Bill Cosby what have you done

masculinist · 18-11-2014 04:36PM

bnt wrote: »

US law isn't like that in the UK, where the police can come after e.g. Rolf Harris about something he allegedly did in the 1970s. The statute of limitations ran out years ago, so the only trial Cosby could be put through would be trial by media.

The US interpretation of free speech seems to include also the right to lie...

http://cir.ca/news/political-ad-free-speech

I don't know how this affects any allegations against Cosby but it seems to be significantly harder to get into trouble through careless or hateful speech in the USA than here. Its a lot different from here in how malicious or unfounded rumors are treated. I wont prejudge anyone involved but its possible if he had ten accusations that 9 of them are lies looking for a pay day encouraged by the first one who I read settled out of court which doesnt look great for him at least about the first even if it might have been lawyers advice to protect his career.

Vincent Vega · 18-11-2014 05:18PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLwjDigdM6k

Lingua Franca · 18-11-2014 05:42PM

masculinist wrote: »

I wont prejudge anyone involved but its possible if he had ten accusations that 9 of them are lies looking for a pay day encouraged by the first one who I read settled out of court which doesnt look great for him at least about the first even if it might have been lawyers advice to protect his career.

What do you mean by "the first one"? The woman who settled out of court didn't claim to be the first one raped, nor was she the first one (by decades) to try to press charges against him. Also, the one who settled out of court had 13 women willing to testify that they'd also been raped, and 14 women have come forward to the media with rape accusations and the amount of overlap there is unknown. The statute of limitations has run out for many of his accusers, too.

I can't believe I'm replying to a novelty account but it really is disgusting of you to imply that they're only doing it for the money.

topper75 · 18-11-2014 05:43PM

Elian Steep Tag wrote: »

I heard Ray D'Arcy fingered Socky the Sock Monster behind the RTÉ roadcaster back in '95.

That's sub judice.

You'll get boards.ie in trouble.

Pumpkinseeds · 18-11-2014 05:46PM

Guilty or not I have always despised the guy and I can't see anything remotely amusing about his crappy style of comedy.

Piliger · 18-11-2014 06:34PM

Another disgusting and sickening smear of a man with no justification - based on one person of completely unknown mental state or veracity.

Disgusting.

Fuhrer · 18-11-2014 06:35PM

Piliger wrote: »

Another disgusting and sickening smear of a man with no justification - based on one person of completely unknown mental state or veracity.

Disgusting.

Eh?

Lingua Franca · 18-11-2014 06:40PM

One person? Try 14.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Also, the one who settled out of court had 13 women willing to testify that they'd also been raped, and 14 women have come forward to the media with rape accusations and the amount of overlap there is unknown. The statute of limitations has run out for many of his accusers, too.

I checked up on this and the 14 women do include the 13 who came forward as witnesses for the 2004 civil case. And all of those cases are outside of the statute of limitations so there's no money in it for them at all.

masculinist · 18-11-2014 07:47PM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I can't believe I'm replying to a novelty account but it really is disgusting of you to imply that they're only doing it for the money.

How am I a novelty account ? What are you on about ? What gives you that idea ? That is a very closed minded thing to say. It is as closed minded as your next comment. Do you not believe in innocent until proven guilty ? The idea that ''rape victims are only doing it for the money'' came from you, not me. That is indeed a disgusting attitude as is as disgusting as calling a man guilty by default. However it is not what I wrote. You should re-read what I wrote.
What is disgusting about not taking sides on a case and being aware of all the reasons why a case verdict can fall either way ? I would take a hard line against crime and in support of victims but I am not going to let someone random on a forum somewhere tell me who is innocent and who is guilty when a judge hasn't even that decided yet.
It is not a disgusting and is in fact a very impartial thing to say that well known stars in the public eye have stalkers and false accusations all the time by those who are definitely in it for the money or are just plain crazy . It has to be said because I find trial by media to be an uncomfortable thing. Many innocent men have committed suicide because of it.
To be as objective as possible, taking into account as many possible viewpoints as there is, is actually the least disgusting approach to such claims when no proof exists.
It is not disgusting to acknowledge that a large number of false sexual assault claims do exist which not only cause suicides in innocent men but also are quite disgustingly disrespectful to genuine rape victims and that some of them are claimed against wealthy stars because of the money, another disgusting behaviour which only weakens the cases of real rape victims. How is that disgusting ? You can hardly accuse me of defending the man either when I pointed out that his settlement a few years ago did not look good at all for him. The most unfair thing to happen lately is your accusation against me that somehow I wrote something wrong. It was wrong of you to say that. It was an emotional outburst and thats not helpful when discussing this sensitive topic..

