Be Excellent To Each Other
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/

Hollywood Assaults
https://www.beexcellenttoeachother.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11093
Page 8 of 9

Author:  Pundabaya [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 18:22 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Lonewolves wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
every time Morrissey opens his mouth I die a little inside.


He has an absolutely fucking awful singing voice.

Yes. Yes he has.


FTFY

Author:  myp [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 18:27 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Err, no.

PS wrestling is shit.

Author:  Hearthly [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 19:49 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

You try not to let it taint the astonishing, towering magnificence of The Smiths' output (and a decent amount of his solo output in fairness, albeit less and less so in that regard over the years), but it's getting increasingly hard work with the utter fucking shite he's been coming out with for years now, and often quite hateful shite at that.

And yet apparently there are some superb tracks on his latest album, which I'll probably listen to and enjoy.

As cliched as it is, I guess geniuses are often troubled and disturbed and/or disturbing on some level, and Morrissey is (was?) definitely a lyrical genius.

Author:  ApplePieOfDestiny [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 19:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

I don’t think he’s disturbed, I just think his new music is pap even by comparison to stuff he released only 15 years ago, and he’s intentionally controversial to regain attention. I also think he’s very careful with his language, enough to be quoted out of context to attract bigger headlines (implying things he didn’t say, despite what he said being bad enough) and leaving enough wriggle room for his fans to accept it as a misquote.

Author:  markg [ Mon Nov 20, 2017 20:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

I don't know if he's trying to appear "authentic" or whatever by parroting the views of e.g. the thickest twat in the pub or if those are just his actual views. I don't really care either way. I always thought he was a complete fucking tool.

Author:  Nik [ Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:17 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

He's a sociopathic, racist, foghorn-voiced empathy-vacuum. (And I like the Smiths.)

Evergreen Viz article from years ago:
Attachment:
IMG_1194.JPG

Author:  LewieP [ Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Looks like Bryan Singer is finally in hot water.

Production has halted on the Freddie Mercury biopic he's directing, starring your man Rami Malek from Mr Robot. The official story is that he is "ill", but I am pretty sure there's more to it than that.

This one has been a big one for me. I grew up watching the X-Men movies. I still remember going to see the first one in the cinema with my dad, who read the comics when he was a kid. I never heard about the the numerous allegations against him until a couple of years ago, and when you look into it, it's pretty horrific stuff. Lots of allegations that get quietly hushed after the fact, lots of settlements reached, NDAs signed etc. When I first heard the rumours, I just thought it was gossip, and didn't put too much weight into them, but looking over things now it paints a pretty clear picture. There's been a significant number of accusers, he is associated with multiple convicted paedophiles, the story of Brad Renfro and extras hired to work on Apt Pupil, his ties to Kevin Spacey, him deleting his twitter account in the wake of the Weinstein allegations, the creepy as hell stuff his company Digital Entertainment Network produced, Bret Easton Ellis sharing (second hand) stories about what went on at Singer's underage parties, stuff like this and this, and him photographed at one of his parties dressed a priest with his arms around teenage boys.

Scary part is that it's possible he's been able to get away with it, because powerful execs/producers/agents attended a lot of his parties, so I imagine he's had the mindset that he is untouchable (and there is plenty of truth to that). He has the same lawyer as Cosby, Weinstein and Spacey. You'd kind of think with a clientlist like that, you'd have people not wanting to hire that lawyer.

Ian McKellen has been linked to his underage pool parties too. Not enough to hang him on, but I think serious questions need to be asked.

My theory is that he's gone into hiding because he's got wind that a big report on him will be published soon, but maybe not. Depending on how serious things are, I wonder if he's planning to fight them, or to go on the lam.

Author:  asfish [ Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

That guy you link to on Twitter, Paul Empson is typical of the problem, he claims to have seen Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey being inappropriate with small boys at a party for the Superman Film that Spacey starred in.

That was released in 2006 and 11 years later he is on the twitter confessional bandwagon.

He is a bad as the abusers by nature of his silence.

