Society/Culture Geoffrey Rush harassment allegations

[blackcat]

Regardless of the truth or otherwise of the allegations, it appears to have been an unfortunate decision by Rush to take this to court.

stick to camberwell heritage overlay. i saw him on bourke street the week before chrissy with his adult-aged young daughter. swanston street and bourke and the street was packed. Looked his sexagenarian age, same era as you slits, just wish old farts would be a little introspective about carnal appeal. Now he stars in Storm Boy. i wanna see him on the red carpet of the second iteration. It is truly (rhetoric fallacy) truly artistic error to not have Noah Taylor have some cameo or something, at a minimum, as an old junkie.

/poe'slaw

 

[blackcat]

meds skilts also deserves some props for a naked-self-quote

medusala
#tabula_rasa

 

[Sainteric]

Regardless of the truth or otherwise of the allegations, it appears to have been an unfortunate decision by Rush to take this to court. It suppose he saw it as necessary to retrieve his reputation. Not sure that was ever going to happen, no matter the case's outcome.

I agree with the general thrust of blackcat, whom I interpret as having issues with trial by media, when in so many of such cases, no conviction of wrongdoing has been recorded.

Regardless of the veracity of what happened, he has a reasonable case, remember this is rush vs media not Norvill.

 

[Leeda]

stick to camberwell heritage overlay. i saw him on bourke street the week before chrissy with his adult-aged young daughter. swanston street and bourke and the street was packed. Looked his sexagenarian age, same era as you slits, just wish old farts would be a little introspective about carnal appeal. Now he stars in Storm Boy. i wanna see him on the red carpet of the second iteration. It is truly (rhetoric fallacy) truly artistic error to not have Noah Taylor have some cameo or something, at a minimum, as an old junkie.

/poe'slaw

Oh door ... that way->...

 

[Pessimistic]

In our case it seems Aussie ‘me too’ means we need our own whipping boy.

Where does Rush identify targets and pursue them?
Where does rush victimise those who reject him and cruel their careers?

Again australia fails badly in proclaiming our own Weinstein. Funny cos there’s a couple of already outed predators to look at

And he is a damn fine actor. One of the best.

 

[Leeda]

Very difficult....cult of denial...culture of discussion and daring to discuss difficult points or even joints..
Mmmwah!!!

 

[blackcat]

Where does rush victimise those who reject him and cruel their careers?

they all asked him for a reference and open doors in hollywood. who was using whom?

Very difficult....cult of denial...culture of discussion and daring to discuss difficult points or even joints..
Mmmwah!!!

dont worry, men have behaved badly for time immemorial to get laid.
Now there is a criminal code to prosecute for rape.
The question that is barely raised, what point on this spectrum does this become a #moralscare and #victorianera puritanism and chaste relations. To me it seems that puts feminism back a century, they seek to bound women's sexuality in handcuffs and corsets and chastitybelts. And not the Richard Wolstencroft's version at Hellfire

 

[blackcat]

 

[Sainteric]

Norville found not a credible witness.

Reporting reckless

Huge Payday for Rush

 

[Trucker Tiger]

Tele - loses.
Norvill - branded a liar, loses.
Rush - Yael Stone interview killed his career, loses.

 

[TimmeT]

What a surprise another example where she ab uses the legal system simply because it delivered justice but not the type she wanted

 

[Sainteric]

Tele - loses.
Norvill - branded a liar, loses.
Rush - Yael Stone interview killed his career, loses.

Rush can retire on a Tele pension the economic loss will be a princely sum

 

[Sainteric]

What a surprise another example where she ab uses the legal system simply because it delivered justice but not the type she wanted

Justice served

 

[Ron The Bear]

Rush didn't want the trial either but he was obligated to defend himself.

People need to stop telling unverifiable stories to newspapers.

 

[NSWCROW]

sucked in to the dt

Been doin this s**t for years

 

[medusala]

Apart from the IPA and Chris Berg no one seeks to defend liberty.

