#METOO

UN hit with yet another scandal

Kết quả hình ảnh cho Michel Sidibé

Independent experts have concluded that UN AIDS Executive Director, Michel Sidibé,  has been responsible for creating a toxic environment that promoted “favoritism, preferment and ethical blindness.” Sidibé accepted no reponsibility for any sexual harassment, bullying or abuse of power that occured under his watch.

The investigation started after Sidibé’s deputy was accused of  forcibly kissing, groping and trying to drag a colleague into his Bangkok hotel room in 2015.

In a survey of the 670 staff members at the UN agency conducted by the independent investigators, 18 admitted they had experienced some form of sexual harassment in the previous year and a further 201 said they were on the wrong end of workplace abuse.

One staff member went on the record saying, “U.N.AIDS is like a predators’ prey ground…You have access to all sorts of people, especially the vulnerable: You can use promises of jobs, contracts and all sorts of opportunities and abuse your power to get whatever you want, especially in terms of sexual favors. I have seen senior colleagues dating local young interns or using U.N.AIDS resources to access sex workers.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who made it clear he had a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment when he took office,  has refused to fire him. Despite his term ending in January 2020, Sidibé has offered to quit in June 2019 in order to ensure a stable transition period! In what world does a person outed for turning a blind eye to such a poisonous culture get to leave on his own terms? Sacred cows.

Sidibe admitted in an email after the investigation was published, “not all of our staff, in all their diversity, are experiencing the inclusive work culture to which we aspire.” Choice words.

Why do governments continue to fund the UN when it shows time and time again that it operates without any form of governance or ethical code? Remember it wasn’t that long ago that certain people at the UN thought former Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe would make a sensible ambassador for the World Health Organization (WHO). Why would any country seriously want to sign over sovereign powers to the UN with respect to the compact on migration? The UN isn’t fit to run anything of substance.

Why after all the scandals with the IPCC do people put faith in their ability to manage climate change summits? The Delinquent Teenager, written by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise chronicles how the IPCC participants are picked by governments, not for their scientific knowledge and expertise, but for their political connections and for “diversity.” You can read some of the ridiculous selection processes for lead authors here.

Note the UN promised to streamline. As CM noted 15 months ago,

“The latest U.N. regular budget, while superficially smaller than the previous budget, made no fundamental programmatic or structural adjustments—e.g., reducing permanent staff, freezing or reducing salaries and other benefits, and permanently eliminating a significant number of mandates, programs, or other activities—that would lower the baseline for future U.N. budget negotiations. Despite the Secretary-General’s proposal to eliminate 44 permanent posts, the 2012–2013 budget actually increased the number of permanent posts by more than a score compared with the previous budget. The failure to arrest growth in U.N. employment, salaries, and benefits is especially problematic because personnel costs account for 74% of U.N. spending according to the U.N.’s Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Without a significant reduction in the number of permanent U.N. posts or a significant reduction in staff compensation and related costs, real and lasting reductions in the U.N. regular budget will remain out of reach.”

A new low

823FD4F7-3CEE-4824-BC1B-2FCD6CA6E400.jpeg

Today was a dark day for America. Despite both Ford & Kavanaugh putting forward seemingly credible cases, they were washed aside for the most sickening display of partisan politics. One could almost picture fiendish crowds awaiting the direction of the Roman Emperor’s thumb. How sad that the two people with the most to lose were treated as punching bags by despicable senators. Social media forums were nothing more than ferals chanting obscenities in a colosseum. Sick, sick, sick! No dignity on display.

The questions lobbed by both Democrats & Republicans for the main part were a clear display of making one’s mind up beforehand. What a farce. It was blood sport. It had little to do with seeking the “truth” rather trying to use reprehensible tactics to confirm or deny Kavanaugh. Ford & Kavanaugh may as well have been road kill. Neither side cared for the testimony of those that opposed their preformed views.

Sexual assault is a heinous crime. Period. True victims of it can suppress traumatic memories for decades. The statute of limitations may well be a convenient out clause for perpetrators in law, but sufferers shouldn’t need a deadline to reveal those inner demons. How many people have chosen to take their own life because they can’t deal with the shame?

Some basic questions.

