- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 432 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
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. 58864
> What about all the a Listers? Is the actual reason they're a Listers because they willingly let him shag them?
it's because they were pretty enough that he just wanted to bum them, not piss up their arses afterwards
|>>|| No. 58865
Did you really have to post this ugly cunts face in the op. He's a cunt. You're a cunt an all. Fucking boring mate.
|>>|| No. 58866
Would you have preferred George Bush's cheeky face whilst he squeezes someone's arse from his wheelchair?
|>>|| No. 58867
Probably yeah to be honest, at least sounds amusing. Just sick of seeing this twats ugly mug everywhere.
|>>|| No. 58868
Oh it is amusing, lad. It is so amusing.
>Confined to a wheelchair, as Bush has been for about the past five years, “his arm falls on the lower waist of people with whom he takes pictures”, McGrath said.
>“To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke – and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner. Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate,” McGrath wrote. “To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely.”
>Meanwhile a second woman, actor Jordana Grolnick, told Deadspin a similar story.
>Following a performance of The Hunchback of Notre Dame that Bush had attended in Maine, “We all circled around him and [former first lady] Barbara for a photo, and I was right next to him,” she told the website. “He reached his right hand around to my behind, and as we smiled for the photo he asked the group, ‘Do you want to know who my favorite magician is?’ As I felt his hand dig into my flesh, he said, ‘David Cop-a-Feel!’” Grolnick said others in the room “laughed politely and out of discomfort”, while Barbara Bush “said something along the lines of, ‘He’s going to get himself put into jail!’ to which we laughed harder”.
|>>|| No. 58869
What ever happened to all those women who claimed Donald Trump molested them anyway?
|>>|| No. 58873
Female staff at Westminster are naming and shaming sex pest MPs on a secret WhatsApp group, it has been revealed.
Cabinet members are believed to be among a list of politicians branded 'not safe' in taxis and lifts or 'very handsy' by aides and researchers. A source claimed the scandal could see MPs and other parliamentary personnel outed by the weekend and that resignations are 'anticipated' as a result.
While the 'usual suspects' are said to be well-known by those in Westminster, the list was recently drawn up to bring new recruits up to scratch on 'younger names'.
A member of the group told The Sun: 'The usual old suspects are there but there have been some surprising younger names crop up.”
Another told the paper women working in parliament actively protected each other from overly-keen politicians. They said: 'For years we have all looked out for each other. It’s like, "So-and-so is hiring, but it can’t be a woman for him".'
Some of the more incredible allegations include stories of MPs enjoying sex sessions with staff inside parliamentary offices. Other bosses in Westminster allegedly called female staff members ‘sugar tits’ and asked for affairs.
It is also claimed that a Labour MP referred to as the 'disco king' groped a woman during a trip abroad while a Tory grandee was banned from hiring 'leggy' women.
I'm starting to feel like everyone but me is a sex pest.
|>>|| No. 58874
Could you make a proper thread. I like Comic Sans and all caps as much as the text lad but this isn't the right board for this.
|>>|| No. 58880
>The Conservative MP Mark Garnier has admitted asking a former assistant to buy sex toys. He did not deny the accusations about events in 2010, made by his former assistant Caroline Edmondson, to the Mail on Sunday.
>“I’m not going to be dishonest,” he said. He insisted that referring to Edmondson as “sugar tits”, as she says he did, was a reference to the popular BBC comedy Gavin and Stacey, saying: “It absolutely does not constitute harassment.”
>According to the report, Garnier gave Edmondson money to buy a sex toy for his wife and another for a woman working in his Wyre Valley constituency office, and stood outside the shop while she bought them.
It's turning into a witch-hunt. Can't even call women sugar tits anymore.
|>>|| No. 58881
>Other bosses in Westminster allegedly called female staff members ‘sugar tits’ and asked for affairs.
I swear to God right, the way my colleagues greet each other in a morning is with language that would get these people sacked and nationally shamed. All the lasses in our place do it too, we have equal opportunity inappropriate behaviour. One of the lasses introduces me to newbies by telling them I've got a massive knob (she's never even seen it). We've had affairs go on left right and centre. It's surreal when I think about it.
