benefit eligibility, the joker iswild. As the bandwagon encourages morevictims or publicity seekers to climb aboard, the verdict is reinforced that therecan be no smoke without fire, certainly not with this amount of smoke. And when the police decide to conduct aninvestigation (so much more interesting than traffic control) can there be anydoubt that the accused is guilty? Imean, the police are absolutely impeccable, diligent and professional, they arenever wrong. Right?!

    I agree with your more general point that mob rule and getting onto the bandwagon is certainly a sign of the times, especially with sites like Facebook and Twitter. Why do you create a thread (new topic) on this issue to discuss this further?


    3) The offence ranges from unmitigated rape (without a shredof “she was asking for it”) to a hand placed on a lady’s knee or shoulder, withno indication that the accused was about to force his attentions on the lady beyondthat misjudgement of decorum. There is aneed to remove the trivia before having a useful debate.

    Debate should be had about ALL deviant behaviour, but I take your point that the trivial is being mixed into the same bowl as the serious stuff, but it does all go back to the same issue in the end. Some men thinking they can do what they want.


    Putting a hand on a knee might be trivial, but if it's unwanted, it shouldn't happen, full stop. Some men need to learn what the word "no" means.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • 4) Power versus bargaining/leverage. The insistencethat it is all or mostly about “power” is misleadingly vague. Are we talking about dominant physical power? This overridingly favours men. The consequence being that the slightesttactile gesture from the male, without any indication, even implicitly, offemale consent - or of a previous encounter which could be misconstrued as“consent by precedent” – becomes not merely a lack of decorum but may give riseto a frisson of fear of a sexual overture that could escalate beyond the female’scontrol. Meanwhile, it remains uncertainwhether Harvey Weinstein’s use of the time-dishonoured Casting Couch triggered genuinephysical fear, physical revulsion or moral indignation of an insulting impliedsuggestion that that career advancement was conditional on consent to his sexualovertures. Whichever of these types of coercionsapply, Harvey Weinstein and all the others who use the transactional power-playof the Casting Couch are utter creeps and are therefore fair game for mediaexposure. That said, I feel a bit sorryfor Harvey Weinstein because I believe he was just using the Casting Couch as careerpower play. What else does a guy thatugly have to offer? In spite of makingclumsy lewd overtures, he insists he always took no for an answer – although onehas to say it took him a damn long time. I’m not sure but am inclined to believe him. It was a running joke in Hollywood that hewould seek to have sex with any attractive female who entered his office orhotel room. I find it hard to imaginethat rape or sexual assault could be kept under wraps to allow this runningjoke to continue. I fully recognise that these different sexual coercionsare not self-contained and mutually-exclusive but rather points along acontinuum from trivial and harmless at one end to criminal rape at the otherend. When there is a plentiful supply ofaspiring starlets or established career-minded stars, and when the HarveyWeinsteins of this world “sexually score” with enough of them to make the gameworth the candle, should he be the sole guilty party in this transaction? Both sides of this transaction have let downtheir side. Coming forward 10, 20 or 30 yearslater? Gimme a break! Female solidarity shouldn’t need to takethat long to gestate.

    I absolutely do not feel "a bit" sorry for Weinstein or any other sexual predator.


    His power, in this case, was in part physical, he's a big, fat man, so I'm sure that played a part, but you asked what he has to offer? You know who he is, one of the (or was) most powerful producers in Hollywood. No doubt he opened doors, career wise, that others couldn't do and that was his power. His power to decide whether someone made it in Hollywood or not. That was why he had a steady supply of lambs to the slaughter.


    The issue about the running joke, is something I have mentioned in my earlier posts. Clearly, a lot of people knew he was a predator, yet did nothing about it and although the blame for his conduct lyes squarely with him, I do question why female actors would agree to meetings in his hotel room, or anyone's else's for that matter.


    Business meetings should be conducted in a business setting and depending on the situation, then a less formal setting might be appropriate like a restaurant, but not a hotel room. Why did the women agree to these meetings? So, I have some sympathy with your views there, but as I said, Weinstein is fully responsible for his actions, it is not the fault of the women in any shape or form and if they didn't go these "meetings" they wouldn't have a career in Hollywood.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • 6) As for thebehaviour and attitude of gay men, this is an entirely different universe whichI neither understand nor empathise with (although some of my best friends etc….). All I know is that Kevin Spacey was known tobe gay by many people in show business and several knew he had a reputation forbeing somewhat rampant in the way he pursued his predilection. He certainly wasn’tin a stable gay relationship. It wouldbe regrettable, if true, that 30 years ago he tried to make out, unsuccessfully,with what turned out to be a 14 year old gay male who was present in a party ofactors. Trying to make it with a fellow gayin a party that has mostly straights brings a new meaning to the hazards of blinddating. (To call it paedophilia is proofthat the law is an ass, just as it was in gaoling Chuck Berry for dating a 15year old whom he met in a night club and crossed the state line). Over the ensuing 30 years this “victim” ofSpacey’s “come-on” has managed to remain a comparative nonentity and has finallyclimbed onto the Weinstein bandwagon and become a famous nonentity. The upshot is that Kevin Spacey’s career is nowtoast. It is known that gay men who have amisunderstanding with other gay men, such as falling out or not getting tofirst base, or being loosely promiscuous can be quite “bitchy”. No wonder Kevin Spacey seeks treatment. He may well decide he has had more than enoughof such company; and quite possibly them of him.

