Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the GOP still refuses to dump sexual predator in the Oval Office... Maybe when they loose House and Senate in the midterms they will wake up. But by then they will have lost their chance because it will be the Democrats that will be removing him (and probably Mike Pence at the same time)." Pence wont go because he's insulated himself pretty well from the toxic parts of Trump world. President Pence would be almost as bad as Trump though. Losing this senate seat is a massive loss for Trump and the Republicans. Jones will hold it for the rest of Trumps first term and means that Republicans only have a 1 vote majority in the Senate from now until the mid terms next november. And thats in a very fractured Senate that was already struggling to get things done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Funny how all those allegations about Moore suddenly came out of nowhere just before the election. What was it about 2 weeks before. Have any of these allegations actually been proven? Is there a criminal investigation? Seems like a good ploy, smear someone with enough negatives and the other guy just gets the position. Like I said before, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" . Good luck to the new senator and I just hope that the Democrats continue to be the moral high ground party with their incredible ability at uncovering shady pasts, going to be a lot of skeletons falling out of cupboards! "There were allegations for years but they came out when he was running for Senate. Just the same way theres been allegations for years about Spacey, Bryan Singer, Weinstein and Louis CK. All 4 of those have been open secrets so long that the only surprising thing about them is that Singers only been accused by 1 account of assaulting a 17 year old. And its pretty slimy of you to try and say all these women are lying without any reason, particularly when Moore admitted to dating teenagers while in his 30s but that he asked their mothers permission first. And when former police have said that they used to be directed to keep him away from the cheerleaders at sporting events and a shopping mall had to ban him due to repeated harrassment of teenage girls. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Funny how all those allegations about Moore suddenly came out of nowhere just before the election. What was it about 2 weeks before. Have any of these allegations actually been proven? Is there a criminal investigation? Seems like a good ploy, smear someone with enough negatives and the other guy just gets the position. Like I said before, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" . Good luck to the new senator and I just hope that the Democrats continue to be the moral high ground party with their incredible ability at uncovering shady pasts, going to be a lot of skeletons falling out of cupboards! "bitter much....... apparently this had been an open secret in parts of alabama for a while... (for example the being banned from a shopping mail for has actions with regards to the teenage girls) i call it superb investigative journalist from the washington post, as they took all the alledged rumours, noticed a pattern and got all the women to go on the record..... plus sniffed out the veritas group who also tried to get a planted story in so they could smear them! they printed the story of the first 4 and none of those women have budged on their position!.... the other 7 came out on their own afterward!!!!! anyway.... if you get a chance to see the headline on the front of the new york daily post this morning.... thing of genius!!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the GOP still refuses to dump sexual predator in the Oval Office... Maybe when they loose House and Senate in the midterms they will wake up. But by then they will have lost their chance because it will be the Democrats that will be removing him (and probably Mike Pence at the same time)." Surprised Mr Moore lost, considering the little I have heard of Alabama politics, but then a number of factors seem to have come to play to give senator-elect Doug Jones the 1% point victory, such as high African American turnout and reduced Republican votes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Funny how all those allegations about Moore suddenly came out of nowhere just before the election. What was it about 2 weeks before. Have any of these allegations actually been proven? Is there a criminal investigation? Seems like a good ploy, smear someone with enough negatives and the other guy just gets the position. Like I said before, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" . Good luck to the new senator and I just hope that the Democrats continue to be the moral high ground party with their incredible ability at uncovering shady pasts, going to be a lot of skeletons falling out of cupboards!
There were allegations for years but they came out when he was running for Senate. Just the same way theres been allegations for years about Spacey, Bryan Singer, Weinstein and Louis CK.
All 4 of those have been open secrets so long that the only surprising thing about them is that Singers only been accused by 1 account of assaulting a 17 year old.
And its pretty slimy of you to try and say all these women are lying without any reason, particularly when Moore admitted to dating teenagers while in his 30s but that he asked their mothers permission first. And when former police have said that they used to be directed to keep him away from the cheerleaders at sporting events and a shopping mall had to ban him due to repeated harrassment of teenage girls."If the accusations are so heinous why do they lay stagnant? I'm talking about the latter 4 here, sounds a bit weird! How can something be an atrocity yet an unacted upon open secret? Whichever side you go with you're both just consuming what you've been told and decided to believe about what supposedly did or didn't happen about 8000 km away, years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the GOP still refuses to dump sexual predator in the Oval Office... Maybe when they loose House and Senate in the midterms they will wake up. But by then they will have lost their chance because it will be the Democrats that will be removing him (and probably Mike Pence at the same time). Surprised Mr Moore lost, considering the little I have heard of Alabama politics, but then a number of factors seem to have come to play to give senator-elect Doug Jones the 1% point victory, such as high African American turnout and reduced Republican votes. " haven't elected a democratic who state wide office in 25 years.... and the last one that did flipped to the republicans 2 years later basically everything went right for jones and the dems.... black voters came out in big numbers especially in the big cities (birmingham, huntsville and mobile) vote rural votes basically stayed home.... and the big college towns completely flipped (auburn and tuscaloosa) 3rd most conservative state in the union (after mississippi and utah) basically if the dems can now grab the senate seats in nevada and arizona in the midterms next year... thats trump's agenda done till the general election those two races are going to be vicious.... if they can grab back 1 branch they will slow down trump, if they can grab both.... he will be dead in the water and for the republicans, those two primaries are going to be bloodbaths because the choice is going to be the "establishment" candidate vs the "bannon/breitbart" wing candidate.... for political wonks this is like a dream.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the GOP still refuses to dump sexual predator in the Oval Office... Maybe when they loose House and Senate in the midterms they will wake up. But by then they will have lost their chance because it will be the Democrats that will be removing him (and probably Mike Pence at the same time). Surprised Mr Moore lost, considering the little I have heard of Alabama politics, but then a number of factors seem to have come to play to give senator-elect Doug Jones the 1% point victory, such as high African American turnout and reduced Republican votes. haven't elected a democratic who state wide office in 25 years.... and the last one that did flipped to the republicans 2 years later basically everything went right for jones and the dems.... black voters came out in big numbers especially in the big cities (birmingham, huntsville and mobile) vote rural votes basically stayed home.... and the big college towns completely flipped (auburn and tuscaloosa) 3rd most conservative state in the union (after mississippi and utah) basically if the dems can now grab the senate seats in nevada and arizona in the midterms next year... thats trump's agenda done till the general election those two races are going to be vicious.... if they can grab back 1 branch they will slow down trump, if they can grab both.... he will be dead in the water and for the republicans, those two primaries are going to be bloodbaths because the choice is going to be the "establishment" candidate vs the "bannon/breitbart" wing candidate.... for political wonks this is like a dream...." Thanks for the view; I love the five thirty eight podcast and so will be keeping an ear open for Nevada and Arizona politics! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" basically if the dems can now grab the senate seats in nevada and arizona in the midterms next year... thats trump's agenda done till the general election " In the meantime Trump could regret pissing off Flake McCain and Collins | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They can't just pick any old crazy person and think people will simply vote for them. More liberally-minded people have been spurred to action by the reality of a President Trump" As much as I'm not a fan of breaking down voter demographics it was as much a surprise to see a quarter of 'white males' shunning Moore as two thirds of 'white women' backing him (presumably on the assumption he'd ask their permission before noncing on their daughters) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone know who got which % of the vote ?" (D) Doug Jones 49.9% (R) Roy "Admits to dating 16 year olds in his 30s but denies anythung younger" Moore 48.4% Write in votes 1.7% | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. " Well you only have to look at the Bill Cosby allegations which were in the public domain for years. There were allegations in the 80s, 90s and 2000s which the media refused to report on. There were criminal complaints filed that were never pursued. Those women did what people say they were supposed to do, they told the police, they spoke out but nothing happened. Theres clearly been an atmosphere around powerful people and crimes like this where women have been ignored and sidelined to protect the wealthy and powerful. Its not fashionable to speak out, its just the first time that society as a whole is collectively listening and reacting. Even at the moment you look at Danny Masterson, a lower profile actor but still a star of a Netflix show. With the media attention on Spacey they immediately cut ties. With Masterson the r@pe charges occured in March before things very noticably changed later in the year. Netflix did nothing about it. What sort of consistency is that? Spacey has 1 allegation and gets fired, Masterson has 4 r@pe allegations and got his contract renewed. Things have changed and now people are taking these things seriously. With the Masterson/Spacey you can see a major difference in just the space of a few months, nevermind the difference of what things were like years ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. " How edgy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy." Go away troll | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Spacey has 1 allegation and gets fired, Masterson has 4 r@pe allegations and got his contract renewed. " I agree and allegations are just that allegations. There needs to be due process in all cases regardless of guilt or innocence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Spacey has 1 allegation and gets fired, Masterson has 4 r@pe allegations and got his contract renewed. I agree and allegations are just that allegations. There needs to be due process in all cases regardless of guilt or innocence. " I've said this before, but.... What about allegations that can't have due process because the statute of limitations has expired? I agree, innocent until proven guilty. However, there are circumstances which silence people until it's too late. In such instances I use my discretion, as we all should do. Shouting "due process" ignores the problem of states of limitation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll " I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves." Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Spacey has 1 allegation and gets fired, Masterson has 4 r@pe allegations and got his contract renewed. I agree and allegations are just that allegations. There needs to be due process in all cases regardless of guilt or innocence. I've said this before, but.... What about allegations that can't have due process because the statute of limitations has expired? I agree, innocent until proven guilty. However, there are circumstances which silence people until it's too late. In such instances I use my discretion, as we all should do. Shouting "due process" ignores the problem of states of limitation. " That's a fair point. Discretion and common sense in all matters while running the risk of making the wrong gut judgements etc. It's a messy world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. " How else should one interpret your blazing hot take that "having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days." Kind of rich to have you holding court on what you think the victims ought to do when your hold those same people in such contempt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just reading about statute of limitations. There is none in the UK and I'm not sure in Ireland but it's a new concept to me. It has its pros and cons. Quoting.......................... The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[6] A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence. By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim. Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice. ................................. As difficult as it is, to my mind there needs to be a responsibility on the part of the victim to make themselves heard if the law is to be well applied. There seem to be provisions in some jurisdictions for minors to becomes adults in relation to sexual crimes. " Nah. It's just not that simple. Statutes of limitation are notoriously political. They are decided by elected officials, not courts. Think about what impact that has on their use. If you want an example of such politicization, take a look at the history of statutes of limitation for medical malpractice claims. I have an Aunt who found out a man she worked with at a big time accounting firm was getting paid a shit load more money than her, even though she had been working there a year longer, along with a load of other points (keep in mind this was about 30 years ago). She asked my uncle, a really good lawyer, if she could sue for being treated differently because she was a woman. His answer was yes and she'd likely win, but that if she did, she would probably never be able to work in her field again because no one would hire her. She ended up not suing, and quit instead. There are always circumstances that can work against justice. It's not always black and white. In the case of Moore, you had children, girls, who were dealing with a man in a powerful position within the justice system. This was decades ago, when most people wouldn't have cared much for their story. They decided then that there wasn't much they could do. Especially in a place like Alabama, where boys-club ideas rule, and where the guy allegedly harassing them was a powerful man. They decided they didn't have the power to act and that if they did they might be ostracized locally. Then they grew up, and they saw that man running for the Senate. And they decided that they could at least put their story out there to stop such a man from achieving such power, even though they could no longer get justice. And don't think this is easy for them. Many people in Alabama think they were paid, many think they are lying. They will have to deal with that the rest of their lives in a state where small town mindset rules everything. They can't do anything in court because it's too late. But they have evidence, evidence that would be admissible in a court were they allowed to challenge him (including contemporaneous writings and accounts). And the people from Alabama used their common sense and their judgement. I'm frankly sick of this idea that going to court is the final arbiter of everything right and wrong in the world. Things are messy. Not to mention I actually heard a man from Alabama say on t.v. that, well, so what if Moore did date teenagers?! He dated teens himself when he was in his thirties. Do you think that guy would have been on the jury had those young girls gone to court?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. How else should one interpret your blazing hot take that "having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days." Kind of rich to have you holding court on what you think the victims ought to do when your hold those same people in such contempt. " I don't hold victims in contempt. I hold you in contempt for trying to put words in my mouth. Now say something or substance or run along. I think it's fair to be skeptical of those using their "story" for publicity. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I hear what you are saying and I don't have the answers. While there are heinous crimes there are also those who are happy to make things up. Being utopian, I'd like to have trust in legal process and being pragmatic I know the law is a complete ass. " Yeah, but you are treating these scenarios as equally as likely to have happened here. But, given evidence is what we make good decisions on, I'd welcome credible evidence that they are indeed making it up. As I mentioned, the victims have already offered evidence to support their own claims, in the form of contemporaneous writings and accounts. Moreover, Moore himself admitted to dating 16 year olds, after asking their parents' permission of course. Conveniently enough, it's only the 14 and 15 year olds he is really objecting to. I get your points about the #metoo movement and I think it's all too easy to make false or exaggerated claims with reference to it. But when it comes to the Moore saga, I see the evidence pointing in a credible direction. Of all the people to take a stand on, I find it odd that this is the guy you're choosing to defend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm talking more generally and not about more. It's very dangerous terrority when innocence has to proven. There's also message, image and reputation. False accusations stick even when disproved " Very true, they do. And if you really are speaking generally then that's fine - I would just add that we shouldn't immediately dismiss such accusations. We should use our judgement. If all we see when we look at the #metoo movement is accusations, then we're missing half the point. It isn't just about the stories, it's about the idea that society is changing. That these women can now come forward in a timely fashion with their situations - that the future won't be like the past, where they were ignored or punished for coming forward. Both you and I should encourage that message, because it would lead to more such stories actually being able to be tried in court. Accusations can stick, even when proven wrong, yes. But people being called liars and being accused of just telling their "stories" to gain publicity (as you put it) can also silence true victims and embolden wrong-doers. We should seek a balance, not demonize one group. But given the content of the thread, and the things you've written, it most certainly comes off as you speaking about Moore's situation. You might want to consider that. Just sayin' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. How else should one interpret your blazing hot take that "having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days." Kind of rich to have you holding court on what you think the victims ought to do when your hold those same people in such contempt. I don't hold victims in contempt. I hold you in contempt for trying to put words in my mouth. Now say something or substance or run along. I think it's fair to be skeptical of those using their "story" for publicity. " Of course you didn't. How silly of me - you just are suspicious of their motives and their stories because those women are clearly up to something. For reasons. But that's not you finding them contemptible, of course. I'm certain you subject everyone to the same level of scrutiny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. How else should one interpret your blazing hot take that "having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days." Kind of rich to have you holding court on what you think the victims ought to do when your hold those same people in such contempt. I don't hold victims in contempt. I hold you in contempt for trying to put words in my mouth. Now say something or substance or run along. I think it's fair to be skeptical of those using their "story" for publicity. Of course you didn't. How silly of me - you just are suspicious of their motives and their stories because those women are clearly up to something. For reasons. But that's not you finding them contemptible, of course. I'm certain you subject everyone to the same level of scrutiny." Yes I do... Optimistic skepticism all the way. I treat you with derision..the ingredients in your word salads are badly paired and gone stale. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. How else should one interpret your blazing hot take that "having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days." Kind of rich to have you holding court on what you think the victims ought to do when your hold those same people in such contempt. I don't hold victims in contempt. I hold you in contempt for trying to put words in my mouth. Now say something or substance or run along. I think it's fair to be skeptical of those using their "story" for publicity. Of course you didn't. How silly of me - you just are suspicious of their motives and their stories because those women are clearly up to something. For reasons. But that's not you finding them contemptible, of course. I'm certain you subject everyone to the same level of scrutiny. Yes I do... Optimistic skepticism all the way. I treat you with derision..the ingredients in your word salads are badly paired and gone stale. " I'm certain that when the Irish child abuse scandal broke you were the first brave voice to ask "why come forward now, what's in it for them". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As with any fashion trend you get a bandwagon and while one person may come forward with something shocking, some one else more gullible or attention seeking may cause a ruckus because someone looked at their arse for more than a split second. There's also the effects of time and the fallibility of human memory. " "Fashion trend." I see. I've made my points, but by lowering this to the level of a "Fashion trend," to write that on a thread specifically about a man credibly accused of molesting children? It's not worth talking about anymore. I'm glad the majority of voters in Alabama gave the actual facts credence. Moore is gone - if that's the result of this "Fashion trend" then so be it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As with any fashion trend you get a bandwagon and while one person may come forward with something shocking, some one else more gullible or attention seeking may cause a ruckus because someone looked at their arse for more than a split second. There's also the effects of time and the fallibility of human memory. " Did child abuse ever go out of fashion.? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As with any fashion trend you get a bandwagon and while one person may come forward with something shocking, some one else more gullible or attention seeking may cause a ruckus because someone looked at their arse for more than a split second. There's also the effects of time and the fallibility of human memory. "Fashion trend." I see. I've made my points, but by lowering this to the level of a "Fashion trend," to write that on a thread specifically about a man credibly accused of molesting children? It's not worth talking about anymore. I'm glad the majority of voters in Alabama gave the actual facts credence. Moore is gone - if that's the result of this "Fashion trend" then so be it. " OK I know I'm highjacking the Moore stuff, but as we are sidetracked, what else would you call the metoo campaign but a trend? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More silly strawmen from a silly man. " Don't worry, no need to say anything. I knew the answer before I asked. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"More silly strawmen from a silly man. Don't worry, no need to say anything. I knew the answer before I asked. " Bye now | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And let's play with your strawman for a minute. I've never seen the smiling face of an altarboy on the front page of a magazine with the juicy deets of his story...... "If your actually skeptical, as you claim, then your demeaning description above shouldn't carry any weight in whether you believe it or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"In English please? " If your actually skeptical, as you claim, then your demeaning description above shouldn't carry any weight in whether you believe it or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As with any fashion trend you get a bandwagon and while one person may come forward with something shocking, some one else more gullible or attention seeking may cause a ruckus because someone looked at their arse for more than a split second. There's also the effects of time and the fallibility of human memory. "Fashion trend." I see. I've made my points, but by lowering this to the level of a "Fashion trend," to write that on a thread specifically about a man credibly accused of molesting children? It's not worth talking about anymore. I'm glad the majority of voters in Alabama gave the actual facts credence. Moore is gone - if that's the result of this "Fashion trend" then so be it. OK I know I'm highjacking the Moore stuff, but as we are sidetracked, what else would you call the metoo campaign but a trend? " Some call it a movement. But that's a loaded term, too. Trend is fine. "Fashion Trend" insinuates a level of childishness and flippancy. An insinuation I very much think you meant to make. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I sometimes feel like I've been living in a alternative world. For all my adult life and before it, sexual assault was always serious business. If something happens , report it was always the message. People talk as we've been living in the dark ages for the last 10 to 15 years and people were forced to suppress things when it was never the case. I can't see the barrier to coming forward that people seem to think existed before now. I get the point that in certain cases, people can use their power to quash bad news but that remains the case today and always will. Thankfully the perpetrators get found out eventually, I'm thinking of the Lance Armstrong story and the lengths he went to intimidating people who knew what was up and to make himself the untouchable spokesman for cancer victims. My view is that fresh accusations where evidence is still obtainable are always more believable and likely to result in punitive action than something buried for years until the 'time is right'. " If you really think women were generally able to come forward 30 years ago and be taken seriously when making claims of sexual harassment or molestation, then yes, we are living in alternate universes. Especially if you're including places like Alabama in that description. And it is exacerbated in certain fields, usually where women are sexualized anyway (like music, film, and politics). You can be skeptical and discerning without being insulting and blind to the facts. And I do find it strange, as I've already stated, that you choose a Moore thread to air these views so vehemently. We've had threads on this very subject, even in the lounge (one was started by SteelHeels) that weren't related to Moore in particular. That you choose to make these arguments on such a thread as this is telling. Context matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not "telling" at all Courtney. I've zero interest about Alabama but my interest was piqued when we heard about open secrets and the like. We're probably confusing our domains here as I'm talking generally about society and sticking to my 10 to 15 year window and less about celebrity and political domains where I do see that power plays can be strongly made. Maybe it's the fighter in me but I'm thinking that if I was one of these voiceless victims I'd use brains over (political) brawn and actively try to set people up to get hard evidence where it is needed. I find it hard to believe that people will allow child molesting to exist as an open secret. Hitting on younger, less influential actors sure but not kids. Maybe I'm naive "That last paragraph tells me you've never been to Alabama. Might I direct your further up the thread where I referenced a man from Alabama who defended Moore by saying he'd done the same thing? The American south is an...interesting place... Moore was banned from a mall because he was known to follow teenage girls around Just saying...
