About Gary Oldman


My worst fears about trial by media have come true. The fact I’ve been right all along doesn’t bring any kind of satisfaction. On the contrary, I’m sick of it.

Forget that any case that attracts the media’s spotlight the way it does today cannot be fair to the accused. The jury is out there reading all those articles and blogs that present one side of every case and have already declared the accused 100% guilty and then some more. Forget the Presumption of Innocence as basic, human right earned centuries ago. All those are so passé in the 21st century.

The presumption of innocence seems easily forgotten in the so-called “court of public opinion”. When high-profile criminal cases capture media attention, the public opinion seems to sway towards presuming the person is guilty – before he even steps foot inside a courtroom to have a judge or jury determine whether or not he is guilty. This ‘presumption of guilt’ in the public’s opinion can be devastating to reputations; careers; families, and almost every other aspect of life. Even if eventually found ‘not guilty’ in a court of law, recovering from a public smearing of one’s name and reputation may prove impossible.



So. Gary Oldman is nominated for an Academy Award in the category Leading Actor for The Darkest Hour. As always, there are people who think he didn’t give the best performance of the year and he shouldn’t win the Awards. So far, all well. Personally, I still hold a grunge against the Academy for Robert Downey Jr. losing to Al Pacino some 25 years ago. However, that’s one thing and what is happening today is another.

Gary Oldman is in the spotlight; everything he has said and done is put under a microscope so he can be presented as the worst male to have walked this Earth in the last 59 years (he plays Churchill as well).

When his playboy interview had been published back in 2014, I have written an essay explaining to the dim-witted what he had meant (but then I deleted the blog), not that it would have made much sense to them because…. words offend, people are offended by new words every day and words that weren’t offending last week are offending today. If you know what I mean. The only reason I know this is because I have observed tumblr since 2011. For example, gay men who don’t want to have sex with FtM are transphobic. Stephen Fry is transphobic. Thus social media claims. Now, I could be wrong. Social media see things different today than how my generation saw things when I was a teenager (mid 90s to mid 00s). And I sometimes have trouble following all these changes. Some of these changes seem ridiculous to me and kind of insulting (eg. the statement «some men have uterus» seems misogynistic to me. So sue me. Again, I could be wrong….) That was my education, that’s Stephen Fry’s sexual orientation, he most probably doesn’t want to have sex with a male with a vagina. What can he do? See the man and not his reproductive organs? Not possible. See? Here I’m not politically correct. Here, I’m conservative. Here…. I am wrong. I have been wrong my whole life. Why? Because society changes. Because some people try to change society and as we stand now, I’m not sure if it’s for the best or the worst. But, calling Stephen Fry transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a guy with female reproductive organs isn’t homophobic as well?

But I digress. What I meant to write is that Gary Oldman’s interview was not Politically Correct. Gary Oldman himself said he doesn’t like Political Correctness that comes hand to hand with double standards.

Gary Oldman was born in the late 1950s, that’s about 60 years ago. I’m about 30 years (well, 28) younger than him and can’t follow those changes easily. Imagine him. Now, it’s no one’s job to educate either me or Mr. Oldman. That’s down to us and if we respect human rights we will do it. We will see to those who feel are not treated equally and not ridicule them but help create a society where everyone is treated in the same way. And after he gave that interview and was called out on his comments about Hollywood being run by Jewish people and Mel Gibson bit the hand that fed him or Alec Baldwin calling someone a «fag» being ostracised while everyone does it, he apologised. However, how many people born in late 50s/early 60s do it? Was it double standards? And of course in the last 4 years PC has moved on to comedy/stand up comedy as well, and yes, comedians have to be politically correct if they don’t want to be dragged in social media as racist, homophobic, sexist or misogynistic. Four years ago, when Mr. Oldman gave that interview they could still make such jokes. This is how fast society changes. Today, they can’t.

But Gary Oldman apologised for his Playboy interview. For whatever reason; it might have been a heartfelt apology or not. But he apologised. And despite his age and the era he became a man, he might have learnt his error as well. Which is how society changes. By learning and becoming better.

And now he’s an Academy Award Nominee so social media and media bring up that interview to prove he shouldn’t win because he’s racist. And I don’t have a problem with social media as much as I have a problem with media. Media have power and as I said before, it’s clear they want to be the big Boss of Hollywood so everyone in Hollywood shares their beliefs, no other opinion to be heard, everyone with controversial opinion should be gagged, not to work and definitely not to be awarded for it. As if we can no longer enjoy someone’s art if we disagree with their opinions….

And to get into this blog’s main thought for the last year and a half, Gary Oldman was accused by his ex wife Donya Fiorentino for domestic abuse sometime in the early 00s during their divorce and custody of their two kids’ battle.

It was the daily beast and Ira Madison III who started the long line of articles about Gary Oldman’s «Dark Past». Basically it rehearsed the playboy interview and he abuse accusation and of course came up with the idea that no! Gary Oldman should never win because #metoo.


«For his part, Oldman vehemently denied the allegations and claimed, “[the accusations are] replete with lies, innuendoes and half-truths.”

But even if we are to give Oldman the benefit of the doubt in his case»….