    Well, I certainly agree with those last 6 words there, but nothing else.


    The reason he wasn't in a "stable" gay relationship, is because he isn't gay, he's a paedophile.


    You call the actor who has made this allegation against Spacey (which Spacey hasn't denied, by the way) a non-entity and saying he was on a blind date, almost inferring that as a 14 year old boy, it was someone his fault that Spacey, a adult man, touched him. That is a totally repugnant opinion and one I strongly disagree with. I also disagree with the clear inference in your post, that you do not consider a sexual assault on a child, paedophilia. It is, look it up along with the word traipsing.

    5) Emancipation, feminism and liberation have moved the goalposts over the years, leaving many men uncertain how to behave and gainapproval of the opposite sex. Opening the door for a woman to enter first andwatch her going through with a deadpan expression and not a hint of a word ornod of thanks, can make a man wonder if he has made a social faux pas or isviewed as patronising towards females or a fuddy-duddy from another era or apublic school that hasn’t kept pace or, worse still, is trying to ingratiatehimself to the female as a prelude to a attempted pick-up. Many men feel they are walking on eggs inmaking such innocent behavioural decisions. It doesn’t help if a female is tactile by nature and gently lays herhand on the man’s arm as an expression of empathy and approval of something utteredthat was witty or profound. The rules of the game are that he dare not respondin the same tactile way, lest it be opento misinterpretation. It doesn’t helpthat so many females have so many ways of making themselves sexually attractiveto the opposite sex in a way that is subtle and seemingly unintentional. Menneed to understand that receiving a woman’s admiration, even with a fleeting tactilegesture, is not a green light for making a sexual overture. As long as it is easier for a man than a womanto walk to their car in a deserted underground car park without a sense of fear,this inequality, even if it is at times a double standard, must be considered validand be heeded. Education is needed ratherthan just a gormless re-drafting or expanding rules & regulations. This isnot an exercise in software reprogramming of androids.

    Some men, the stupid ones, if they don't know the difference between a thank you gesture with a touch of the arm and a come-on, probably need to go to spec savers, or get a new brain.


    It was never a game and the "rules" have not changed.


    However, I do agree with you that the ladies can use very subtle ways to get what they want. But this is about men, whether a woman wears a short skirt in a office or not, the man must learn control. They should have a wank over their morning cornflakes before going into the office, if it's that hard for some men to control themselves during the day. Perhaps a little less coffee would help too.


    On the walking on egg shells thing, I have actually experienced this myself on the specific example you cited, although it was my male boss, a bully, doing power plays here.


    He gave me a warning once that I was being patronising to a female colleague because I opened the door for her and earlier on that day, I had congratulated her on doing a good job. He considered that as "demeaning and degrading" behaviour towards her. I was her direct line manager. Basically, he was being a cunt, that what he was. My female colleague had no issues with me at all, it was all him trying to cause trouble, but I save all this stuff for a future thread. Oh, I did ask him for the warning to be made to me in writing, he declined.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Look up the definition of paedophilia . Spacey is NOT a paedophile. And the 14 year old is NOT a child. As for the "clear inference" you think I am making, that it is the 14 year old's fault, this is entirely your inference, not mine.


    BTW: I stand by "traipsing" as 100% appropriate in the way I used it. From all the dictionaries I have looked at, a typical definition is "walk or move wearily or reluctantly". Therefore either tell me in which dictionary you have discovered its inappropriateness in the way I used it or just let it go.


    I'm puzzled. You start off your reply by saying you agree with my last 6 words (which are the least important of what I wrote) but nothing else. I thought the idea of a conversion or reply thread was to debate points one disagrees with. Surely one ends up in a conversational cul de sac simply by saying one disagrees.

    As awful as this slime is, why the hell have all these women kept silent up to now? , all these "stars" should look in the mirror as their silence must of helped him justify his actions.

    I think you have put your finger on the key point, the $64000 question.


    Which of these answers do you it might be?


