|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 20, 2017 17:51:17 GMT
Yes. I see he has all his excuses lined up. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2017 19:26:40 GMT
Yes. I see he has all his excuses lined up. Shocked me to see you quoting the guardian Jan. I know nobody reads/watches Rupert Murdoch news, obviously, but my computer blocks the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Thought yours would the Guardian |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 20, 2017 19:33:01 GMT
Yes. I see he has all his excuses lined up. Shocked me to see you quoting the guardian Jan. I know nobody reads/watches Rupert Murdoch news, obviously, but my computer blocks the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Thought yours would the Guardian No, I am quite happy to read opposing arguments, you should give it a try. Why you are all quite so opposed to Murdoch is a bit opaque, he supported Labour for many years, got them elected really. Actually I bet I’m one of the few here not lining his pockets via Sky |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2017 19:42:29 GMT
Shocked me to see you quoting the guardian Jan. I know nobody reads/watches Rupert Murdoch news, obviously, but my computer blocks the Daily Mail and Telegraph. Thought yours would the Guardian No, I am quite happy to read opposing arguments, you should give it a try. Why you are all quite so opposed to Murdoch is a bit opaque, he supported Labour for many years, got them elected really. Actually I bet I’m one of the few here not lining his pockets via Sky I had a thing about Peter Hitchens for awhile in that respect, haven't found anyone else worthy yet. Any recommendations?
Not having Murdoch got Labour elected. Blair was really popular, and the Tory's he beat in all the election wins were unelectable.
I reckon there would be a few here who refuse to give Rupert Murdoch any of their hard earned cash though. A good board this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 20, 2017 19:49:23 GMT
No, I am quite happy to read opposing arguments, you should give it a try. Why you are all quite so opposed to Murdoch is a bit opaque, he supported Labour for many years, got them elected really. Actually I bet I’m one of the few here not lining his pockets via Sky I had a thing about Peter Hitchens for awhile in that respect, haven't found anyone else worthy yet. Any recommendations?
Not having Murdoch got Labour elected. Blair was really popular, and the Tory's he beat in all the election wins were unelectable.
I reckon there would be a few here who refuse to give Rupert Murdoch any of their hard earned cash though. A good board this.
Murdoch supported Labour in those elections though, given the supposed influence the left claims the Sun has now you can’t have it both ways and say it didn’t have a significant impact then. The way this board lights up when a Game of Thrones actor is in a play makes me think many people are happy to fund Sky and Murdoch whilst also moaning about them. |
|
19,787 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 20, 2017 19:50:41 GMT
No, it just means you've been lucky. No it doesn’t. It means she hasn’t experienced it. You can’t just dismiss an opinion like that unless you accept that the people who have experienced it have been UNlucky. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Oct 20, 2017 19:59:24 GMT
I had a thing about Peter Hitchens for awhile in that respect, haven't found anyone else worthy yet. Any recommendations?
Not having Murdoch got Labour elected. Blair was really popular, and the Tory's he beat in all the election wins were unelectable.
I reckon there would be a few here who refuse to give Rupert Murdoch any of their hard earned cash though. A good board this.
Murdoch supported Labour in those elections though, given the supposed influence the left claims the Sun has now you can’t have it both ways and say it didn’t have a significant impact then. The way this board lights up when a Game of Thrones actor is in a play makes me think many people are happy to fund Sky and Murdoch whilst also moaning about them. Yeah we have a right wing written press, but not one here who would ever claim Murdoch and the scum won the 1992 election or any other. And neither would you.
GoT is on HBO?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2017 21:50:24 GMT
I thought it was just a matter of time before this happened. Perhaps there will be more revelations to come. Anyone even vaguely associated with Theatre has heard the stories. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 20, 2017 22:41:01 GMT
No, it just means you've been lucky. No it doesn’t. It means she hasn’t experienced it. You can’t just dismiss an opinion like that unless you accept that the people who have experienced it have been UNlucky. The proposition is that the way women dress can stop them being the target of harassment. There is ample evidence that this is not true. Women are harassed and assaulted wearing all sorts of different clothes in all sorts of different situations. People are unlucky when something bad happens to them that is very uncommon and lucky when something good happens to them that is very uncommon. Never having been harassed or assaulted is rare enough to count as 'luck', because of its statistical unlikelihood. For women who are assaulted to be just 'unlucky' it would need to happen very rarely. Sadly that is not the case. Frankly if clothing really is a factor in women and girls being harassed and assaulted then my school was culpable for making us wear our school uniform and PE kit, since so many of us were harassed and assaulted while wearing them. No-one ever suggested that - the idea that clothes are a factor is trotted out to shift blame to the victim, so it never arises when they have no choice over what they were wearing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 12:33:33 GMT
Indeed as kathryn says women are 'lucky' to escape such things, as it is all too common experience. Just as there are x number of women who worked for Weinstein we would say those who escaped any harassment are 'lucky' because the likelyhood was, in working with him that they would have. There's plenty of evidence out there for this, which particularly at present, minimal googling will find. The frequent dismissal of what women are saying on the issue, is in of itself, indicative of the wider problems. Just as it's not our job to avoid sexual harassment it shouldn't be our job to educate on it either. Anyway I actually clicked on here to share Dan Reballto's blog on Max Stafford Clark which manages to walk the line between being outraged and sorry for the victims while also considering how tricky it is to reconcile personal actions (in Dan's case a vague acquaintance with the man) and feelings about the person's contribution to the field. www.danrebellato.co.uk/spilledink/2017/10/21/max-stafford-clark |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 21, 2017 12:38:18 GMT
Murdoch supported Labour in those elections though, given the supposed influence the left claims the Sun has now you can’t have it both ways and say it didn’t have a significant impact then. The way this board lights up when a Game of Thrones actor is in a play makes me think many people are happy to fund Sky and Murdoch whilst also moaning about them. Yeah we have a right wing written press, but not one here who would ever claim Murdoch and the scum won the 1992 election or any other. And neither would you.