Why would anyone be in the least bit surprised for Kavanaugh to fight his corner after being smeared with such serious defamatory accusations? Even if he is proven not guilty of those crimes his reputation has taken untold hits. If he is found to be guilty then he ought to be punished to the full extent of the law. However was his testimony any less believable? He asked for an investigation immediately after the news broke on Ford’s claim. Yet here were senators grilling him to demand one. Do they listen?

Ford too. She would be risking a great amount to go in front of a Senate Committee and lie. It is a punishable offence. Would she really seek to go into a viper pit and take the trouble to invite unsolicited attacks on her? Yet why is no one prepared to corroborate her evidence? Afraid of the repercussions?

However it struck me, as a victim of sexual assault myself at age 13, as to why Ford needed to read her story from a scripted page. I can unequivocally state every detail of what happened to me without notes. I could explain it repeatedly over and over again. Even years or decades apart, nothing would change. The face of the man that did it almost 35 years ago. Where. What time. What happened. The lot. I only came out with it several years ago but such would be the emotional pain that she shouldn’t have needed notes. Not accusing Ford of lying, just something that appeared strange to me. Real victims require no preparation. It’s burned in the memory. Was alcohol a factor? People may deal with trauma in different ways. That was the only thing that put a question mark against authenticity.

Why did Democrats not raise the other allegations against Kavanaugh with respect to indecent exposure and rape gangs until it was raised by their opposite numbers? Why did they drag Renate’s name through this hearing? A person not even party to the whole sordid affair gets her name blasted in front of millions. And discussing flatulence – could the question be so irrelevant?

The stink (no pun intended) of all of this is the timing of many allegations. As CM had written earlier, Feinstein seemed to pull this joker out of the pack to cause maximum damage to Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Had she been a true fighter for the rights of supposed rape victims, why wouldn’t she seek to immediately take it in closed session to protect confidentiality of Ford and do the right thing. No, the letter was leaked to the press and all of a sudden Ford was thrust into the boiling cauldron. There was plenty of time to act.

Yet Grassley and other senators rattling off the words of former Senator Joe Biden and his claim of the irrelevance of FBI investigations was a futile attempt to confirm their man. Once again, it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh or Ford. To be honest one had to feel for Kavanaugh at times in that he was not after platitudes from Republicans. He wants his name cleared and undoubtedly wants his reputation restored. I defy anyone accused of such horrible things not to feel upset.

CM, like most are none the wiser on guilt. So many had made up their minds well beforehand. The only thing absolutely for certain was the unbecoming behaviour of that rabble. It was utterly disgusting. Neither side could claim any victory, let alone Phyrric.

The only thing anyone should be praying for is to never witness something so appalling again. Justice should be served through the correct procedures. Yet politicians only proved today that they are utterly self serving and more evident was the wake up call for all Americans about those who supposedly represent them.

Feinstein’s timing truly defending the rights of a sexual assault victim?

FFC44C27-733C-40EB-B3C9-D45A89939278.jpeg

There is absolutely nothing right about sexual harassment of any kind. CM wrote extensively here on the subject last year. CM also warned of the dangers of #MeToo turning into baseless witch hunts that could permanently stain the character of otherwise innocent people. CM contends that false claims should be equally punishable under the law to prevent false claims getting air.

Whether Supreme Court Justice-in waiting Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of harassment 36 years ago is nothing more than an allegation at this stage. All claims should be heard under the legal framework. However studying the timeline of events, there is a touch of convenience in Senator Diane Feinstein’s use of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation letter.

Kavanaugh’s announcement as SC nominee was made mid July, 2018. Ford documented her supposed harassment encounter in a letter to Feinstein two weeks later, dated July 30th. Yet it would appear Feinstein sat on this nugget til September in order to maximize its utility to prevent Kavanaugh’s confirmation if all other political stunts failed. With any luck she can drag an FBI investigation into the mid-terms (i.e. the real goal).

If Feinstein truly wanted to defend the rights of a supposed sexual harassment victim, surely she should have acted immediately? No doubt she would need a bit of time to discuss with lawyers to understand if this constituted substantial evidence but sexual harassment is a serious claim and crime. Surely the united forces within the Democratic Party could summon the resources to expedite the allegation and use its validity to block.