    1) Shame or embarrassment that the "victims" accepted the "casting couch transaction" for personal career gain or survival and now, at long last, they can remove that self-reproach by joining a brave outspoken band of victims.


    2) That at the time they didn't feel particularly frightened or intimidated, just full of disdain or disgust, something to laughingly warn others about at a social gathering, but the victims who have exposed Weinstein have encouraged a new more self-righteous interpretation of his behaviour


    3) That someone has at long last publicly exposed Weinstein's behaviour and there is now safety in numbers in stepping forward


    4) That the person who exposed Weinstein's behaviour had herself gained a lot of favourable publicity, confirming that was no sell-by date, and therefore it was tempting to grab some of this limelight, join this club of gutsy heroines or just unthinkingly climb on the bandwagon


    5) Final revenge for saying no and not getting the part . Virtuous schadenfreude.


    6) Other (specify)



    Multi-choice permitted!

  • Look up the definition of paedophilia . Spacey is NOT a paedophile. And the 14 year old is NOT a child. As for the "clear inference" you think I am making, that it is the 14 year old's fault, this is entirely your inference, not mine.


    BTW: I stand by "traipsing" as 100% appropriate in the way I used it. From all the dictionaries I have looked at, a typical definition is "walk or move wearily or reluctantly". Therefore either tell me in which dictionary you have discovered its inappropriateness in the way I used it or just let it go.


    I'm puzzled. You start off your reply by saying you agree with my last 6 words (which are the least important of what I wrote) but nothing else. I thought the idea of a conversion or reply thread was to debate points one disagrees with. Surely one ends up in a conversational cul de sac simply by saying one disagrees.

    I have given you a reply to all your points, if you think that I have not engaged in conversation with you, that is your opinion.


    Your first sentence here is ludicrous. A 14 year old is a child and someone purporting to be gay doing sexual things to a child is a paedophile. The fact that Spacey chose to come out, as he puts it, when allegations of sexual assault on a child were made against him, proves just what a dangerous predator he is, as he is trying to deflect the argument and in many cases, he seems to have succeeded.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I have given you a reply to all your points, if you think that I have not engaged in conversation with you, that is your opinion.


    Your first sentence here is ludicrous. A 14 year old is a child and someone purporting to be gay doing sexual things to a child is a paedophile. The fact that Spacey chose to come out, as he puts it, when allegations of sexual assault on a child were made against him, proves just what a dangerous predator he is, as he is trying to deflect the argument and in many cases, he seems to have succeeded.

    Hey, you're under no obligation to reply to ANY of my points but if you think you have then maybe they're scattered over several replies and I hasn't summoned up enough energy to collate them. When your reply opens with "I certainly agree with those last 6 words there, but nothing else" it doesn't greatly enthuse me to delve deeper. Maybe by posting such lengthy comments I have been hoisted by my own petard.


    As for your definition of a paedophile, I find it rather pitilessly or unsympathetically all-embracing and it probably wouldn't stand up in court unless it was a Jury trial and the other Jurors has an entrenched unshakeable definition similar to yours. I'll just leave you with this excerpt from Wikipedia, even though I suspect your views will remain adamantine (I love that word - I first heard it from Robert Duvall in Network).



    The word pedophile is commonly applied indiscriminately to anyone who sexually abuses a child,[18] but child sexual offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a strong sexual interest in prepubescent children.[19][20] Under the law, child sexual abuse is often used as an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification.[4][21] The American Psychological Association states that "children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults", and condemns any such action by an adult: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."[22]


    BTW: I cannot help having an aversion or blind prejudice or personal sense of discomfort towards gay men. They can be extremely funny, artistic, creative and intelligent but I would rather than not spend too much time holidaying in Cape Cod, Key West, San Francisco or Mykonos et al. I make this point so that you can either brand me as homophobic or recognise that my opinion about Kevin Spacey's misdeed rises above any personal aversion

  • San Francisco is a great city, one of my favourites. Yes it's got a gay reputation but you're daft if you let that put you off. Never seen a hint of pooviness when I've been anyway. But then there's not much of it in Brighton either where I've lived most of my life. You have to go looking for it I suppose.

  • As for your definition of a paedophile, I find it rather pitilessly or unsympathetically all-embracing and it probably wouldn't stand up in court unless it was a Jury trial and the other Jurors has an entrenched unshakeable definition similar to yours. I'll just leave you with this excerpt from Wikipedia, even though I suspect your views will remain adamantine (I love that word - I first heard it from Robert Duvall in Network).

    If an adult man does something sexual to a person under 16, they most definitely will be labelled a peado and it would stand up in court, whether they'd be a jury or not. I could quote here the laws on the age of consent, what constitutes a sexual attack on a child, but I am sure you know how to use Google to look up things.