But somehow I'm still convinced that our way is better than all these fucking puritan wankers who can't admit humans fuck or think about fucking or make references to sex in speech. The world's fucking lost its marbles I'm telling you.
And anyway the weinstein thing is a load of shit. They were all happy to suck him off for a big movie break because they are shallow cunts. If anything it's upcoming male actors who should be pissed off because they don't have that option, they have to get their parts by having actual talent.
|>>|| No. 58882
>IT'S UPCOMING MALE ACTORS WHO SHOULD BE PISSED OFF BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION, THEY HAVE TO GET THEIR PARTS BY HAVING ACTUAL TALENT.
Oh you sweet sweet naive summer child.
|>>|| No. 58883
Oh so blokes can suck dick in exchange for vast wealth and fame? You don't hear them complaining about it all I'm saying.
Someone was talking about a uni professor who offered a student a guaranteed pass for sexual favours. I mean let's be honest would you rather do four years of hard graft or suck one dick.
|>>|| No. 58885
>OH SO BLOKES CAN SUCK DICK IN EXCHANGE FOR VAST WEALTH AND FAME? YOU DON'T HEAR THEM COMPLAINING ABOUT IT ALL I'M SAYING.
Because men are traditionally open about being sexually assaulted
|>>|| No. 58887
>Mrs May has scrambled to get on the front foot and take action as fresh details of the sexual harassment scandal rocking Westminster emerged. But she has been dragged into the saga after it was reported she gets weekly sleaze updates on her MPs - but lets ministers accused of wrongdoing serve in her Cabinet.
>The PM is said to be given a regular 'ins and outs' chats which covers which politicians are having affairs, sleeping with prostitutes and taking drugs. But sources claim party whips treat the allegations as a 'bit of a laugh' and have failed to report them to police.
Didn't she also undermine the paedo investigation?
|>>|| No. 58891
Is it odd that I'm more interested in finding out which ones are "perpetually intoxicated" than which are the dirty pervs?
|>>|| No. 58894
The Mail is pretty lax with the definition of words, in particular misuse of "hilarious".
|>>|| No. 58901
So have we come up with a catchy name for this whole scandal? Stalkergeddon? Phwoartergate? I feel like it won't have the gravitas it deserves without one.
|>>|| No. 58902
I really can't be arsed with another election right now. Can't we just have them replaced with those aliens from Body Snatchers?
No need to worry about a global takeover, small agricultural farms will never survive in this economy.
All of these things are believable behaviour from a Conservative MP, they're famous for it, aside from the one weirdo who is dating a researcher. It's a little inappropriate in the workplace but I don't know how he managed to make the list.
|>>|| No. 58904
Ugh, brilliant, I just imagined that thing having sex. I've already started cooking dinner too, it'll just have to go in the bin.
|>>|| No. 58905
> aside from the one weirdo who is dating a researcher. It's a little inappropriate in the workplace but I don't know how he managed to make the list.
His inclusion on that list reminds me of what this list ultimately is, gossip. I can't think of any good or moral reason why that is anyone's business.
|>>|| No. 58910
The list has been leaked online. You can find an imgur link in the sticky thread on the top of the ukpolitics subreddit, which has victims' names removed (but not the accused).
It's been described by a political journalist on Twitter as a 'mish-mash of real and fake', apparently with some glaring omissions.
Plenty of nobodies on there, but some fun ones too. Not posting it here for obvious reasons.
|>>|| No. 58914
Hang on, what the fuck. Why did the mods puss out?
|>>|| No. 58917
Post the fucking names; absolute state of these mods.
|>>|| No. 58918
Sup' Reddit, this is might be a little confusing for you but this is a post in iq with no claim of authenticity and a disclaimer on the landing page that nothing here is to be taken seriously.
|>>|| 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.
|>>|| No. 59790
Uma Thurman is the latest one out of the woodwork. Weinstein allegedly tried forcing himself on her in 1994 and the event was so traumatic she appeared in four further miramax films, including kill Bill, and was seen cosying up to him as recently as 2016.
|>>|| No. 59791
It's alright mate, women aren't out to get you. Maybe one day one will actually let you touch her.
|>>|| No. 59792
The biggest bunch of victim blamers tend to be other women.
