I know nothing. Other than you do or anyone who follows the media, reads papers, watches TV.

But I've experienced the False Allegations Industry and I've watched it destroy other innocent people - men and women; families & friends. I think I can guess the truth; indeed I can almost guarantee this is the truth.

Harvey was clearly sexually inadequate but discovered he could seduce attractive women. Persuade them to have sex with him when they didn't really want to. Agree to sexual relationships despite finding him deeply unattractive.

A prime example of the "casting couch" generation. Ugly but powerful men in movies. Can you imagine Alfred Hitchcock in 2020? Him too.

And hundreds of others.

Back then this was considered acceptable. Inevitable and commonplace if disapproved of (by me as well as others).

Just as choirboys in church (all religions) knew priests, vicars, immams etc would "try it on". Usually they were warned in advance by intelligent parents, teachers, friends and told just how to avoid seduction - at worst a knee in the groin worked wonders.

Ditto celebrities, producers, doctors, teachers - it could well happen - avoid it in various ways. Unless, of course, you want it (as many adolescent males did - some were predominantly gay; others merely curious and over aroused).

Times changed. Quite rightly, in many ways. Morality altered. Hypocrisy started to get trumped by righteous indignation. Crucially - orphans. Children in care homes unable to protect themselves from predators. Something I suspect was commonplace in the Victorian era. The louder the adults shouted CHARITY, the worse the abuse that was concealed.

The great God of literature, Charles Dickens, tried to do something about it. Read between the lines of Oliver Twist (a brilliant novel, by the way, worth reading if you never have; far greater than the films). Perhaps the greatest opening sequence ever (very nearly captured in the movie) of Great Expectations. Do you really believe Magwitch gave Pip all that money in return for a pie? Dickens needs to be read by those with brains. Not only incredibly commercial and populist but highly intelligent, aware, honest.

Michael Howard when Home Secretary in the 90s tried to do something about institutional historical abuse. By changing the law so abused children did not need evidence of ancient sex crimes, he clamped down on abusers. But this changed law was bound to be used by other criminals (some of them ambitious police). Instead of blackmail, False Allegations took over. Compensation. Sympathy. Fame. Media interviews. The mighty publicist Max Clifford rubbed his hands with glee. Horny footballers were escaping his clutches. Celebrities, sex, morality - all great copy for media.

And the public fell for it. The Emperor never wore that New Suit. He was always naked. But media and gullible public (we all love a great story) preferred to believe. You will be believed.

And so the industry grew. Bent cops realised they could get promotion; increased budgets. Bent lawyers found they could soak up loadsacash. Bent PRs saw huge cheques and fees for their clients from tabloids and even broadsheets. Bent media proprietors saw circulation increases, ratings rising, profits growing. Bent accusers learned or were taught that it only needed a bit of exaggeration. If they had met a star they could claim they were raped by him or her. Even ordinary people (preferably wealthy) could be accused, convicted, compensation claimed. Indeed, even if victims - oops, perpetrators - were acquitted, compensation to victims - oops false accusers - could amount to thousands.

If the "victims" were drunks or drug addicts - blame the abuse. Cry on TV. "My life has been ruined".

Everyone in the world of Entertainment had heard rumours about Weinstein (as we have about hundreds of others). The grain of truth (he crossed the line of decent behaviour many times) grew into a loaf of bread ("he kissed me" became "he raped me"). Boosted by media, assisted by law, the Industry exploded.

I don't think Harvey ever broke the law. Like Jimmy Savile he was far too bright to risk losing everything. But he didn't realise that morality changes over time, encouraged by media inflation (everything needs to be coloured up a bit). And the law (follows media and "public outrage"). Judge past behaviour by current morality and you're screwed.

I think Weinstein behaved incredibly badly. But like so many others (Bill Cosby; Gary Glitter) he doesn't deserve exaggerated punishment for exaggerated tales and exaggerated laws. A pinched backside has become rape. Nobody with any decency approves of a pinched backside or a stolen kiss or a subtle grope. But equating them with murder does society no favours.

JK2006 wrote:


I don't think Harvey ever broke the law.


The law thinks differently.

I don't like the "no smoke without fire" argument but in this case that amount of smoke is overwhelming.

Unwanted exposing of yourself is a criminal offense, many ladies came forward and told of this behaviour plus other more illegal and unwanted acts. Some ladies may have decided willingly to allow him to do what he wanted because of career aspirations but others didn't. His company made many $100,000+ payments to cover up the complaints made about him.

Like you I don't know what happened behind closed doors but in this case there was enough evidence produced to secure a conviction. There are many false allegation cases but I don't believe this is one of them

As you well know BB in the entertainment world we've been making loads of smoke on stage (and on film sets) using DRY ICE. No smoke without even one flame of fire.

JK2006 wrote:
As you well know BB in the entertainment world we've been making loads of smoke on stage (and on film sets) using DRY ICE. No smoke without even one flame of fire.

I worked for many years in senior corporate positions and have witnessed various men who behaved and acted like Harvey Weinstein. I have also had associations with the sex industry and have seen the behaviour of otherwise regular guys change when in a sexually charged enviroment.

Unless you witness something yourself judgements are based on probabilities. The verdict by the New York jury was guilty and I believe the vast majority of people will agree based on witness statements and the New York times investigations etc etc etc etc

Oh I absolutely agree with you BB; the vast majority of the global public will say he was guilty because he's been found guilty (of some charges) in a Court of Law and how could a law court get things wrong?