And continues:

«It’s not just that Oldman makes excuses for bad behavior in Hollywood; it’s that he’s been accused of engaging in bad behavior himself and called others hypocritical for being offended.»


So, basically he doesn’t give him the benefit of the doubt, he uses the accusation to make him look bad on top of making the «racist, homophobic, misogynistic» comments.

And concludes:

«As more and more instances of abuse are brought to light in Hollywood, and its members claim they want to bring about change, what is to be done about Oldman? Ignore it and consider it “the past,” or force him to address the situation in a way that Affleck never had to?

At some point, change will mean addressing all of Hollywood’s ghosts—not just the ones who are cartoonishly monstrous like Weinstein and Spacey.»

Everyone in social media and some so-called journalists use this unbiased piece (sic) of reporting (LOL) as the absolute truth.

Just this week, Vox  ruminated Mr. Madison’s article.

«Oldman has denied Fiorentino’s claims, saying through a representative that the police investigated her story and pressed no charges.»

Just today, the Independent tweeted

go the independent.PNG


linking to this article:

Gary Oldman is nominated for an Oscar. This is why people think it would be terrible if he won

The article shares tweets of people who think Gary Oldman should not win the Academy Award because he abused his wife.

And most of these tweets have a #timesup or #metoo hashtag.

The difference between this article and the two above is that the author of it adds:

«In 2002, Fiorentino claimed in court documents that the actor beat her with a telephone during an argument. Oldman has always denied these allegations and the court gave Oldman sole custody of their two sons.»

in small letters because we can’t have people actually noticing this little detail, while his ex-wife’s description of the «abuse» the court examined and found never happened is written in large, black, heavy font to make a bigger impression to the poor sheep ahem reader.

But here’s the thing. The accusations against Gary Oldman were made during the divorce and custody battle and after a lengthy state investigation and trial, Oldman was granted sole legal and physical custody of the sons, and Fiorentino was only allowed occasional state-monitored visits.

Basically, the court has not only ruled that Oldman was innocent of the abuse accusations, but clearly deemed his ex-wife unfit to both look after her children or to even be alone with them.

You don’t have to be a super genius to understand that. You can just google what «supervised visitation»  means. And it means nothing good about Mr. Oldman’s ex-wife.

I don’t know if her addiction problems could have hurt her kids (her first husband was granted custody of their kid as well), but the Judge clearly thought so. But according to media and social media the villain here is Gary Oldman.

I also saw many people calling him still an «alleged» abuser as if a trial hasn’t taken place 15 years ago and was proven to be not guilty.

So, in case you haven’t noticed we haven’t only thrown Presumption of innocence to the rubbish bin, but journalists, media, social media declare people who proved their case to the Court and were found not guilty, guilty.

If that is not witch-hunt, then what is it?

#timesup becomes more and more scary if it continues like this.

Break a leg, Mr. Oldman. Hope he takes the little statue home tonight. He surely deserves it.


Gary Oldman survived abuse, alcoholism and raised two of his three sons on his own. He’s one of the best actors we have. He’s a British working-class actor -one of the last, as a matter of fact. He’s far stronger than the slandering and media hate.


In 1958, actors were the vanguard of British social mobility – now they symbolise its breakdown. The point is not that the next Gary Oldman might be working at Sports Direct. The point is he or she could be there forever. And they will win no Oscars, because unlike Oldman, they will have to know their place.

Danny Leigh, 15 January 2018

I guess this is why media try so hard that even Oldman knows his place. A working-class British actor who worked damned hard to reach the top.


AK, 04/03/2018




Gary Oldman’s mistreatment

in the metoo era.

For the last four months, I have tried hard not to write anything dismissive about the metoo movement. Sex is neither a weapon to be used for control nor a tool for self-promoting and unfortunately has been used -still is?- that way in every aspect of every day life, including our work environment. Hollywood though, the entertainment/show business is a tricky place and I’m not certain change for the best is what they have in mind. Against my better judgement and critical thought process, I did hope for it.

Regardless of the proof-less accusations presented as facts, regardless of media and social media’s prosecution -they have attained the role of judge, jury and executioner quite successfully lately- and their attempt to stop the accused from defending themselves, regardless of knowing the very nature of Hollywood is sex and scandals, regardless all that I hoped the «movement» would work towards a decent result. Because, in fact, every victim need their justice and they have to be heard. In my opinion though and most probably history’s opinion too, it is highly undemocratic for every accuser to be considered a de facto victim a priori evidence (A/N. I did latin at school!). We would return to difficult times if that was the case. Add the actual (sic) fact social media/media don’t permit the accused to defend themselves and…. how do we really know who the victim who needs protection is?

But, if I or you mention every person has the same rights (right to be considered innocent until proven guilty for example) I am considered the enemy of something good and precious and life-changing. Why? Because the self-proclaimed -as I write this- victims of the oppressive and sexually harassing Hollywood had no rights or ways to defend themselves so the NDAs, the thousands of received money, the careers and luxurious film-star life they got our of their victimhood are not to be questioned.

Clearly, even in Hollywood, there are, were and most probably always will be people abused and used. At the same time, there were/are/will be others who not only used this abusive status-quo for their own personal success, but now use the victims’ plight to again promote their name brand. And they are not to be questioned because we have to believe everyone who claims to be a victim, no evidence needed because indeed others have been abused.