Author:  LewieP [ Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

asfish wrote:
That guy you link to on Twitter, Paul Empson is typical of the problem, he claims to have seen Bryan Singer and Kevin Spacey being inappropriate with small boys at a party for the Superman Film that Spacey starred in.

That was released in 2006 and 11 years later he is on the twitter confessional bandwagon.

He is a bad as the abusers by nature of his silence.

It's tough. Guys like these have a lot of money/power. It's not inconceivable that they will resort to all sorts of methods to discredit you. Weinstein hired a private squad of ex-mossad agents to tail and intimidate his victims and journalists.

If you've not got any evidence, it's just your word against theirs.

I'd like to think I'd speak up if I saw something like that, but I don't really know for sure I would.

It's absolutely not as bad as the abusers.

Author:  Trousers [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:38 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

I love John Oliver

Quote:
NEW YORK — HBO host John Oliver hammered Dustin Hoffman about allegations of sexual harassment and the actor fired back with a ferocious defense, as a seemingly benign screening became an explosive conversation about Hollywood sexual misconduct on Monday night.

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:05 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Trousers wrote:
I love John Oliver

Quote:
NEW YORK — HBO host John Oliver hammered Dustin Hoffman about allegations of sexual harassment and the actor fired back with a ferocious defense, as a seemingly benign screening became an explosive conversation about Hollywood sexual misconduct on Monday night.


I also love John Oliver, but:

“It is reflective of who you were. If you’ve given no evidence to show it didn’t [happen] then there was a period of time for a while when you were a creeper around women. It feels like a cop-out to say ‘it wasn’t me.’ Do you understand how that feels like a dismissal?”

So it's on Hoffman to prove he didn't harass? Seriously?

Also this:

“Do you believe this stuff you read?” Hoffman asked.

“Yes,” Oliver replied. “Because there’s no point in [an accuser] lying.”

We've been over this over and over, and it's so so stupid. Maybe Oliver should read Dostoevsky. People aren't rational and do all kinds of stupid shit all the time. They aren't robots.

Author:  Trousers [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:39 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.

Author:  myp [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:41 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Trousers wrote:
I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.

:kiss: :kiss: :kiss:

Author:  Hearthly [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 13:51 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Trousers wrote:
I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.


Very germane!

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Trousers wrote:
I disagree.

Women have been shouted down or intimidated for years and then they get called liars when they do raise anything and they have nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from raising historical assaults.

If a few Hollywood actors get made uncomfortable because they haven't fully addressed what happened then boo fucking hoo frankly. The balance of probabilities based on those in the limelight that are admitting such behaviour and that people in power tend to abuse that power is that something happened, so Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously.


So the burden of proof should change depending on the status of the accused? That's what you're implying?

Also, according to you, the risk of having someone being wrongly accused is negligible because they're rich? I disagree. Also, i do remember when my sister, who is a lawyer, told me in the first year of her career "it's better to have 100 criminals free than to have one innocent in jail". I think i've already quoted here before, and will do again in the future if needed.

Besides, using the term "lying" in what amounts to an accusation of what happened 40 years ago is reducing this to a black and white situation. Memories are malleable and ever changing, and for some reason a 40 year old testimony holds a different weight in a court of law than a 1 year old for example.

EDIT: and now i quote something from the great Joe Miller, from The Expanse: "You know, every time you remember something, Your mind changes it, just a little, Until your best and your worst memories. They're your biggest illusions. "

Author:  Cras [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

"Chat show host things you've harrassed women" and "in jail" are really very different things.

Which is why one has a higher burden of proof than the other.

Author:  Cras [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:16 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

It's also likely that the vast majority of assault and harrassments currently being reported will never make it to trial because of the weakness of personal testimony and the age of the incidents. Does that mean we should declare everyone innocent and the women all liars?

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:22 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Cras wrote:
It's also likely that the vast majority of assault and harrassments currently being reported will never make it to trial because of the weakness of personal testimony and the age of the incidents. Does that mean we should declare everyone innocent and the women all liars?


Maybe neither? Why the hyperbole? Fortunately the age of "Acts of faith" is past. Courthouses exist for a reason.

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Cras wrote:
"Chat show host things you've harrassed women" and "in jail" are really very different things.

