One jailed, one to go perhaps

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

It's interesting that the guilty verdict of one hideous figure of a man, once at the top of his game, who held the highest office and power over women in his industry has been jailed but little comment has been made on UKC - perhaps it has become lost in noise of CVirus. 

I for one think its a good day for women and for justice and which shows that no matter what power you yield, you are not above the law.

There is also another hideous figure of a man, once the top of his game, who held the highest office is on trial, being accused of very similar crimes against women in his office and perhaps over whom he held power.  I wonder how the second trial will pan out....

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51840532

2
 Blue Straggler 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Grow up and name names. Being coy does not make you look cool or clever

23
 balmybaldwin 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Whilst it might bring this to a close, and he has at least been jailed for a decent amount of time, I cant see this as "a good day for women and for justice".

His trial was fudged, he was only charged with a small proportion of his crimes and he was found not guilty of something he is plainly guilty of.

For me this exposed how in the American justice system, despite overwhelming evidence a powerful man can still wield power and influence to minimise his punishments and I find it sickening that there are still people out there writing articles about the man's "genius."

 Timmd 12 Mar 2020
In reply to balmybaldwin: I know what you mean, that there's a lot of things he did which haven't seen the light of day. It was possibly about being pragmatic in the end, with how convictions of rape and other sex crimes often being quite difficult to obtain, at least he's presumably going to die in jail now, and will forever have his reputation reflect the reality of who he is (and was, when people look back). 

With perpetrators getting away with it probably being the second most painful thing after the assault, hopefully it brings a degree of resolution for his victims...

Post edited at 01:52
 wintertree 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

One down one to go?  There’s plenty of fish in the sea...

 mcdougal 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Grow up and name names. Being coy does not make you look cool or clever

No it doesn't. It does however prevent him from being prosecuted for contempt of court,

4
 Robert Durran 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Grow up and name names. 

I presume they are referring to Alex Salmond.

 Robert Durran 12 Mar 2020
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> I find it sickening that there are still people out there writing articles about the man's "genius."

Genuine question: why?

1
 skog 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

"One jailed, one to go perhaps"

Well, at least it's good to know that there are only two people who may have been abusing their power to sexually abuse others.

 Lankyman 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Perhaps this is his way of referring to the ongoing trial of Alex Salmond currently accused of various sexual assaults against women?

In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Grow up and name names. Being coy does not make you look cool or clever

Why on earth would you be aggressive? I was trying to do neither and it was perfectly obvious to whom I was referring.

Being an aggressive bully does not make you look cool or clever.  Remember that.

#bekind

10
 Rob Parsons 12 Mar 2020
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> His trial was fudged, he was only charged with a small proportion of his crimes and he was found not guilty of something he is plainly guilty of.

> For me this exposed how in the American justice system, despite overwhelming evidence a powerful man can still wield power and influence to minimise his punishments ...

This seems an absurd summary of what's just happened.

In what way was the trial 'fudged'? What are you suggesting 'he was found not guilty of' that 'he is plainly guilty of'? What do you know that the jury doesn't?

Post edited at 09:16
 Harry Jarvis 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> In what way was the trial 'fudged'?

It was fudged in that only a few of the accusations made against him were actually presented in court. There were over 90 documented accusations, but the court heard fewer than 10. The true scale of his actions has not been accurately reflected. 

 Rob Parsons 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> It was fudged in that only a few of the accusations made against him were actually presented in court. There were over 90 documented accusations, but the court heard fewer than 10. The true scale of his actions has not been accurately reflected. 


That's an equally absurd reaction. He can be retried in future on further counts (in fact, there is a suggestion that further trials might be held in LA), but charges are only finally brought to trial if the prosecution thinks there is a reasonable chance of obtaining a guilty verdict - which requires a good case, and good evidence. Bear in mind that, even of the '10' you refer to above, not all resulted in 'guilty.'

 Harry Jarvis 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Can I ask why you feel the need to be so aggressive in your comments? It seems a somewhat unnecessary reaction. I really don't know what point you are trying to make. 

5
 Rob Parsons 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

>  I really don't know what point you are trying to make. 