In normal (and I honestly don’t know what’s normal as we speak) circumstances, we’d use our common sense and separate the truth from the lies; we’d try to see each case individually so the victims find their justice. Which can only take place in a court of law, but WE DON’T CARE about it. Those accused falsely -and to be honest here, how can one be falsely accused? Someone lied with the intent to harm, nothing false here, nothing to suggest the accusation made by mistake are victims too. Don’t they need or deserve their justice too?

In all these cases, how do we know all accusers say the truth? At this point, to be brutally honest, I’m certain most people, most self-proclaimed social justice, feminist -add more labels here- warriors don’t care. Anything that will break their «women are blameless victims who are brave to speak now» narrative is deleted with no further thought.

And I knew all that from the start and while my democratic beliefs and instinct protested against this, I still didn’t want to write anything about it. Maybe it was laziness.

Little by little, however I understand the idea is indeed for the accused to not have the right to speak, to not have the right to present their side of the story and, worst of all, for most of them to not be brought to justice. What’s a bigger hit to the justice institution? The court’s decision to not matter.

And for these people, for most of the supporters of metoo and timesup, court decisions don’t matter. Which brings us to the reason of this entry. Gary Oldman being attacked in media and social media in the name of metoo and timesup. His right to win awards is being questioned because his «decency as a human being» is also questioned by social media and media alike.

What does that mean? It means that for a large percentage of the metoo folks it’s guilty even if proven innocent. Journalists, bloggers, feminists alike tweet, make posts, write articles in mainstream newspapers like the guardian questioning Hollywood’s honesty in regards to changing because of Gary Oldman’s acting awards for Churchill (The Darkest Hour).

A quick telling of Gary Oldman’s -and I quote- «shady past» is that he was accused by his ex-wife for abuse of hers and their kids during their divorce and custody battle back in the early ’00s. As a result, after the police investigated and a trial took place, Mr. Oldman got sole custody of his kids and his ex-wife could only visit her kids with a supervisor. It needs to be said that her older child’s custody was won by her father, director David Fincher, as well.

But for many people -«respectable» journalists too- Gary Oldman is an abuser.

«Guilty even if proven innocent» is the verdict because the social media people «believe the victims». So courts, justice, laws, police, investigation, the accused’s rights, the accused proving to be innocent, the accuser proved to be a liar don’t matter.

It doesn’t matter if the accused is innocent as long as the narrative of big, bad male abuses poor, innocent -or not so innocent, women don’t have to be innocent to be victims, they can be guilty of abuse and it will still be the male’s fault- female. Because she said so and we have to believe the victims.

Gary Oldman’s name is being dragged all over social media and in articles written by «woke» feminist, social justice, male and female writers even though he proved to be innocent, is what in the end made me criticise metoo.

The narrative is wrong. And it’s dangerous. Rage and hate, bitterness and jealousy, and blindly believing accusations ruining people’s reputations to promote our agendas is not right. It is in fact dangerous. Because victims need to be heard and protected. While it distorts narratives, Gary Oldman proved in court he and his kids were the victims in his case. And they need to be heard and they need to respected like every other victim.

Just my opinion.




I could easily link to articles and court ruling, but all information is a search engine away.










if I wasn’t a cynic

If you can’t believe there’s an ounce of Honesty in Hollywood
Your words and beliefs may easily be misunderstood

Warning: my thoughts that follow may be considered offensive, tone-deaf, cynical and definitely not politically correct. Read at your own risk.

Let’s start at the beginning:
Am I against abuse at all forms? I am.
Am I against sexual abuse and/or harassment? I am.
Am I against abuse of power? Damn right I am.

Read more

Are social media and media the new Weinstein?

Sure, young, innocent, naive actors don’t have to bow to his demands or have sex with him to move their careers forward, but what happens to those artists who don’t share the media’s ideals? What happens when x artist says something politically incorrect? Aren’t they racist? Misogynist? Sexist? Aren’t works of fiction judged…. criticised or reviewed if you prefer by how much they pander or not to media’s acceptable social justice?

Does it really matter if a film is well-directed or well-acted if it’s diverse enough, «woke» enough?

Do media even care about talent these days or do they promote «feminist» or «racially diverse» or «LGBT» movies even if their artistic merit is not the highest of the lot. Is it Wonder Woman (among others) as good as media made it to be? I just have questions here, I don’t have all the answers. I just wonder…

Maybe one day we will learn why Harvey Weinstein fell in such a short time. Most, if not all, liberal media turned against him in ways they didn’t dream to turn against D. Trump. And one of the biggest Hollywood Empires, Miramax, collapsed.

Like a house of cards. Or a domino.

Has anyone dared to support Weistein? I can’t think of any. But it was supposedly impossible for anyone, no matter how big or small they were in the industry, to go against Weistein. Until it wasn’t. Until media decided that it wasn’t impossible to go against him. For the last year and a half, I have followed liberal media such as buzzfeed, thedailybeast and even HuffingtonPost and cinema blogs like slashfilm and I have come to one conclusion; they have started a fight against and clearly they want to destroy «old» Hollywood and replace it with a new one.

