web analytics


By Pete Moore On October 10th, 2017

Thirteen women have told The New Yorker that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted them. Three women allege that he raped them. It also airs a tape of Weinstein bullying and sexually harassing a model.

Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie say that he sexually harassed them, reports The New York Times. I said that this is going to dark places. Expect it to get much darker.

You have to admit, it puts Trump’s locker room braggadocio in perspective.


  1. And it’s still the liberal press to blame, apparently.

    It was only an open secret in those circles, not decent society.

    This is, quite categorically, bollocks.

    Fifteen years ago I had a chat with a Mail journalist who told me what a sleazebag this man was. All rumour, he said, so of course difficult to prove. Everybody knows it, but you can’t print it.

    Try blogging an unsubstantiated rumour about an American millionaire, Pete, see what happens, yeah?

    I used to wonder whether you were deluded or just stupid, and now I realise it’s both.

    So you think it’s plausible that this story could be an “open secret” among liberals, but totally unknown to conservative journalists?

    Firstly, what sort of journalist doesn’t make it their business to find out the gossip among their political foes? How incompetent are these heroic conservative journalists that they could remain ignorant of this juicy story for THIRTEEN YEARS while it was the talk of liberal Hollywood?

    Secondly, and sorry to break this to you, but journalists talk to each other. Even Breitbart and Guardian journalists pick up gossip over a drink or three. You may despise anybody who isn’t of your particular nasty Nationalistic bent, but most journos will happily gossip with the competition.

    Enough said. Your original post manages to blend laughable partisanship with staggering naivité, and your follow-up just adds a dollop of bone-headed arrogance to the mix.

  2. masterson, usually your posts are quite erudite, but here your ad hominums just detract.

  3. Try blogging an unsubstantiated rumour about an American millionaire, Pete, see what happens, yeah?

    Err … Trump is a Russian stooge!

    Now look masterson, you can disagree with me all you like. Everyone is free to be wrong after all. But your personal abuse does you no good. Someone might get the idea that libs can’t debate with reason.

  4. 13 women, wow that’s 1 more than Trumps 12 ladies who launched complaints
    trump won’t like losing this ratings war !

  5. It was also an open secret that Cyril Smith was a child-abusing pervert as was Ted Heath, but that’s just unsubstantiated rumour……

    I suspect that (((masterson))) is going to pieces because the nature of (((Hollywood))) is being revealed. What I want to know is why now? Why is Weinstein being thrown under the bus? He must have done something bad and, to be clear, his bosses don’t consider ‘fun’ with shiksas to be bad

  6. It is snowballing like hell, as things usually do when a dam bursts. He is starting to seem as creepy as Cosby. So far as I know, no word from Hillary or Obama which is disgraceful.

    I don’t think it should be an excuse for Trump’s behavior though.

  7. Was it put the multiple accusations of rape against tromp in perspective?

    Pete seems highly obsessed by this scum of the earth Weinstein. Anyone want to speculate how many posts Pete Moore will make about Weinstein? Five? 10?

    Obama actually sent his daughter to intern for this bastard. Well how about that.

  8. Isn’t the New Yorker part of the dreaded mainstream media?

    How did they get this additional detail and not Breitbart or Daily Caller?

  9. //Thirteen women have told The New Yorker that Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted them.//

    Even if this were true (which it obviously isn’t), I just don’t see the importance of the story.

    This Weinstein – who I’d never have heard of if it wasn’t for Pete – tried to get his way with a lot of young women, apparently by fair means and foul. But he was a Holywood mogul, thus – so what? We all know the jokes about aspiring actresses having to serve their time on the lap of the producer before getting “a break”. Where’s the news here, and what on earth has a comparision with the President of the US have to do with it?

    As far as I can see, this is all just celebrity gossip on a grander scale.

  10. Noel, from 1991 he has donated $750,000 to the Dem Party which obviously makes anyone in the Democratic Party, particfularly the Clintons and O’bama, guilty by association of his sexual misconduct allegations.

    That’s it in a nutshell.

  11. He is also a Bundler, a Bundler is someone that gathers others to Donate.

    When they have those nice posh parties that he holds, which he held quite a lot of, those parties for the Clintons, the Obama’s Gerry Brown, and quite a lot of other Democrat politicians they are 10,000 dollar a plate parties and you’re not paying for food.