Laura Palmer · 19-11-2014 12:49AM

Piliger wrote: »

Another disgusting and sickening smear of a man with no justification - based on one person of completely unknown mental state or veracity.

Disgusting.

No justification? What if the allegations are true? He should have anonymity in my opinion but that doesn't mean the allegations are false.

Annasopra · 19-11-2014 08:44AM

Laura Palmer wrote: »

But they're allegations - he hasn't been convicted.

There should be anonymity when something so serious is at allegations stage and when the person is that high-profile.

If it turns out that he's innocent, there'll be the "No smoke without fire" crowd ensuring mud sticks.

In this case some of the allegations are outside the statute of limitations and can no longer be prosecuted. It cannot go beyond the allegations stage!!!!

humanji · 19-11-2014 10:43AM

MOD: It's a bit sad that I have to say this, but can we give the rape jokes a rest, please?

Piliger · 19-11-2014 04:09PM

Laura Palmer wrote: »

No justification? What if the allegations are true? He should have anonymity in my opinion but that doesn't mean the allegations are false.

So how exactly do you disagree with my post ? He is being smeared and eviscerated in public based on nothing but 'claims' that anyone can make up for whatever personal reasons.

He has no recourse. No evidence is being demanded of these people because they have not taken any prosecution against him and probably never will. It is a disgrace and yet in the media there are no voices challenging this whatsoever.

One only has to look at the threads in After Hours about 'claims' of abuse in political circles in London - it is a rabid mob, all built on a couple of anonymous statements by people again of unknown veracity and with unknown evidence.

People seem to be so mind numbingly naive that they think no one would ever make this kind of stuff up. They need to grow up and learn their history. They do and they have.

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2014 05:13PM

Piliger wrote: »

One only has to look at the threads in After Hours about 'claims' of abuse in political circles in London - it is a rabid mob, all built ona couple of anonymous statements by people again of unknown veracity and with unknown evidence.

Steady on there.

Tom Watson MP, and Vishambar Mehrotra, a solicitor who was a former Justice of the Peace - are these people not worth listening to?

Or how about the current British Deputy Prime Minister, who says in today's Guardian:

“We are at early stage of a reckoning with our past that is on a scale and gravity that just a few months ago might have seemed unimaginable and almost too horrific to contemplate. The task is to peel back the layers of deception that appear to have happened in the past.”

FTA69 · 19-11-2014 05:58PM

Janice Dickinson has come out now and said he drugged and raped her. She's a pretty high-profile figure and won't be too easy to dismiss as a random lying crank looking for money.

Fuhrer · 19-11-2014 05:59PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Janice Dickinson has come out now and said he drugged and raped her. She's a pretty high-profile figure and won't be too easy to dismiss as a random lying crank looking for money.

She is a lunatic though.

Dionysius2 · 19-11-2014 06:04PM

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Lots of people have come forward with these allegations.

That's what nails him.

Donkey Oaty · 19-11-2014 06:04PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Janice Dickinson has come out now and said he drugged and raped her. She's a pretty high-profile figure and won't be too easy to dismiss as a random lying crank looking for money.

From the Telegraph:

Dickinson said she had planned to describe the incident in her 2002 autobiography No Lifeguard on Duty: The Accidental Life of the World's First Supermodel, but claims Cosby pressured her publishers to remove the details.

That's interesting. If it is true, there must be a good few people still around who were involved in that decision.