Now, someone will say that is not bad. New blood is always good to any business, new ideas, new perspectives, new methods all well said. I agree. Why do we have to destroy the old one to get to the new? Why does the new have to be mostly/only politically correct oriented instead of talent oriented?

Thedailybeast about a month ago and the Independent  just yesterday after Gary Oldman won his (well deserved and if you ask me long-awaited) award published articles questioning if he should have won it, or if he deserves to win the Academy Award for best actor not because he didn’t give one of the best performances of the year, but because of a politically incorrect interview he gave in 2014 -for which he apologised later. Thebailybeast article goes as far as to more or less call him an abuser based on his ex wife’s accusation of about 18 years ago while the writer disregards the little detail (sic) he was innocent and was granted the custody of his then underage kids.

Not to mention the many articles that more or less ask Hollywood to never give work to Johnny Depp again. (see previous articles on the subject matter)

So what gives? If you disagree with them, it doesn’t matter if you’re Angela Lansbury, or Ian McKellen, or Denzel Washington or JK Rowling (and dare to cast Johnny Depp in your film) you’re the enemy. Your opinion, despite being years in the theatre and movie business, doesn’t matter. They will use their power and attempt to eat you -and your reputation, career, legacy, character- alive.

In the meantime, they will support and promote (quite glaringly obviously) any new artist who supports their opinions, their agenda, who share the same frame of mind, who believe in the absolute victimhood of groups of people, who throw the label of monster or abuser, or rapist, or oppressor with the easiest of ways and no evidence to support their claims and who, of course, have the «activist» in their social media account added next to «actor», «singer», «rapper» etc… Mind you, I don’t mean Mandy Patinkin whose activism is about refugees who drown in the cold waters of Mediterranean, but those who wear black in Awards Ceremonies and demonise men and victimise all women, even those who negotiated with their abusers to earn money decades before they decided they wanted to be victims again. Those deserve to be promoted by media, regardless their talent or no talent in the profession they chose to work. Like, who cares if they can act if they label themselves as feminists or LGBT or victims of abuse or strong, independent women who speak against the oppressive Hollywood system they gave up their own dignity to be part of.

Maybe actresses do not need to pretend to like Weinstein any longer because they have found a new promoter: Media and social media. Of course, just like Weinstein, media will attempt to crash and burn you if you don’t follow their orders. It’s kinda scary, no?

Update: January 31, 2018

The night of the Grammys, Steve Tyler held a party and raised $2.4 million for victims of sexual abuse. The event was a benefit for Janie’s Fund, an organization created by Tyler in partnership with Youth Villages to help young girls who are victims of abuse.

Nina Dobrev made the mistake to post photos of herself from the party with Johnny Depp (who was also in the event) in her social media accounts. Her posts got thousands of likes in IG and likes/retweets in Twitter. However, many people commented to her ordering her to delete the photos because she was with Johnny Depp who allegedly was abusive to his ex wife. No court proved the accusation was true, as his ex wife dropped her PRO request before its hearing.

People in social media -maybe Ms. Dobrev as well- are very vocal in regards to the #metoo and #timesup movements. Everything is every black and white with not a shade of grey in between. Nina Dobrev‘s icon is Time’s Up


These movements are supposedly for the empowerment of women in their employment environment, in regards to Ms. Dobrev in the post-Weinstein Hollywood. Ms. Dobrev was forced to take down her photos from her own social media because of bullying from people who support the above mentioned movements. And I repeat she was forced to take down her own photos.

I can explain the irony of it, spell it out, and write a long essay about it, but in the end it won’t matter. People are too set up in their own ideas and beliefs that they have become abusive and highly oppressive. And people, like Ms. Dobrev, will be forced to do things they don’t like because they are afraid for their future in their work.

Just like they did with Mr. Weinstein.

This time, same as before, they can say no; they can refuse to give power to anyone over themselves. They don’t.

Think about it; you’re an actor, you went to a party/a charity event and then you uploaded photographs of yourself with people attending the charity event. You are happy about them; if you weren’t you wouldn’t have post them. Let’s be honest. And then you get some rather insulting comments ordering you to delete them. And, for some reason (public relations, agent, manager) you have to take that photos that made you happy down because your following number in social media matters more than what made you happy.

So, in second thought, maybe they don’t have an alternative.

They are dictated what to do, what to say, what to post in their own social media accounts. Not to mention, some of them are forced to have social media accounts.

Big Brother is looking down at you.

About victims and monsters

and our inability to accept we are part of the problem


I can be very specific about some things I want to say or speak in general. Either way, I hope what I’m going to write here is easily understood.

First of all, when I say others have part of the blame in the Kevin Spacey situation, I definitely don’t put the blame on them about Kevin’s (alleged) actions. If true, he’s the only one responsible. He should be able to work with himself and ask forgiveness from his (alleged) victims and it’s up to them if they are strong enough to forgive them or not. Either way, it is not my bloody business.