GoT is on HBO?
Correct, I think the Sun is largely irrelevant in the way people have voted in any election which makes it strange why people get so upset about it. GoT is shown on Sky here isn’t it ? No idea really. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 21, 2017 12:44:11 GMT
Indeed as kathryn says women are 'lucky' to escape such things, as it is all too common experience. Just as there are x number of women who worked for Weinstein we would say those who escaped any harassment are 'lucky' because the likelyhood was, in working with him that they would have. There's plenty of evidence out there for this, which particularly at present, minimal googling will find. The frequent dismissal of what women are saying on the issue, is in of itself, indicative of the wider problems. Just as it's not our job to avoid sexual harassment it shouldn't be our job to educate on it either. Anyway I actually clicked on here to share Dan Reballto's blog on Max Stafford Clark which manages to walk the line between being outraged and sorry for the victims while also considering how tricky it is to reconcile personal actions (in Dan's case a vague acquaintance with the man) and feelings about the person's contribution to the field. www.danrebellato.co.uk/spilledink/2017/10/21/max-stafford-clarkRupert Goold said that people were sometimes indulged because they were regarded as being “a character”. I think he means specifically Stafford Clark but it is a shrewd observation, look at the way the likes of Oliver Reed and O’Toole any other number of drunks have got away with unprofessional behaviour. |
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 21, 2017 12:46:21 GMT
I heard of a woman who was assaulted when wearing a Jabba the Hutt costume - so really, go figure.
There was a period of my life - from ages 14 - 26 - when I received a ridiculous amount of unwanted sexual - I don't know what to call it - harrassment, assaults, encounters (most frequently men exposing themselves to me - this happened to me in NYC to an almost, but not quite, comical degree.) I didn't dress in an enticing way (often baggy jeans, boots, loose flowing tops, no low necklines) but I did look, I think, rather shockable. At least that was the only reason I could figure out why I was such a frequent target - they wanted to upset someone and I looked like someone who could be upset. Maybe I was unlucky. Or maybe this just happens a lot to a lots of women. Anecdotally, I would guess the latter.
(For what it's worth - I found it much worse in the U.S. than here - one of the many things I liked about England.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 12:47:28 GMT
Indeed as kathryn says women are 'lucky' to escape such things, as it is all too common experience. Just as there are x number of women who worked for Weinstein we would say those who escaped any harassment are 'lucky' because the likelyhood was, in working with him that they would have. There's plenty of evidence out there for this, which particularly at present, minimal googling will find. The frequent dismissal of what women are saying on the issue, is in of itself, indicative of the wider problems. Just as it's not our job to avoid sexual harassment it shouldn't be our job to educate on it either. Anyway I actually clicked on here to share Dan Reballto's blog on Max Stafford Clark which manages to walk the line between being outraged and sorry for the victims while also considering how tricky it is to reconcile personal actions (in Dan's case a vague acquaintance with the man) and feelings about the person's contribution to the field. www.danrebellato.co.uk/spilledink/2017/10/21/max-stafford-clarkRupert Goold said that people were sometimes indulged because they were regarded as being “a character”. I think he means specifically Stafford Clark but it is a shrewd observation, look at the way the likes of Oliver Reed and O’Toole any other number of drunks have got away with unprofessional behaviour. Indeed, indeed. I've heard that defense- the 'Oh he's just a bit of a character' all too often in life too. It's also a valid point that being drunk/a bit of a drunk is also used as a means to excuse people. Re: Stafford Clark I didn't hear anything personally outside of him being frankly just a bit of a dick to people (and I've known a few who worked with him) but his was always a case of everyone hearing a lot of rumours, and there being little concrete to pin on him. So once again respect to the ladies who stepped forward knowing they did have something concrete, they've helped a lot of others. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Oct 21, 2017 15:55:46 GMT
I've heard rumours about the other AD mentioned in Prebble's piece and I feel very guilty and complicit that I knew and said/did nothing.