I think that both you and balmybaldwin are seriously misinformed here.

 Harry Jarvis 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> >  I really don't know what point you are trying to make. 

> I think that both you and balmybaldwin are seriously misinformed here.

About what? 

 Rob Parsons 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> About what? 


In exactly the way I have explained in my above posts.

 Harry Jarvis 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> In exactly the way I have explained in my above posts.

I'm still none the wiser. I'll leave you to it. 

 Blue Straggler 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I presume they are referring to Alex Salmond.

Thanks, clearly I was on the "dull my mind" pills last night. 

 Rob Parsons 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> I'm still none the wiser. I'll leave you to it. 

I'll try again. You wrote: "There were over 90 documented accusations, but the court heard fewer than 10. The true scale of his actions has not been accurately reflected."

That is a complete misunderstanding of both how the legal system works in practice, as well as its purpose. And yet you use that to describe the trial as 'fudged.'

2
 deepsoup 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Grow up and name names.

Bad idea.  Actually, while the trial is ongoing, discussing this even without naming names is a bad idea too.  For the time being it would be better to just keep your powder dry.

 Tringa 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Timmd:

I assume his legal team will soon say his medical condition has deteriorated rapidly or he has a previously undiagnosed serious medical condition and make a case for his early release, or transfer to somewhere more pleasant than prison.

I know things are different in the US compared to here but remember Ernest Saunders. He served 10 months of a five year sentence because he was suffering(so it was said) from Alzheimer's but after release made a full 'recovery'.

Dave 

 Harry Jarvis 12 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Bad idea.  Actually, while the trial is ongoing, discussing this even without naming names is a bad idea too.  For the time being it would be better to just keep your powder dry.

If you're referring to the trial of Alex Salmond, you might like to have a word with some of the Scottish press, who seem quite happy to report at considerable length:

https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/politics/scottish-politics/1188974/liv...

 deepsoup 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Why on earth would you be aggressive?

I read a post of Blue's on another thread in which he explained that he sees posting on here as a kind of game and enjoys walking a 'tightrope' of staying just the right side of being unacceptably arsey, for fun.

Quite why you wouldn't just respond to posts like you're talking to an actual person is a bit beyond me, but there you go.  I find his posts make more sense in that context.  I've met him in the real world btw, and he struck me as a much nicer guy than you might think from just reading UCK.

2
 deepsoup 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I think reporting on the trial and declaring that he's as guilty as Weinstein ("one down, one to go") may be two rather different things.  (The crucial difference being that one is journalism and the other is contempt of court.)

I couldn't read your link though (it seems to be paywalled) and I'm not a lawyer, so yeah, I may be wrong.  If the Courier are already saying he's guilty and they're not getting into legal bother about it then yep, you have me bang to rights.

 Oceanrower 12 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> I think reporting on the trial and declaring that he's as guilty as Weinstein ("one down, one to go") may be two rather different things.  (The crucial difference being that one is journalism and the other is contempt of court.)

I would gave thought that the "perhaps" covered that.

Much like "alleged" in Private Eye.

 Blue Straggler 12 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

I had watched a rather violent aggressive (and fun) movie last night (The Hunt, a surprising 8/10 for a daft b-movie) prior to posting on here, which might have affected my approach. But I didn't get why the OP didn't name Weinstein (somehow I didn't notice the link, mea culpa on that front).


I did (and still do) think that the tone of the OP was a bit infantile and inappropriate in its attempt to be clever and funny. 

13
 Blue Straggler 12 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

> Quite why you wouldn't just respond to posts like you're talking to an actual person is a bit beyond me

IRL I might have said "oh come on don't be coy, who are you on about?"

 mcdougal 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> IRL I might have said "oh come on don't be coy, who are you on about?" 

Maybe give it a whirl on here? 

 deepsoup 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Oceanrower:

> I would gave thought that the "perhaps" covered that.
> Much like "alleged" in Private Eye.

Again I'm not a lawyer, but I really don't think it works like that.

The "alleged" in Private Eye is a joke - they know full well it doesn't protect them from being sued, Private Eye have been sued a lot.