Which is why one has a higher burden of proof than the other.


Burden of proof is burden of proof. Not "higher" or "lower". Even if the person in question doesn't do to jail, name and personal reputation is very important, it may in fact be the most important thing.

Author:  Trousers [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:26 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

What Cras said basically.

"Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously." is hardly "THEY SHOULD ALL BE LOCKED UP"

A Tweet on my timeline that Jon Ronson just highlighted sums up my feelings on it well;

"On the John Oliver thing and so on. The redistribution of discomfort does not mean hating men. It’s a movement of some discomfort from women experiencing things to men facing them."

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:35 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Trousers wrote:
What Cras said basically.

"Oliver is right to at least pursue the line of questioning with more vigour than has been in evidence previously." is hardly "THEY SHOULD ALL BE LOCKED UP"
"


Yes, he did question Hoffman, which he did reply that it never happened. Now what? Apparently Oliver isn't happy until Hoffman gives the answer he desires.

Author:  Cras [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:40 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

RuySan wrote:
Cras wrote:
"Chat show host things you've harrassed women" and "in jail" are really very different things.

Which is why one has a higher burden of proof than the other.


Burden of proof is burden of proof. Not "higher" or "lower". Even if the person in question doesn't do to jail, name and personal reputation is very important, it may in fact be the most important thing.


You should talk to your sister the lawyer again. There are very many different levels of burden of proof. Civil cases, for example, have a lower burden of proof than criminal ones. Which is why OJ Simpson was found guilty of murder in a civil court but not a criminal one.

Someone being mean to you on a chat show has a lower burden still.

Author:  myp [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:41 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:56 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.

Author:  Curiosity [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:57 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


But things happen that don’t go to court. If you heard that a friend was being a dick on a night out from a few sources, you wouldn’t assume they were being fine because it didn’t go to court.

Author:  Hearthly [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

If 'Rain Man 2, He Still Won't Fly' gets cancelled because of this shit, I'll be very upset.

Author:  myp [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 15:59 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

It's weird how it's only sexual assault victims we don't automatically believe. If I say my car has been stolen, everyone is sympathetic. No one asks to see my empty driveway or police report or waits until the alleged burglar is found guilty.

Author:  Hearthly [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:01 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Curiosity wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


But things happen that don’t go to court. If you heard that a friend was being a dick on a night out from a few sources, you wouldn’t assume they were being fine because it didn’t go to court.


You're talking about something personal and people whom i know. I might have believed more or less depending who was the friend being a dick.

Author:  myp [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Hearthly wrote:
Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

If only. It's been a complete money sink since I got it. :'(

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Lonewolves wrote:
It's weird how it's only sexual assault victims we don't automatically believe. If I say my car has been stolen, everyone is sympathetic. No one asks to see my empty driveway or police report or waits until the alleged burglar is found guilty.


What a silly analogy. When you say your car has been stolen you're not accusing anyone. The potential for slander is zero.

Do you think if this woman accused Hoffman of stealing her car, then everyone would believe?

Author:  Trousers [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:05 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.

Author:  Grim... [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Lonewolves wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

If only. It's been a complete money sink since I got it. :'(

At least it has cupholders.

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


Wasn't this a case of there being multiple witnesses corroborating a modus operandi?

Isn't Hoffman a case of "he said/she said" instead?

Author:  myp [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:10 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Hearthly wrote:
Sorry to hear about your car man, that sucks.


<< hugs >>

If only. It's been a complete money sink since I got it. :'(

At least it has cupholders.

:kiss:

Author:  Trousers [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:18 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

RuySan wrote:
Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


Wasn't this a case of there being multiple witnesses corroborating a modus operandi?

Isn't Hoffman a case of "he said/she said" instead?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26312001

It always starts off with denial or some attempt to reduce the impact or to undermine the accuser.

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:28 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Trousers wrote:
RuySan wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Burden of proof is a legal definition. We've been over this time and time again. Believing victims has nothing to do with court cases or trials or any other legal definitions, considering most victims never press charges for all the reasons we've stated before.

You can believe victims yet still believe in the rule of law. It isn't hard to understand.