The problem though is they made it my business. They accused him publicly in media (I have a one-side hate relationship with buzzfeed because I find their articles biased and filled with inaccuracies and at certain matters flat-out lies in order to support their (most often than not) correct ideas. However, in my opinion supporting an idea with lies to promote your own agenda is no different from what right-opionated media outlets do. And they pick famous people as their target for clickbaiting reason because after all, they run a business) & social media. And in the Johnny Depp case I had the displeasure of seeing one-sided reports of the legal procedure where they (media) tried to push one side of the story while the court documents presented a whole different situation. But, I digress. Bottom line, I don’t trust media. It’s the fault; left, right, people with agendas, self-proclaimed feminists, self-proclaimed activists… that’s not what I expect from journalists. I expect a well-rounded presentation of facts so I can decide what’s true and what’s wrong.

And I don’t get that.

So, I have a problem with the way events are being reported. I have a problem with the easiness words like «pedophile» and «rapist» are used like a candy.

Basically, I don’t have a problem believing Antony Rapp’s telling of events until media and social media took it and twisted it to be something that it wasn’t. You can be disappointed by Kevin’s action that night 31 years ago without shouting «pedophilia» (aka exclusive attraction to people YOUNGER than 13. Rapp was 14 & a half years old, if we want to be precise) and «rape» (there was clearly neither rape nor statutory rape because Rapp left on his own without being stopped). I can condemn Mr. Spacey for what he did, but not for what he didn’t do. You know?

And then there was the vulture interview with the guy who seemed deep into having researched what had happened to him but managed to misuse «pedophilia» again. Not to mention the outrageous heteronormativity that lurked all over it. Don’t worry, dear anonymous sir who had a previous older lover (family member nonetheless) we won’t for a moment believe you «bottomed» for Mr. Spacey when he «attempted to rape you». As if this man, with the kind of research he’s done on the matter wouldn’t call their previous sexual encounters as «rape». With this interview, even as I was thinking how inaccurate and stupid it was, I thought it would be impossible to watch another Kevin Spacey movie. So, job well done, I guess.

And then things got more mixed up; young men were advised to not go alone in his trailer or dressing room & young men were seeing coming and going in his trailer/dressing room. Basically, all encounters -very artistically- turned into some kind of twisting blackmailing from his side regardless if there was given consent or not.

Which is where I come to my problem with the metoo movement. All nice and well with it; however, it can transform (and already has happened) into a witch hunt. Because the metoo movement did brilliantly something social media do for quite a while now. It created perfect victims and perfect monsters. Victims with no accountability and mustache twirling villains ready to assault, rape, and harm said victims. And due to recent reporting of Weistein effectively stopping actors’ careers such as Mira Sorvino’s I will give him the characterization of monster.

However, I can’t help but cringe when I read Rose McGwan’s narcissistic tweets.

And as long as the metoo movement refuses to acknowledge that for every Weinstein victim there were 20 women willingly going to his bedroom to further their career, I refuse to take it seriously. How many times did you watch a movie and thought «Ok, but why does x actors keeps getting a job while they can’t act to save their lives?» How many times did you watch an award ceremony and the winners made you roll your eyes so hard it caused you a headache? Now, you may want to take all responsibility away from the «victim» but I can’t.

Is there a victim when there’s a financial or business transaction? Social media will say yes. Social media will also claim that a woman or a man using their sex-appeal to gain in a business that they are not good enough to be in it is slut-shaming & it’s wrong, wrong, wrong. McGowan took money from Weinstein thus making her traumatic experience a financial transaction and she was renegotiating a new deal before the story broke. And now, she tries to earn as much for her personally attacking everyone left and right, from B. Affleck to A. Milano.

Matt Damon said the obvious; groping is not rape. And 25+ thousand people signed to have him removed from a movie (I’m looking at Mr. Ridley Scott right now, because he’s the one who made it happen). I want even mention the amount of the ridiculous people have a role or a cameo in Ocean’s 11, but social media are happy with the movie because it’s an all female lead one. NewYorkTimes published an article about the «New Trailer: Ocean’s 8 with Sandra Bullock and Rihanna» because Rihanna is apparently more important & more acclaimed actress than Cate Blanchett, Ann Hathaway or Helena Bonham Carter.

This is Hollywood: you sell, they are going to use and take everything you have to offer, they will coddle you and your needs, enable and did I mention use you? Because they will. Until you become expendable. Because you’re a product and a broken product doesn’t sell. Oh you can be broken from before (most artists are) & they may break you more, but when that becomes public knowledge you’re gone.

But, don’t tell me the way this industry runs is not part of the problem. Don’t tell me that allure of world fame and money, parties, cars and jewellery won’t tempt you to forfeit your dignity, that it won’t twist your darkness into something more. Especially if you’re given power.

And we go back to Kevin Spacey and how he allegedly used his power to blackmail people to be with him? I was also ready to believe that accusation too, until the 81 story came out about how his 27 (then) victim of unwanted advances feared he was going to lose his job for denying him. To quote a fictional character «rules of good drama: start small and build». Only it’s a bit hard to believe 22-year-old Kevin Spacey who struggled to find a job after leaving Julliard had such a power. Yes, you take it too far and people will know it’s drama for the sake of drama at that point.

