Harvey Weinstein Sentenced To 23 Years In Prison

[TheDevil]

And the movement has momentum!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/03/11/harvey-weinstein-sentenced-23-years-prison/

[naomi24]

In fairness I think Khandro has a point. Having been attacked once why would anyone agree to meet up with their attacker again? Similarly, the woman who's complaining about Prince Andrew ... went back to him three times. None of that excuses what Weinstein has done - nothing gives anyone carte blanche to attack anyone and Weinstein does deserve everything he gets because he is a dirty, horrible, abusive old pervert - but on principle Khandro does have a point. Just saying.

[TheDevil]

"// A waste of money? Seriously?//"

It kind of is a waste of money when you think we could just kill the predator. He's made people live with the scars his ugly face burned into their minds (have you seen the man? He's ugly and vile)we might as well let him not live anymore. Saves us money and time and no one really cares about him anymore. Surprised he's not topped himself to be honest. He probably should.

[TheDevil]

"Having been attacked once why would anyone agree to meet up with their attacker again? "

You don't know the ins, outs or the situation. So, lets not speculate and just let the record show that Harvey has been found guilty after a lengthy trial.

[jno]

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/style/domestic-sexual-abuse-relationships-abuser.html

[TheDevil]

Naomi price Andrew groomed girls that were young. That is what grooming is. He's not a paedophile by any means but he groomed "underage" girls.

Regarding Weinstein who knows why the woman went back. She may have been blackmailed or forced into the situation. You just don't know. But why does sharing a hotel room (for business) mean sex? Why would it?

[pixie374]

TD, we can't kill him, because we aren't allowed to. And that is more expensive, not less. So although, not the point, if we are worrying about taxpayers money, this is cheapest.
What may be controversial, is that I think if we are guaranteed somebody only leaving prison feet first, that further trials are not necessary.
I don't think it is "justice" for the victims to continue, as most will just be relieved he won't be free again.

[TheDevil]

"And that is more expensive, not less."

Depends how you do it.

[pixie374]

Legally, I meant.

[jno]

pixie, I gather they're talking about "extraditing" Weinstein to the west coast to face more charges. I suppose it's an open question whether he'd be best in Sing Sing or San Quentin.

[TheDevil]

You've got to think what Harvey took from his victims. How being sexually assaulted / raped / abused would affect your mind, and then the rest of your life living with the memories, thoughts and feelings left behind.

For that, weinstein deserves to be fed to dogs.

[naomi24]

TD, //You don't know the ins, outs or the situation. //

And neither do you. Nevertheless you want him dead.

[TheDevil]

Yeah cus he's been found guilty Naomi. So that we know for a fact.

Regarding the ins and outs of each separate encounter and situation is moot. It can only be guess work.

However knowing he's guilty is public knowledge.

[naomi24]

TD, //Regarding the ins and outs of each separate encounter and situation is moot.//

Of course it is - because you say so. Personally, I would not re-visit someone who had attacked me. I assume it's okay for me to say that - or do you want to make an argument out of that too?

[TheDevil]

"I assume it's okay for me to say that - or do you want to make an argument out of that too?"

Seems like you're trying to make it into an argument? I personally dont care what you think or say lol.

"Of course it is - because you say so."

No, it is because it is. People were assaulted and raped, why and how doesn't matter. Fact is weinstein was the predator and he's facing consequences.

what drink was drank what anyone was wearing is moot. The facts are the facts.

[jim360]

If you perceived your career to be at stake; if you complained and weren't listened to; if you thought it might be a one-off; if you were too embarrassed to remember it; if you blamed yourself, rather than Weinstein; would it be so easy to avoid putting yourself in the same situation?

Maybe then still, yes, you'd be able to walk away and never put yourself in the same situation again, but that doesn't mean that other people who went through it deserve to be questioned, scrutinised, and their sincerity doubted. This is what happened in the trial, the cross-examination for Weinstein's defence making more or less exactly this argument.

[jackthehat]

Whilst I would certainly be loath to have a second meeting with someone who had assaulted me, or attempted to do so, the very nature of the way Hollyweird works means that being selected for certain roles rests on bullies/ abusers like HW.

Remember those young, promising actresses who seemed to disappear from view for *no reason* ......well, I think you'll find you have your reason.

[naomi24]

Jim, //If you perceived your career to be at stake; if you complained and weren't listened to; if you thought it might be a one-off; if you were too embarrassed to remember it; if you blamed yourself, rather than Weinstein; would it be so easy to avoid putting yourself in the same situation? //

For me, yes.

TD, //I personally dont care what you think or say lol. //

Course you don't. That's why you jump on practically anything I say. I've said that I can see that Khandro has a point. It was his point. Why aren't you responding to him?

[jim360]

I thought it might be, but then it's easier to be a hypothetical victim than an actual one, and hopefully that's how it will stay.

[TheDevil]

Because Khandro evidently thinks every account of rape involves a woman kicking and screaming. No point discussing this topic with such a narrow opinion on sexual assault.

She didn't scream so was it even rape? ... Imagine..

[naomi24]

And you're still responding to me. :o)