Like I said, I get that you proclaim to be speaking generally. And, as a lawyer who believes in the value of the justice system, I've actually had many a conversation with Marc about the inherent dangers of the #metoo movement. But I also trust my own judgement and I recognise that things aren't always easy for victims. In such cases, when it's too late to try things in court, it's all we can do. And when such people are running for public office, I think that exposing such behavior, even without official conviction, is better than remaining silent.
And most of those being accused in the media as a result of #metoo are American. So I encourage us all to keep the problem of statutes of limitation at the forefront of our minds, regardless of whether it's commonly known in the UK or Ireland.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear you are speaking generally, not about Moore specifically, but I still question your judgement in making such arguments on a thread about him, specifically. In his case the accusations are credible. So I would think you'd do better to start a different thread about it, if you don't want your comments to be read in the context of a credibly accused child molester. Because at the moment, regardless of your protestations, they must be read in tbat context given the purpose of the thread itself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
It's true, I don't know the deep south and I'm only speaking of where I've lived and been in my lifetime and sexual abuse of adults or kids has never been tolerated. The idea that victims couldn't come forward in the recent past is gross exaggeration.
I don't use Facebook or watch the news so my views come from a less media influenced or dare I say it frenzied place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forget about the title and original subject matter, I'm just on a tangent
It's true, I don't know the deep south and I'm only speaking of where I've lived and been in my lifetime and sexual abuse of adults or kids has never been tolerated. The idea that victims couldn't come forward in the recent past is gross exaggeration.
I don't use Facebook or watch the news so my views come from a less media influenced or dare I say it frenzied place. "Guess you have never heard of the Magdalene laundries and school... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forget about the title and original subject matter, I'm just on a tangent
It's true, I don't know the deep south and I'm only speaking of where I've lived and been in my lifetime and sexual abuse of adults or kids has never been tolerated. The idea that victims couldn't come forward in the recent past is gross exaggeration.
I don't use Facebook or watch the news so my views come from a less media influenced or dare I say it frenzied place. "It isn't a gross exaggeration. It's how many women feel. Partly evidenced by the stuff that's been said of the women who have come forward recently. And remember, I'm think of more powerful men than your average Joe - men who were district attorney's (Moore?), for example, or hugely famous producers (Weinstein?), or big actors (Spacey?), or big time comedians (Louis CK).... some of these men have even admitted the accusations against them, proving the truth in such matters. Proving that these women were right, that they were honest, that in another context they wouldn't have been able to come forward (and indeed that others who have come forward in the past have been silenced and ridiculed (think Woody Allen and his daughter)). I don't use Facebook, either. I do watch the news, though (along with other outlets for information). I would say my doing so doesn't make me influenced or frenzied, I'd say it makes me informed. I never trust people who spurn information and then claim to have well formulated opinions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not "telling" at all Courtney. I've zero interest about Alabama but my interest was piqued when we heard about open secrets and the like. We're probably confusing our domains here as I'm talking generally about society and sticking to my 10 to 15 year window and less about celebrity and political domains where I do see that power plays can be strongly made. Maybe it's the fighter in me but I'm thinking that if I was one of these voiceless victims I'd use brains over (political) brawn and actively try to set people up to get hard evidence where it is needed. I find it hard to believe that people will allow child molesting to exist as an open secret. Hitting on younger, less influential actors sure but not kids. Maybe I'm naive "As I mentioned earlier in the thread everyone knows that there was a cover up of a paedophile ring involving MPs in the 80s. The current Prime Minister has even given statements to parliament about it. But nothings been done about it. Criminal complaints get ignored, evidence has been lost, witnesses intimidated but still today nobody has been charged with anything. You look at the fallout of operation yewtree. Gary Glitter had been exposed for what he was years ago, but it was only when it was publicly shown that British police were going to take complaints seriously after Saville that British victims felt that they could come forward. And even with that some of the Yewtree convicts have already been released from prison. Sexual assault isnt just a physical violation, its somebody doing whatever they want with you and you cant stop them. For the same reason people dont report violent money lenders, drug dealers on the street or you may not report your boss for misconduct. If you dont feel like you can report without fear of reprisal then youre not going to say anything. And when someones violated you to the extent that a r@pist might have and when they have real world power as well ita easy to fall into the trap of believing that youre one person on your own and you cant fight back without suffering even more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Forget about the title and original subject matter, I'm just on a tangent
It's true, I don't know the deep south and I'm only speaking of where I've lived and been in my lifetime and sexual abuse of adults or kids has never been tolerated. The idea that victims couldn't come forward in the recent past is gross exaggeration.
I don't use Facebook or watch the news so my views come from a less media influenced or dare I say it frenzied place.
Guess you have never heard of the Magdalene laundries and school..."We've been over this... The distance past is not the present | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not "telling" at all Courtney. I've zero interest about Alabama but my interest was piqued when we heard about open secrets and the like. We're probably confusing our domains here as I'm talking generally about society and sticking to my 10 to 15 year window and less about celebrity and political domains where I do see that power plays can be strongly made. Maybe it's the fighter in me but I'm thinking that if I was one of these voiceless victims I'd use brains over (political) brawn and actively try to set people up to get hard evidence where it is needed. I find it hard to believe that people will allow child molesting to exist as an open secret. Hitting on younger, less influential actors sure but not kids. Maybe I'm naive
As I mentioned earlier in the thread everyone knows that there was a cover up of a paedophile ring involving MPs in the 80s. The current Prime Minister has even given statements to parliament about it.
But nothings been done about it. Criminal complaints get ignored, evidence has been lost, witnesses intimidated but still today nobody has been charged with anything.
You look at the fallout of operation yewtree. Gary Glitter had been exposed for what he was years ago, but it was only when it was publicly shown that British police were going to take complaints seriously after Saville that British victims felt that they could come forward.
And even with that some of the Yewtree convicts have already been released from prison.