Ooh, straying off topic but just in case anyone hasn't seen it, this has to be one of the best responses ever written to a threatening letter from a solicitor.. 
Private Eye's reply to someone threatening legal action way back in 1971:
http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html

In reply to Blue Straggler:

> I had watched a rather violent aggressive (and fun) movie last night (The Hunt, a surprising 8/10 for a daft b-movie) prior to posting on here, which might have affected my approach. But I didn't get why the OP didn't name Weinstein (somehow I didn't notice the link, mea culpa on that front).

> I did (and still do) think that the tone of the OP was a bit infantile and inappropriate in its attempt to be clever and funny. 

Firstly (jesus, I dont know why I am explaining myself to someone I dont know on the internet who is, and it seems many agree here, being rude for no obvious reason) I was trying neither to be clever and funny.

I was simply pointing to the fact that a major news story concerning the (previsouly) most powerful person in Hollywood has created no comment on UKC.  The link to the trial was in the OP

I was also drawing parallels to the fact that by coincidence there was another similar trial by a similarly powerful person over here.  Which, I should add has had scant comment on UKC.

I also (as a non legal type) had a small thought on not mentioning names for reasons some have mentioned up-thread.

In the spirit of #bekind, your reaction was dismissive, patronising, condescending and belittling, all in a few words, which you still seek to justify amazingly by watching a mind altering film of all things.  It is this type of needless aggression which has no place on the internet, hiding behind the anonymity of a screen.  DeepSoup, to their credit, noticed you had been a dick and defended your real personality.  If you aren't a prat in real life, don't be a prat online.

Anyway, back on thread, Weinstein is now behind bars, which is a good thing.  It will be interesting to watch the SALMOND case to see whether similar abuses of power and sexual assault are indeed proven.

Post edited at 13:15
2
 Timmd 12 Mar 2020
In reply to Tringa:

Cosby claiming to be going blind didn't seem to help, which might be hopeful.  I came across a funny man saying 'Of course Weinstein is having raised heart rates and feeling it beating in his chest, he's just found out he's going to jail. Send him to jail, make him join the Bloods and put in work'. No sympathy.

Post edited at 13:12
1
 wercat 12 Mar 2020
In reply to deepsoup:

apart from the fact that becomes possible to allege that a fair trial cannot be held as the jury may have been influenced.  Wild open discussion/speculation/allegation can work in the defendant's interests   (note - defendant, not perpetrator)

Post edited at 13:15
 Blue Straggler 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> you still seek to justify amazingly by watching a mind altering film of all things. 

I didn't seek to justify anything. 

I've acknowledged a few aspects of my post, that's all. 

I believe you are exaggerating things (ironically enough given that 6 days ago you asked "Is it me or does it seem like we are making a little too much of a mountain from a mole  hill? " regarding Coronavirus/COVID-19).

It was a slightly pugnacious delivery of a fairly reasonable request. There was no bullying or belittling. 

Just draw a line under it and move on. There are more important things. This is my last comment on the "matter". 

Post edited at 13:18
10
 Timmd 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers: I sometimes find that not taking it personally (because they're strangers) and being quiet so that they don't engage in a continuing and disagreeable way, can be the easier approach. A problem with engaging with disagreeable people online, is that they can just keep coming back again, perhaps so that they don't feel like they've 'lost'.

Speaking generally, that is...

Post edited at 13:22
1
 aln 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> I was simply pointing to the fact that a major news story concerning the (previsouly) most powerful person in Hollywood has created no comment on UKC.

It has.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

> > you still seek to justify amazingly by watching a mind altering film of all things. 

> I didn't seek to justify anything. 

To DeepSoup 11:57 - "I had watched a rather violent aggressive (and fun) movie last night (The Hunt, a surprising 8/10 for a daft b-movie) prior to posting on here, which might have affected my approach"

> I've acknowledged a few aspects of my post, that's all. 

Acknowledged but not apologised.

> I believe you are exaggerating things (ironically enough given that 6 days ago you asked "Is it me or does it seem like we are making a little too much of a mountain from a mole  hill? " regarding Coronavirus/COVID-19).

