Jo wrote:
It's hard to believe he wasn't guilty, reading this:
www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/bill-cos...sexual-assault-trial

"He maintains the sexual encounters were consensual. In Ms Constand's case, he said she never said no, though she never said yes either."
www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36371741

It sounds as if he interpreted her being incapacitated as consent.

But I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of the others who appeared in court were bandwagonners, e.g. the one with the criminal record for false reporting, theft and prostitution.

Did you see the press conference with the (male) district attorney getting tearful? It seems to be compulsory when talking to the public these days.

I dont know... someone only rebuffing you once you have unbuttoned their pants and started touching them, and returning to your house even though they ask you to wear something "comfortable" and accepting "mystery" blue pills sounds like a jolly big YES PLEASE to me.

Let's be clear here: Sex without consent is NOT rape.

Only sex by force and where the accused party *knows* it is not wanted can be rape.

And even then I find it rather disturbing that the sentencing is so out of whack with the reality. Life imprisonment for causing one night of inconvenience? What kind of feminist shit is this?

Those of you supporting this do realise that men being forced to pay maintenance to their ex-wife for the rest of their lives is worse than being raped, don't you? Yet our legal system not only sanctions it, but is responsible for actively ensuring the nightmare happens!

As I think all have acknowledged we can't know unless there -which is to obviate the point if not define the efficacy of the criminal justice system - whether Cosby"did it". But if he did what has been "found" is no simplification.

This is not a grey area - this is "drugs" that caused literal paralysis not relaxation and were administered without consent with regard to impact, content let alone outcome.

Thus the impact is kidnapping the outcome - if correctly tried - rape on an industrial scale..

On trial outcome I find myself unusually with ITK...and see no reason to mitigate let alone defend Mr Cosby...

If there is any evidence to undermine the above where is it? If there is - and I acknowledge there are a troubling number of high profile trials that are worringly flawed - I will rethink....

In The Know wrote:
you can see that Hedda doesn't quite understand how the board works, can't you ??? lol !

No. Hedda understands, pal!

And not the way you want it to...


'lol!*'....

I think the problem is that we cannot know the truth and, thanks to social media as well as traditional media and the marvellous Google research tool, some less offensive though still unacceptable to some behaviour (giving someone Quaaludes at their request) can be exaggerated by memory or other, less savoury, reasons to stronger drugs, less consent, provoking unconsciousness instead of relaxation etc. Clear rape and violence can be complained about at the time and better prosecuted. Even contemporary descriptions can be recollected later. But some of those then tend to be found to be to people willing to accept reward for their memories. The way the law and the media have colluded (to get better stories; more convictions) has been subtle over the past 20 years. I was lucky enough to experience them first hand 18 years ago. That's why I am better informed about the possibility of exaggeration than most. I have no knowledge regarding the Cosby allegations but I can say, from personal experience, that justice has slowly changed in the last two decades.

wyotpo0 wrote:

On trial outcome I find myself unusually with ITK...and see no reason to mitigate let alone defend Mr Cosby...

If there is any evidence to undermine the above where is it? If there is - I will rethink....

I'm with you - beyond a reasonable doubt.

If you were present when the crime was committed PB, I bow to your superior knowledge.

holocaust21 wrote:
Let's be clear here: Sex without consent is NOT rape.

Only sex by force and where the accused party *knows* it is not wanted can be rape.

And even then I find it rather disturbing that the sentencing is so out of whack with the reality. Life imprisonment for causing one night of inconvenience? What kind of feminist shit is this?

Those of you supporting this do realise that men being forced to pay maintenance to their ex-wife for the rest of their lives is worse than being raped, don't you? Yet our legal system not only sanctions it, but is responsible for actively ensuring the nightmare happens!

Are you thinking of a particular case when you say that rape is one night of inconvenience?
while I dont agree with people being told their lives are ruined, for most of us, it is a pretty devastating event that takes a long time to recover from.

Maintenance? Don't the same rules apply to both sexes?

No I am thinking that all cases of rape are one night of inconvenience.

Maintenance can very rarely apply to women, but due to several factors such as:

- Gynocentric courts that tend to give preferential treatment to women irregardless of what the law says (though often there is also various 'guidance' to be lenient to women).
- The fact that men tend to earn more and so courts tell him to pay the maintenance so she can carry on doing what she was doing: Being lazy
- Courts tend to give women custody of the children

All of these factors mean men are far more likely to end up paying maintenance. It is extremely rare for women to have to pay it.

You claim that rape is "a pretty devasting event that take a long time to recover from" but you fail to acknowledge that the same applies to being forced to pay maintenance, in fact, men who are made to pay maintenance never recover from it. Actually, one could argue that divorce in general is worse than rape, and historically it was seen as a bad thing, that's why it didn't used to be as easy to divorce as it is now.