As the party of supposed social values, what better way to derail the candidate than to release a real claim ASAP after legal checks and balances, including meeting the openly Trump hating Democratic professor were completed. Provided the evidence was incontrovertible it would sell itself. Could it be that the evidence is so sketchy that Feinstein knew it only served as a stalling tactic, hence delaying it by 6 weeks? This says more about the moral compass of the Democrats than Ford.

It seems that Ford does not want to testify under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee until the FBI investigation. Yet the FBI will investigate what? The crime scene is 36 years old. Her recollection is vague at best. Interviewing people who were likely underage kids who were drunk at a party

Alas, as all of the stunts from Democrats, including Cory Booker admitting he may lose his position for leaking certain documents which turned out to support Kavanaugh not being racist, they pull out claims of sexual misconduct, in the hope it drags the confirmation beyond the Novemeber elections whereby a potential blue wave will potentially allow them to block Trump’s choice. Tactically a shrewd move, but utterly disgusting to true victims if proved untrue.

There is no reason to fault the Democrats wish to block a Republican choice for a vacant SCJ seat (which by the way was on the 2016 ballot given the subject was raised in the presidential debates because it was the first time since Eisenhower that an SCJ seat was empty at election time) on the basis of supposed conflicts in convictions and beliefs. No doubt the Republicans would do likewise. Yet citizens were given the chance to vote on a SC judge with their presidential choice. The names were all out there.

Unfortunately, to use a sexual assault allegation based on sketchy information given by the accuser who admits she doesn’t remember much 36 years ago is utterly reprehensible if the claims turn out to be false. There will be no surprise if the Dems get their goal achieved that Ford will quietly withdraw her claims.

Let’s be perfectly clear. If Kavanaugh is guilty of such a serious crime then he is unfit to serve on a SC bench. Should Ford’s claim turn out to be completely baseless then the Dems will reveal themselves as morally bankrupt to use such a tactic to besmirch someone’s reputation. The timing of the letter is convenient to say the least.

Is this the way forward? Everything that doesn’t stand on its merits or via democratic process will somehow be stopped by claims of sexual impropriety?

In this battle the only thing everyone should be united behind is that “justice” is properly served for the right reasons. Certainly not to dish up political character assassinations for convenience.

True victims tend to bottle trauma for substantial periods, usually decades. Yet rarely would they openly come out on a whim and chuck around claims which don’t help their own healing process.

Emmys – baloney without cajones

7AD63D3F-7551-4935-B601-4F7292101006.jpeg

When the content is so predictable it stands to reason that ratings drop. Neilsen noted the 2018 Emmys awards show pulled in 10.172 million viewers (-4%) and a 2.4 rating among adults 18-49, it’s lowest ever. The 2000 Emmys drew in 21.8mn by comparison. Some may talk to modern day luxuries of streaming which would boost these dreadful numbers but the reality is Hollywood’s obsession with shaming is the more likely culprit. The Oscars are down 40% on five years ago. It’s no surprise.

In recent years, self absorbed celebrities think the formula is hypocritically chastising their audiences. Whether the topic is climate change, #MeToo, white privilege, Republicans, Trump and now Christianity, the event is less about self appraised back slapping but almost entirely about identity based political grandstanding.

Such was the high level of comedy that one of the MCs stated, “The only white people that thank Jesus are Republicans and ex-crackheads.”  Here’s a challenge to Hollywood – would they dare say “The only black people that thank Mohammed are Democrats and ex-crackheads”? After all it’s just comedy, right? Of course they wouldn’t dare. They are the very racists they condemn.

At another event Anne Hathaway made her psychobabble statement about white privilege,  how transgender doesn’t circle around cisgender and other races don’t circle around whites to rapturous applause.

The irony is that behind all of the public self loathing, the same actors and actresses who cheered  happily collect their millions, live behind gates mansions with armed body guards, protest the NRA, turn a blind eye to sexual harassment but protest on the red carpet by wearing three fabric postage stamps held together with dental floss and tell us how out of touch we are. Really?

Their audience figures should tell them they are indeed the out of touch ones.

Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south.

It is interesting that $100m box offices were a cert for an Oscar Best Picture award til 2004 after which it has been hit and miss since. 9 films in the last 13 Best Pictures have failed to breach $75mn. The 4 that didn’t miss were all about real life stories – Titanic, The King’s Speech, Argo and A Beautiful Mind. Funny that.