Sexual assault isnt just a physical violation, its somebody doing whatever they want with you and you cant stop them. For the same reason people dont report violent money lenders, drug dealers on the street or you may not report your boss for misconduct. If you dont feel like you can report without fear of reprisal then youre not going to say anything. And when someones violated you to the extent that a r@pist might have and when they have real world power as well ita easy to fall into the trap of believing that youre one person on your own and you cant fight back without suffering even more."Your opinion on the difficulty of talking up is as valid as my opinion that people should see speaking up as their only option and not be meek. Just opinion really. Gary glitter was a pariah in the late 90s or early 00's... Whenever it was, which shows that we never accepted that sort of stuff! Cover-up is one thing but societal acceptance is another. It's easy to cherry pick examples where voices were surpressed and that's fair enough but there has never been a widespread acceptance that acted as a widespread deterrent to speaking up. The general point stands that the best route to justice is immediate action. You did mention losing evidence, I know you meant deliberately but that happens with the passage of time also. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The general point stands that the best route to justice is immediate action. " Do you think that attitudes like "It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days" encourage or discourage people to report their abuse promptly? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient." About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The general point stands that the best route to justice is immediate action. Do you think that attitudes like "It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days" encourage or discourage people to report their abuse promptly? " If you'd listen, I'm advocating immediate reporting and casting a suspicious eye on a proportion of years after the fact claims. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The general point stands that the best route to justice is immediate action. Do you think that attitudes like "It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days" encourage or discourage people to report their abuse promptly? If you'd listen, I'm advocating immediate reporting and casting a suspicious eye on a proportion of years after the fact claims. " So you can't answer my question? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The general point stands that the best route to justice is immediate action. Do you think that attitudes like "It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days" encourage or discourage people to report their abuse promptly? If you'd listen, I'm advocating immediate reporting and casting a suspicious eye on a proportion of years after the fact claims. " Yet we live in a country were the Office of the Children's Commissioner for England has found 90% of child abuse goes unreported. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient. About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. " Yeah. Everyone who makes a point of showing you up must be a troll. That's the only explanation. Still, doesn't really answer the question of why a self proclaimed skeptic such as yourself thinks things like time since the event or the gender of the people involved are relevant. That's hardly exercising true skepticism, now is it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. " Of course, knowing that people will question my motives and character if I do come forward is a fine way to get people to do anything. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. " Suggesting that some people are just reporting their abuse for publicity will encourage others to report abuse. OK. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. Suggesting that some people are just reporting their abuse for publicity will encourage others to report abuse. OK. " . The key there is timeliness, reporting late or not at all but having a "story" is unarguably more suspicious. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient. About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. Yeah. Everyone who makes a point of showing you up must be a troll. That's the only explanation. Still, doesn't really answer the question of why a self proclaimed skeptic such as yourself thinks things like time since the event or the gender of the people involved are relevant. That's hardly exercising true skepticism, now is it?" Again you are descending into an inane and confused point, the only person who mentioned gender in this is you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. Suggesting that some people are just reporting their abuse for publicity will encourage others to report abuse. OK. . The key there is timeliness, reporting late or not at all but having a "story" is unarguably more suspicious. " So how long is it that victims have to report before you'll start suggesting they might just be after the fame? What a wonderful system. Up to X months - fine. After that - you're probably just out for publicity. How encouraging for victims. Truly empowering. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your opinion on the difficulty of talking up is as valid as my opinion that people should see speaking up as their only option and not be meek. Just opinion really. Gary glitter was a pariah in the late 90s or early 00's... Whenever it was, which shows that we never accepted that sort of stuff! Cover-up is one thing but societal acceptance is another. It's easy to cherry pick examples where voices were surpressed and that's fair enough but there has never been a widespread acceptance that acted as a widespread deterrent to speaking up. The general point stands that the best route to justice is immediate action. You did mention losing evidence, I know you meant deliberately but that happens with the passage of time also. " But there is difficulty in speaking up. Some of the Cosby allegations fall within the last 15 years, were reported to police and nothing happened. Terry Crews( on a list with McGregor, Lesnar and Tyson of being the last people Id want to piss off) was assaulted and now is getting punished by missing out on work and the guy that did it has so far gotten off scot free. Glitter was a pariah because there was hard physical evidence in the child porn he had in his possession. In the initial police Weinstein investigation in 2015 Ambra Gutierrez came forward and reported to police. She and the police had her meet Weinstein again (at her own risk) and got a taped confession from him. The police recommended charges but the district attorney refused to press charges and media outlets (not reporting the truth) slammed her as an oppurtunist trying to entrap him for publicity. The Daily Mail (is there any low they wont sink to?) And the New York Post both reported on the incident in remarkably similar ways. Both used photos of her in bikinis taken from her personal instagram (dresses like a slut so she obviously wouldnt have said no, amiright?) And falsely reported that anonymous sources working on the case said that she was refusing to cooperate with the investigation, that the police had finished their investigation and that the "whole thing is BS". All this while the police were actually working with her to get hard evidence that would later be ignored by the DA. In pretty much every case of a serial abuser thats hit the headlines in the past few months almost all have included people who reported this before and were ignored. And even if the police believe you and even if you have irrefutable evidence and even if the cops want him to face trial it may not matter because the DA will just say no and lowlife publishers will lie, paint you as a whore and make up evidence out of thin air to prove you made the whole thing up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. Suggesting that some people are just reporting their abuse for publicity will encourage others to report abuse. OK. . The key there is timeliness, reporting late or not at all but having a "story" is unarguably more suspicious. So how long is it that victims have to report before you'll start suggesting they might just be after the fame? What a wonderful system. Up to X months - fine. After that - you're probably just out for publicity. How encouraging for victims. Truly empowering. " Exaggerate all you want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Your opinion on the difficulty of talking up is as valid as my opinion that people should see speaking up as their only option and not be meek. Just opinion really. Gary glitter was a pariah in the late 90s or early 00's... Whenever it was, which shows that we never accepted that sort of stuff! Cover-up is one thing but societal acceptance is another. It's easy to cherry pick examples where voices were surpressed and that's fair enough but there has never been a widespread acceptance that acted as a widespread deterrent to speaking up. The general point stands that the best route to justice is immediate action. You did mention losing evidence, I know you meant deliberately but that happens with the passage of time also. But there is difficulty in speaking up. Some of the Cosby allegations fall within the last 15 years, were reported to police and nothing happened. Terry Crews( on a list with McGregor, Lesnar and Tyson of being the last people Id want to piss off) was assaulted and now is getting punished by missing out on work and the guy that did it has so far gotten off scot free. Glitter was a pariah because there was hard physical evidence in the child porn he had in his possession. In the initial police Weinstein investigation in 2015 Ambra Gutierrez came forward and reported to police. She and the police had her meet Weinstein again (at her own risk) and got a taped confession from him. The police recommended charges but the district attorney refused to press charges and media outlets (not reporting the truth) slammed her as an oppurtunist trying to entrap him for publicity. The Daily Mail (is there any low they wont sink to?) And the New York Post both reported on the incident in remarkably similar ways. Both used photos of her in bikinis taken from her personal instagram (dresses like a slut so she obviously wouldnt have said no, amiright?) And falsely reported that anonymous sources working on the case said that she was refusing to cooperate with the investigation, that the police had finished their investigation and that the "whole thing is BS". All this while the police were actually working with her to get hard evidence that would later be ignored by the DA. In pretty much every case of a serial abuser thats hit the headlines in the past few months almost all have included people who reported this before and were ignored. And even if the police believe you and even if you have irrefutable evidence and even if the cops want him to face trial it may not matter because the DA will just say no and lowlife publishers will lie, paint you as a whore and make up evidence out of thin air to prove you made the whole thing up." You're right it seems. Again I'm talking generally about culture and the ability of the average person to speak up. Celebrity power over a twisted US justice system is something else altogether and I'll stand corrected if hard evidence is casually ignored due to influence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lads, get your thinking caps on. While the statute of limitations is probably flawed by gamification, lobbying etc. as outlined by Courtney there is a strong principle behind it, time obscures the ability to make a sound and fair judgement. Of course if you want mob justice and feelings over truth that's fine. " No...now you're misrepresenting what I said. You were the one who claimed that statutes of limitation have strong reasoning behind them. What I said was that very often they are determined for political reasons, not in the best interests of plaintiffs or defendants. Generally speaking I don't like statutes of limitations because I feel people should always be able to bring these claims to court - if the evidence dissipates over time then they will lose the case. That people should not even be allowed to bring a case to court is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It also brings about situations such as the #metoo movement, which you so object to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lads, get your thinking caps on. While the statute of limitations is probably flawed by gamification, lobbying etc. as outlined by Courtney there is a strong principle behind it, time obscures the ability to make a sound and fair judgement. Of course if you want mob justice and feelings over truth that's fine. No...now you're misrepresenting what I said. You were the one who claimed that statutes of limitation have strong reasoning behind them. What I said was that very often they are determined for political reasons, not in the best interests of plaintiffs or defendants. Generally speaking I don't like statutes of limitations because I feel people should always be able to bring these claims to court - if the evidence dissipates over time then they will lose the case. That people should not even be allowed to bring a case to court is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It also brings about situations such as the #metoo movement, which you so object to." Our wires are crossed. I'm talking generally about timeliness vs. success of prosecution. An arbitrary cut off is just that, a bad attempt at using a good principle. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. Suggesting that some people are just reporting their abuse for publicity will encourage others to report abuse. OK. . The key there is timeliness, reporting late or not at all but having a "story" is unarguably more suspicious. So how long is it that victims have to report before you'll start suggesting they might just be after the fame? What a wonderful system. Up to X months - fine. After that - you're probably just out for publicity. How encouraging for victims. Truly empowering. Exaggerate all you want. " Except I'm not exaggerating at all, this is what you're advocating in your defence of your initial statement. If we want to encourage victims to report then we can still be sceptical of claims. But we can do that by adopting a neutral position of 'I don't know one way or the other', not by implying people might be liars, without any evidence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lads, get your thinking caps on. While the statute of limitations is probably flawed by gamification, lobbying etc. as outlined by Courtney there is a strong principle behind it, time obscures the ability to make a sound and fair judgement. Of course if you want mob justice and feelings over truth that's fine. No...now you're misrepresenting what I said. You were the one who claimed that statutes of limitation have strong reasoning behind them. What I said was that very often they are determined for political reasons, not in the best interests of plaintiffs or defendants. Generally speaking I don't like statutes of limitations because I feel people should always be able to bring these claims to court - if the evidence dissipates over time then they will lose the case. That people should not even be allowed to bring a case to court is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It also brings about situations such as the #metoo movement, which you so object to. Our wires are crossed. I'm talking generally about timeliness vs. success of prosecution. An arbitrary cut off is just that, a bad attempt at using a good principle. " No, I disagree. It's not a good principle. A court case and decision by jury is a good principle. If there isn't enough evidence then someone would lose the case of even lose prima facie. What statutes of limitation are is an attempt to push victims out of the judicial process. It's often political and groups lobby for shorter and shorter statutes of limitations in the U.S., as I noted above with medical malpractice claims. Then we can all sit back and confidently say that if people were being truthful they would go to court while remaining completely oblivious to their inability to do so. It's convenient. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again you aren't hearing me. I don't care about the statute of limitations, I care about timeliness in reporting. Separate things " Not seperate things. They are only seperate things if you ignore why someone may not go to court immediately. In the case of Roy Moore, because he was the District Attorney. In the case of my aunt, because she would never have been hired in her field again. In the case of Harvey Weinstein's accusors, because other people in the business silenced them (look at the allegations against Amazon Studios, Roy Price for example), in the case of other young victims, because they were scared and young and ignorant....Context matters. That is what I've been trying to get across to you from the beginning. And it's exactly what links statutes of limitation to timeliness. For a non-metoo example - there are currently major issues for company Equifax because of a data breach. Because the finance industry is good at lobbying, they've gotten the statute of llimitation for suing down to 90 days. And before you can do that, you have to go through their internal review, which takes 45 days. So because of the lobbied-for statute of limitation, people have 45 days effectively to file a lawsuit, assuming they started the internal review on the exact day they were made known of the breach. Timeliness, or politically motivated ass-covering? Context. Context. Context. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. Suggesting that some people are just reporting their abuse for publicity will encourage others to report abuse. OK. . The key there is timeliness, reporting late or not at all but having a "story" is unarguably more suspicious. So how long is it that victims have to report before you'll start suggesting they might just be after the fame? What a wonderful system. Up to X months - fine. After that - you're probably just out for publicity. How encouraging for victims. Truly empowering. Exaggerate all you want. Except I'm not exaggerating at all, this is what you're advocating in your defence of your initial statement. If we want to encourage victims to report then we can still be sceptical of claims. But we can do that by adopting a neutral position of 'I don't know one way or the other', not by implying people might be liars, without any evidence. " Not the same thing. You can be skeptical without calling someone a liar. The implication is yours. Let the evidence and due process decide. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again you aren't hearing me. I don't care about the statute of limitations, I care about timeliness in reporting. Separate things Not seperate things. They are only seperate things if you ignore why someone may not go to court immediately. In the case of Roy Moore, because he was the District Attorney. In the case of my aunt, because she would never have been hired in her field again. In the case of Harvey Weinstein's accusors, because other people in the business silenced them (look at the allegations against Amazon Studios, Roy Price for example), in the case of other young victims, because they were scared and young and ignorant....Context matters. That is what I've been trying to get across to you from the beginning. And it's exactly what links statutes of limitation to timeliness. For a non-metoo example - there are currently major issues for company Equifax because of a data breach. Because the finance industry is good at lobbying, they've gotten the statute of llimitation for suing down to 90 days. And before you can do that, you have to go through their internal review, which takes 45 days. So because of the lobbied-for statute of limitation, people have 45 days effectively to file a lawsuit, assuming they started the internal review on the exact day they were made known of the breach. Timeliness, or politically motivated ass-covering? Context. Context. Context." I agree with you completely, fuck that shit! But again i'm stressing a principle that timeliness matters to successful prosecution and you are getting caught up in the statute which I can see (and understand why) is a bugbear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Not the same thing. You can be skeptical without calling someone a liar. The implication is yours. Let the evidence and due process decide. " You realise people can see what has been written, right? I literally just wrote that you can be sceptical without calling people a liar. That's my whole point. You're the one that is defending a line of 'scepticism' that involves suggesting people are just out for fame. You could just acknowledge you were wrong to suggest that such an approach is helpful. It'd show you in a better light than ploughing on with this nonsense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
You're often waxing lyrically about the crushing shame, the chilling inability to speak up, the inpenetrebable stigma and so forth. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No I'll stand my ground thanks stove. Victims don't tend to be on the front of magazines grinning ear to ear, but who knows eh
You're often waxing lyrically about the crushing shame, the chilling inability to speak up, the inpenetrebable stigma and so forth. "An expert on how victims should behave and look, eh? They must always look sad, crushed, victimized, else you'll get suspicious. You're a real charmer. And I don't believe I have ever waxed lyrical on that subject. But try and wrap your head around the idea that if some victims feel those things it does not mean that all victims feel those things, or that no one is saying those feelings can't be overcome in the right circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again you aren't hearing me. I don't care about the statute of limitations, I care about timeliness in reporting. Separate things Not seperate things. They are only seperate things if you ignore why someone may not go to court immediately. In the case of Roy Moore, because he was the District Attorney. In the case of my aunt, because she would never have been hired in her field again. In the case of Harvey Weinstein's accusors, because other people in the business silenced them (look at the allegations against Amazon Studios, Roy Price for example), in the case of other young victims, because they were scared and young and ignorant....Context matters. That is what I've been trying to get across to you from the beginning. And it's exactly what links statutes of limitation to timeliness. For a non-metoo example - there are currently major issues for company Equifax because of a data breach. Because the finance industry is good at lobbying, they've gotten the statute of llimitation for suing down to 90 days. And before you can do that, you have to go through their internal review, which takes 45 days. So because of the lobbied-for statute of limitation, people have 45 days effectively to file a lawsuit, assuming they started the internal review on the exact day they were made known of the breach. Timeliness, or politically motivated ass-covering? Context. Context. Context. I agree with you completely, fuck that shit! But again i'm stressing a principle that timeliness matters to successful prosecution and you are getting caught up in the statute which I can see (and understand why) is a bugbear. " I'm not getting caught up in statutes of limitation. I gave you reasons why timeliness isn't always possible for accusers and then they get blocked out of the judicial process because of statutes of limitation. You are ignoring all of the reasons why people may not immediately go to the police and claiming these people aren't trustworthy because there wasn't due process and because they then went to the press with their stories. If they are forced out of the judicial system, there is a way to get their voices heard - they go to the press. And I like being able to decide in such cases whether to believe someone, given the evidence they provide, especially when the person they are discussing is running for public office. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Funny how all those allegations about Moore suddenly came out of nowhere just before the election. What was it about 2 weeks before. Have any of these allegations actually been proven? Is there a criminal investigation? Seems like a good ploy, smear someone with enough negatives and the other guy just gets the position. Like I said before, "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" . Good luck to the new senator and I just hope that the Democrats continue to be the moral high ground party with their incredible ability at uncovering shady pasts, going to be a lot of skeletons falling out of cupboards! "I think you make a fair point. I wouldn't have voted for this guy but that would have been because I don't like his fundamentalist policies, his attitude towards race and his support of Trump. I would no more have not voted for him because of unproved allocations of criminality than I would have not voted for Hillary last time. Some may call this pay back for the unproved allocations against Hillary but I don't agree. If people didn't vote for a candidate because of unproved allocations, rather than because of what to stood for, then this is not a step forward for anyone but simply a step further into the gutter. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient. About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. Yeah. Everyone who makes a point of showing you up must be a troll. That's the only explanation. Still, doesn't really answer the question of why a self proclaimed skeptic such as yourself thinks things like time since the event or the gender of the people involved are relevant. That's hardly exercising true skepticism, now is it? Again you are descending into an inane and confused point, the only person who mentioned gender in this is you. " Sidestepping the issue, are we? Let's try this again. If you are a skeptic, as you claim, what bearing does the time between the assault and reporting the assault have on your skepticism. If you are what you claim to be, you ought to be treating all claims in as equally a dismissive manner. And yet, you don't. Why is that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the GOP still refuses to dump sexual predator in the Oval Office... Maybe when they loose House and Senate in the midterms they will wake up. But by then they will have lost their chance because it will be the Democrats that will be removing him (and probably Mike Pence at the same time). Surprised Mr Moore lost, considering the little I have heard of Alabama politics, but then a number of factors seem to have come to play to give senator-elect Doug Jones the 1% point victory, such as high African American turnout and reduced Republican votes. " That's generally how people win elections isn't it? By getting more of their supporters out and, if they can't convert, getting their opponents supporters to stay at home. If it wasn't for the alleged moral crimes this would be more than worrying for the Republicans. As it is it's difficult to know how much of this vote is a true anti-right, anti-Trump vote or how much is down to the Republicans having an extremely bad and politically vulnerably candidate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" As it is it's difficult to know how much of this vote is a true anti-right, anti-Trump vote or how much is down to the Republicans having an extremely bad and politically vulnerably candidate." I believe the write in vote was actually bigger than Jones's margin of victory, and that a very large proportion of those write ins are supposed to be from Republicans who wouldn't vote for either candidate. So probably it is more to do with the candidate than a broader change in Alabama? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I never thought I'd live to see a Democratic Senator from Alabama. It's seriously eye opening. Moore was crazy regardless of the allegations made by those women. This is going to teach the Republicans (especially the alt-right) that it matters who they put up for election. They can't just pick any old crazy person and think people will simply vote for them. More liberally-minded people have been spurred to action by the reality of a President Trump. The more conservative wing of the Republican party needs to think more strategically about who they run in elections if a Republican lost a Senate seat in Alabama. They used to be really good at political strategy. I think the alt-right got a bit cocky - the Republican establishment saw this coming when they backed Strange in the primary. Voter turnout was the big story of the day and it has big implications for the midterm elections...." I agree with your general analysis. However the problem with the alt/extreme right is that they're so convinced that their view of the world is the only correct view of the world that, given the chance, they can only win and the only reason why they haven't won in the past is because a right/left liberal conspiracy has kept them from standing in the past. I'm pretty sure the same could probably also be said for the new/extreme left to. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The idea that these open secrets cant be really true because no ones done anything is pretty ridiculous. We've all heard plenty over the years about a paedophile ring that involved some high level politicians in the 80s, theres been several government and MET investigations into the cover up and no ones been charged yet. But does anyone really believe that nothing happened and no one did anything wrong in regards to either abuse or a cover up? No one filed charges against a well known, well connected local district attorney. Thats not exactly surprising when speaking out meant that the victim would be victimised all over again and this time in public." There are lots of reasons why people may not have spoken out and, whilst not doubting the veracity of the women as such, I find it generally best to wait until allegations are proved in a court of law before condemning someone. That being said I would not have voted for this candidate because of his self publicised views on many other issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Spacey has 1 allegation and gets fired, Masterson has 4 r@pe allegations and got his contract renewed. I agree and allegations are just that allegations. There needs to be due process in all cases regardless of guilt or innocence. " I reluctantly find myself having to agree with you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just reading about statute of limitations. There is none in the UK and I'm not sure in Ireland but it's a new concept to me. It has its pros and cons. Quoting.......................... The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[6] A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence. By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim. Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice. ................................. As difficult as it is, to my mind there needs to be a responsibility on the part of the victim to make themselves heard if the law is to be well applied. There seem to be provisions in some jurisdictions for minors to becomes adults in relation to sexual crimes. " I don't think there is a statute of limitations in Ireland and, whilst I would not want to see one introduced either here (UK) or Ireland for many of the reasons given for having a statue of limitations in the US I feel extremely uncomfortable with cases based solely on the words of witnesses from years previous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just reading about statute of limitations. There is none in the UK and I'm not sure in Ireland but it's a new concept to me. It has its pros and cons. Quoting.......................... The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[6] A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence. By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim. Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice. ................................. As difficult as it is, to my mind there needs to be a responsibility on the part of the victim to make themselves heard if the law is to be well applied. There seem to be provisions in some jurisdictions for minors to becomes adults in relation to sexual crimes. Nah. It's just not that simple. Statutes of limitation are notoriously political. They are decided by elected officials, not courts. Think about what impact that has on their use. If you want an example of such politicization, take a look at the history of statutes of limitation for medical malpractice claims. I have an Aunt who found out a man she worked with at a big time accounting firm was getting paid a shit load more money than her, even though she had been working there a year longer, along with a load of other points (keep in mind this was about 30 years ago). She asked my uncle, a really good lawyer, if she could sue for being treated differently because she was a woman. His answer was yes and she'd likely win, but that if she did, she would probably never be able to work in her field again because no one would hire her. She ended up not suing, and quit instead. There are always circumstances that can work against justice. It's not always black and white. In the case of Moore, you had children, girls, who were dealing with a man in a powerful position within the justice system. This was decades ago, when most people wouldn't have cared much for their story. They decided then that there wasn't much they could do. Especially in a place like Alabama, where boys-club ideas rule, and where the guy allegedly harassing them was a powerful man. They decided they didn't have the power to act and that if they did they might be ostracized locally. Then they grew up, and they saw that man running for the Senate. And they decided that they could at least put their story out there to stop such a man from achieving such power, even though they could no longer get justice. And don't think this is easy for them. Many people in Alabama think they were paid, many think they are lying. They will have to deal with that the rest of their lives in a state where small town mindset rules everything. They can't do anything in court because it's too late. But they have evidence, evidence that would be admissible in a court were they allowed to challenge him (including contemporaneous writings and accounts). And the people from Alabama used their common sense and their judgement. I'm frankly sick of this idea that going to court is the final arbiter of everything right and wrong in the world. Things are messy. Not to mention I actually heard a man from Alabama say on t.v. that, well, so what if Moore did date teenagers?! He dated teens himself when he was in his thirties. Do you think that guy would have been on the jury had those young girls gone to court? "Just clarify. The age of consent in Alabama, like the UK, is 16. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. " You don't know what a "troll" is, do you? Clue: It has nothing to do with fictional creatures that live under bridges. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was just reading about statute of limitations. There is none in the UK and I'm not sure in Ireland but it's a new concept to me. It has its pros and cons. Quoting.......................... The purpose and effect of statutes of limitations are to protect defendants. There are three reasons for their enactment:[6] A plaintiff with a valid cause of action should pursue it with reasonable diligence. By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim. Litigation of a long-dormant claim may result in more cruelty than justice. ................................. As difficult as it is, to my mind there needs to be a responsibility on the part of the victim to make themselves heard if the law is to be well applied. There seem to be provisions in some jurisdictions for minors to becomes adults in relation to sexual crimes. Nah. It's just not that simple. Statutes of limitation are notoriously political. They are decided by elected officials, not courts. Think about what impact that has on their use. If you want an example of such politicization, take a look at the history of statutes of limitation for medical malpractice claims. I have an Aunt who found out a man she worked with at a big time accounting firm was getting paid a shit load more money than her, even though she had been working there a year longer, along with a load of other points (keep in mind this was about 30 years ago). She asked my uncle, a really good lawyer, if she could sue for being treated differently because she was a woman. His answer was yes and she'd likely win, but that if she did, she would probably never be able to work in her field again because no one would hire her. She ended up not suing, and quit instead. There are always circumstances that can work against justice. It's not always black and white. In the case of Moore, you had children, girls, who were dealing with a man in a powerful position within the justice system. This was decades ago, when most people wouldn't have cared much for their story. They decided then that there wasn't much they could do. Especially in a place like Alabama, where boys-club ideas rule, and where the guy allegedly harassing them was a powerful man. They decided they didn't have the power to act and that if they did they might be ostracized locally. Then they grew up, and they saw that man running for the Senate. And they decided that they could at least put their story out there to stop such a man from achieving such power, even though they could no longer get justice. And don't think this is easy for them. Many people in Alabama think they were paid, many think they are lying. They will have to deal with that the rest of their lives in a state where small town mindset rules everything. They can't do anything in court because it's too late. But they have evidence, evidence that would be admissible in a court were they allowed to challenge him (including contemporaneous writings and accounts). And the people from Alabama used their common sense and their judgement. I'm frankly sick of this idea that going to court is the final arbiter of everything right and wrong in the world. Things are messy. Not to mention I actually heard a man from Alabama say on t.v. that, well, so what if Moore did date teenagers?! He dated teens himself when he was in his thirties. Do you think that guy would have been on the jury had those young girls gone to court?
Just clarify. The age of consent in Alabama, like the UK, is 16. "I know that. I said earlier that he's conventiently only admitted to being with teenage girls who were 16. But he has accusers as young as 14 and 15. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's not "telling" at all Courtney. I've zero interest about Alabama but my interest was piqued when we heard about open secrets and the like. We're probably confusing our domains here as I'm talking generally about society and sticking to my 10 to 15 year window and less about celebrity and political domains where I do see that power plays can be strongly made. Maybe it's the fighter in me but I'm thinking that if I was one of these voiceless victims I'd use brains over (political) brawn and actively try to set people up to get hard evidence where it is needed. I find it hard to believe that people will allow child molesting to exist as an open secret. Hitting on younger, less influential actors sure but not kids. Maybe I'm naive
As I mentioned earlier in the thread everyone knows that there was a cover up of a paedophile ring involving MPs in the 80s. The current Prime Minister has even given statements to parliament about it.
"Except that we don't actually know that. In fact the only thing we do know about those claims, so far, is that an extremely poor police investigation has uncovered nothing except accusations that have been proved to be mostly false. Google your phrase 'Paedophiles ring involving MPs' " But nothings been done about it. Criminal complaints get ignored, evidence has been lost, witnesses intimidated but still today nobody has been charged with anything. You look at the fallout of operation yewtree. Gary Glitter had been exposed for what he was years ago, but it was only when it was publicly shown that British police were going to take complaints seriously after Saville that British victims felt that they could come forward. And even with that some of the Yewtree convicts have already been released from prison. Sexual assault isnt just a physical violation, its somebody doing whatever they want with you and you cant stop them. For the same reason people dont report violent money lenders, drug dealers on the street or you may not report your boss for misconduct. If you dont feel like you can report without fear of reprisal then youre not going to say anything. And when someones violated you to the extent that a r@pist might have and when they have real world power as well ita easy to fall into the trap of believing that youre one person on your own and you cant fight back without suffering " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It encourages it. Suggesting that some people are just reporting their abuse for publicity will encourage others to report abuse. OK. . The key there is timeliness, reporting late or not at all but having a "story" is unarguably more suspicious. So how long is it that victims have to report before you'll start suggesting they might just be after the fame? What a wonderful system. Up to X months - fine. After that - you're probably just out for publicity. How encouraging for victims. Truly empowering. " In the UK, and I'd expect Ireland to, there is no time limit on when you can report a crime. However, the longer you leave reporting after the event the less likely you are to gain a successful, or in deed any, prosecution. Justice delayed often ends in justice denied. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lads, get your thinking caps on. While the statute of limitations is probably flawed by gamification, lobbying etc. as outlined by Courtney there is a strong principle behind it, time obscures the ability to make a sound and fair judgement. Of course if you want mob justice and feelings over truth that's fine. No...now you're misrepresenting what I said. You were the one who claimed that statutes of limitation have strong reasoning behind them. What I said was that very often they are determined for political reasons, not in the best interests of plaintiffs or defendants. Generally speaking I don't like statutes of limitations because I feel people should always be able to bring these claims to court - if the evidence dissipates over time then they will lose the case. That people should not even be allowed to bring a case to court is, in my opinion, ridiculous. It also brings about situations such as the #metoo movement, which you so object to." Well said and pretty much reflects my own opinion. I just I'd have articulated as well as you have. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just clarify. The age of consent in Alabama, like the UK, is 16. I know that. I said earlier that he's conventiently only admitted to being with teenage girls who were 16. But he has accusers as young as 14 and 15. " The accusations are from around 40 years ago though, and I understand that Alabama used to have 14 as the age of consent, although I am not sure of the exact date of when in went up to 16. A quick look on Wikipedia though came up with the disturbing fact that Delaware used to have an age of consent of 7  however I think that was quite some time ago. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should." That's true but, if we truly believe that people in their 30s should not have sexual relationships with 16+ teenagers we should make it a crime (and, in some cases it is) but we can't have a double standard where it's OK for some (look to France) but not for others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Just clarify. The age of consent in Alabama, like the UK, is 16. I know that. I said earlier that he's conventiently only admitted to being with teenage girls who were 16. But he has accusers as young as 14 and 15. The accusations are from around 40 years ago though, and I understand that Alabama used to have 14 as the age of consent, although I am not sure of the exact date of when in went up to 16. A quick look on Wikipedia though came up with the disturbing fact that Delaware used to have an age of consent of 7 however I think that was quite some time ago. "It was 10, and more recently 12, here in the UK. Also, until quite recently, there was no age of consent for the male having sex with any female. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient. About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. Yeah. Everyone who makes a point of showing you up must be a troll. That's the only explanation. Still, doesn't really answer the question of why a self proclaimed skeptic such as yourself thinks things like time since the event or the gender of the people involved are relevant. That's hardly exercising true skepticism, now is it? Again you are descending into an inane and confused point, the only person who mentioned gender in this is you. Sidestepping the issue, are we? Let's try this again. If you are a skeptic, as you claim, what bearing does the time between the assault and reporting the assault have on your skepticism. If you are what you claim to be, you ought to be treating all claims in as equally a dismissive manner. And yet, you don't. Why is that?" The untimeliness is the source of skepticism... CLEARLY | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. You don't know what a "troll" is, do you? Clue: It has nothing to do with fictional creatures that live under bridges. " It have everything to do with overly emotional, kool aid drinking fake Canadians with delusions of grandeur however! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again you aren't hearing me. I don't care about the statute of limitations, I care about timeliness in reporting. Separate things Not seperate things. They are only seperate things if you ignore why someone may not go to court immediately. In the case of Roy Moore, because he was the District Attorney. In the case of my aunt, because she would never have been hired in her field again. In the case of Harvey Weinstein's accusors, because other people in the business silenced them (look at the allegations against Amazon Studios, Roy Price for example), in the case of other young victims, because they were scared and young and ignorant....Context matters. That is what I've been trying to get across to you from the beginning. And it's exactly what links statutes of limitation to timeliness. For a non-metoo example - there are currently major issues for company Equifax because of a data breach. Because the finance industry is good at lobbying, they've gotten the statute of llimitation for suing down to 90 days. And before you can do that, you have to go through their internal review, which takes 45 days. So because of the lobbied-for statute of limitation, people have 45 days effectively to file a lawsuit, assuming they started the internal review on the exact day they were made known of the breach. Timeliness, or politically motivated ass-covering? Context. Context. Context. I agree with you completely, fuck that shit! But again i'm stressing a principle that timeliness matters to successful prosecution and you are getting caught up in the statute which I can see (and understand why) is a bugbear. I'm not getting caught up in statutes of limitation. I gave you reasons why timeliness isn't always possible for accusers and then they get blocked out of the judicial process because of statutes of limitation. You are ignoring all of the reasons why people may not immediately go to the police and claiming these people aren't trustworthy because there wasn't due process and because they then went to the press with their stories. If they are forced out of the judicial system, there is a way to get their voices heard - they go to the press. And I like being able to decide in such cases whether to believe someone, given the evidence they provide, especially when the person they are discussing is running for public office. " You and I well know that side stepping due process and going direct to the press with what may or may not be true allegations to ruin someones reputation without trial is not a good state of affairs. Let's just go full vigilante mad max style while we're at it. Lets transport my argument to the UK where there is no statute. We are still mired in the statute thing. To take your good point on evidence a step further, credible reasons for a delay will be respected if they exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient. About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. Yeah. Everyone who makes a point of showing you up must be a troll. That's the only explanation. Still, doesn't really answer the question of why a self proclaimed skeptic such as yourself thinks things like time since the event or the gender of the people involved are relevant. That's hardly exercising true skepticism, now is it? Again you are descending into an inane and confused point, the only person who mentioned gender in this is you. Sidestepping the issue, are we? Let's try this again. If you are a skeptic, as you claim, what bearing does the time between the assault and reporting the assault have on your skepticism. If you are what you claim to be, you ought to be treating all claims in as equally a dismissive manner. And yet, you don't. Why is that? The untimeliness is the source of skepticism... CLEARLY" OK, but, and stay with me here, if you're actually a skeptic like you claim, the timeliness ought not to matter. You should be suspicious of those duplicitous women regardless. But yet, you're claiming that isn't the case. Why is that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Of course, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. That's true but, if we truly believe that people in their 30s should not have sexual relationships with 16+ teenagers we should make it a crime (and, in some cases it is) but we can't have a double standard where it's OK for some (look to France) but not for others." Criminal or not... It's not really becoming of a political figure to go chasing girls half his age. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about the open secrets of the 4 celebrities? Did it suit some people to stay quiet until speaking out became a trend? It seems having a #metoo story is a great way to get on the cover of the supermarket checkout magazines now a days. How edgy. Go away troll I'm sorry I didn't give your wonderful insight that clearly people who speak about the rampant sexual abuse in society are actually lying, self promoting whores the adulation it deserves. Stick your strawmen in your pipe and smoke them troll. You don't know what a "troll" is, do you? Clue: It has nothing to do with fictional creatures that live under bridges. It have everything to do with overly emotional, kool aid drinking fake Canadians with delusions of grandeur however! " I don't believe I've ever claimed to be Canadian. But I commend you on sticking to the hymn sheet for the usual rote attempts at character assassination, and the implicit self aggrandizement that comes with it, that most people who fancy themselves as being 'logical' like to fall back on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient. About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. Yeah. Everyone who makes a point of showing you up must be a troll. That's the only explanation. Still, doesn't really answer the question of why a self proclaimed skeptic such as yourself thinks things like time since the event or the gender of the people involved are relevant. That's hardly exercising true skepticism, now is it? Again you are descending into an inane and confused point, the only person who mentioned gender in this is you. Sidestepping the issue, are we? Let's try this again. If you are a skeptic, as you claim, what bearing does the time between the assault and reporting the assault have on your skepticism. If you are what you claim to be, you ought to be treating all claims in as equally a dismissive manner. And yet, you don't. Why is that? The untimeliness is the source of skepticism... CLEARLY OK, but, and stay with me here, if you're actually a skeptic like you claim, the timeliness ought not to matter. You should be suspicious of those duplicitous women regardless. But yet, you're claiming that isn't the case. Why is that? " Are you trying to say that if I'm suspicious of some I should be suspicious of all? That's just silly. Interestingly you're bringing gender into again. Almost as if you're trying to out words I haven't said into my mouth Xxx | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It must be very convenient for you to be able to simultaneously ignore things like the child abuse scandals and the laundries as "the distant past" and simultaneously ignore things in the now because you can't imagine that they're possible. Apparently because the message was "to report it" and that's completely sufficient. About as convenient as it is for you to paraphrase my troll friend. Yeah. Everyone who makes a point of showing you up must be a troll. That's the only explanation. Still, doesn't really answer the question of why a self proclaimed skeptic such as yourself thinks things like time since the event or the gender of the people involved are relevant. That's hardly exercising true skepticism, now is it? Again you are descending into an inane and confused point, the only person who mentioned gender in this is you. Sidestepping the issue, are we? Let's try this again. If you are a skeptic, as you claim, what bearing does the time between the assault and reporting the assault have on your skepticism. If you are what you claim to be, you ought to be treating all claims in as equally a dismissive manner. And yet, you don't. Why is that? The untimeliness is the source of skepticism... CLEARLY OK, but, and stay with me here, if you're actually a skeptic like you claim, the timeliness ought not to matter. You should be suspicious of those duplicitous women regardless. But yet, you're claiming that isn't the case. Why is that? Are you trying to say that if I'm suspicious of some I should be suspicious of all? That's just silly. " Well, you're the one claiming to be a skeptic - if you don't like what that means, perhaps you shouldn't be claiming to be one? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
All the best | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lol it really was a million dollar question Go back to your double negatives squared. Cancelling yourself out again "It was an important question. And you ran away from it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Well can we agree that there have been high profile, recent and current, cases where coming forward brought no justice and punishment for the victims? And that this could disuade victims from coming forward leading to large gaps in time between the crime and reporting? And can we also agree that there has been a very noticeable shift in public reaction in the last few months to victims claims when they come forward? And that this shift could encourage victims to come forward?" Yes to both. There will always be people who turn into cut rate columbos when it comes to sexual assault on women, and only when this happens to women, but as time goes on, they'll be rightfully marginalised more and more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lol it really was a million dollar question Go back to your double negatives squared. Cancelling yourself out again
It was an important question. And you ran away from it."It only seems important to someone lacking subtlety and discernment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lol it really was a million dollar question Go back to your double negatives squared. Cancelling yourself out again
It was an important question. And you ran away from it.