Where am I going with this? Hollywood discarded Kevin Spacey in ONE day. Just one day. They could do it 20 years ago. Yes, I’m sorry I can’t believe they didn’t know what he did…. they did. (And I can talk about how accepted such actions were by the industry) So, yes they are part of the problem. Not because they didn’t do it back then, not even because they did it now. No, no. It’s the self-righteous hypocrisy to believe they can present themselves to be moral and good and supporting the «good cause» thus totally different from big, bad Spacey. It’s their inability to take their responsibility in this whole mess that makes them part of the problem. In the exact same way as the metoo movement.

I’d still take Kevin Spacey over Rihanna in any movie…. but that’s just me.

Also, presumption of innocence is no longer with us, it took a hike to Mount Everest.

Media: You are doing it wrong.

Media: Media make it so difficult to believe what they write. It’s not my fault; it’s theirs.
There is something extremely wrong in the way they present news, in the way they form opinions and the way they push those opinions as facts. Media have power; I hardly care if they think their cause is noble if they constantly lie.

And I’ve noticed lately that when writers, editors, journalists’ lies are called out in social media they don’t apologise, they don’t admit they were wrong, but they present themselves as victims of anonymous trolls. Which means their lies were a conscious decision instead of a result of a bad research.

Think about it and think about it hard. Because you are manipulated by media all the time.

The power they hold over their audience makes them dangerous and highly oppressive for the same reason.

Allure  published Amber Heard’s interview by Danielle Pergament.

I won’t discuss about how the first idea the writer gives is the fact she’s drunk or that she «wants to be Amber Heard». It’s her choice to take an interview drunk. Drunk is the new sexy, I guess, but only in women. In men, it’s despicable.

Because, feminism.


She seriously informs us a. she’s drunk and b. she isn’t professional. Her words, not mine.

But then the lies begin and this is something that I cannot tolerate them.

I will notice here that she’s well aware of the importance of tenses. You will see why later.

Allure 2

Do we know what slander is? This here above is libel. But you know under the pretence of «free speech» and the fact Johnny Depp is famous they spread the lie Amber Heard was beaten by him. Why? Because she says so. Did any court accepted the accusation? No. Why because she dropped the PRO request before she had to prove she needed it. By dropping it, she made clear she didn’t need it, but that’s detail no?

But, journalists have learned to use the law to their benefit haven’t they?

«In United States law, a public figure is a person such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader. In the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy, a public figure cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure.»

Basically, the public figure has less human rights that you and me. This should have made media more careful. Instead, it has made them capable of pushing their current agendas with glee, totally disinterested in the reputation of the people they will destroy.

1. Amber Heard never proved Johnny Depp beat her.
2. Amber Heard’s credibility was destroyed by her own actions and lies.

I repeat lies.

Allure 3

a.  “I don’t have to; I have to. If I didn’t have a platform, I would stand on my toes,” says Amber. (I’m switching to her first name now because, come on, we’re talking about some heavy shit.) “I have a semifunctioning brain and a semifunctioning limbic system, and as a human being, it is incumbent on me to make the world a better place in any small, insignificant way I can. I’ve always tried to do the right thing. I used everything I was given. I had to make it better for the next person.

I repeat it in case you didn’t read it the first time.

Before Amber Heard made her claims of abuse public knowledge (thus inviting all of us in her private life) she sent the infamous by now but neglected by media extortion letter of hers in which she was basically blackmailing her husband to pay her up so they could have a private and amicable divorce. Making the world a better place wasn’t first priority back then. Only when he refused to pay her it became such an important quest of hers. Her original reason for divorce wasn’t abuse either. Irreconcilable differences transformed to domestic violence when her demands were denied.

Great hero we have here, don’t we?

letter aletter b

These two women believe they have the right to talk in the name of all women. I don’t grant them the right to talk on my behalf. I detest them and their mentality. I detest liars and blackmailers and abusers. And women can be all of that. After all, let’s not forget, like media do, that Ms. Heard was in fact arrested for domestic violence in 2009 and when it became public knowledge her side/or her victim tried to use her sexuality to shame the arresting officer who turned out to be not only a women, not only a homosexual woman, but a homosexual woman who supported abused women. Oooops…. And then she wanted to deleted it from her record when she met Mr. Depp, a wish she was granted.

«After denials and failed attempts to destroy Heard’s credibility, Johnny Depp paid her $7 million.»

Seriously, was it Depp who forced her side to lie about his interest in the charities she has chosen to donate the money?*
Was it Depp who forced her again and again and again to not give her deposition?
Was it Depp who forced her to claim she wanted her day in court while doing her damnest to avoid it?

Allure will probably claim he was. And allure will be lying, but it’s not as if they care. It’s not as if they have any credibility either. I’m sure Johnny Depp tried to destroy that too.

Allure 5 a

Allure 5 b

The idea that she fought to  reach to where she is today (and let’s be honest here, she’s mostly known as Depp’s ex over anything else) or that she was born poor or the other melodramatic nonsense that are written in a guilt-tripping way won’t stop us for questioning the statement she’s a millionaire -because there are her own court documents that debunk the very idea of it. Unless she lied in her court docs when «she tried to take Johnny Depp’s money to give to those in need» she’s not a millionaire- and I also doubt she got more money for Justice League & Aquaman than Gal Gadot did for Wonder Woman)
The court documents can be found in this daily mail article. I loathe to link to daily mail, but it does have the court document, so what can I do?