  12. Noel

    It’s not OK

    And there are multiple accusations of forcible rape against him as well


  13. I can’t see what the sunstantive difference between a donater and a bundler is Troll however here is a breakdown of his personal donations and those ‘bundeled’ :


    Regardless of a donater or bundler, how his sexual peccancies are tied to Clinton, the Obamas and the Dems in general I don’t know?

  14. No Phantom, it’s not okay at all although the ‘casting couch’ culture has existed in the showbiz, cineman and modelling industries for as long as the industries have.

    That doesn’t mean to say that it’s okay, merely that it’s a long recognised professional hazard.

  15. Phantom check your bayridge account

  16. Paul do you want to do another post on all this?

  17. I could Troll but I’m not sure that it would contribute anything which can’t be said here.

  18. His sexual misbehavior’s have nothing to do with them directly Phantom, but money buys influence. Influence that can provide protection.

    If you own the politicians regretfully they can protect you from the Police, Lawsuits, the Press etc, it’s not right but it happens.

  19. If you own the politicians regretfully they can protect you from the Police, Lawsuits, the Press etc, it’s not right but it happens.

    Well, that doesn’t seem to be the case here. As has been repeatedly pointed out to Pete, it was the liberal / Dem bubble NYT (not good) MSM that broke the Weinstein story?

  20. after 30yrs of abuse and only when it was about to be broke in other publications.

    You don’t think with 30yrs of this behavior Lawsuits and charges haven’t been squashed? Nobody went to the cops or hired a Lawyer?

    I find that very hard to believe.

  21. The rich and powerful often get away with decades of bad behavior. We’ve seen that with Cosby, bill clinton and now Weinstein. His ability to put money and advance (or destroy) careers) kept many who perhaps should know better in check.

  22. What other publications was it broke in and when?

    You don’t think with 30yrs of this behavior Lawsuits and charges haven’t been squashed?

    Maybe, but you are asking me to comment on an unknown.

    What I do know is that Hollywood moghuls are very intimidationg to those who want a career in Hollywood and they also have the cash to afford the best legal intimidation representation money can buy.

    I suspect that this is the case much more than some vaguely insinuated friends in high political places.

  23. it’s wrong but it happens all too often

  24. //Noel
    It’s not OK//

    I never said it’s ok. The man’s obviously a jerk. But I’d be wary of rape accusations against someone in that context or of such wealth and influence.

    Let’s say some young women found themselves obliged to have sex with him, even though he creeped them out, because his position made compliance necessary if they were to get a break.
    That is still a choice of theirs; they could always have walked away. Women in that business (and in many others) also know, or should know, that they will probably be asked to make that choice somewhere along the line. We all know that there are more than enough jerks around who will use their position to demonstrate their power over women. They are despicable, but women still have a right to pay that price if they wish or to refuse it.

    Later the women may have regretted what they did, and perhaps he defaulted on his promises.

    That for me is very ugly but not criminal behaviour on his part, and probably that’s more or less what happened in most cases.

    Rape occurs only when the victim is forced or blackmailed or whatever. Maybe he’s also guilty of that, but just because Hollywood celebs automatically stand behind their sisters does not prove his guilt.

  25. Noel

    Let’s say some young women found themselves obliged to have sex with him, even though he creeped them out, because his position made compliance necessary if they were to get a break.

    In the US, that’s a crime.

  26. it’s wrong but it happens all too often

    Agreed. It’s the Hollywood culture since Hollywood began.

    Attempts to link Weinstein’s sexual inappropriacies and Hollywood culture with Democratic politicians is pretty pathetic barrel scraping.

    In the US, that’s a crime.

    That’s interesting Troll, what would the crime be? I doubt that being ‘given a break’ in showbiz, cinema, modelling etc in return for sexual favours would constitute duress.

  27. His actions appear not merely to be the offers of movie roles for sex, but also nonconsensual sex including actual rape by more than one accuser. In the event of a civil lawsuit (or criminal prosecution) his confidential settlements will not protect him (which is why his claim that he would sue for defamation was laughable).

  28. //In the US, that’s a crime.//

    According to my intuition, it shouldn’t be a crime. It’s like prostitution; a woman agrees to have sex with some creep because she wants the money – or the career advancement.
    Maybe where prostitution is illegal both situations are illegal.