Instead of realizing that their interpretation of identity driven art isn’t sinking in with the public, Hollywood is now prepared to blot the history books – such as deleting the flag planting on the moon scene in ‘First Man’ – to destroy the very formula that seems to resonate with audiences.

No, in the fight for equality we must disparage innocent, hard working citizens by questioning their faith and mocking their intelligence. Hollywood can keep up the performances at these awards ceremonies. Doubling, tripling or quadrupling down on a formula that continues to fail only shows where the lack of insight lies. Too much time in rehab?

By all means many may be willing to listen to celebrities if they practiced what they preached. Say, where are all those celebrities that threatened to leave the country if Trump became president? That’s right 99% are still here. Let’s not forget Leo DiCaprio flying his eyebrow stylist half way around the world on a private jet whilst telling us climate change is the most pressing issue of our day. Actions not words. In today’s society virtue signaling on social media is deemed enough.

 

Pathetically Priceless

23D0E64E-5772-44ED-A813-527CAC4F5613.jpeg

Double standards are a strong feature of the liberal elites and Hollywood. Instead of living up to the Chanber of Commerce’s view that it does not remove stars over public backlash by citing  historical landmark status., when it comes to Trump all bets are off. While Bill Cosby, a convicted rapist, keeps his Hollywood star, Trump’s disturbing treatment of women (locker room talk and allegations of paying porn stars) is deemed a more heinous crime. Liberal logic.

The response to Trump

The resolution on which the West Hollywood City Council voted urged the removal of Mr. Trump’s star “due to his disturbing treatment of women and other actions that do not meet the shared values of the City of West Hollywood, the region, state, and country.

The Washington Time reports, “Among other things, the council’s staff report cites Mr. Trump’s border-security policies [an Obama era policy], his stance on climate change [Paris is non binding and the biggest polluters are doing next to nothing], the Vladimir Putin summit [since when did the Hollywood City Council enforce foreign policy?], and policies on transgenderism.”  

In effect, the Council endorses vandalism and destruction of public property.  Why not burn down Trump Tower or run an excavator  over the pristine greens of Mar-a-lago?

D4BFF0E4-3780-4C16-B6FA-D836E3BE36AA.jpeg

The Response to defacing of Bill Cosby’s star

In response, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce released a statement politely asking fans not to deface anyone’s stars, no matter how many rapes they may be accused of: “When people are unhappy with one of our honorees, we would hope that they would project their anger in more positive ways. 

Probably stands to reason for an industry that turned a blind eye to decades of  #MeToo antics because it self-served their careers would vote for someone that has outed them for the blatant hypocrites they are. Bill Cosby’s star will likely be defended with the fervor of the NYT backing Sarah Jeong. Why not replace Trump’s star for Jeong? Strike will the pick axe is hot!

It is just a star but symbolic of the radical left’s standards that it’s the side that matters, not the principle. We should be happy that the left champion victories like this. Ever more sanctimonious preaching of the highest moral standards to the masses who already have such low opinions of them most are suffering from vertigo – remember this?

Trump Derangement Syndrome is a national health crisis. Perhaps POTUS should direct billions to help fund a cure. Otherwise poor old taxpayers will need to fork out for even more property damage.

Inviting or inciting violence?

クリックすると新しいウィンドウで開きます

As a father of two daughters the idea of child grooming gangs is a chilling prospect. One of my children was sexually molested on a Tokyo subway aged only 13. Nationality doesn’t matter. Religion doesn’t matter. I took time off work every morning for months trying to find the perpetrator. Had I caught him, care for what happened to me mattered not. Vigilante justice? Call it what you will. It doesn’t get more personal when your own blood, especially a child, is the innocent victim. Any parent who loves their kids would contemplate such sacrifice. When people realise that the authorities are willfully turning a blind eye to obvious crimes, law makers should not be surprised if vigilantism and chaos become the by-product. The arrest of Tommy Robinson has all of the hallmarks of the judiciary inviting the ‘hellfire‘ on themselves. CM often gets criticized for defending free speech as if it is some gross distortion of the facts. That the looming Orwellian dystopia CM describes doesn’t exist.