The one thing I agree with this article is that «there’s not a drop of a victim in this woman«. That’s painfully obvious, no matter how much media and herself try to present her as one.

I mean I can go on about how Amber Heard «didn’t come out«, only she did, about how she «was never in» and remind all of them that she first labeled herself as lesbian and then as bisexual and always, always the victim of «society» and people telling her not to come out as bisexual because it would hurt her career, but that’s irrelevant to me. I can go and on… how she constantly tries to present one thing with words and how her actions prove she’s nothing like that. I’m sorry, but I don’t have to stomach to read the rest of the interview. I already feel myself gagging by all parties involved.

But media love what she presents because her words match the current state of feminism, but in the end if the current state of feminism is Amber Heard then the current state of feminism is fake. And oppressive. Just like media.

So, when people in social media started calling out the article and its lies, Michelle Lee, the editor, took over to defend it. Actually, not to defend it but to attack those who explained how many lies were in the article.

michelle lee 1

When people (not Depp stans or anonymous trolls as Michelle Lee called them, but people who have followed the case closely waiting to learn the truth through courts and laws and justice) questioned what was written in the article, Ms. Lee took over to share more lies.

Because why not? It’s feminism we promote, not the truth!

«Donated» money. Let’s remember about tenses. Past tense. As in «it has already happened». It’s also in the article.

Lie one, she hasn’t donated anything yet.

And Ms. Lee knows it.

michelle lee 2

Lie two, the money was for the divorce settlement & not for any abuse. You can not settle abuse cases for money. On top of that there were no charges, she had only ask for a restraining order.

Of course, it doesn’t mean the editor of Allure will delete the first tweet. Oh no, no, no. She will let the lie being spread for reasons only she knows. And maybe the rest of the people working in allure know. It needs integrity to admit what you wrote is a lie. It needs dignity and in the face of the current state of feminism we do not care about such values any longer. The lie is more powerful than the truth.

But they don’t leave it there.

No. They have to stop you from calling out their lies

michelle lee 3

by making themselves the victim and shaming you. Cool, isn’t it. Everyone can do it. You can do it. You call the person who calls out your lies a «Johnny Depp stan» and state you’re being unfairly attacked and there you have it; you’re a victim. And then you have them asking «why would Amber Heard lie?» I ask «why do you lie?»

I don’t know if anyone called her names for having Heard on their cover. I saw people calling out their lies.

Since I’ve started writing these blog entries about Johnny Depp I’ve been afraid of being called «abuse apologist» and «victim shamer» so I was reluctant to tag them. In the end, my opinion pieces are based on facts, on events that I have watched, lies I’ve seen being said and court documents. There are no lies here written by me. I describe things as they happened. I’m not the one lying. I’m not the one biased. I’m not the one promoting one side of the story, one person due to feminism. It’s not me who should be afraid to be called names. It’s those who lie on repeat. And those who lie on repeat are those who have more power than me, a better platform than me to spread their lies. Those are the oppressors no matter how noble they find their cause.

How difficult is to stick to facts and keep believing her? A lot it seems since they have to lie to support her. Shameful. Disgusting.


Ms. Heard: «But the actress promptly rejected the idea that Depp could do that. In a statement on Thursday, her team said that she “appreciates Johnny Depp’s novel interest in supporting two of her favorite charities” and the actor’s move is “great and unexpected news…
CHLA in 2006
«Johnny Depp embodies the very spirit of the `Courage to Care’ Award because he puts smiles on the faces of thousands of children through his great work on film, and his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities is nothing short of inspirational,» says Ms. Fernandez-Farrand.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles was one of the two favourite charities Amber Heard claimed she would donate money to and appreciated her ex-husband’s novel interest in supporting it, while the same charity had awarded Johnny Depp ten years earlier for his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities». To be honest here, Ms. Heard’s problem must have been her inability to understand what «private» means.

Question: How can I believe the other Hollywood scandals when I see media lying so blatantly about information I can easily find on the internet and accept the trial by media method of destroying people?

Answer: I can’t. I want police and courts and justice to decide before I start believing accusations. And the only one to blame is the press.

And if we add other more important issues here, the currest state of media becomes even more problematic.

Trial by media: Chapter Two – Kevin Spacey

Trial by media: the other side of the coin.

The first was Johnny Depp, whom I considered innocent, versus the media.

This one? Yes, not so much. Thank you, media.

But that’s irrelevant.

Do we in all reality need courts and laws, lawyers and judges, some kind of justice delivered by the state?
Or we can provide our own justice to those we consider guilty of a crime?
These questions are in my mind a lot since last year.
It’s painfully obvious that many people don’t trust the police, the law; don’t trust that courts of law actually service justice. These people use social media and/or the press and we can see them regularly calling out the injustices of the world.
However, what makes a state a state? What makes a democracy a democracy? What makes a person innocent or guilty? Is it what each one of us separately believes and then adding the percentage to reach in a conclusion?

