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

[Peter]

Of course, what he should do is claim that he’s the victim of anti-semitism - a victim of the trope of grasping, greedy Jewish plutocrats wanting to despoil innocent shiksas as a form of racial revenge.

The fact that he’s bang to rights shouldn’t stand in the way of his right to take refuge in identity politics, after all.

I would have thought he could drag the rest of Hollywood down with him. The threat of that is normally enough to put something like this to bed, as long as you threaten before it goes public.

[Ash]

I would have thought he could drag the rest of Hollywood down with him.

That would be superb.

[Peter]

That would be superb.

It would at least be fair and consistent. And I still wouldn't care. Hollywood doesnt purport to be a fair, just, diverse and inclusive environment or a meritocratic industry. Quite how one vacuous celebrity comes to receive more attention than another is of literally no interest to me.

The funny thing is they will never get round to going after the music industry because the young girls blowing the rock bands were not being promised anything in return. Its fine to treat them like **** and tell them to **** off afterwards but if you promise them anything in return its suddenly coercion/abuse of power/rape. If you think about it, that is a bit ****ed up.

[Burney]

It would at least be fair and consistent. And I still wouldn't care. Hollywood doesnt purport to be a fair, just, diverse and inclusive environment or a meritocratic industry. Quite how one vacuous celebrity comes to receive more attention than another is of literally no interest to me.

The funny thing is they will never get round to going after the music industry because the young girls blowing the rock bands were not being promised anything in return. Its fine to treat them like **** and tell them to **** off afterwards but if you promise them anything in return its suddenly coercion/abuse of power/rape. If you think about it, that is a bit ****ed up.

An excellent point, p. During Yewtree, legend has it that Bill Wyman, Jimmy Page and various others lawyered up and rocked up to their local plod trying to pre-empt the long arm of the law. To a man, they were told to go forth and sin no more because old rockers fvcking schoolchildren wasn't the crime du jour and - by the way - could you sign my copy of Houses Of The Holy, Mr Page?

[Ash]

The funny thing is they will never get round to going after the music industry because the young girls blowing the rock bands were not being promised anything in return. Its fine to treat them like **** and tell them to **** off afterwards but if you promise them anything in return its suddenly coercion/abuse of power/rape. If you think about it, that is a bit ****ed up.

Erm, the groupies didn't expect to get married to their targets. They just fancied the socks of them and wanted some fun. No comparison at all, as long as they're old enough.

And not promising anything is precisely the point. It makes it merely consensual sex and not an abuse of power.

[Burney]

Erm, the groupies didn't expect to get married to their targets. They just fancied the socks of them and wanted some fun. No comparison at all, as long as they're old enough.

And not promising anything is precisely the point. It makes it merely consensual sex and not an abuse of power.

Because consensual sex can never involve an abuse of power?

[Ash]

Because consensual sex can never involve an abuse of power?

It can do, but shouldn't automatically be assumed. It treats grown women (and I am talking about adults here) as children to deny them their agency and ability to consent.

Totally different from promising a career in exchange for sex.

[Burney]

It can do, but shouldn't automatically be assumed. It treats grown women (and I am talking about adults here) as children to deny them their agency and ability to consent.

Totally different from promising a career in exchange for sex.

But surely such a transactional arrangement falls entirely within the boundaries of agency and consent you outline? Each party has something the other wants and an exchange is made - where’s the problem?

[Peter]

It can do, but shouldn't automatically be assumed. It treats grown women (and I am talking about adults here) as children to deny them their agency and ability to consent.

Totally different from promising a career in exchange for sex.

Its a bit of a leap to assume these girls were happy to do all of the things they were asked to. What about the many, many stories of what they were sometimes asked to do just to get backstage and hang with the band? I doubt many were that desperate to blow the road crew.

The transaction relates to getting to hang with the band backstage as long as you are prepared to offer whatever sexual treats were demanded.

[Peter]

Erm, the groupies didn't expect to get married to their targets. They just fancied the socks of them and wanted some fun. No comparison at all, as long as they're old enough.

And not promising anything is precisely the point. It makes it merely consensual sex and not an abuse of power.

Right, but one important point was that in a lot of cases they were NOT old enough.

I accept the abuse of power is largely predicated on the notion of quid pro quo (not that I am suggesting that The Quo got up to any of this stuff) but my general point is that much of this is around perception rather than law. Treating a 16 year old girl like **** while she blows a band she idolises is pretty reprehensible behaviour. Rock seems to have some form of immunity from our collective frowns....