- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 400x400 pixels
- Currently 438 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
43 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 58863
How come it's always minor actresses who claim Weinstein raped them? Like "the actress who appeared in Big Momma's House 2" claiming he forced himself on her after the baftas.
What about all the a Listers? Is the actual reason they're a Listers because they willingly let him shag them?
|>>|| No. 58921
I am Michael Fabricant and purple will be hearing from my lawyers, because I have nothing better to do than go after piddling little sites like this while it is posted on much bigger fish all over the rest of the Internet.
|>>|| No. 58922
>4 Publication on matter of public interest
>(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that—
>(a)the statement complained of was, or formed part of, a statement on a matter of public interest; and
>(b)the defendant reasonably believed that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest.
|>>|| No. 58924
So you think this is document is covered by the official secrets act do you?
Also, and this is quite crutial, Ponting was acquitted.
|>>|| No. 58926
What's the Strawman here? Ponting was an official Secrets Act case, you can't apply the same rule to an office memo about who is banging who because oddly enough the rules for violating the official secrets act are stricter.
|>>|| No. 58927
>What's the Strawman here?
That the Official Secrets Act or the acquittal were relevant. The judge made a finding on a point of law. The jury ignoring it doesn't invalidate it because the jury doesn't decide the law.
Now fuck off shitposting in /iq/, this place is for serious business only, like who that one who bums blokes wearing perfume is.
|>>|| No. 58929
That's all fine and dandy, but these days you have to pay the costs even if your defence succeeds, and as we all know are purps would rather spend that money on the expensive yacht and pad in the Caymans that he definitely didn't have, honest guv.
|>>|| No. 58930
I'm sorry if I gave mods/purpz hastle by posting this.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 58933
I like that Theresa was giving the statement condemning harassment with Amber Rudd sat next to her. There's something quite funny about that, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
|>>|| No. 58939
Michael Fabricant is on first dates on channel four right now.
He seems like he could definitely be a sex pest.
|>>|| No. 58940
He's on the version of the list I saw, for being inappropriate towards a male journalist if I remember correctly. I think he's come out and denied it though.
|>>|| No. 58945
He didn't flat-out deny it though. He said that the accusation was so incredibly vague that he really didn't know if there was any truth behind it or not. And I think that's perfectly fine for him to say, I think it's actually quite bizarre that that a list of random accusations that appeared out of thin air from unknown sources could be considered newsworthy.
|>>|| No. 58949
Looks like he's a character from the League of Gentleman played by Mark Gatiss
|>>|| No. 58968
I'm excluding the phone call example as he didn't get consent for that, that one and therefore calling that sexual harassment is entirely appropriate.
I read throgh his confession and it seems somewhat odd to me. Is the issue here that his tastes are unorthodox if he had asked to fuck these women would they have been so shocked when he actually did it?
He talks about the power he held making the consent invalid but what power?
I'm not sure this is news other than that Lewis is a bit of a freak.
|>>|| No. 58969
>HE TALKS ABOUT THE POWER HE HELD MAKING THE CONSENT INVALID BUT WHAT POWER?
The power he held in his line of work. All these women were comedians, and CK is a huge legend in that scene. He was king of the New York circuit even before he was on the telly, and after that he was a producer on multiple sitcoms and working on films and the rest in LA.
He very certainly had the power to blacklist these people, or give them their big break. The power he had is comparable to Weinsteins, just for stand ups instead of Hollywood actresses.
|>>|| No. 58970
What's the world coming to when a bloke can't just have a wank without being called a pervert?
|>>|| No. 58972
I'm reminded of that 'consent is as simple as tea' bollocks. I'd like to see them try spin Louis C.K. to that logic.
"Don’t drink tea whilst you are on the phone to someone unless you have both agreed you can drink tea."
"You are invited round tea is never expressly offered, but you expect it might be, and you are ready and willing to drink it if it is, then they ask if you mind if they have some tea, and you say of course not, so they make tea only for themselves and drink it in front of you. After ten minutes you finally decide you are not comfortable watching them drink tea. They stop drinking tea."
dickish it may be to not make tea for your guests, but the kettle is there and they are perfectly capable of making a cup for themselves.
|>>|| No. 58973
The problem I have is that years ago, before he was ever named, the incident of the two girls in the hotel room was reported as a blind item.