Whether one agrees with Tommy Robinson’s views or not, one cannot fault his passion to bring to light the problems of child rape gangs in Britain and the political correctness to hide the predominantly ‘Asian’ nature of the perpetrators. Millions (and growing) have seen his 75 minute live-stream video outside Leeds Court where he was summarily arrested for ‘suspicion of breaching the peace‘. Despite having the alleged defendants and spectators scream obscenities like “go f*ck your mother!” or “your wife is a prostitute” or “I’m here to see your mum” and others push him in front of the police, nothing happened to them. Why the sexual references? The police officers claimed they didn’t see him being physically assaulted but suggested they’d get a warning if they did witness.

Robinson did absolutely nothing violent, obscene or provocative to warrant an arrest. Disturbing the peace? The amount of people that came up to him unsolicited congratulating his work, asking to go on future marches and take selfies was apparent. The fact he has two best selling books on Amazon is testament to him being far from a lone voice. Is it any wonder the authorities want to gag him? Should those that support him be dragged in front of the courts too?

He made numerous references about being aware of his restrictions the day he was arrested last week. He spoke to nearby police to ensure and confirm he wasn’t crossing lines. He made the reference on his video that the police were likely monitoring it to try to nab him on any remote technicality. Well they did. He was aware of the risks. He may well have violated his court order on a “legal” technicality. CM isn’t a lawyer but the video didn’t appear to show disorder. He was jailed for 13 months and on top of that a media gag was placed by the court on discussing details of his trial. Should we be surprised that 1,000s marched on Downing St?

CM documented the two decades of cover ups contained in the independent inquiry into the Rotherham child grooming scandal which was along the lines of what Robinson was reporting on in Leeds. In April we wrote:

“The details of the Rotherham grooming gang scandal was tabulated in an independent inquiry looking at the problem between 1997-2013 showing the extent of the cover up. The table above shows the actions taken after 157 complaints about child grooming in Rotherham were made to the South Yorkshire Police since 2013. The Inquiry tabulates a case of a father being arrested for trying to get his daughter out of a rape den. A 12yo girl was raped in a park then doused in gasoline and threatened with being lit if she said anything about what had happened. The sad thing is that these gangs are wide spread – Rotherham, Rochdale, Newcastle, Bristol, Aylesbury, Oxford, Peterborough, Keighley, Newham, Leeds, Bradford, Telford, Sheffield and London. The report discusses how the gangs transfer the children within the ‘safe houses; in the network to keep the industry clandestine.”

The gory details are all in the report. CM encourages people to read the contents to be aware of how terribly young kids have been groomed, threatened and undoubtedly psychologically damaged for life. Many have tried to commit suicide. It is a travesty. Even if you hate what Tommy Robinson stands for, at the very least open your eyes to the industrial level of this crime. Take this example:

Child F (2006) was a victim of serious sexual abuse when she was a young child. She was groomed for sexual exploitation by a 27-year-old male when she was 13. She was subjected to repeated rapes and sexual assaults by different perpetrators, none of whom were brought to justiceShe repeatedly threatened to kill herself and numerous instances of serious self-harm were recorded in the case file, including serious overdoses and trying to throw herself in front of cars...doctors were seriously concerned about her because of the number and seriousness of hospital admissions over such a short time, many associated with serious drug misuse and self-harm.”

This is what the Inquiry had to say about the Police:

We deal with the response of South Yorkshire Police at some length throughout this report. While there was close liaison between the Police, Risky Business and children’s social care from the early days of the Risky Business project, there were very many historic cases where the operational response of the Police fell far short of what could be expected. The reasons for this are not entirely clear. The Police had excellent procedures from 1998, but in practice these appear to have been widely disregarded….We were contacted by someone who worked at the Rotherham interchange in the early 2000s. He described how the Police refused to intervene when young girls who were thought to be victims of CSE (child sexual exploitation) were being beaten up and abused by perpetrators. According to him, the attitude of the Police at that time seemed to be that they were all ‘undesirables’ and the young women were not worthy of police protection.

