Click here for Arsenal FC news and reports

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88

Thread: This Harvey Weinstein fellow; he's clearly something of a knob.

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    No, I didn’t. I expressed my complete lack of surprise or outrage and some irritation at the way in cases like this that accusation immediately seems to magically transform into fact.
    BTW, if memory serves you were pretty quick to condemn Chad Evans even though the judicial process had not run its course.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post
    BTW, if memory serves you were pretty quick to condemn Chad Evans even though the judicial process had not run its course.
    I condemned him on the basis that he had actually been convicted in a court of law. You’re condemning Weinstein on the basis of hearsay.

    fwiw, I think they’re both probably revolting, sleazy ****s

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    I condemned him on the basis that he had actually been convicted in a court of law. You’re condemning Weinstein on the basis of hearsay.

    fwiw, I think they’re both probably revolting, sleazy ****s
    Not illegal all the same is it?

    The ladies still had a say, could exit the scenario should they wish.

    Sleazy etc. as you say and roundly condemned now.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by SWv2 View Post
    Not illegal all the same is it?

    The ladies still had a say, could exit the scenario should they wish.

    Sleazy etc. as you say and roundly condemned now.
    I'm not actually sure what the criminal offence would be, actually. If you can be charged and convicted of rape for not having made an effort to determine that the woman or man can consent, you would have thought that there was something criminal in coercing someone to have sex with you in order to receive a professional advantage.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by World's End Stella View Post
    I'm not actually sure what the criminal offence would be, actually. If you can be charged and convicted of rape for not having made an effort to determine that the woman or man can consent, you would have thought that there was something criminal in coercing someone to have sex with you in order to receive a professional advantage.
    I'm pretty sure wànking into a plant pot is a criminal offence. Difficult to prove now, though.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    I'm pretty sure wànking into a plant pot is a criminal offence. Difficult to prove now, though.
    What sort of pot plant? We need the full details? Was it a busy Lizzie?
    Northern Monkey ... who can't upload a bleeding Avatar

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Pokster View Post
    What sort of pot plant? We need the full details? Was it a busy Lizzie?
    If so, it would be a jizzy Busy Lizzie.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    I'm pretty sure wànking into a plant pot is a criminal offence. Difficult to prove now, though.
    wes isn't bothered about ****ing. No. Public masturbation barely registers on wes's outrage scale. Wear an item of nightwear in your own bedroom, though, and he's off the fúcking scale enraged, urging a capital sentence.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Sir C View Post
    wes isn't bothered about ****ing. No. Public masturbation barely registers on wes's outrage scale. Wear an item of nightwear in your own bedroom, though, and he's off the fúcking scale enraged, urging a capital sentence.
    I shudder to think what he'd make of you emerging from your room after a late night in your undercrackers

    I'm interested in the mechanics of this pot plant wànking incident, tbh. How long was he there? Was he there from soup to nuts (as it were)? Because I'd have thought that would take a while even if the chap's on a hair trigger. Did he get up, go over to the plant, unzip, get started and continue to ejaculation? That's a lot of faff.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Burney View Post
    I condemned him on the basis that he had actually been convicted in a court of law. You’re condemning Weinstein on the basis of hearsay.

    fwiw, I think they’re both probably revolting, sleazy ****s
    I didn't condemn Evans at the time because it seemed to me that he had an awfully strong argument that he was unjustly convicted so it seemed sensible to wait and let the judicial process complete before passing judgment.

    My view of Weinstein is that there seems to be overwhelming evidence against him and his complete silence seems to suggest he's guilty. Although I wouldn't condemn him completely at this point, my point was that what he is being accused of is not just a bit of slap and tickle that can be easily dismissed, it needs to be treated seriously.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •