Bob Dylan is being sued for historical sexual abuse.

Shades of the Cliff Richards debacle here. An unknown accuser is claiming they were  sexually abused by a famous person decades ago.

Dylan's accuser, known only as JC,  claims the abuse happened  56 years ago in 1965. She was 12, he was 24. She is now 68 years old, he is 80 years old.

He obviously vehemently denies this, probably has no knowledge of who is making the accusation, yet whilst the accuser remains incognito, Dylan's name, is now  all over the news for all the wrong reasons.

Is this fair?



https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/15888746/bob-dylan-news-abuse-1965-victim-latest/

Well, I think that alleged rape victims, particularly when they are juveniles at the time, get of be anonymous in the filing papers. I don't know New York law, and its changed with the suspension of the statute of limitations, but that's my guess. Apparently, she filed on the last day.

He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid.

IF he is guilty, how could it be possible to get a Non-disclosure agreement if you are raping a 12 year old?

Syl wrote:IF he is guilty, how could it be possible to get a Non-disclosure agreement if you are raping a 12 year old?

Because she's an adult now. Trump has his lawyers come in after the fact and negotiate a price, with draconian measures if the woman ever discloses. The draconian measures apply even if she testifies, so it's a strong dissuasion.

What sort of 'draconian measures'....and what kind of legal system would ever condone that?

Syl wrote:What sort of 'draconian measures'....and what kind of legal system would ever condone that?

Say you give the young woman (what Stormy Daniels got) $130,000.  In return, you get a promise not to disclose, on pain of paying, say, $10-million.  Who is going to disclose anything if it obligates them to pay $10-million?

The $10-million penalty is draconian, but that is the point.  You don't want any disclosure.

What kind of legal system would condone that?  Any kind that believes in the freedom to contract.  It is a contract, after all, freely and willingly entered into.  If courts of any country were to start messing with the freedom to contract, they would find their commercial enterprises taking a huge nose-dive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels%E2%80%93Donald_Trump_scandal

But if the contract is made with a minor, how could it ever be upheld?

Syl wrote:But if the contract is made with a minor, how could it ever be upheld?

A contract shouldn't, and wouldn't be made with a minor.  A minor cannot contract.

As it's reported on the Internet, Trump had one liaison with a minor (that we know of) associated with Jeffery Epstein, and he entered into the NDA only after suit was filed.  By then the minor was of majority age, and could contract.

Syl wrote:Shades of the Cliff Richards debacle here. An unknown accuser is claiming they were  sexually abused by a famous person decades ago.

Dylan's accuser, known only as JC,  claims the abuse happened  56 years ago in 1965. She was 12, he was 24. She is now 68 years old,  he is 80 years old.

He obviously vehemently denies this, probably has no knowledge of who is making the accusation, yet whilst the accuser remains incognito, Dylan's name, is now  all over the news for all the wrong reasons.

Is this fair?



https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/15888746/bob-dylan-news-abuse-1965-victim-latest/

I don't see how this suit goes anywhere at this point.

It looks like a shakedown.

Way too much time has elapsed. All this does is cast doubt on future women accusing other powerful men.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:But if the contract is made with a minor, how could it ever be upheld?

A contract shouldn't, and wouldn't be made with a minor.  A minor cannot contract.

As it's reported on the Internet, Trump had one liaison with a minor (that we know of) associated with Jeffery Epstein, and he entered into the NDA only after suit was filed.  By then the minor was of majority age, and could contract.

But Dylan isn't Trump.

So the allegation is he manipulated and had sex with a 12 year old 56 years ago. Obviously, no contract was signed.
There is no suggestion that Dylan, even if he has ever met this woman when she was underage, had ever been in touch with her after she reached the age of consent.

So the none disclosure argument is pointless.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A contract shouldn't, and wouldn't be made with a minor.  A minor cannot contract.

As it's reported on the Internet, Trump had one liaison with a minor (that we know of) associated with Jeffery Epstein, and he entered into the NDA only after suit was filed.  By then the minor was of majority age, and could contract.

But Dylan isn't Trump.

So the allegation is he manipulated and had sex with a 12 year old 56 years ago. Obviously, no contract was signed.  
There is no suggestion that Dylan, even if he has ever met this woman when she was underage, had ever been in touch with her after she reached the age of consent.

So the none disclosure argument is pointless.

He's a broken fucking record.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Shades of the Cliff Richards debacle here. An unknown accuser is claiming they were  sexually abused by a famous person decades ago.

Dylan's accuser, known only as JC,  claims the abuse happened  56 years ago in 1965. She was 12, he was 24. She is now 68 years old,  he is 80 years old.

He obviously vehemently denies this, probably has no knowledge of who is making the accusation, yet whilst the accuser remains incognito, Dylan's name, is now  all over the news for all the wrong reasons.

Is this fair?



https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/15888746/bob-dylan-news-abuse-1965-victim-latest/

I don't see how this suit goes anywhere at this point.

It looks like a shakedown.  

Way too much time has elapsed. All this does is cast doubt on future women accusing other powerful men.  

It sounds very suspicious, why wait all this time, especially as she claims she has been left "emotionally scarred and psychologically damaged to this day.”
She also left it to the very last day where she could lodge a claim. It sounds very contrived.

WHAT IS THE NEW LAW WHICH ENABLED THE LAWSUIT?

The New York Child Victims Act was signed into law by now resigned Governor Andrew Cuomo in February 2019.

It was designed to give justice to the victims of historical child sex abuse a chance to seek justice in civil courts for crimes committed against them.

The law originally allowed a one-year window for all adult victims to come forward with a claim regardless of how time has passed. Typically in U.S. law there is a statute of limitations to bring any kind of lawsuit against an alleged perpetrator.

It led to a surge in claims and the New York government extended the claim window until last Friday.

It is easier to bring a claim in a civil court after a lot of time has past when there is little physical evidence. In criminal proceedings a claim has to be proven “beyond reasonable doubt” but in a civil case it has to be “on the balance of probabilities”.

The statute of limitations was lifted for these kinds of cases (sexual assault and sex with minors), and that includes the Catholic Church, as a result of an up-swelling of sentiment that women were foreclosed from their rights. There is the question, in itself, of whether that is legal. Then there is the obvious evidentiary questions: recollection, percipient capabilities, etc.

All lawsuits are a shakedown to the extent that they ask for monetary damages. Obviously, you cannot undo a rape.

Original Quill wrote:The statute of limitations was lifted for these kinds of cases (sexual assault and sex with minors), and that includes the Catholic Church, as a result of an up-swelling of sentiment that women were foreclosed from their rights.  There is the question, in itself, of whether that is legal.  Then there is the obvious evidentiary questions: recollection, percipient capabilities, etc.

All lawsuits are a shakedown to the extent that they ask for monetary damages.  Obviously, you cannot undo a rape.

No, and you can't undo the damage to an innocent mans reputation, not to mention his mental state, when an accusation like this is made.,,,especially historically.
Even if he is never even charged, there will always be a stigma attached, just as there was in the Cliff Richards case here, though you may not be aware of that.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The statute of limitations was lifted for these kinds of cases (sexual assault and sex with minors), and that includes the Catholic Church, as a result of an up-swelling of sentiment that women were foreclosed from their rights.  There is the question, in itself, of whether that is legal.  Then there is the obvious evidentiary questions: recollection, percipient capabilities, etc.

All lawsuits are a shakedown to the extent that they ask for monetary damages.  Obviously, you cannot undo a rape.

No, and you can't undo the damage to an innocent mans reputation, not to mention his mental state, when an accusation like this is made.,,,especially historically.
Even if he is never even charged, there will always be a stigma attached, just as there was in the Cliff Richards case here, though you may not be aware of that.

That's what happens when you start a rumor...or, as in this case, a lawsuit.  Rule 11, F.R.Civ.P. puts the onus on any lawyer to make sure that any claim brought is at least valid.  The party will face attorneys fees and costs, at least, and could be tagged with sanctions as well.

https://www.bassberrygovcontrade.com/relators-beware-sanctions-upheld-for-vexatious-false-claims-act-suit/

Even a former president's lawyers have just found out that they can be sanctioned for bringing frivolous lawsuits to try and stay the election results:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2021/08/04/pro-trump-attorneys-sanctioned-in-colorado-over-election-lawsuit---one-enormous-conspiracy-theory-judge-fumes/?sh=13045a5a7581

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/04/judge-sanctions-lawyers-2020-lawsut-502449

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judge-blasts-ex-trump-lawyer-sidney-powell-over-lawsuit-overturn-us-election-2021-07-12/

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/federal-judge-sanctions-lawyers-brought-162535750.html

Rudy Giuliani even faces loss of his license.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/24/nyregion/giuliani-law-license-suspended-trump.html

The cases you quote above are all fairly recent. I should think it's a lot easier gathering evidence for or against when it's fresh.

In these historic sexual abuse cases, it's a whole different thing....there is usually no proof, it's more who a judge or jury believe.
It's reported Cliff Richards spent over 4 million pounds clearing his name when he was accused.....and the man who accused him was never even named.
After a 2 year police enquiry, whilst his name was publicly dragged through the mud, the CPS decided they would bring no.charges.
He has said publicly it almost ruined his life and he will never get over it.