Grab All Association · 19-11-2014 06:08PM

http://www.etonline.com/news/154076_janice_dickinson_details_alleged_bill_cosby_sexual_assault/

Interview.

marklazarcovic · 19-11-2014 06:19PM

wow, hard to believe that he could rape all those women and get away with it even though others knew .. if its true of course.

FTA69 · 19-11-2014 06:26PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

wow, hard to believe that he could rape all those women and get away with it even though others knew .. if its true of course.

Well Harris and Saville managed it for years. Obviously nothing has been proved yet at all but I'm bemused at people who are automatically jumping to Cosby's defense when we've no clue at all yet what's going on.

Tokyo · 19-11-2014 06:50PM

marklazarcovic wrote: »

wow, hard to believe that he could rape all those women and get away with it even though others knew .. if its true of course.

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that reporting a rape in the 70's and 80's was nearly as much of a nightmare as the rape itself.

Piliger · 19-11-2014 11:12PM

FTA69 wrote: »

Well Harris and Saville managed it for years. Obviously nothing has been proved yet at all but I'm bemused at people who are automatically jumping to Cosby's defense when we've no clue at all yet what's going on.

Because everyone deserves to be defended. That's why. Think what may happen if you get accused by some nutter some day and people say .... ooooh there's no smoke ..How will you feel ?

The smell of money brings all kinds of looneys out of the shadows too.

Phoebas · 19-11-2014 11:23PM

https://twitter.com/TheTweetOfGod/status/534888422280671233

Laura Palmer · 20-11-2014 12:33AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In this case some of the allegations are outside the statute of limitations and can no longer be prosecuted. It cannot go beyond the allegations stage!!!!

Still though, his reputation deserves to be protected while it's ongoing I think.

That doesn't mean being certain he didn't do it, just innocent until proven guilty.

masculinist · 20-11-2014 01:08AM

Laura Palmer wrote: »

Still though, his reputation deserves to be protected while it's ongoing I think.

That doesn't mean being certain he didn't do it, just innocent until proven guilty.

Even if I personally disliked him it would have to be this. How can it be any other way ? Otherwise every innocent person has to live in fear of the false accusation.
The problem for his reputation is as the numbers of those coming forward increases he just looks worse and worse.
And I am no fan of Whoopi Goldberg who defended him on her show. I find Goldberg to be a disgusting pedo enabler as she also defended Roman Polanski who drugged and raped a 13 year old to which Whoopi responded ''it wasnt rape rape'' . So exactly how much is a defense from Goldberg worth ? Not much in my eyes. So we have to disregard Goldberg and go back to basic principles which exist not so much to prosecute the guilty but to defend the innocent, such as presumption of innocence.
I have no idea how Goldberg still remains in the public eye. I would type Scumberg for her name all through this post if I didnt suspect a mod would give out to me. Guilty or innocent ,Cosby has been very very plausible and smooth in the public eye. Can any of those who accuse him take civil cases against him even if the statute of limitations prevents criminal cases ?

Grab All Association · 20-11-2014 02:11AM

To quote a line from The Simpsons

I don't know Homer Simpson.
I never met Homer Simpson or had any contact with him, but I'm sorry, I can't go on.
That's okay.
Your tears say more than real evidence ever could.

The Diabolical Monocle · 20-11-2014 02:36AM

OP what have you done.

Tabloids what have you done.

Do we need evidence.

Should we actually know something about the case before we hang him high.

Or will an allegation do.

Is it great train wreckey fun.

Could you always tell there was something dodgy about him.

More tea Betty.

masculinist · 28-11-2014 04:21AM

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

OP what have you done.

Tabloids what have you done.

Do we need evidence.

This article address that

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/bill-cosby-is-innocent/16236#.VHfpGjGsWSo

The Diabolical Monocle · 29-11-2014 02:38PM

masculinist wrote: »

This article address that

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/bill-cosby-is-innocent/16236#.VHfpGjGsWSo

Good read.
Who need courts when you have an online article.

Bill Cosby what have you done

Comments