Another point is also that I'd argue being raided by the police could be argued to be more frightening than being raped and being sent to prison for even 1 month is definitely worse than being raped. Being sent to prison for a typical sex offender sentence of, say, 5 years is at least 1000X worse than being raped. In fact, even if you were raped 1000X I am not sure if it is as bad. If you are raped for a couple of hours each day you will soon get used to it and can then make the best of the other 22 hours of the day. But if you are a prisoner you will not be able to do anything meaningful each day.

holocaust21 wrote:
No I am thinking that all cases of rape are one night of inconvenience.

Maintenance can very rarely apply to women, but due to several factors such as:

- Gynocentric courts that tend to give preferential treatment to women irregardless of what the law says (though often there is also various 'guidance' to be lenient to women).
- The fact that men tend to earn more and so courts tell him to pay the maintenance so she can carry on doing what she was doing: Being lazy
- Courts tend to give women custody of the children

All of these factors mean men are far more likely to end up paying maintenance. It is extremely rare for women to have to pay it.

You claim that rape is "a pretty devasting event that take a long time to recover from" but you fail to acknowledge that the same applies to being forced to pay maintenance, in fact, men who are made to pay maintenance never recover from it. Actually, one could argue that divorce in general is worse than rape, and historically it was seen as a bad thing, that's why it didn't used to be as easy to divorce as it is now.

Another point is also that I'd argue being raided by the police could be argued to be more frightening than being raped and being sent to prison for even 1 month is definitely worse than being raped. Being sent to prison for a typical sex offender sentence of, say, 5 years is at least 1000X worse than being raped. In fact, even if you were raped 1000X I am not sure if it is as bad. If you are raped for a couple of hours each day you will soon get used to it and can then make the best of the other 22 hours of the day. But if you are a prisoner you will not be able to do anything meaningful each day.

I think we will have to agree to disagree about rape, holocaust, but I hear what you are saying about prison. Although many manage to make the best of it, it sounds like a pretty horrific and barbaric experience to me. Your vivid account of the effects of prison made me a bit tearful,you described it so well.
I am guessing you have been through something traumatic yourself? If you want to talk or rant about it, I am listening, but please accept a (virtual) hug for now.

I haven't been to prison myself but I'm sure I could have been. And I've seen and read about so so many men who have been thrown in prison for what are, in my view, victimless crimes. I am not sure if there is anyone locked up for a "sexual offence" in a British prison who actually did anything bad.

Let's think of it this way: The truth is there are two kinds of males: Betas & Chads.

Chad doesn't have a problem with all the "sexual harassment" laws because Chad is good looking and a smooth talker. Women love it when he talks to them.

For the Beta though, when he talks to a woman he is more awkward, and maybe he isn't as good looking either. The woman may not like him so much and can become annoyed so she then accuses him of sexual harassment, sexual assault or even rape. Rape is especially used if a woman gets into bed with a Beta but then realises that she could do better and find a Chad. She blames the Beta for her bad decision.

Being a Beta myself I have a great empathy with convicted sex offenders, and I realise that the laws are all created by feminists to target me (and other Betas). Thus I want to protect myself and all other Betas by abolishing sexual offence legislation.

wyotpo0 wrote:


This is not a grey area - this is "drugs" that caused literal paralysis not relaxation and were administered without consent with regard to impact, content let alone outcome.



you are factually wrong.

I lived in the US at the time this is alleged to have happened.

Quaaludes were handed around like candy.(I took plenty at the time..in fact they were popular at dance parties- hardly the place people would pass out- my lawyer also took them)

They are not a drug that causes paralysis.

Quaaludes could be described as similar to Valium but give a better "feeling". They certainly did not put someone to sleep which was half the problem..the effects wore off pretty quickly..within 20 minutes and people kept taking more and more. Even when prescribed they were recommended to be taken like Valium- say 3 times a day.

Quaaludes were non-addictive and similar to Cocaine..people loved the feeling and took more and more hence they do whatever to get the money to buy them.

Why have you claimed the pill was "administered without consent" when no such claim has been made? The pill was offered and in fact all the claimants have said this..and they accepted them. They all to a person claim "innocence" (even though several of them -not reported- have multiple convictions for prostitution in a trade where drugs are common)..apart from those who have several convictions for fraud (before & after their Cosby meetings).

In the case where a conviction was secured the claimant claims she was at a 'business" meeting so why did she accept a drug that every second newspaper and media broadcast (Nancy Reagan) rabbited on about Quaaludes and how people were falsely obtaining scripts or they were being brought over illegally from Mexico?

To be in America and not know about Quaaludes you would have to be deaf, dumb, blind and stupid (no not you ITK..you aren't blind and I know you can hear )

I've watched this whole Cosby closely and have seen a sort of "date rape drug" theme develop but this is nonsense. Very hard pills are used in date rape like Rohypnol, slipped into drinks and which lay you out after about 30 minutes- sooner if you are drunk.

"rape is a pretty devasting event that take a long time to recover from"

another myth repeated ad infinitum which becomes Gospel but based on no proof or evidence and basically derived from Britain's gutter media and even "quality" press (BBC)which is like a vast echo chamber.