The Council was no better:

In 2004-2005, a series of presentations on CSE were first made to councillors and then other relevant groups and agencies, led by the external manager of Risky Business, from Youth Services. The presentations were unambiguous about the nature and extent of the problem…In 2006, a Conservative councillor requested a meeting with the Council Leader at which he expressed his concerns about CSE. This had come to his attention via constituents. He told the Inquiry that the Council Leader advised him the matters were being dealt with by the Police and requested that he did not raise them publicly…

Interviews with senior members revealed that none could recall the issue ever being discussed in the Labour (Party) Group until 2012Given the seriousness of the subject, the evidence available, and the reputational damage to the Council, it is extraordinary that the Labour Group, which dominated the Council, failed to discuss CSE until then. Some senior members acknowledged that that was a mistake. Asked if they should have done things differently, they thought that as an administration they should have tackled the issues ‘head on’, including any concerns about ethnic issues.”

In any event, when Robinson was arrested there was no other media present covering what should be viewed as a highly contentious, topical and heinous crime against human rights. Anyone with a heartbeat should be repulsed by the systematic rape of 11 year olds. 12yo girls shouldn’t have their tongues nailed to tables nor raped by 30 men in one day nor have 6 pregnancies in 4 years. It would be fair to say that the majority of Brits (much less the world) would be appalled by what has been going on. Yet media blackouts are deemed a preferable response by the judiciary. The people who have been covering it up should be convicted  as accessories, not those trying to expose such a shameful episode. Look how well that worked for Angela Merkel after the Cologne New Year’s Eve assaults were eventually exposed several years back.

No-one in their right minds wants to invite vigilantism but the seemingly farcical arrest of Robinson would seem to be inviting it rather than his videos inciting it. It is clear people in Britain are fast realizing that freedoms are being removed. Reprehensible legislation is being introduced to silence the truth. Whether once can say with certainty that this is 1984, it would seem things are pointing toward it. Politically motivated violence in Germany is surging post legislation designed to gag the populace.

Robinson is no saint. He has a checkered past which he freely admits to in his book, Enemy of the State. Yet his arrest has caused outrage around the world. If the authorities thought banging him up would limit the damage they’ve made a grave mistake. Anything that is pulled or deleted finds a way of resurfacing and ballooning the awareness. Conversely some people have posted pictures of him having been assaulted and bashed in prison (this has not happened since this arrest) as a way to incite more anger. If his followers want to save him, misreporting facts, trying to scale the gates at 10 Downing St or threatening the judge that convicted him won’t help the cause. They can’t swing public opinion with the two wrongs argument.

Growing numbers of the British population are getting fed up and if more of this type of politically correct hand-wringing continues the problem is likely to get out of control. The government and judiciary may think limiting the actions of those deemed to ‘incite’ division by jailing them will quell further unrest. However they should beware the public reckoning they ‘invite’. Will cooler heads prevail? At this juncture, it would appear not.

We say again, while it is debatable as to whether Tommy Robinson was in violation of his court order on a legal technicality, the bigger issue is the thousands of children that have been permanently damaged by the deranged acts of sick people. No matter what their background, colour, race or religion they should be given the maximum penalty for raping children if found guilty. They may not have taken lives, but they have stolen the sanctity of it. To that end, Robinson should be congratulated for bringing it to light, not censured. It is not just Tommy that deserves the right of free speech but the voice given to those poor children silenced for decades while those who were supposed to protect them turned a blind eye. Perhaps even SJWs will find it in their hearts to see the virtue of Robinson’s actions to stand up for those that couldn’t defend themselves. His only weapon is free speech. If some want to call his actions ‘hate speech‘ then they only prove how little they truly care for real victims.

#SpareMe & #ThankYou

DEC1A621-096A-41D3-910B-5CDC944DDF1C.jpeg

They say pictures speak a thousand words. One wonders whether there are a thousand threads in these pictures at the Cannes Film Festival. For all of the sanctimony we hear from celebrities about how important the #MeToo movement is, what better opportunity to let down the side than to minimize cloth to skin ratios. These ladies know they are walking billboards, overtly flaunting their assets to gain attention in the hope they are short listed on the next blockbuster given the likelihood of widespread media coverage. Why else would they wear the equivalent of postage stamps held together by dental floss? Who can blame them? Where are the male actors strutting in sequin g-strings? Hardly fair that only women get to show off the flesh!

