In defence of Harvey Weinstein

https://t.co/CCHxxzOadz Harvey Weinstein isn't enough of a Jew to invoke this Old Testament verse. @MelanieLatest @rabbisacks @AlanDersh

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2017

Is it being suggtested that @HarveyWeinstein demanded sexual favours from aspiring actresses but never gave them what they wanted? https://t.co/eIzylGufuG

— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) October 12, 2017

I would actually be quite happy to defend him if I had a legal practice. Could it have been possible that these actresses perfectly understood that the sexual favours were performed on a quid pro quo basis?

Perhaps Weinstein should just come out with it and say:

Yes, Meryl Streep did perform a sexual service for me, but I did give her a job. In this business, there will always be many young, eager, beautiful and ambitious actresses competing for the same job. Some are prepared to perform sexual favours, others not. If there is any justice in the world, shouldn't the actress prepared to go the extra mile receive a reward for this? I rewarded these eager young actresses who went the extra mile for me. Is anyone suggesting that I should have given the job to some other actress infinitely more talented than Meryl Streep who refused to perform a sexual favour for me? If so, let her speak her name and audition for any of the roles Streep played: Sophie's Choice, The Iron Lady etc. I would hate to think Hollywood lost out because I gave the part to the wrong less talented actress prepared to perform a sexual act for me depriving the more talented and chaste actress of the role and that the arts and Hollywood standards of acting and talent suffered as a result.

I am a veritable Portia, am I not? And I defend Shylock too ...

Melanie Phillips has suggested at http://www.melaniephillips.com/harvey-weinstein-abuse-power/ that there must be more sexual abuse now than there was before.

I would agree, simply because women these days are more prepared to put out because of the culture. Under-aged sex has after all been condoned since the mid-1980s by the House of Lords. If you don't believe me, look up Gillick Competence. 

The question is whether these attacks are now more numerous than they ever were or whether they are just being noticed more often. Obviously, sexual attack is nothing new; and one can point to many instances where changing social mores mean we are now less tolerant of behaviour that for various reasons went unchallenged in the past –– just as we can also point to precisely the reverse trend.

Nevertheless, I think such sexual attacks are in general on the increase, not least because of the breakdown of the traditional family. Before the British government decided to censor the statistics showing the relative rate of [child] abuse by biological and non-biological family members, it was clearly established that sexual and other abuse was committed vastly more frequently by people not biologically related to their victims. Since so many households now contain transient sexual partners, it stands to reason that the rate of abuse including sexual attacks has also exponentially increased.

Under-aged sex *is* a cultural norm in the UK as illegal immigrant claimed

Why is no journalist asking what Shaun Wright meant when he asked "Why are you picking on Rotherham?"

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/cnnmoney/2017/10/10/the-new-yorker-weinstein-nypd-sting-audio-sot.hln 

Weinstein sounds so desperate and pleading, doesn't he? Practically begging her to stay so he won't be embarrassed.