I know two women who were raped and they "recovered" not only quickly but can talk openly about it and even joke about it (unlike Britain's ridiculous Puritan attitudes that seep into every aspect of life)

In the late 70s I met and worked with several women who were "Comfort Women" during WW2 and were sex slaves in the true sense having been kidnapped by the Japanese and forced to work in brothels at gun point.

Not only did they exude a quiet dignity they went on to get married right after the war and have children etc etc and quite openly talked about their experiences. Their real fury was that post WW2 Japanese governments kept lying and saying it never happened ..until they finally caved in and formally apologized.

In fact millions of women in Europe (and especially in Russia) suffered appalling depravity but just got on with life after the war.

This claim is along the lines of "your life has been ruined"

# of course some people never recover from anything and should be pitied

hedda wrote:
"rape is a pretty devasting event that take a long time to recover from"

another myth repeated ad infinitum which becomes Gospel but based on no proof or evidence and basically derived from Britain's gutter media and even "quality" press (BBC)which is like a vast echo chamber.

I know two women who were raped and they "recovered" not only quickly but can talk openly about it and even joke about it (unlike Britain's ridiculous Puritan attitudes that seep into every aspect of life)

In the late 70s I met and worked with several women who were "Comfort Women" during WW2 and were sex slaves in the true sense having been kidnapped by the Japanese and forced to work in brothels at gun point.

Not only did they exude a quiet dignity they went on to get married right after the war and have children etc etc and quite openly talked about their experiences.

Are there no depths to which you will not sink? ........ in being an apologist?

Hedda has hit the nail on the head with the two posts above!

ITK, I don't think Hedda is apologising for anything, going on the attack more like!

In The Know wrote:
hedda wrote:
"rape is a pretty devasting event that take a long time to recover from"

another myth repeated ad infinitum which becomes Gospel but based on no proof or evidence and basically derived from Britain's gutter media and even "quality" press (BBC)which is like a vast echo chamber.

I know two women who were raped and they "recovered" not only quickly but can talk openly about it and even joke about it (unlike Britain's ridiculous Puritan attitudes that seep into every aspect of life)

In the late 70s I met and worked with several women who were "Comfort Women" during WW2 and were sex slaves in the true sense having been kidnapped by the Japanese and forced to work in brothels at gun point.

Not only did they exude a quiet dignity they went on to get married right after the war and have children etc etc and quite openly talked about their experiences.

Are there no depths to which you will not sink? ........ in being an apologist?

ITK again proposes that he knows how every person on the planet thinks.

For your information ITK as a teenager I was drugged, raped by 3 men, beaten to a pulp and thrown from a car into a London gutter..police said at the time it would result in an attempted murder charge.

One thing I did learn from that episode is that I do understand one aspect of assault now spoken about- victims can feel guilty for it happening as though they are at fault somehow.

I don't take lectures from you so piss off.

Let's not insult ITK - he has more than enough problems to deal with.
Cosby - yes, if one believes the media. Guilty. If one believes that accusers always speak the truth and never want compo; guilty. If one thinks there is never exaggeration - even in the minds of those involved. Guilty.
But beyond reasonable doubt? It has to be Not Guilty.

hedda wrote:
"rape is a pretty devasting event that take a long time to recover from"

another myth repeated ad infinitum which becomes Gospel but based on no proof or evidence and basically derived from Britain's gutter media and even "quality" press (BBC)which is like a vast echo chamber.

I know two women who were raped and they "recovered" not only quickly but can talk openly about it and even joke about it (unlike Britain's ridiculous Puritan attitudes that seep into every aspect of life)

In the late 70s I met and worked with several women who were "Comfort Women" during WW2 and were sex slaves in the true sense having been kidnapped by the Japanese and forced to work in brothels at gun point.

Not only did they exude a quiet dignity they went on to get married right after the war and have children etc etc and quite openly talked about their experiences. Their real fury was that post WW2 Japanese governments kept lying and saying it never happened ..until they finally caved in and formally apologized.

In fact millions of women in Europe (and especially in Russia) suffered appalling depravity but just got on with life after the war.

This claim is along the lines of "your life has been ruined"

# of course some people never recover from anything and should be pitied

You misquote me. I said "For most of us" it is a devastating experience etc.
Because it is.
You cant expect everyone to have the same resilience as you. Or me.

JK2006 wrote:
Let's not insult ITK - he has more than enough problems to deal with.
Cosby - yes, if one believes the media. Guilty. If one believes that accusers always speak the truth and never want compo; guilty. If one thinks there is never exaggeration - even in the minds of those involved. Guilty.
But beyond reasonable doubt? It has to be Not Guilty.

I have no idea if Cosby is guilty of this particular offence or not, but I find the idea of hoards of women just happening to have a headache or something, not carrying appropriate pills in their bag like everyone else, accepting a tablet that looks nothing like over the shop medication for it, and then all having the opposite expected reaction to the tablets as ridiculous and unlikely as Rolf Harris appearing in a community centre, an we all know what happened there!