By all means, these ladies who graze on lentils and alfalfa while completing grueling gym sessions 6 hours a day, have every right to dress as they please given they work so hard cultivating those figures. Isn’t objectification the intention? Appreciating beauty is certainly not a crime and it does not border on harassment. Should red-blooded males be shamed for seeing protruding nipples and exposed cleavage fall into their peripheral vision? Can we honestly say hand on heart that some in the Hollywood set didn’t/don’t willingly trade flesh for a $5mn role? It is not to condone the behavior rather to say that if in the end a budding actor/actress is willing to ‘pay in kind’ to nail a big role that is still consensual. Jokes about Weinstein’s sexual antics were made for years at award ceremonies before he was finally outed. If he is convicted of sexual assault/harassment then may the full extent of the law deal with the crime. However #SpareMe the sanctimony about how none of them knew. Staying on the lucrative gravy train and buying more global property was more way addictive than doing the right thing by standing up for the true victims.

It is surprising that the feminists haven’t been up in arms about Cannes. They managed to take down the F-1 grid girls effectively enough. Isn’t it ironic that the people most upset by the ban were the grid girls themselves. They liked what they did, got paid handsomely to flaunt figures they no doubt work so hard to maintain and welcomed the attention. Now they are out of a job! Yet it’s is we who must get in step with the times. Perhaps the F-1 teams could have been asked to pay a grid-girl tax and donate the funds to promote charitable causes that the girls themselves felt passionately about. It will be interesting to see whether the MotoGP franchise owners, Dorna, go the same route as F-1 which will be pretty hypocritical given the web pages dedicated to the brolley dollies at each round.

Maybe the bigger laugh was the Israeli 2018 Eurovision song winner, Netti Barzilai. She said that in the auditioning process that she overheard whispers about whether they could field someone prettier or skinnier. So sex appeal was preferable to ability? When was the last time we truly heard a properly decent song that didn’t have some singer surrounded by scantily clad women twerking?

Still the virtue signaling continues. Cate Blanchett was on the stairs at Cannes demanding equal pay, when she herself is one of the higher paid actresses in town. Her mate Benedict Cumberbatch is refusing to star in movies unless there is equal pay.  Such actions are nothing but self-indulgent attempts to create free publicity. Say he is offered $25mn for a role and his never seen before female sidekick is not granted the same? Will he protest, divide his own pot or star anyway? One wonders.

Here is an idea for celebrities. CM thinks that Hollywood should be run by a government agency which will ensure equality in all outcomes. Movie roles will be distributed evenly. Each movie will have exactly the same budget. It will have equal numbers of men, women, LGBT, races, religious representation and sexual orientation regardless of how factually incorrect a true story may seem. Movie directors will have no say in who is cast for each part. Box office revenues will be evenly distributed at the end of each calendar year to ensure that flops will get subsidized by the hits. The actors who star in blockbusters will receive exactly the same outcome as those whose films end up almost immediately on Netflix.

All actors and actresses will be required to work exactly the same hours, have the same contract terms and be required to attend the awards ceremony in exactly the same garb. No makeup will be permissible, no eyebrow stylists flown around the world at last minute and no speech longer than 10 seconds. As there is to be equality at all costs, there will no longer be gender based awards at the Oscars. Or alternatively Best Actor – male, female and the 63 other gender categories. “The winner of the Best Actor in the hermaphrodite category is….”

So Benedict and Cate, will you join a union which levels the playing field and calls for equality or do you still prefer that your acting skills determine how the free market sets your prices? If you choose the former, just don’t speak to Jack Nicholson. He is still collecting royalties from Batman. Just what I thought.

These are the Oscar stats. A 40% decline over 5 years. Is this a sign of a format that is no longer sustainable? Is the disintermediation/disruption caused by video on demand such that making a ‘date’ to go to the cinema is no longer a priority? Cinema attendance in the domestic US market is back at 1993 levels. In the 1990s Hollywood made 400-500 films annually. It now pumps out more than 700. The average revenue per film continues to head south. The strategy seems to throw more at audiences and hope it sticks. Are the movies the industry rates itself on actually reflected in the box office? Out of touch with the audience? It would seem so. 9 films in the last 13 have failed to breach $75mn. So instead of Hollywood being so preoccupied with espousing politics, perhaps it should look to the audience it ‘preaches’ to and starts ‘reaching’ them instead otherwise many of them will be staring at massive pay cuts. Or will that mean it is every man and woman for themselves again!?