The issue that these are rumours, you can't go to anyone with rumours; you hear he has done something to someone. That someone doesn't have a name because it is second/third-hand information and, oddly, not that important to the story. The story becomes about the offender, how they aren't the good guy (and in cases of sexual assault it is usually guys) and I don't know what it is about human nature but we enjoy tales of the powerful being sh*tty.
I also think women (and many men) need to seriously consider whether they have been harassed and assaulted and just dismissed it. I count myself as one of those who have been 'lucky' but only because my stories are minor (being grabbed and kissed on a boat, creepy landlord, creepy man and van etc etc) rather serious cases of assault (though there are of course issues of being sober enough to consent and all those considerations where women blame themselves).
The serious, humiliating cases stay with you. Someone confided in me that they do had an incident with MSC. It is not someone you would expect with all the stories going around but it shows to me he was a predator who could make or break people based on his power over them. Now he is not a well man he lost that power and people aren't afraid of him anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 16:05:45 GMT
I know what you mean Snciole I've spent time questioning myself- either about things that happened to me, or things that happened to others that I either 'let slide' (in my own case) or felt it wasn't my place/appropriate to say anything in the case of 'hearing things'. I'm still certain I never had anything 'concrete' either, on anyone. But I also could have talked to other people, raised my concerned somehow, etc. And it's sad and frustrating. Because again, look who is feeling guilty, feeling they could have done more. Not the people doing these things but people all around. Women, mostly, once again. And likewise, I'm going over all the things I've just dismissed or put up with over the years. From all the random, inappropriate comments and touching on nights out in my teens, to workplace comments I was too scared to raise. I just really hope that from now on, and particularly younger generations start speaking up (and being supported) on even the most minor of offences, so we start erasing the idea it's somehow acceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 19:42:16 GMT
Years ago a young woman confided in me that MSC was harassing her. He had propositioned her and would not take “no” for an answer. I advised her to report him (who she would have reported him to God only knows. Everyone knew about him and indulged his behaviour, treating it as a joke). She told me that she didn’t want to report him because she was hoping to have a career as a director. I did not feel it was my place to report him when she didn’t want to. I also remember meeting another older woman and broaching the subject with her. She knew all about his antics and, unlike others, didn’t think it was a joke but took it seriously, although nothing was done about it. I should also add that there are scores of (mostly) actresses who went with him consensually. In the ‘80s it was the main topic of conversation. Also, he turns up thinly veiled in Kureishi’s novel The Buddha of Suburbia. I should also add that MSC did more than most other directors to champion female playwrights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 19:50:01 GMT
Just read the Rebellato piece. It is excellent - especially the discussion about MSC knowing exactly what he was doing when he made his lewd comments.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 22, 2017 21:12:08 GMT
Ironically looking at past shows at the Menier Chocolate Factory, when they first oped they did a show called:
What We Did to Weinstein by Ryan Craig.
I bet they won't revive that anytime soon!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 4:44:40 GMT
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 26, 2017 9:48:42 GMT
I was watching The End of the F-ing World last night (brilliant so far) and looked up the actors afterwards, and was rather surprised to read this, in the Ham & High from a few years ago: "By autumn, he was one of the youngest names included in Tatler’s Little Black Book – a list of the most eligible men and women in town that many boys his age would pay to be in." Sorry, what? Is this the 18th century? Teenage actors (as Alex Lawther then was, around 17 and playing younger roles) being added, not to a list of acting talent but of f-kability?
Btw, it'll be interesting to se if Radio 5 finally drop their cringeworthy 'snog, marry, avoid' piece from their Sunday political programme this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2017 13:25:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 26, 2017 15:50:56 GMT
Not really surprising MSC championed women playwrights is it, given they were more likely to write parts for actresses.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Oct 26, 2017 22:18:19 GMT
Still, though, if I was sitting down to dinner with a potential employer and his opening words were "nice ass", I'd slap his face and leave. Maybe that's why I'm skint.
|
|
1,503 posts
|
Post by foxa on Oct 27, 2017 6:57:07 GMT
Maybe. Unless there is physical contact or direct insults, sometimes it is hard to react quickly - often because it's too baffling or unexpected.
Example: at university one of my professors said to me (in front of about five other students) 'You have an overbite, but I don't suppose it will affect your kissing much.'
Did I storm out, etc.? No. I stood there thinking, 'I have an overbite? My parents should get a refund from our orthodontist. Why are we talking about kissing in the middle of a seminar? How bad would an overbite have to be to affect kissing? Could I accidentally gnaw through someone's lips?')
And while those thoughts were going through my head, I just stood there, doubtless looking ridiculous.
So on 'Nice ass' - I could imagine an actor thinking: is it important for this role to have a nice ass? Is he testing me to see how I react? Is this a joke? Maybe he's quoting a line from a play? At least he didn't say 'fat ass'...etc.
|
|