Don't you think it's a bit funny to keep schtum for financial gain and then go out in public about it when that option suddenly becomes the best career option to take? I've been sexually abused and I certainly wouldn't want anything to do with the abuser if I had anything to do with it, particularly starring in things they are funding where you'll be forced to have close contact with them.
|>>|| No. 59794
But you don't have anything to do with it, as a number of people in Hollywood have found to their cost. If rumours start circulating saying you're difficult to work with, then unless you're sufficiently bankable your career is dead. That's before considering whether someone is tied into a multi-picture deal. They could sue to get out of it, but whether they win or not it makes them look difficult.
|>>|| No. 59801
it seems to be that the problem is people are getting the concepts of "unwelcome and awkward sexual advance" mixed up with "forced non-consensual sexual contact".
i can understand that it's a very fine line, and i'm only being slightly sarcastic when i say that, but trying to ply women with drugs/booze/status/money because you're too ugly and unlikeable to pull them "properly" isn't the same thing as being a hyper-rapist turbo-carpet-bagger.
|>>|| No. 59802
Ah, the "it's not really rape" or "it wasn't that bad" defence. Lovely stuff mate.
|>>|| No. 59803
The phrase "sexual misconduct" is being bandied around a great deal these days and I think it's very dangerous. We have good legal and common-sense definitions of "assault" and "harassment". There might be some grey areas, but we understand the meaning of those words. "Sexual misconduct" is something else entirely, something that has no meaning in law and no commonly-understood definition, something that carries some rather puritanical connotations.
I'm absolutely fine with people talking about "sexual misconduct" as a means of exploring where the boundaries of acceptable behaviour should lie. I'm fine with someone using it to describe an experience that made them uncomfortable. I'm not fine with people trying to blur the lines between a sex crime and distasteful behaviour. I'm not fine with trial-by-media based on vague, anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations.
|>>|| No. 59804
prescisely. it all just seems awfully regressive when you look back at the sexual liberation we've undergone since the 60s.
we have to wonder if the message we are sending to younger generations is really about personal rights and freedoms, or if really it's telling them that men should be ashamed of their urges and women should perceive sex as a threat.
i don't think it's healthy no matter how good the intentions behind it are.
|>>|| No. 59834
The current Oxfam story is a really clear example of this. There have been lots of stories about a "sexual misconduct scandal", but the only concrete allegations are that some Oxfam aid workers in Haiti and Chad paid for sex with prostitutes. It's a bit seedy, it's not in keeping with the image Oxfam would like to maintain, but it's not illegal under British law and there's no evidence that anything was non-consensual. A lot of the reports on the story don't actually say what the allegations are, allowing the reader to infer whatever kind of outrage they might imagine. Un-named sources are speculating that these prostitutes might have been underage. I think that a lot of journalists are quite deliberately using the term "misconduct" in an effort to smear Oxfam with innuendo. It's a clear effort to skirt the limits of libel.
|>>|| No. 59835
I saw them discussing this on The Wright Show (not by choice) and I noticed they were heavily leaning on "some Haitian sex workers are underage". Not even that the ones involved in the Oxfam thing were, just that underage sex workers exist so therefore dot dot dot. It's fucking irresponsible and I have no idea how they manage to stay on the right side of the law with this stuff.
If I made a tweet right now that said "some females are underage and Matthew Wright has sex with females. Paedophile?" I'd full expect to be answering for it in court.
|>>|| No. 59837
"Sexual assault" means something illegal, whereas "misconduct" can just mean something that HR should have dealt with. That's the fun part about libel - when defending yourself you get to decide what meaning to ascribe to the words, and the other side has to prove you meant something else.
|>>|| No. 59838
Well if I said it about a brown bloke it'd be hate speech, that's a guaranteed arrest.
|>>|| No. 59839
To be fair, it was Oxfam's own report into the matter which stated “It cannot be ruled out that any of the prostitutes were under-aged.”
My other half does a fair bit of charity work and there's been at least three instances of people misappropriating funds and one instance of someone being caught on CCTV going through the coat pockets and bags of the service users. Every single time it was hushed up and no further action was taken because the charity didn't want the negative publicity that would have gone with it.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]