Rupert is usually on the right side much to the outrage of the bien pensants who want legal protection against their feeling being hurt.

they all asked him for a reference and open doors in hollywood. who was using whom?

#buyersremorse

To me it seems that puts feminism back a century, they seek to bound women's sexuality in handcuffs and corsets and chastitybelts

Hollywood echo chamber.

 

[Maggie5]

Rush didn't want the trial either but he was obligated to defend himself.

People need to stop telling unverifiable stories to newspapers.

Maybe newspapers should verify before going to print?

 

[Ron The Bear]

Maybe newspapers should verify before going to print?

Of course. That's why they're paying out the likes of Rush and Gayle.

If people have serious allegations to make, they should be going via the police. Can't have the media destroying people willy-nilly.

 

[medusala]

Maybe newspapers should verify before going to print?

I am pretty sure they would have run something like that past a lawyer before printing.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/oct/10/jimmy-savile-bbc

With the BBC taking a bashing from the tabloids over the Jimmy Savile affair, Michael White wonders why the "tough tabloids" themselves didn't nail the man.

It's a fair question. After all, many people have said Savile's predilection for young girls was something of an open secret. Former Sunday Express editor Brian Hitchen admitted knowing about it 45 years ago.

Paul Connew, when editor of the Sunday Mirror in 1994, did have "credible and convincing" evidence from two women who claimed Savile had been guilty of abusing them at a children's home.

Though "totally and utterly convinced" they were telling the truth, the paper's lawyers, after a careful assessment, decided it wasn't strong enough to risk publication. (See postscript below). I am sure the same situation occurred elsewhere

 

[Maggie5]

I am pretty sure they would have run something like that past a lawyer before printing.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/oct/10/jimmy-savile-bbc

With the BBC taking a bashing from the tabloids over the Jimmy Savile affair, Michael White wonders why the "tough tabloids" themselves didn't nail the man.

It's a fair question. After all, many people have said Savile's predilection for young girls was something of an open secret. Former Sunday Express editor Brian Hitchen admitted knowing about it 45 years ago.

Paul Connew, when editor of the Sunday Mirror in 1994, did have "credible and convincing" evidence from two women who claimed Savile had been guilty of abusing them at a children's home.

Though "totally and utterly convinced" they were telling the truth, the paper's lawyers, after a careful assessment, decided it wasn't strong enough to risk publication. (See postscript below). I am sure the same situation occurred elsewhere

I think it depends on the person, I imagine some newspapers have cosy relationships with media personalities and politicians.

I recall you mentioning Savile before and it seems that it really wasn't a secret nor do I think that they didn't have enough evidence, such a shame that they didn't print in that case.

 

[medusala]

I recall you mentioning Savile before and it seems that it really wasn't a secret nor do I think that they didn't have enough evidence, such a shame that they didn't print in that case.

Yep it was terrible. I dont think it was necessarily the lack of evidence but more the threat of losing a defamation case and getting a very large bill.

see the Jeffrey Archer defamation case which he won but then got done for perjury.

 

[AM]

I think it depends on the person, I imagine some newspapers have cosy relationships with media personalities and politicians.

I recall you mentioning Savile before and it seems that it really wasn't a secret nor do I think that they didn't have enough evidence, such a shame that they didn't print in that case.

Most mainstream media organisations have in-house lawyers who oversight the news and opinion. And anything contentious goes outside for further vetting.

Rather controversial tweet from the Justinian I thought.

 

[cartwright]

Of course. That's why they're paying out the likes of Rush and Gayle.

If people have serious allegations to make, they should be going via the police. Can't have the media destroying people willy-nilly.

She never went to the paper.

 

[Ron The Bear]

She never went to the paper.

Fair enough, seems it doesn't apply to the actress. Somebody had to have whispered to the newspaper for it to contact the theatre's ED. Something not considered worthy of a formal complaint then developed into a full-blown assassination attempt.

 

[CheapCharlie]

What a surprise another example where she ab uses the legal system simply because it delivered justice but not the type she wanted

The fantastical world of Clem Ford, where the woman is always the victim