I stand corrected, then.

http://nym.ag/2nu00tQ

We've been here before.

The fact that you’re using a word like ‘corrupts’ shows that, guess what...

Andy wrote:

You’re still making judgements based on knowledge you have after the fact.

Are you being thick, or just doing your usual trolling?

Agreed. ❤️ to Andy.

If his point is what I think it is, I agree. If it isn’t I don’t.

monkey wrote:

If his point is what I think it is, I agree. If it isn’t I don’t.

Skerret wrote:

can someone tell me the point

I'm legit in this boat too Andy. Think I'm with you. Clarify please.

If he thinks what I think he thinks, then it’s just about the extent to which the parents can be blamed. It’s not necessarily naive to leave your child in that context. This is pre mid 90s paedogeddon mania with increased awareness and fear of such stuff. The man gained the family’s trust. I’m sure most film sets don’t really encourage the parents to be hanging around all the time. The film set is probably quite a secure environment and they wouldn’t have been expecting threats to come from the inside. This wasn’t Dushku’s first acting gig and the others had presumably gone ok.

Saville’s crimes weren’t just in care homes. Fix it and Totp were regular points for him to traumatise children. You’re not blaming parents for sending their kids off to Top of the Pops presumably?

What informed your parents faith that you wouldn’t get molested at camp?

I’m not saying that this is you, Escape, but the current conflicting attitudes grip my shit. People post smug shite on facebook about how, when they were kids, they were always out all day, playing in streams and getting grazed knees and experiencing the world (forgetting that the week before the posted some ‘you know you’re a 70s/80s/90s kid’ bollocks with all the children’s TV they watched). Then we get the Yewtree stuff and all of a sudden it’s, “Where we’re the parents?” Which do people want? Whichever suits their current ill-informed opinion.

There is a discussion to be had about the parents of successful kids, and those who lose focus of what’s important. But that discussion isn’t helpful here because, “where were the parents,” deflects at least some of the blame from the monster who abused the kid.

It’s easy, with hindsight, to suggest that parents have been neglectful when something happens. But you’d be as well saying that parents who let their kids walk home from school are neglectful.

@Skerret, sorry, I should know better than to post when unrelated real life stuff is getting on my tits. Transference, my bad, sorry.

Escape, if you’re seriously going to try suggesting that your parents wouldn’t have let you go to camp if it had been male staff, I’m not going to buy that for one second. If you’re not suggesting that, I’m still not sure what you think your parents did to guarantee you’d never be abused.

Again, suggesting that some kind of parental failing is responsible for kids not disclosing is also in that same victim-blaming territory you’re occupying. Children (and adults, btw) have a multitude of reasons for not disclosing, and it’s common even in homes with loving, caring, supportive environments.

Do you know why? It’s because, contrary to what you seem to believe, it’s not often easy for these people to operate. Sure, some of them are clumsy opportunists, but they tend to be found out early doors. The ones who are good at what they do, though, are accomplished con-artists. They win the trust of the people around them. Often, the win the trust of the people around the child. Occasionally, they win the trust of an entire nation.

I’m pretty sure I’ve already acknowledged that parental failings ‘can coexist as seperate failings’. I just feel that they key part is that it is seperate, and I find it vulgar to discuss it under the banner of this topic.

Yar, Andy bossin’ it in here.

I think the crux of our disagreement is differing levels of faith in Hollywood as an overall conch. If not in light of allegations, when is the right time to talk about the potential lack of protection for child actors?

I find myself in relative alignment with Greer, insofar as there's no way to change showbiz, as wrong as it routinely is. Women aren't putting up with recurrent lechery from dribbling duffers without recompense, and to a far lesser extent that cuts both ways. To a lesser extent because the hierarchy's clearly misogynistic (and that's a matter for social change re: patriarchal nepotism), but even if loads of those men found a conscience and sold their companies to women, I think it'd be the same kind of women who thrive on cut-throat practices. More men'd be groped and fewer women. The fact that men can physically defend themselves to ensure that such happenings are largely consensual is a massive point.

But despite the need to do loads more to counter these rapey bastards, their abuses are ultimately baked into the big-film industry for as long as it offers fame and fortune. You're not gonna turn it into a meritocracy, and if you accept that and visit men voluntarily in hotel rooms with an eye to casting, though their crimes will and should stand in isolation, it's naive to complain that you didn't see at least a bit of it coming. I don't think that very many women are that stupid, but they expected to endure lines that were crossed with sleazy impunity.

Whenever this comes out, as in the case of Weinstein, it's quite right for everyone to testify against him collectively, but still tons of aspiring actors will grit their teeth for years to come. I would. Looking for ethics in Hollywood is as fruitless as looking for them in porn or banking. It's militant. Craig's been Bond for so long because of Barbara B.

I know that this post won't make me popular, but it's important to me to not pretend that I feel otherwise for the sake of that. My views aren't an argument that I'm right, just my view as it currently is. Subject to evolve, as ever.

https://thenextweb.com/gaming/2018/02/02/counter-strike-co-creator-arrested-suspended-from-valve-for-sexual-exploitation-of-a-child/?__twitter_impression=true

Speaking of which.

Thanks harvey you big ball of shit you have ruined a whole rack of films for me. Don't think I can watch a Weinstein production anymore. Sad to see that Tarantino was at best looking the other way and at worst complicite.

From the Guardian:

In a 2003 interview with Howard Stern, Tarantino said of Polanski: “He didn’t rape a 13-year-old. It was statutory rape ... he had sex with a minor. That’s not rape. To me, when you use the word rape, you’re talking about violent, throwing them down — it’s like one of the most violent crimes in the world ... Throwing the word rape around is like throwing the word ‘racist’ around. It doesn’t apply to everything people use it for ... She wanted to have [sex]! Dated the guy!”

So, I think this post will be the last time I mention meeting Tarantino. What an arse.