twoleftfeet 9:05 Wed Oct 11
Harvey Weinstein.
|
|
Clearly the guy is a sexual predator but my question is why are all of these women only coming out now?
If Jolie and Paltrow had reported him 25 years ago then surely this would have stopped him?
Surely by saying nothing they are assisting an offender?
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Fauxstralian
11:38 Tue Apr 30
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Court procedure wasnt followed so witnesses not on the charge were allowed which may prejudice the jury by painting a worse picture of the fat rapey piece of shit.
Verdict rightly regarded as unsafe and a retrial with proper procedures to be followed.
'Fitting up' implies he wasnt guilty. I dont think there is any suggestion that the conviction in relation to the victims on the charge wasnt correct.
Which I expect will be confirmed if he lives long enough to make it back to court
|
southbankbornnbred
10:17 Tue Apr 30
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Well, as a libertarian, perhaps you should have understood that it was none of your damn business!
;-)
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
11:30 Mon Apr 29
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
SBBB
You're right.
You made a statement that was at once sanctimonious and deeply anti-libertarian and you got your reply.
|
southbankbornnbred
10:39 Mon Apr 29
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
I didn’t ask you anything. I made a statement, and you took it upon yourself to see it as a question for you.
Which might be indicative.
But hey ho!
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
9:05 Mon Apr 29
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
SBBB
The court of appeal found that the original judge had showed bias by allowing to be presented a (large) bunch of evidence that was not admissible.
That's 'fitting-up' in any man's language. You appear to think that ok.
You asked if I found anything to celebrate in the appeal court's decision and I said I did. I don't like it when the judicial profession fit up people they don't like, even when I don't like them either.
You asked the question and got your answer.
|
southbankbornnbred
8:33 Mon Apr 29
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Surface,
Weinstein was not "fitted up" at all: far from it. He's a convicted rapist still facing multiple charges - including those that have just been overturned on an appeal. A situation that, in my opinion, borders on laughable.
If you know the case, you'll know that the verdict was narrowly overturned on appeal on what in any other country would amount to a technicality: the receipt of prosecution evidence from witnesses who were not the alleged victims.
In almost all democracies - including most courts in the US - courts take evidence from witnesses who are not claimants or accusers to the charges.
In my honestly held opinion, it's a farce. But we have to accept the decision of the court to re-try the case. So he will be retried on the same charges. While sitting in prison on another convicted rape charge. And facing separate potential sexual assault charges in the UK.
As for your bizarre, loaded questions on "fitting up" burglars etc...of course nobody should want to see anybody fitted up for crimes. But that didn't happen here . The court ruled that, in good faith, the initial case should not have heard certain evidence.
The thing to remember is that appeal courts rarely re-try the case. They generally review the work of the initial case judge(s). Their role is to determine whether the judge(s) made errors of law in handling, and providing a verdict, in the case. The people under scrutiny are really the initial judges and not the accused or accusers etc.
That's all very different to stitching up an alleged burglar.
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
2:06 Sat Apr 27
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
southbankbornnbred 8:18 Thu Apr 25
'Anybody taking pleasure from today's ruling needs to re-think their outlook.'
Are you equally happy for the police and legal system to fit up, say, a burglar? Or a protester who you don't agree with? Or anyone else you don't like?
|
Fauxstralian
10:44 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Understand the judge allowed witnesses whose allegations werent part of the charges against him in the NY trial
Not fair so he will be tried again.
Maybe a bit pointless as the fat rapey cunt will be eating prison food for a long time yet
|
southbankbornnbred
9:12 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Oh don’t worry, Trunds, I knew you weren’t saying that.
It’s a shitshow over the Pond at the moment. Loads of sexual offense cases verdicts overturned on higher court rulings.
The US justice system is increasingly just about £££.
|
Lee Trundle
8:39 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
I wasn't taking pleasure from it, sbbb, if that how it came across.
It's all a bit of a joke over the pond at the moment.
|
southbankbornnbred
8:18 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Weinstein getting convicted was not virtual signalling though (I know you never said it was - but let's be clear).
Even after today he remains a convicted rapist.
His 2020 convictions will likely be retried. Today's ruling does not disprove those allegations. The ruling is that other evidence should not have been admitted - and therefore that he received an unfair trial. But the core allegations of rape remain - even with the 2020 convictions.
He also faces allegations of serious sexual wrongdoing in the UK - two potential charges.
Anybody taking pleasure from today's ruling needs to re-think their outlook. They guy is a horrible rapist. Even judges who played a part in today's ruling - the judges voted narrowly 4-3 - have said it sets back more recent gains within the US justice system.
|
Come On You Irons
8:17 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Thanks for the explanation. Lefties and celebrities (mainly lefties of the champagne slurping type) love a bit of the old virtue signalling.
This must be referring to the Boko Haram attacks on school kids in Nigeria.
Wonderful people are Nigerians. Wonderful people are Muslims. Ergo Nigerian Muslims are the best of the best!
|
Lee Trundle
7:59 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
In the early days of virtual signalling, 200+ Nigerian girls were kidnapped by a load islamic nutters.
A load of celebs put out the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls and 10 years later they appear to mostly all still be held in captivity and used as baby machines.
|
Come On You Irons
7:52 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
I must have missed #BRINGBACKOURGIRLS. What does that refer to?
|
twoleftfeet
7:30 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
Maybe this is the start of the pendulum swinging back to normality.
The trans activists are now in free fall after the Cass report.
The BLM marxists have been exposed for the money grabbers they are and now this.
All these little groups that sprung up during the covid era are now starting to be questioned.
Climate crisis next.
|
Lee Trundle
6:30 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
#METOO was good, but not as good as #BRINGBACKOURGIRLS who are pretty much all still in captivity 10 years later.
|
BRANDED
6:25 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
one conviction in one state
me too my sweaty arse
|
Lee Trundle
6:11 Thu Apr 25
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
His conviction has been overturned.
LOL
|
twoleftfeet
2:54 Tue Nov 28
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
She has had more pricks than a dartboard in pursuit of becoming an actress.
|
bubbleblower
2:53 Tue Nov 28
Re: Harvey Weinstein.
|
twoleftfeet 10:05 Tue Nov 28
Didnt Kelly Brook try being an actress for a bit?
|
| 