It only seems important to someone lacking subtlety and discernment. "I feel it's very important for someone claiming to be a skeptic to actually be what they say. Otherwise, you're just using the pretence of skepticism to mask an irrational distrust of women. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has this chap been arrested yet? If he is such a monster why hasn't he been arrested and charged with accounts of molestation to minors? Perhaps people in the know can tell me? " If you read the whole thread you'd see that that has been answered. In the US there is a thing called "statute of limitations". This puts a limit on the amount of time after an offence that legal action can be taken in relation to that offence. As the alleged offences in this case happened 30+ years ago it's not possible in the US to bring charges against him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lol it really was a million dollar question Go back to your double negatives squared. Cancelling yourself out again
It was an important question. And you ran away from it.
It only seems important to someone lacking subtlety and discernment.
I feel it's very important for someone claiming to be a skeptic to actually be what they say.
Otherwise, you're just using the pretence of skepticism to mask an irrational distrust of women."There are victims of both sexes in these scandals. You keep bringing up gender and keep attempting to put words in my mouth (with the stupidest, most backward argument I've ever heard). Try harder next time troll | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Has this chap been arrested yet? If he is such a monster why hasn't he been arrested and charged with accounts of molestation to minors? Perhaps people in the know can tell me? " Yeah it would be helpful if you read the thread rather than asking questions that have already been asked. That statute of limitations has run out. In the case of Harvey Weinstein the victim reported it, police obtained a taped confession from Weinstein but the DA (Moores job at the time) just said he wouldnt pursue it and that was that. What relevance do charges have? Do you think Saville was innocent because he was never charged? What about Woody Allen who entered into a relationship with a girl he was step father to, took nude photos of and eventually married? Not to mention that he was denied visitation rights to a 9 year old he had adopted years before because the judge found the evidence that Allen had sexually abused them credible and the childs welfare had to be protected. The kid spoke up at the time it happened, a judge made a ruling based on the weighing of the evidence that it was true but once again the DA just declined to press charges and that was the end of it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Lol it really was a million dollar question Go back to your double negatives squared. Cancelling yourself out again
It was an important question. And you ran away from it.
It only seems important to someone lacking subtlety and discernment.
I feel it's very important for someone claiming to be a skeptic to actually be what they say.
Otherwise, you're just using the pretence of skepticism to mask an irrational distrust of women.
There are victims of both sexes in these scandals.
You keep bringing up gender and keep attempting to put words in my mouth (with the stupidest, most backward argument I've ever heard).
Try harder next time troll"If you can't stand over your argument, then don't make it. Likewise, don't whine about people taking you to task being "trolls" just because you don't like what you hear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm still waiting for the media to get round to Clintons sexual abuse and r@pe allegations " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes those mighty wholesome Democrats are bang at it too! " Far far less Democrats are at it. Two sitting senators and 1 candidate on the Democrats side and all 3 have stood down and been sidelined by the party. So Democrats are dealing with the revelations on their side properly. The RNC supported Moore, then didnt, then said fuck it and did again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""taking me to task" = latching on like a barnacle to a single word I said and trying to extend it to say things I never said. Like I said, a stupid and backward point if I ever heard one. " Yes, I do imagine it's frustrating not to be simply given a pass because you want one, but that's the downside of entering into public debate and discourse. You're not entitled to a do over just because you've been caught. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""taking me to task" = latching on like a barnacle to a single word I said and trying to extend it to say things I never said. Like I said, a stupid and backward point if I ever heard one. Yes, I do imagine it's frustrating not to be simply given a pass because you want one, but that's the downside of entering into public debate and discourse. You're not entitled to a do over just because you've been caught." Do you know how retarded that all sounds? "caught"
You only know how to troll not debate...
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
""taking me to task" = latching on like a barnacle to a single word I said and trying to extend it to say things I never said. Like I said, a stupid and backward point if I ever heard one. Yes, I do imagine it's frustrating not to be simply given a pass because you want one, but that's the downside of entering into public debate and discourse. You're not entitled to a do over just because you've been caught. Do you know how retarded that all sounds? "caught"
You only know how to troll not debate...
"I know well enough not to use the word retarded as a pejorative. But that's rather beside the point, isn't it. You were trying to explain yourself, and I think you ought to continue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I ought to continue to mock your manical quest to "take me task" for something that has zero sense to it and was never said. I'll tell you what if you can do your best to ask me your little question using plain English (for once) I'll try answer it. It's clear to me that you have some misplaced sense of what skepticism is and are blind to something as basic as a factor in anyone's decision making process. " You claimed to be a skeptic, did you not? Yet when pressed as to whether your skepticism extended to the victims of, for example, the Catholic church's abuse, you tried to make the case that it was different, by continuing to insinuate that the women who've spoken out are lying. So, in language you might find better suited to your needs, you're a hypocrite. And in language you might not - you're displaying the classic strain of misogyny that can only come from people who fancy themselves too clever to be misogynistic. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I ought to continue to mock your manical quest to "take me task" for something that has zero sense to it and was never said. I'll tell you what if you can do your best to ask me your little question using plain English (for once) I'll try answer it. It's clear to me that you have some misplaced sense of what skepticism is and are blind to something as basic as a factor in anyone's decision making process. " I think you're wasting far to much time and putting far too much effort into arguing with DemonJohn rather than making your point which, while I think the pejorative way you've put it hasn't helped, does have some merit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tell me about it.. He's good at the auld trolling "He's not trolling any more than you are him, but he is bating you and you've been falling for it all thread long. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Classic limp strawmen/exaggeration approach from you 1. Doesn't fit the subject matter-different era, different circumstances, different motivations and no I won't waste my time explaining the nuances. " Not won't, can't. Because the differences don't exist. But if you think otherwise, by all means, have at it. " 2. Suspicion of some pending a fair trial for both side doesn't equate to "all are lying" " But consistently insinuating that the women who have spoken out are simply doing so to further their careers is. " 4. Most of my friends are women and you don't even understand what misogyny means.... " You do understand that the "I can't be prejudiced against this group, why I have friends from that group!" defense is a joke, right? Nobody has ever said that and meant it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I ought to continue to mock your manical quest to "take me task" for something that has zero sense to it and was never said. I'll tell you what if you can do your best to ask me your little question using plain English (for once) I'll try answer it. It's clear to me that you have some misplaced sense of what skepticism is and are blind to something as basic as a factor in anyone's decision making process. I think you're wasting far to much time and putting far too much effort into arguing with DemonJohn rather than making your point which, while I think the pejorative way you've put it hasn't helped, does have some merit." It has zero merit. It's not even one step removed from the old "she was asking for it" chestnut. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Last post here because there's no point arguing with fools. You are using some awfully ham-fisted generalisations and extrapolations of what was not even been said to try (and fail) to cast me as someone with abhorrent opinions. As if that bothers me, I stand by everything I've said here. I'll give you one simple factor (and there are more).... Kids abused by priests naturally need time to grow up and realise the gravity of what happened etc. Your "righteous quest" is all based around claiming that entirely different situations are equivalent. Your arguments are baseless and overdramatic. Bye bye "Which doesn't actually explain things away as neatly as you'd think. You were making the case that you, as a self identifying skeptic, were right in insinuating that adults who spoke out about their treatment at the hands of people in positions of power many years ago are liars. So, why, where was your skepticism when a different group of adults spoke out about their treatment at the hands of people in positions of power many years ago? You can't make the case that they're different, because they're not. So, if you're the skeptical person you wish you were then you should have behaved in equally a disgusting manner to the victims of the Catholic churches abuse as you are to the women speaking out with the #metoo movement. But seeing as you didn't, and are desperately trying to explain why that's OK, you probably would be best off going and talking to your clever friend about why you're like this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think I ought to continue to mock your manical quest to "take me task" for something that has zero sense to it and was never said. I'll tell you what if you can do your best to ask me your little question using plain English (for once) I'll try answer it. It's clear to me that you have some misplaced sense of what skepticism is and are blind to something as basic as a factor in anyone's decision making process. I think you're wasting far to much time and putting far too much effort into arguing with DemonJohn rather than making your point which, while I think the pejorative way you've put it hasn't helped, does have some merit. It has zero merit. It's not even one step removed from the old "she was asking for it" chestnut." I think there is merit in the argument that we shouldn't condemn someone without due process, even an obnoxious shit like Ross, regardless as to whether we believe the person making the accusation or not. If we only extend our principles of justice and due process under the law to those we find acceptable, politically or otherwise, then we don't really have any justice, due process or law at all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