Given the panic buying and hoarding of hand sanitisers and base goods, like pasta and bog roll, when for 99.99+% of the population life will go on I do think that a lot of the population are making more of this than necessary when simple handwashing and hygiene would be the right course of action to prevent infection. Nice little red herring though. 

> It was a slightly pugnacious delivery of a fairly reasonable request. There was no bullying or belittling. 

That's your opinion.  Trust me, I'm not a delicate sort, but your reaction was very patronising and sought to belittle me and my question.  These are the trait of a bully.

> Just draw a line under it and move on. There are more important things. This is my last comment on the "matter". 

The very fact you have told me to move on tells me that you dont consider anyone's feeling but your own.  Perhaps you should think about that and maybe the fact that I didnt move on and Ive called you out has made you feel a little awkward. 

Why don't we all consider the impact we have on others, maybe in the light of Caroline Flack.  There are more important things that's true, doesnt stop people being kind to one another.  Its time all needless bullying and trolling is stamped out.  It eats away at lives.

Anyway, good day to one and all.

4
 Mike Stretford 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Given the panic buying and hoarding of hand sanitisers and base goods, like pasta and bog roll, when for 99.99+% of the population life will go on I do think that a lot of the population are making more of this than necessary when simple handwashing and hygiene would be the right course of action to prevent infection.

Nope, we will need social distancing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/science/coronavirus-curve-mitigation-inf...

1
 DaveHK 12 Mar 2020
In reply to mcdougal:

> No it doesn't. It does however prevent him from being prosecuted for contempt of court,

How could what the op wrote about Alex Salmond  lead to him being prosecuted for contempt of court?

And if it could happen, how would merely omitting the name protect them when it's obvious to all who was meant?

Post edited at 15:16
1
 JLS 12 Mar 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

>"How could what the op wrote about Alex Salmond  lead to him being prosecuted for contempt of court?"

I thought he was referring to someone else.

Anyone have lunch in Pizza HUT today?

Edit: but it appears I obvously didn't read the full post...

Post edited at 15:38
 mcdougal 12 Mar 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

> How could what the op wrote about Alex Salmond  lead to him being prosecuted for contempt of court?

> And if it could happen, how would merely omitting the name protect them when it's obvious to all who was meant?

The OP didn't write anything about Alex Salmond. 

1
 DaveHK 12 Mar 2020
In reply to mcdougal:

> The OP didn't write anything about Alex Salmond. 

That's disingenuous at best. He didn't mention him but it's clear to everyone who he meant. 

You haven't answered my questions.

Post edited at 16:35
1
 Doghouse 12 Mar 2020

> Ooh, straying off topic but just in case anyone hasn't seen it, this has to be one of the best responses ever written to a threatening letter from a solicitor.. 

> Private Eye's reply to someone threatening legal action way back in 1971:http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html

Hahaha   brilliant!

Removed User 12 Mar 2020
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

As Salmond is a nationally recognised figure I had assumed his trial would be reported in some detail across the UK. Hasn't it?

Certainly to date the very full accounts of the complainants have a detail about them that adds credibility and are in line with the rumours that surrounded him. 

Compared to Weinstein though Salmond is in a junior League,  "only" being accused of sexual assault and attempted rape. The case is if course similar in that a powerful but ugly and unattractive man used his position to attempt to obtain sexual favours. The case is also similar to the Weinstein case in that others in his organisation knew of his behaviour but kept silent. It remains to be seen whether those who protected him include the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. If it is established that she did then it will be another reason why her tenure as First Minister will end.

If found guilty I find it difficult to imagine him receiving anything less than a custodial sentence. Either way he's finished as a figure in the public eye.

Post edited at 20:09
4
 mcdougal 12 Mar 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

> That's disingenuous at best. He didn't mention him but it's clear to everyone who he meant. 

> You haven't answered my questions. 

​​I'm not sure what's provoked you little fling at me but how on earth can a bald statement of fact be disingenuous? Have you actually read the thread or are you merely conforming to the tone that Blue Straggler set? 

Read the thread and then read up on the case law pertaining to commenting online about ongoing court cases.

