Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Now Harvey Weinstein faces rape claims
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
JK2006 |
And let us not forget the very large body of closet anti-Semites; I noticed 17 years ago a large percentage of trolls (those days) spat at my Jewish roots (wrong but since when did truth come into it?). The anti-Semites have found themselves frozen out of many areas, but sex abuse is rife for looking after those loonies. I assume Weinstein is Jewish but I may be incorrect. |
|
JK2006 |
Yes reading all the replies and comments in this - I feel sure Harvey was, like Savile, a bit of a groper and trier. Opposed to Savile I suspect he was pretty successful in convincing some women to succumb. But the main thing is that times and morality have changed; the media adores sex stories and social media, like the old housewives over a garden fence, loves gossip and rumour; and since this started (with JK 17 years ago) Celebrity Sex Stories are gold. Couple that to the superficialisation of our species and you have the perfect case of extremes. |
|
Randall |
"Trying it on" or "trying his luck" is exactly what Hymie Weinstein has been doing. Not violently overpowering and violating women (and men?).
It's interesting that propositioning a woman in the UK for sex is legal if she likes you, but illegal if she doesn't. And in sub-legal terms is considered "harassment" or not depending on the woman's feelings and independent of the actions of the man. I can't see how this is Article 7 compliant because a man can't know in advance the legal consequences of a chosen course of action.
I think it very unlikely that the USA will change the law to allow prosecutions with no corroborating evidence, and abandon their statute of limitation provisions. To do so would fly in the face of due process. |
|
JK2006 |
It is clear that "trying it on" which was fine a few years ago is now considered abuse and assault by many intelligent and honourable people. But the question is - should "trying it on" back then, when it was considered at worst rude, bad manners, abuse of position and not cricket should also now be regarded as serious assault? If so, the laws in the United States need changing to reflect that (as they do in the UK and Australia). And the laws of evidence likewise (one person's word alone is not evidence in most of the world). Ditto the statutes of limitations. Now many will disagree with altering the law to reflect our British laws and feel that we have got it wrong over here. Let us see how the US adapts things now they have a President who very much reflects that attitude (some may say unwisely, judging by his own past behaviour). So the question is - will Trump change the laws protecting him from prison? Will he accept that, as in the Weinstein case, some women may be telling the truth and deserve "closure" (plus cash)? In which case - how about all those women complaining about The Donald? And could boasting on a bus be considered evidence of Vile Perversion? If so, welcome to Alcatraz, Mr President! |
|
JK2006 |
No surprise there. Publicity provokes false allegations, and many more against the wealthy. Police and the False Allegations Industry will say it also provokes true allegations, by women who didn't dare complain years ago, when they thought they were alone. Hopefully, if true, they went privately to doctors who have DNA stored in freezers. |
|
|
|
