Jump to content

Recommended Posts

BC is being accused by the media of sexual assaults and there are a growing number of woman who have spoken out against him, but no charges.


Netflix and NBC have pulled productions but he's officially guilty of nothing and it's clear that these companies cannot afford to take the risk of being associated with a possible sex criminal.


But there is no longer any such thing as innocent until proven guilty in the world of celebrity sex offences.


No smoke without fire ?

According to some of the interviews, most of those involved have been paid off and gagged along the way.


Does innocent until proven guilty apply in the US or is it just a British principle? I don't think the process works that way in France, for example.

Mick


How long have people said about saville "we should have known. We should have done something"


Cosby isn't on trial and isn't imprisoned. The allegations (or many of them) have been public for years and as is the way of abused people, seeing others talk about their experience encourages others. You might be suspicious if it was one or two, but no way am I dismissing that many people.

It's a pretty consistant M.O


Money, money, money, talks in cases like this


And on listening to a radio programe about wealth, I wonder if the same applies in cases like this


It doesn't matter how you make your wealth, it's how you launder you image after


So it might follow with deviant sexuality, in cases like Saville and Cosby perhaps, that the image is laundered to such a point, as to be a near fortress


Pretty shocking tho

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does innocent until proven guilty apply in the US

> or is it just a British principle?


Are we really any better? Rolf Harris, for example.


As soon as the allegations become public, almost everyone will assume that when there's smoke there's fire. How can you keep something like this under wraps?

What I don't understand about the whole Bill Cosby thing is that it appears to be operating completely outside the criminal justice system. Has nobody been to the police? Why has he not been arrested? It appears to be mostly about reputational damage on his part. Can anyone shed any light on this?

nxjen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Apparently events took place over 30 years ago

> which is outside the statute of limitations which

> is operational in the US.



That'll be about the same time that he was last relevant.

  • 2 years later...

It seems from the documentary that the game changer in this is that only one accusation is within the 30 years statute of limitations, but for that one he gave a testimony to police in private before charges were dropped on the most recent sexual assault. The victim then filed a private prosecution and gave up her anonymity.


Associated Press in 2015 successfully claimed for that testimony to be made available and succeeded. Apparently in the testimony he admitted to drugging women in the past.


This should all come out at trial.


Many think that his philanthropy over the last 30 years is his way of hedging against, or making some payback (in his own mind) for his earlier demeanours.


But it seems that he couldn't keep the old BC from coming out and assaulting one more time and for that reason he's going to feel the full force of the law/public opinion.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I’m basing it on the fact that Jeremy Corbyn had repeatedly and on record said he is against mandatory vaccinations in any situation, and he wouldn’t disclose wether he had the Covid vaccine himself    as I said. Not as bad as his brother but very definitely a bit weird about the whole thing. Just say you had the vaccination Jeremy, say that everyone should and stop being weird in the middle of a global pandemic    it’s the same slippery evasive nonsense about Brexit and him. About Putin poisonings and him.     if you are happy with his evasiveness then you do you.  But there is a reason the country wouldn’t get behind him 
    • It was my understanding that Jeremy Corbyn was embarrassed by his brother and had distanced himself from his brother's views. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Why on earth should "the overall view of that family inform Jeremy's response to the pandemic"? What exactly are you basing that assumption on?
    • I guess it's best to do what most Brits do these days, keep your head down and say nothing! although that's probably why this country is in the mess it is today!  😞
    • @Dulwichway Absolutely - I'm in no way trying to say that what happened was life-changing. I've encountered way worse situations and think of myself as pretty tough, which is why I took them on and got pelted. I suppose I'm just taken aback because the park always seemed so safe. But the stats I've just posted contradict that.   I suppose the one of the points of this thread is to point out that they weren't just numpty youths - I'd bet money on some of them being involved in more serious criminality. And to tell others to be vigilant. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...