 DaveHK 13 Mar 2020
In reply to mcdougal:

> ​​I'm not sure what's provoked you little fling at me but how on earth can a bald statement of fact be disingenuous? Have you actually read the thread or are you merely conforming to the tone that Blue Straggler set? 

I'm not sure what 'having a fling' means, I just asked you to explain your statement. I thought your response was disingenuous because it dodged the questions.

> Read the thread and then read up on the case law pertaining to commenting online about ongoing court cases.

I've read the thread and I don't see much that answers the questions I asked. I have a somewhat vague notion that discussing court cases in such a way as to prejudice the trial can lead to one being accused of contempt of court but I don't see the the OP's comments as a clear cut case of that or if it was how omitting the name would protect them. I'm unaware of any actual prosecutions relating to this kind of comment.

If you've got some specific knowledge of this that explains your view then why not just share that?

Post edited at 06:59
 Rob Parsons 13 Mar 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> ... in a junior League,  "only" being accused of sexual assault and attempted rape.

As a note: in Scotland, 'Attempted rape' is a very serious charge indeed, and would generally attract a long prison sentence if proven. (The average length of sentences for both 'Rape' and 'Attempted rape' are second only to those for 'Murder', I believe.) A lesser charge is 'Assault with intent to rape.'

 Harry Jarvis 13 Mar 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> The case is also similar to the Weinstein case in that others in his organisation knew of his behaviour but kept silent. It remains to be seen whether those who protected him include the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon. If it is established that she did then it will be another reason why her tenure as First Minister will end.

According to witness statements given in court yesterday, Salmond's behaviour led to a ban on female civil servants working alone with Salmond. If true, it would be interesting to know if the same restriction applied to female MSPs. 

 MG 13 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> According to witness statements given in court yesterday, Salmond's behaviour led to a ban on female civil servants working alone with Salmond.

I found that an amazing situation.  I'm trying to imagine something similar being implemented in any other work place - "X is so dangerous, you can't be with him out of hours, but we will still employ him".  I can't see it.

 Harry Jarvis 13 Mar 2020
In reply to MG:

Indeed, but remember the time and the context - in the run up to the 2014 referendum, there was a great deal at stake, and rocking the boat at that point could have been very damaging to a career. It will be interesting to see if the claim is corroborated. 

 mcdougal 13 Mar 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

I pointed out that your first question was based on a faulty premise. This wasn't good enough for you so you accused me of being disingenuous and later claimed to have read the thread. I imagine that sometime soon you'll read it again and realise that the OP didn't mention any names. He simply led us to join the dots. This we did - we guessed that the first person he referred to was Harvey Weinstein and some people have surmised the name of the second.

> I have a somewhat vague notion that discussing court cases in such a way as to prejudice the trial can lead to one being accused of contempt of court

Unless legally trained many people have the same vague notion. Can you make the mental leap to see that this applies to the OP too and it's probably the reason for the ambiguities in his post?  

The first reply to the OP used a characteristically snide tone to suggest that the OP declined to name names in order to look "cool or clever". The only reason I'm involved in this thread is because I took exception to this and pointed out that the OP probably declined to name anyone in order to avoid any danger of being prosecuted for contempt of court.

> If you've got some specific knowledge of this that explains your view then why not just share that?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/49/contents

Googled that for you. Hope that helps.

 DaveHK 13 Mar 2020
In reply to mcdougal:

Thanks for replying. I'm sorry if my questions or follow up annoyed you.

This is all needlessly confrontational and unpleasant so I'll just leave it at that.

Have a nice weekend.

Post edited at 16:45
Removed User 13 Mar 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Is it the case that all the charges relate to the period immediately prior to the independence referendum?

I'd be surprised If they did.

 Rob Parsons 13 Mar 2020
In reply to Removed User:

> Is it the case that all the charges relate to the period immediately prior to the independence referendum?

The charges relate to alleged incidents in the period 2008 to 2014.

 mcdougal 13 Mar 2020
In reply to DaveHK:

To you too. Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stic , I'm going to blame the extended winter for my thin skinned over-prickliness. 


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...