The thing is, why should I believe anyone I don't know? I don't believe or disbelieve hoffman nor i believe or disbelieve the accuser. I do not know any of them personally. That's for the courts to decide.


That is effectively saying the ONLY way to resolve these matters is through the courts.

Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


Wasn't this a case of there being multiple witnesses corroborating a modus operandi?

Isn't Hoffman a case of "he said/she said" instead?


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26312001

It always starts off with denial or some attempt to reduce the impact or to undermine the accuser.


We had a similar case here. Our ex-most respected TV presenter was more than 10 years in jail for being a peadophile.

Which he was most certainly was. But in the same case every day there was a new name of a celebrity being called as belonging into the same paedophile ring. The victims lawyer said to a tv reporter "children never lie" and that was indeed the case with the public opinion because many of those accused had their names forever smeared. I don't doubt there were many molesters that escaped conviction but there were many accused that were cleared of all charges were their careers finished.

So i don't know where this "people never believe the victims" comes from.

Author:  RuySan [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Also, I would most certainly believe a child much faster than an adult, so it's not as if i'm any different.

Author:  Trousers [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 16:31 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

RuySan wrote:
We had a similar case here. Our ex-most respected TV presenter was more than 10 years in jail for being a peadophile.

Which he was most certainly was. But in the same case every day there was a new name of a celebrity being called as belonging into the same paedophile ring. The victims lawyer said to a tv reporter "children never lie" and that was indeed the case with the public opinion because many of those accused had their names forever smeared. I don't doubt there were many molesters that escaped conviction but there were many accused that were cleared of all charges were their careers finished.

So i don't know where this "people never believe the victims" comes from.


I said it starts off with denials - I certainly said didn't say "never". Those people that do come forward first are brave as fuck because they are going to face the most vehement denials and character assassinations.

Author:  LewieP [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 20:24 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Looks like Bryan Singer has been fully fired, and his production company kicked out of the fox studios.

Author:  asfish [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 20:41 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Quote:
Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


He did die before all of his abuse came to light!

Author:  MaliA [ Tue Dec 05, 2017 20:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

asfish wrote:
Quote:
Jimmy Saville was never convicted in a court.


He did die before all of his abuse came to light!


Because nobody spoke out, as he was in a position of power. Which is sort of a point here

Author:  LewieP [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:09 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Max Landis accused of having beaten up several women. Seemingly those he was in abusive relationships with.

Fourth high profile instance of something along these lines from Netflix in the last few months, right? I wonder if it's them being new kids on the block and not having policies to combat this stuff. Or maybe not being as experienced in covering it up. Or not having as many establishment connections etc.

Author:  myp [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:29 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

A lot of people said he was a complete arsehole which was enough to put me off watching Dirk Gently, so I'm not entirely surprised by this.

Author:  LewieP [ Sat Dec 23, 2017 11:34 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Yeah Chronicle was good, but rest of his work I've seen has been pretty bad.

And from what I've seen him voluntarily say/do publicly I thought he was probably a bit of a jerk, so hearing these allegations about his private life didn't come as much of a surprise.

Being the son of a famous Hollywood director is probably somewhat conducive to thinking you can get away with anything. Kinda feels like he's fallen upward for most of his career.

Author:  Mimi [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:37 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Closest fitting thread I could find: I Made the Pizza Cinnamon Rolls from Mario Batali’s Sexual Misconduct Apology Letter

Author:  Trousers [ Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:54 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Mimi wrote:


I just read that after you Tweeted it and thought it was excellent. Not the rolls though.

The Scroobius Pip Distraction Pieces podcast with Lena Heady covers the subject well - Lena Heady seems to be a bit awesome.

Author:  myp [ Sun Jan 14, 2018 23:32 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Aziz Ansari. :'(

https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari ... ssion=true

Author:  Grim... [ Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Eliza "Faith off Buffy" Dushku was apparently assaulted on the set of True Lies by her stunt coordinator.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... llegations

She was twelve.

Author:  Cras [ Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:02 ]
Post subject:  Re: Hollywood Assaults

Fucking hell

Page 8 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/