They were described as, when he asked if he could have a wank, giving him a "facetious thumbs up".
That's hugely problematic, as how the fuck do you expect him to know it was facetious? I think we're far too conceptual with consent, and really what we need is to just make sure people know they can't abuse their power like this. If these women truly felt compelled to let him do this because they feared the power he had over their career, then that's a huge problem and I'm not sure how to address it.
|>>|| No. 58976
You say that but how far are we really? Just to be safe, I'm going to have a solicitor draw me up some consent forms.
|>>|| No. 58977
There have been rumours for years about CK's wanky antics. I don't think he's done anything illegal, but I think that most of us can agree that wanking at women half your age is a bit dubious.
|>>|| No. 58978
>wanking at women half your age is a bit dubious.
Quite right everyone knows the rule is half your age plus 7.
|>>|| No. 58979
If you establish you do that and you forget them or run out before sex, or do something spontaneous sometime you'll make it look like it was rape.
|>>|| No. 58980
Remember to continually ask "Do you consent to this?" during the act. If you don't get an immediate answer in the affirmative, leave immediately and hand yourself in to the police.
|>>|| No. 58981
There is nothing wrong with the legal definitions of consent, but there is a subset of feminists who play obnoxiously naive when anyone talks about the idea that people in the real world don't always spell things out. As if they've never seen people communicate that they want each other through body language and subtext.
Where of course the reverse is true here, consent was expressly given but the intend subtext was 'no it isn't' here which illustrates how fucking stupid the argument has been all along.
|>>|| No. 58982
There's nothing wrong with men being encouraged to think more carefully about the ethics of their sexual behaviour. I think the problem comes when certain feminists treat any unwanted approach or regrettable experience as evidence of "declining salmon populations".
The phrase "don't tell women how to dress, tell men not to rape" frustrates me immensely. Rape is a criminal offence that carries a life sentence - I don't think we could be any clearer that rape is a bad thing that you shouldn't do. Signs in car parks warn you to lock your doors and hide your valuables, but that doesn't mean we've got a "theft culture" or that we're victim-shaming people who get their sat navs nicked. A lot of feminist rhetoric seems to be militantly opposed to addressing the complexities of consent, which does a disservice to everyone.
|>>|| No. 58990
You hear a lot that "consent is simple" and there's an analogy where if you train a dog not to eat something because you've told it not to, then it won't. And obviously if a dog can do it why can't men?
But to jump on that analogy, what happens if you facetiously allow a dog to eat the food? Or if you're drunk and feed it, then wake up the next morning and realise you shouldn't have given him that steak?
the major issue is if you even try to suggest there may be grey lines, you're branded as a disgusting rapist.
|>>|| No. 58994
I was thinking about this. I think it is because it comes from a branch of philosophy that handles how things 'ought' to be rather than how they actually are. It is dictatorial and utopian rather than observational. So pragmatic solutions are critqued by it like mandates of world view that promote the agendas they seek to mitigate rather than what they are, the worst possible choice apart from every other method that has ever been tried.
|>>|| No. 58996
Maybe it's just knowing he's a giganto-perv, but Weintien's mug is properly off putting. I'll be glad when this thread's done one.
Don't bump it then, knob head.
|>>|| No. 59037
You know that God is a sexaul predator, right? Mary was a teenager and Jesus was a rape baby.
|>>|| No. 59041
From the Talmud:
>“FUCK THE GOYIM, FUCK THEM FULL FORCE IN THE ARSE AND MOUTH.” (I think I'm quoting this correctly).
So really, when you think about it, it's the result of an institutionalised declining salmon populations in the Jewish community as they have a mandate from God for their actions and therefore, isn't their fault. These men are ALSO victims.
|>>|| No. 59049
I'm just not sure the way to change that is by inseminating potted plants.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]