I don't give a fata about the royals at all, but I've been paying attention enough to know the interview was a bigger deal in the last two weeks than Maxwell being arrested a year ago.
That's the saddest statement ever.
An interview with two rich people is a bigger deal than the arrest of someone involved in child sex.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
An interview with two rich people is a bigger deal than the arrest of someone involved in child sex.
It's not, though. It's just the timing is separated by months/years. The news is covering the more current story. That's how it's worked forever regardless of topic.
the royals worked out long ago that throwing some random female member of the family under the bus was an effective technique for protecting the inner circle, it was Margret in the 70's, Anne had her turn in the barrel briefly to protect Charles when rumours of an affair started to leak, Fergie and Diana have both been scapegoated, its the Royal way, these stories dont come out randomly, the royals aides and press officers have deep deep connections with Fleet Street precisely for these kinds of hatchet jobs, Andrews 'youth mentoring' tendencies are a real threat to destroy the monarchy coming at the same time the Queen is ending her reign and a far less popular and way less smart Charles is about to become King, pulling attention away from the inner circle by sacrificing Hazza and Sparkles is a textbook Buckingham Palace ploy
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Markle wanted to run Suffolk Royals* like a modern celebrity influencer business. When she learned that’s not the way the Crown works - that the Windsors don’t actually have much control over their calendar of royal duties and are forbidden from expressing a personal opinion on anything remotely controversial - she wanted to remake the system to suit her preferences.
Which didn’t go over well when the head of the family business spent her whole life dutifully following that system, even when it ran contrary to her own personal wants. And William and Meghan are pissed because now that Harry has left the family business, instead of William and Harry each doing 200 cement-plant openings and park dedications a year, William will have to do 300 now.
* You don’t trademark 100 products with your celebrity brand because you just want to be left alone to be a private couple.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
Last edited by CliffFletcher; 03-22-2021 at 03:58 PM.
I don't see any issue with him returning to comedy. His incidents occurred 20 years ago before he hit mainstream success, he owned up immediately and showed real remorse (IMO), and I believe he's truthful in saying that he's a different person now. FX found no incidents of sexual harassment in the years that he worked on Louie, which is the reverse of a lot of the other cases where the more famous a person got the more they abused those around them. I think he's paid his penance
I don't see any issue with him returning to comedy. His incidents occurred 20 years ago before he hit mainstream success, he owned up immediately and showed real remorse (IMO), and I believe he's truthful in saying that he's a different person now. FX found no incidents of sexual harassment in the years that he worked on Louie, which is the reverse of a lot of the other cases where the more famous a person got the more they abused those around them. I think he's paid his penance
Penance? Pretty sure he was dropped by everyone, not that he was somehow punishing himself.
His alleged incidents ranged from the 1990s-2014. But at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter. Louie has been selling out shows again since 2019, he never left comedy, he simply had less of a platform, and even now, it’s going to be dependent on how his audiences and different companies feel about him. Look at Woody Allen. How long ago were his allegations from? It’s been more than 20 years, right? So does it matter anymore? Sure, to some, but he just keeps working because people keep paying him to work.
This is the thing I think people don’t really understand about being “cancelled.” So long as you’re not in jail, you can still do whatever it is you want to do, so long as someone will pay you to do it. There’s no “return to comedy” and HBO/Netflix/whoever not paying you isn’t paying your penance. Louie let the heat die down and then went back to doing what he wanted to do. Life in the public sphere is dependent on public opinion, and there won’t be any moment where everyone says “ok, you’re punished enough” because it’s never been about punishment. Just like there was never a moment where everyone said “ok, you’re done.” Lots of people never stopped liking him or wanting to give him their money. Just like lots of people didn’t like him when they heard the allegations, and might not like him even again. Not to punish him, they just literally do not like him, and that comes with the territory.
I am sorry for letting everyone down—my family, my friends, my business associates, other skunks, other French animals, and, of course, the cats and dogs whom I confused with highly attractive lady skunks and relentlessly pursued through cities, forests, the Swiss Alps, and ocean liners. Je suis désolé.
I now understand that my interactions may have been insensitive and too personal, and that some of my comments, given my position as a powerful, public skunk, made others feel in ways that I never intended. What I took to be an innocent game of “lover’s chase” was to them predation by an aggressive animal. What I read as the normal bulging eyes and terrified grimace of flirtation was instead a concerted effort to escape me. Rather than feeling the excitation of a first date, they felt as if I was holding them hostage inside a hollow tree. To the extent that any cat or dog felt that way, I am truly sorry.
And I want you all to know that I am getting help. I have hired many, many lawyers to help me through this difficult time.
should be pretty simple for this one, if there is indeed written communications from the guy.
If there isn't, and she did in fact try to blackmail him first, probably will go away fast.
Location: Wondering when # became hashtag and not a number sign.
Exp:
Quote:
An unnamed woman has sued folk singer-songwriter Bob Dylan alleging he sexually abused her after giving her drugs and alcohol in 1965 when she was 12 years old.
A spokesman for Dylan, now 80, said the allegations were false. "The 56-year-old claim is untrue and will be vigorously defended," the spokesman said.
In a civil lawsuit filed late on Friday with the New York Supreme Court, the woman identified only as J.C. said Dylan sexually abused her at his New York apartment over a six-week period "leaving her emotionally scarred and psychologically damaged to this day."
Dylan, who was in his mid-20s at the time, "exploited his status as a musician to provide J.C. with alcohol and drugs and sexually abuse her multiple times," the lawsuit said.
It's a civil suit, so it'd really just be a balance of probabilities. But yeah, kind of hard to really prove anything from that long ago.
That said, it's a strange accusation given the timeline. The complaint mentions it occurring over 6 weeks in April and May 1965 in New York. But based on Dylan's tour schedule, he wasn't even in New York for almost any of that period. He was on the west coast until mid-April, again in late April, and then went directly from the west coast to Europe, where was from late April until early June. There was basically just one 10-12 day period in April where he could have possibly even been in New York.
But then, that's all information that has been publicly available for years, so if it was just a frivolous claim, then you'd think the accuser would have come up with a timeline that's less easily refutable.
His accuser may be fuzzy on the dates, as the time period she is saying this occurred (a six week period between April - May 1965) had him on tour in Europe.
when you work with kids (and adults) that have been abused you soon learn that the memories of abuse victims can play tricks on them, the dates and even identities of abusers can get conflated and mixed up.
A victim being wrong doesnt always mean they were lying or just in it to get money
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
While I agree with you and have no doubt this is often the case, if you're going to go after someone publically and legally, you better have the dates and especially the identity of the abuser sorted out.
The Following User Says Thank You to Nyah For This Useful Post:
