It is quite incredible that the accusations of rape are being treated in the same moral context as the accusations of sexual harassment.
It remains eminently possible that the guy - while almost certainly a horrible, self-entitled sexual creep - has done absolutely nothing criminally wrong.
As I said the other day, I think a lot of women who've happily benefitted from the casting couch are now using this furore to frame themselves as victims - or indeed to mask their activities by claiming he propositioned them but they refused.
Otherwise, you'd have to say that he had a very poor strike rate, wouldn't you?
Take this quote from Kate Beckinsdale:
"I was called to meet Harvey Weinstein at the Savoy Hotel when I was 17. When I arrived, reception told me to go to his room. He opened the door in his bathrobe. I was incredibly naive and young and it did not cross my mind that this older, unattractive man would expect me to have any sexual interest in him. After declining alcohol and announcing that I had school in the morning I left, uneasy but unscathed. A few years later he asked me if he had tried anything with me in that first meeting. I realized he couldn't remember if he had assaulted me or not."
The way she phrases this makes it sound as if Weinstein has only ever assaulted women, and could never have simply coerced them into concensual sex. Maybe he just couldn't remember if he'd fúcked her or not?
It's creepy, certainly, but as far as we can see he didn't even put a move on her. The worst we can say is that he offered a 17 year-old a drink - and that's hardly Jimmy Savile behaviour, is it?
The point is that this type of story is supposed to damn by insinuation despite having no substance to it.