    But it’s shaky ground legally, I’d imagine. Where do you draw the line between normal prostitution, sugger daddyism, sex as price for getting an opportunity that you normally would not have got, or even sex as a price for getting a rich husband that you normally wouldn’t have wanted? I suspect several women I know married for the latter reason.
    (fortunately I was almost broke when I met my wife, so I know her intentions were true)

    As far as I’m concerned, they are all part of the same continuum, and none is seriously wrong from the woman’s point of view.

    People are born with different backgrounds, wealth, looks, strengths and weaknesses and opportunities. Each should be allowed play the hand he or she is dealt as best he or she can. Let moralists make laws for themselves, but not for others who – you will find – were usually born with less chances and resources than they were.

  29. Prostitution, sugar daddyism, the woman is offering herself, in what he was doing and any situation where a woman is forced to have sex or you don’t get the job or the promotion it’s against her will and considered rape.

  30. // it’s against her will and considered rape.//

    And if a wife agrees to have sex with her husband, even though “it’s against her will” at that moment, because she wants him to be in a good mood before she asks him to buy that hat, that’s rape too I suppose.

  31. In my opinion these rules go out the window once you’re married, but husbands have been charged with rape here in the US.

  32. Where a woman is forced to have sex

    A woman being forced to have sex is indeed rape as it is non consensual. Even if a woman initaially consents to sex but changes her mind half way through the act and the man carries on it is considered rape as it is non consensual.

    The benchmark is consent, (in Europe anyway), and I doubt that a woman consenting to sex in return for a job etc woulf be considered rape. If the woman were to consent to sex in order to get a job etc and then the job was withdrawn I suspect in legal terms it would be more breach of contract than a criminal offence.

    Likewise with marriage, consent is the key.

  33. Paul – that is basically it.

  34. The linked article was written by Ronan Farrow, the son of Mia Farrow.

    For those who have the time to read, I could not recommend a subscription to New Yorker highly enough. Every week, you will see well written non fiction essays on the widest variety of subjects, along with short stories, poems, and their famous cartoons. I get the print edition, with the downloadable electronic edition as a backup. Best value in town.

  35. Harassment

    It is illegal to harass an employee because of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

    It is also illegal to harass someone because they have complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

    Harassment can take the form of slurs, graffiti, offensive or derogatory comments, or other verbal or physical conduct. Sexual harassment (including unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other conduct of a sexual nature) is also unlawful. Although the law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or if it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

    The harasser can be the victim’s supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.

    Harassment outside of the workplace may also be illegal if there is a link with the workplace. For example, if a supervisor harasses an employee while driving the employee to a meeting.

  36. It is IMO not correct to see this primarily in a ” is this legal/is it illegal ” sense.

    For the sake of this discussion, I don’t care what the laws of NY/US are.

    The behavior described is vile. The reported enabling behavior by Matt ( bigmouth know it all ) Damon, and Russell Crowe is just as bad.

    And I would think that the oh so smart Bill and Hillary Clinton would have been in the know on this since the day before forever, and shame on them too.

  37. as a man and as a father of two daughters I find the behavior outrageous.

    The reason I posted the law was because those on here were questioning whether or not it was illegal.

    Phantom check your e-mail please.

  38. For the sake of this discussion, I don’t care what the laws of NY/US are.

    The behavior described is vile.

    Good point, Phantom. Even if certain behaviour is legal, it doesn’t mean it is acceptable.

    In Ireland, a group of thuggish protestors who surrounded the car of and intimidated a female Govt Minister and her female secretary were found not guilty of any crime. However, they are still lowlife thugs and should be called out as such.

  39. And IMO no part of this should be explained away as ” political correctness ” or ” changing standards “. This predatory behavior was never OK.

    I’m surprised that Weinstein never got his head busted open by a brother/father for what he was up to.

  40. Even if a woman initaially consents to sex but changes her mind half way through the act and the man carries on it is considered rape as it is non consensual.

    The first female launched on the space shuttle in 1983. Halfway through the launch, at 12 miles high, she changed her mind and wants off. What should NASA have done?

    What happens if she was getting raped then found that she liked it and reverted to post-non-consual consent?

    The point here is that it is impossible to base legal doctrines on the variability of a woman’s mind.

  41. https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/917932480983982080

  42. I’m surprised that Weinstein never got his head busted open by a brother/father for what he was up to.

    surprised is an understatement

  43. Allan there is something really wrong with you

  44. Harassment is illegal here too Troll however how do you prove harrassment when a woman doesn’t reject the advances / attention and consents to sex in order to improve her career etc?

    For the sake of this discussion, I don’t care what the laws of NY/US are.
    The behavior described is vile

    Absolutely it is Phantom but you are confusing law and justice which are two different concepts which are not always synonymous and should never be conflated. What is lawful doesn’t always equate to just and vice versa.

  45. And another thing’s for sure. You can absolutely bet that Weinstein isn’t the only one guilty of this and that the casting couch culture is far from finished.

  46. Sextuple alliteration. Not bad.

  47. He gave $680K to Obama in 2012 $350K to Hillary in 2016.

    Will they be giving the tainted cash back?

    er nope.

    Judge him by his friends.

  48. Paul

    Oh I’m aware.

    But at the end of the day I see that the greater cause of justice will be served by the fact that the very high profile Weinstein will now be a pariah.

    And correctly so.

    The fact that Weinstein is shamed for all the world to see is a good and just thing.

    Yes, this goes on, in NY, LA, and Paris and Milan and everywhere there is show business and modeling and all that but it was never OK.

    To me, the fact that he was such a bigmouth liberal shooting his mouth off about every political cause in the world makes it impossible to even listen to any defense of ” you are applying today’s standards to what was acceptable 25 years ago “.

  49. Agreed on all points.

  50. //Judge him by his friends.//

    Dogisgreat, I’m sure Weinstein would be delighted to have you in a jury, if he is to be only judged by the fact that he’s a friend of Obama.

    And I believe Trump also donated cash to Hillary. Which of them are we to judge by the other?

  51. Judge him by his friends.

    Oh dear:


  52. Trump bought politicians from both parties for influence buying and access purposes ( he’s openly said that ).

    Weinstein was a foaming at the mouth limousine liberal, a true believer in justice for all. Except when it was himself doing the injustice.

  53. http://pagesix.com/2017/10/11/brad-pitt-in-real-life-tough-guy-role-vs-harvey-weinstein/

    Brad Pitt threatened to unleash a “Missouri whooping” on Harvey Weinstein, after his then-gal pal Gwyneth Paltrow told him the movie mogul had sexually harassed her, according to a report.

    Paltrow said that when she was just 22, Weinstein — who hired her for the lead role in “Emma” — invited her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel and suggested they go to the bedroom for massages.

    She described the nauseating experience to Pitt, who confronted Weinstein at a theater premiere.

    “Brad threatened Harvey,” a source told People magazine. “He got right in his face, poked him in the chest and said, ‘You will not ever do this to Gwyneth ever again!’”

    “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” star, who grew up in Springfield, Missouri, “made it clear there would be consequences” if Weinstein tried anything again — and “described it as giving Harvey a ‘Missouri whooping,’” according to the source.

    “He made it absolutely clear this was not going to happen again and it didn’t,” the source told the mag.

    A tip of the hat to Brad Pitt.

  54. Woody Allen warns against witch hunt in Weinstein affair.

    Big error.

    Allen is being openly ridiculed on discussion boards of NY Times and NYC social sites.

    Mr. Allen’s children, Dylan and Ronan Farrow, have continued to speak out against him. In 2014, Ms. Farrow wrote an open letter in The New York Times further detailing her allegations of her father’s abusive behavior and condemning the film industry’s apathy: “That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye.” (Mr. Allen wrote a Times op-ed denying the accusations.) Mr. Farrow has been vocal about his support for his sister.

  55. I just realized this – it was Ronan Farrow, the son of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, who is estranged from Woody Allen now, that wrote the well researched, devastating piece in The New Yorker

    This would have been an issue that he took an exceptional personal interest in. The Woody Allen matter turned his own life upside down.

    In 2011 he commented, “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression.”[70]


    Good man Ronan.

  56. While I believe in innocent until proven guilty, no one wants to hear from a creep like Woody Allen on this issue.

  57. Woody Allen was quite a beloved figure here, before.

    Not now, not for a long time.

    He says that he is sorry for everyone involved.


  58. I loved the Wood Man and his films of New York. But there are lines that just can not be crossed. Daddy-Husband is a big one!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.