Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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


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


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


No smoke without fire ?

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


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

Mick


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


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

It's a pretty consistant M.O


Money, money, money, talks in cases like this


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


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


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


Pretty shocking tho

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> Does innocent until proven guilty apply in the US

> or is it just a British principle?


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


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

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

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Apparently events took place over 30 years ago

> which is outside the statute of limitations which

> is operational in the US.



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

  • 2 years later...

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


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


This should all come out at trial.


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


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

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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