And as I've said I'm sure he was totally guilty of doing things that were acceptable then but are not in 2020 - and indeed some of them could now be considered illegal.

I'm just saying - people exaggerate. Media exaggerates. Lawyers and police exaggerate. It's not hard to exaggerate stories so they become illegal. If there was solid proof I'd condemn him as Guilty. But these days an allegation is proof. They will be believed.

THAT is what I think is dreadfully wrong.

I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be much firm evidence required for a conviction.

It is horrible horrible horrible that sex offenders can get away with it simply because it happens with no witnesses usually, but just as vile that innocent people can easily be convicted BECAUSE of the relaxed standard for evidence.

I have no idea if Harvey Weinstein is a rapist or just a creep. I don't know if the girls were victims or chancers, because the procedure is too vague for me to be able to accept the verdict.

Blue Boy wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
As you well know BB in the entertainment world we've been making loads of smoke on stage (and on film sets) using DRY ICE. No smoke without even one flame of fire.

I worked for many years in senior corporate positions and have witnessed various men who behaved and acted like Harvey Weinstein. I have also had associations with the sex industry and have seen the behaviour of otherwise regular guys change when in a sexually charged enviroment.

Unless you witness something yourself judgements are based on probabilities. The verdict by the New York jury was guilty and I believe the vast majority of people will agree based on witness statements and the New York times investigations etc etc etc etc

The phrase "Judgements are based on probabilities" makes me feel a bit sick.
I want proof.

Well said Honey I'm 100% with you.

The present time emphasis on emotion based judgements (It is possible that even probability doesn't often enter the equation either just emotion and belief) have also conveniently forgotten that many women are able to exercise power over men and often do by the power of their sexuality. I agree with the defense lawyer that ultimately in many of these situations we should learn to be also accountable for our own actions. But nonetheless women hold a hell of a lot more power than many modern day women are giving themselves credit for.

It can be two sided even in Hollywood

I can't say I'm all that familiar with Charles Dickens but there is a novel of his which satirises and criticises legal over-reach and legal bureaucracy - I refer to Bleak House.

My favourite novel of all time!

Really? I can understand that in your case, given your view that you were a victim of a legal conspiracy. I remember a law lecturer recommended it to the class at college. I'd imagine I was one of the few in the class that bothered to read it (my father had a fine collection of books, including literally everything by Dickens and Trollope, most of which didn't interest me.)

Perhaps a premonition but it was always my favourite novel; though I advise friends wanting to read Dickens to start with A Tale Of Two Cities (the most accessible; impossible to put down). The RSC did an incredible multi hour stage version of Nicholas Nickleby (my favourite ever theatrical show).

Honey wrote:
The phrase "Judgements are based on probabilities" makes me feel a bit sick.
I want proof.[/quote]

A conviction in any legal system is based on probability. If you have video evidence then guilt can be 100% certain but most crimes aren’t videoed therefore there are different standards of proof are applied
“beyond a reasonable doubt”
“Preponderance of the Evidence”
“clear and convincing standard”

Under the clear and convincing standard, the evidence must be substantially greater than a 50% likelihood of being true. In a criminal trial, clear and convincing is less strict than the “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” standard, which requires that evidence be as close to 100% as possible.

These standards are based on probabilities. "Proof" is put forward in a trial but a judgement has to made if that "proof" is actually true

JK2006 wrote:
Perhaps a premonition but it was always my favourite novel; though I advise friends wanting to read Dickens to start with A Tale Of Two Cities (the most accessible; impossible to put down). The RSC did an incredible multi hour stage version of Nicholas Nickleby (my favourite ever theatrical show).

Ah ok. I've always thought A Christmas Carol was his most accessible but A Tale of Two Cities would be close. I must admit I couldn't finish Bleak House.

Incidentally, JK, I would agree about Hitchcock. If, by some freak of genetics or nature, he was still alive today, he'd either be in the middle of various trials, or in prison. There is a case in England recently where a 100 year old was convicted of historic sex crimes.

tdf wrote:
Incidentally, JK, I would agree about Hitchcock. If, by some freak of genetics or nature, he was still alive today, he'd either be in the middle of various trials, or in prison. There is a case in England recently where a 100 year old was convicted of historic sex crimes.

I dont like the idea of very elderly people being convicted of ancient crimes because it can only be about punishment not rehabilitation.
And of course, they might have already rehabilitated themselves.

So Honey, at what age would you allow OAPs - convicted of very serious crimes (rape, murder, treason etc.) off - scott free?

Barney wrote:
So Honey, at what age would you allow OAPs - convicted of very serious crimes (rape, murder, treason etc.) off - scott free?





People age at different rates and have different health challenges. A hundred years old would be a waste of time though, don't you think?

Honey wrote:
I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be much firm evidence required for a conviction.

It is horrible horrible horrible that sex offenders can get away with it simply because it happens with no witnesses usually, but just as vile that innocent people can easily be convicted BECAUSE of the relaxed standard for evidence.

I have no idea if Harvey Weinstein is a rapist or just a creep. I don't know if the girls were victims or chancers, because the procedure is too vague for me to be able to accept the verdict.

I think Honey nails it here.