The lynching of Harvey Weinstein

[Hermit]

Any accusations made before 25 years have passed should be ignored. The Statute of Limitations dictates that when making sex crime allegations the 'victim' or police have to allow at least 25 years to have passed before pressing charges. You can see this in practice in many case, such as Rolf Harris and Archbishop Governor General Peter Hollingworth.

You're all over the place again. Harris was not charged in the USA. He was charged in the UK. Living in Australia all his life, Hollingworth was not charged with a sex offence in the USA either. In fact, he was not charged with anything at all. Anywhere. An inquiry initiated by Phillip Aspinall, Hollingworth's successor as archbishop did conclude that Hollingworth had allowed a known paedophile to continue working as a priest ten years earlier. As for the Statute of Limitations in the USA, you need to acquaint yourself with the facts. You'll discover that each state has its own statutes of limitations, and that they vary enormously even within the area of sex crimes.

In modern feminism, the women want other women, and they do not want any men (their enemy) to have them. But I suppose that's a 'sexist' observation?

Looks more like something a paranoid lunatic would conclude his incoherent rant with.

[Galaxian]

Here you go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcWu0t ... g&index=14


Good luck with your 'Privilege Points', You all have so much educayshun... Must feel good

[Galaxian]

Any accusations made before 25 years have passed should be ignored. The Statute of Limitations dictates that when making sex crime allegations the 'victim' or police have to allow at least 25 years to have passed before pressing charges. You can see this in practice in many case, such as Rolf Harris and Archbishop Governor General Peter Hollingworth.

You're all over the place again. Harris was not charged in the USA. He was charged in the UK. Living in Australia all his life, Hollingworth was not charged with a sex offence in the USA either. In fact, he was not charged with anything at all. Anywhere. An inquiry initiated by Phillip Aspinall, Hollingworth's successor as archbishop did conclude that Hollingworth had allowed a known paedophile to continue working as a priest ten years earlier. As for the Statute of Limitations in the USA, you need to acquaint yourself with the facts. You'll discover that each state has its own statutes of limitations, and that they vary enormously even within the area of sex crimes.

Galaxian made no specific reference to the USA. So both examples are valid. Both had accusations dating back some 25 years or more. Obviously the self-described 'victims' felt so aggrieved that they waited till close to retirement to make their demands.

The Statute of Limitations used to be 6 years from reaching maturity. But that has now been replaced by judicial decree to mean longer that 25 years. So, the later a complaint is made, the more valid it is... as demonstrated by actual cases.

Peter Holingworth was accused of statutory rape while a young priest, by a woman hoping for a handout. The case was supposed to have happened in the 1960's, some 40 years earlier. The police had him in custody... on her word. He was lucky that a clerk in the church library looked at dusty records that went back to that date. On the night in question he was 600 kilometres away at a committee meeting. THAT is what the issue was, some 40 years earlier.

So I stand by what I said. The actual, operative Statute of Limitations is 25 years or longer, in most "civilized" countries

In modern feminism, the women want other women, and they do not want any men (their enemy) to have them. But I suppose that's a 'sexist' observation?

Looks more like something a paranoid lunatic would conclude his incoherent rant with.

No. Looks like a very astute observation by a sane genius. Where you read 20 lines on a page, I read 39. That's my advantage!

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, but your font is 10pts larger.

[pErvinalia]

[Rum]

No. Looks like a very astute observation by a sane genius. Where you read 20 lines on a page, I read 39. That's my advantage!

Boy, I knew you were clever but a genius - I'm impressed. Hey guys we have a genius amongst us!

[Tero]

PENIS

there

[Hermit]

Any accusations made before 25 years have passed should be ignored. The Statute of Limitations dictates that when making sex crime allegations the 'victim' or police have to allow at least 25 years to have passed before pressing charges. You can see this in practice in many case, such as Rolf Harris and Archbishop Governor General Peter Hollingworth.

You're all over the place again. Harris was not charged in the USA. He was charged in the UK. Living in Australia all his life, Hollingworth was not charged with a sex offence in the USA either. In fact, he was not charged with anything at all. Anywhere. An inquiry initiated by Phillip Aspinall, Hollingworth's successor as archbishop did conclude that Hollingworth had allowed a known paedophile to continue working as a priest ten years earlier. As for the Statute of Limitations in the USA, you need to acquaint yourself with the facts. You'll discover that each state has its own statutes of limitations, and that they vary enormously even within the area of sex crimes.

Galaxian made no specific reference to the USA.

Except when you wrote:

What makes you think that US society is a "sophisticated civilization" ? What gives you the idea that in Amerikkka issues of criminality are/should be treated with the utmost rigor & seriousness? After all, the first principle of US jurisprudence

before launching into your fact-free tirade involving "The Statute of Limitations".

Peter Holingworth was accused of statutory rape while a young priest, by a woman hoping for a handout. The case was supposed to have happened in the 1960's, some 40 years earlier. The police had him in custody

Hollingworth has never been taken into custody. There was no need, as the alleged victim's name does not appear on the lists of participants of the youth meetings at St John's Church, north Bendigo, and Hollingworth's name never appeared among any lists of people running it.

The actual, operative Statute of Limitations is 25 years or longer, in most "civilized" countries

Citation needed. Or it would be if it wasn't for your nonsense that "the later a complaint is made, the more valid it is... as demonstrated by actual cases." The outcomes of actual cases are less likely a "guilty" verdict the more time has intervened.

[Rum]

..as a point of information the UK has no statute of limitations as such. There are some special exceptions for specific (and usually very minor) offences but certainly not of the type Savile and others were accused of.

[pErvinalia]

Where you read 20 lines on a page, I read 39. That's my advantage!

You said it better than any of us could. You see things that don't exist!

[Forty Two]

Actress body shames Harvey Weinstein: ‘He was grossly overweight, sweaty and wearing a T-shirt with his stomach protruding from it. I found him repulsive.’ -

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4vm7bpl2G
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Nobody should ever be shamed for their body, and this criticism of him as "grossly" overweight perpetuates unhealthy attitudes toward body image. Also, everyone sweats. It's a natural human function. And, nobody should be criticized for their choice of clothing. Heavy people should not be shamed for wearing bare-midriff clothing.

Maybe poor Harvey had gone through life shamed and belittled for his weight, his bad (by our culture's arbitrary standards) looks, and his poor (by arbitrary cultural norms) fashion choices. Being found "repulsive" by women he saw attracted to others, poor, sad Harvey naturally saw his wealth and connections in Hollywood as his one way to win over the women he longed for, but who were always scornful and mocking of him before.

[Rum]

I've had a few fat sweaty cunts in my time...

[Scot Dutchy]

Dont mention them

[Forty Two]

There is something to the fat-shaming theory.... Zoe Brock, a New Zealand model, claimed that she went willingly back to Harvey's hotel room one night, after a night of dinner and drinking. Once in the hotel room, Harvey, exhibiting some real nerve, just came out of a bedroom naked, and asked her if she'd give him a massage. She refused, and went into the bathroom, upset at being shown his big fat body, dick and balls included. He knocked on her door and pleaded with her to come out, and saying he'd put his clothes on. She came out, and he was crying like a little baby, saying that she rejected him because he was fat. Another instance of a beautiful woman body shaming poor Harvey. He, along with an assistant, then drove the model to another hotel.

A picture begins to emerge.... beautiful, desirable models, rejecting Harvey Weinstein because he does not meet western ideals of beauty standards and cultural norms of courtship behavior.....

Who's the real victim here?

[pErvinalia]

You have far too much time on your hands..