    I have no idea whether you are actually being serious with the opinions you state or not, but either way I strongly disagree with them.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I assume that Rob Alka is making the point that even at 18 some youngsters are still very child-like but others at age 14 can be very adult. That does not change the fact that in this country, as in most others, a single age has to be mandated. 16 seems a reasonable compromise.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • Kevin Spacey knew he had a 14 year old in his bedroom. Case closed.


    And talking about shining a light on those who think they can behave as they wish, a story is just breaking about tax havens.:)

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • A very big can of worms for the red tops to feed on.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • If an adult man does something sexual to a person under 16, they most definitely will be labelled a peado and it would stand up in court, whether they'd be a jury or not. I could quote here the laws on the age of consent, what constitutes a sexual attack on a child, but I am sure you know how to use Google to look up things.


    I have no idea whether you are actually being serious with the opinions you state or not, but either way I strongly disagree with them.

    If by now you haven't figured out that I am serious about the opinions I hold, you never will!


    What I can't seem to get you to understand is that paedophilia is not a legal concept. Neither the judge nor jury can find a person guilty of being a paedophile any more than they can find a person guilty of being a bigot, close-minded, prejudiced, irrational, etc. This why in a court the judge needs to enlighten and instruct the jury on what to think about and discuss, casting aside labels that are more prevalent in street protests based on knee-jerk reactions.


    If I thought it would make any difference to your thinking I'd recommend one of the two websites below.


    The first of these two websites ends quite appropriately in the light of our "debate" with


    "This chapter points to the need for ideas around sexual offending, in its widest conception (i.e. stalking, rape, child sexual abuse, paedophilia, etc.) and through all related aspects (i.e., aetiology, offender behaviour and personality, treatment, etc.), to be evidence based (Farrington 2009), and subject to critical reflection, rather than based upon or influenced by knee jerk reactions".


    https://wccsj.ac.uk/images/doc…nitions_and_aetiology.pdf


    https://wccsj.ac.uk/images/doc…sis_in_modern_society.pdf


    If you have neither the time nor inclination to read or even glance through either of these websites please save both of us the time of a further reply because it's not getting either of us anywhere.

  • I assume that Rob Alka is making the point that even at 18 some youngsters are still very child-like but others at age 14 can be very adult. That does not change the fact that in this country, as in most others, a single age has to be mandated. 16 seems a reasonable compromise.

    San Francisco is a great city, one of my favourites. Yes it's got a gay reputation but you're daft if you let that put you off. Never seen a hint of pooviness when I've been anyway. But then there's not much of it in Brighton either where I've lived most of my life. You have to go looking for it I suppose.

    You're right, I'm exaggerating. SF is probably the least intrusive. And some of it in any case is hilarious, eg the gay dance to the setting sun in Key West. Presumably KW's most famous resident, Ernest Hemingway, stayed on his own porch at that time .... although who knows?!

  • Did he know? How would he have known?

    Even if he were to claim innocence for that incident, which notably he didn't, cl;early Spacey has a record of doing this sort of thing:


    The Old Vic theatre said it has received 20 personal testimonies of alleged inappropriate behaviour by Kevin Spacey during his 11-year tenure as artistic director.


    Those affected said they "felt unable to raise concerns" adding he "operated without sufficient accountability".

    I don't see how Spacey can ever get back from this.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • An eighth woman has come forward with claims that former US president George HW Bush groped her.


    An interpreter, whom the BBC has agreed not to name because of the sensitive nature of her job, claims Mr Bush touched her inappropriately in 2004.

    I know the TV news and newspapers have been filled with these accusations about the former president. I wasn't there, obviously, but there is a "little" detail that most of these reports are leaving out. Bush suffers from Parkinson's disease. I don't know how long he's had it, but its been at least several years.


    I know a "little" about Parkinson's, see my blog here, and common characteristics of the disease are that sufferers exhibit inappropriate behaviour of a sexual, racist and threatening nature. I speak from direct experience.


    This generally happens during the early stages of the disease when the sufferer can still talk and is fully mobile, but they all tend to say and do things which are inappropriate and when taken out of context, could be regarded as sexual harassment or assault.


    I don't know if Bush suffered from Parkinson's when these accusations happened, they seem to be from around 2004, but I would suggest that Parkinson's could, could, be the reason for his behaviour.


    He appears to be in the end stages of the disease now, and I doubt he will live much beyond three years, if that. Generally, most people have Parkinson's from somewhere between 7-15 years.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I'm so bored with all this "he groped me" antics. He's ancient and sick. Leave him alone, for Pete's sake and concentrate on the sexual attacks and assaults. They are the serious ones that deserve attention.

    The vagabond who's rapping at your door

    Is standing in the clothes that you once wore

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.