I have followed the Johnny Depp case really closely and -as is known to everyone who reads me- I believe the abuse accusations against him were false. But, there are people out there who believe he abused his ex-wife. There are articles written questioning his right to work having deemed him guilty of domestic abuse without a court ruling.

There are cases I haven’t followed like the Michael Jackson or the Billy Cosby. There are people out there who believe both of them were guilty of the accusations against them. And then there are people who will bring up questions and state that maybe things weren’t like that and they were innocent, mostly in regards to Michael Jackson. But even with a little search anyone can find out that even those who accused Bill Cosby were a bit shady at occasions.

I don’t know much about any of those cases. Do I have an opinion? Can I have an opinion?

I don’t know. Were they guilty? Were they innocent?

Truth be told, we don’t know. But the court found Michael Jackson innocent of the accusations, and Bill Cosby’s trial ended in a mistrial. Take a moment and imagine Michael Jackson child molestation accusations coming out today, in the era of social media. Do you think there would be more people believing he was guilty? Do you think there would be more people coming out accusing him of something?

We can only speculate. But the truth is that even though he was found innocent and most of his fans to this day believe in his innocence, his reputation got a hit and he was never able to fully recuperate from those accusations, was he? Even today, there are articles written taking his guilt for granted (sure it’s daily mail, but you know, people do read the daily main and those people do have opinions they pass around as facts and absolute truth).

Maybe in this case no one lies. But the way society/social media/media took the accusation as granted opens paths for people to get accused and instantly found guilty. Is that a fair trial?

On top of that, personally, as far as I’m concerned I think it is a bit scary that as a society we can’t seem to understand simple terms. Making a sexual advance towards a 14 year old is illegal, especially if it results to having consensual (statutory rape) or non consensual sex (rape), but it is not pedophilia. Also, grabbing crotches and other body parts of the person standing/sitting/working/sleeping next to you without consent is creepy, disgusting, illegal, but it is not rape if you back off -angry, sad, humiliated- when they say no. And these are the actions Kevin Spacey has been accused of as we speak. This may change, but so far that’s it. The one event in which the anonymous accuser claims attempted rape was denied by Kevin Spacey’s lawyer.

I, as a Kevin Spacey fan, feel awful if the actions he’s accused of have actually happened. But, at the same time I feel awful that as a society we have to blow these alleged actions out of proportion to justify an out of proportion enragement. It’s as if society/social media/media cannot criticise and be appalled by what have actually been described as assault incidents, but have to make it bigger in order to create a mob ready to lynch someone, in this case Kevin Spacey. We have seen it happening some months ago with the Last Tango in Paris debate which resulted in people believing Marlon Brando literally raped Maria Schneider under Bernando Bertolucci’s direction. They couldn’t be angry over what had actually transpired, so they made the event something different, more repugnant and, truth be told, juicier as well.

Some of the incidents reported -in great detail and in literary artistry if I dare say so- were used for laughs and giggles in parties and among polite society for years. But, quite suddenly they all became evidence of a predatory sexual behaviour. I honestly cannot say how many of the stories are true or not, I cannot divide them between serious and attention seeking, I cannot know if the most serious accusations are filtered from media for further official investigation.

What I can say with an absolute certainty is that Kevin Spacey’s career specifically and life in general as he knew it has ended. And it’s a result of stories shared in media with no proof. To be careful here, the media may have every evidence needed to prove them. However, the public read stories and only stories.

Proof and evidence may be presented later while officials investigate each and every case, but the matter still stands; he got judged and was professionally killed by media.

In this blog entry (ok, in all blog entries), I present the media as some kind of big, bad meanies that want to destroy reputations and lives. That is not always the case. However, I have observed how media treated the Johnny Depp case and how easily they covered, deleted, pushed under the rug everything that didn’t suit the idea that he was an abusive husband, and in the same manner they deleted every record of Amber Heard’s erratic, lying behaviour. So, I think my reservations are quite plausible and understandable. Because the moment you, a common person of the reading audience,  bring different facts than the ones journalists present as true in their attention you are getting blocked and later on ridiculed and called names -such as abuse apologist, or even even better brainless fangirls -by them. I have watched them trying to push their own ideas and opinions as facts for too long to take anything written as fact.

In relation to everything I wrote above, I have to add that even if Mr. Spacey is guilty of everything he’s accused of and more, so far there is no evidence presented as proof of his illegal activities. So, what stops someone to use the same techniques to destroy an enemy’s reputation and life? What stops someone to create a smear campaign, a character assassination approach to eliminate a political theat for example? Because, as we’ve seen, no evidence is needed for the public to contemn someone.

And at this point is where I remember a lawyer stating after they dropped a PRO request that their client «had been vindicated in the court of public opinion». Their client had just proved she wasn’t afraid to actually go after a PRO, but hey! they were vindicated in the court of public opinion.

I don’t know, maybe I am biased in the sense I wish Kevin Spacey is innocent, but the fact is even I have no doubt he’s guilty. And that little detail here contradicts the presumption of innocence which is -or should be- the accused’s basic, human right.

All cases are different, but sometimes «public opinion» gets the wrong victim. And so do the media.
Mass hysteria, vigilantism, lynching is where I see us going from here.

Also make sure you have no enemies and no one hates you….