Hiya, syl. i remember Cliff Richard debacle. It was horrible. I thought it was some kind of media lie/set up. didn;t he get a massive compo payout from them? not that any amount of money can undo the damage that causes to an innocent person.

i'm with you

Syl wrote:The cases you quote above are all fairly recent. I should think it's a lot easier gathering evidence for or against when it's fresh.

In these historic sexual abuse cases, it's a whole different thing....there is usually no proof, it's more who a judge or jury believe.
It's reported Cliff Richards spent over 4 million pounds clearing his name when he was accused.....and the man who accused him was never even named.
After a 2 year police enquiry, whilst his name was publicly dragged through the mud, the CPS decided they would bring no.charges.
He has said publicly it almost ruined his life and he will never get over it.

Well, we'll see if the plaintiffs can bring forth sufficient evidence after this much time.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The cases you quote above are all fairly recent. I should think it's a lot easier gathering evidence for or against when it's fresh.

In these historic sexual abuse cases, it's a whole different thing....there is usually no proof, it's more who a judge or jury believe.
It's reported Cliff Richards spent over 4 million pounds clearing his name when he was accused.....and the man who accused him was never even named.
After a 2 year police enquiry, whilst his name was publicly dragged through the mud, the CPS decided they would bring no.charges.
He has said publicly it almost ruined his life and he will never get over it.

Well, we'll see if the plaintiffs can bring forth sufficient evidence after this much time.

Yes, but in the meantime, whether evidence is brought forwards or not, the accused ones name is forever associated with child rape.... when people are named before they are found guilty, that's inevitable.

Also, in this sort of historic alleged crime, very often there is no actual proof. It's just a matter of who tells the most convincing story.

gelico wrote:Hiya, syl.  i remember Cliff Richard debacle.  It was horrible.  I thought it was some kind of  media lie/set up.  didn;t he get a massive compo payout from them?  not that any amount of money can undo the damage that causes to an innocent person.

i'm with you

Hi Gels, x

Cliff sued both the BBC and Yorkshire police for the way they had handled this. He eventually did get a huge payout from the BBC who also eventually paid some towards his legal costs, Yorkshire police also had to pay compensation.
Cliff said he was still 'substantially out of pocket'. But as he has said all along, it wasn't about the money, it was about his life in tatters and his reputation in ruins  after generations of trying to be a good person.  
He even lost his home, he could never go back to it because he had seen, live on the BBC, (big scoop for them after Yorkshire police had tipped them off) his home being invaded and searched......and this was the first he knew about it. He said he will never get over that.

All that and he never even knew the man who had made the allegation in the first place. The case never made it to court because there was not enough evidence, probably no actual evidence, it was a farce from the start.

I don't know what sort of life Dylan has led, but this case, an unknown accuser surfacing 50 odd years after the alleged offence has taken place, just seems so similar.

Syl wrote:

gelico wrote:Hiya, syl.  i remember Cliff Richard debacle.  It was horrible.  I thought it was some kind of  media lie/set up.  didn;t he get a massive compo payout from them?  not that any amount of money can undo the damage that causes to an innocent person.

i'm with you

Hi Gels, x

Cliff sued both the BBC and Yorkshire police for the way they had handled this. He eventually did get a huge payout from the BBC who also eventually paid some towards his legal costs, Yorkshire police also had to pay compensation.
Cliff said he was still 'substantially out of pocket'. But as he has said all along, it wasn't about the money, it was about his life in tatters and his reputation in ruins  after generations of trying to be a good person.  
He even lost his home, he could never go back to it because he had seen, live on the BBC, (big scoop for them after Yorkshire police had tipped them off) his home being invaded and searched......and this was the first he knew about it. He said he will never get over that.

yes, that's what i mean syl. i get that he didn't give a stuff about the money side of things, he has no need to care about money after all, but even if he wasn't substantially out of pocket, even if he had ended up being several million better off out of the whole affair, so what. it doesn't help in any way to alleviate the horror and psycholigical and emotional trauma of what happened to him and the fact that to this day no one knows who made the accusation is a travesty.

and for what? sensationalism? a story? money obviously. we live in a very sick society

the good thing for CLiff was the amount of people prepared to stand by him and say what utter nonsense it was. He must have found that a blessing during the dark times

His music sucks.

gelico wrote:

Syl wrote:

Hi Gels, x

Cliff sued both the BBC and Yorkshire police for the way they had handled this. He eventually did get a huge payout from the BBC who also eventually paid some towards his legal costs, Yorkshire police also had to pay compensation.
Cliff said he was still 'substantially out of pocket'. But as he has said all along, it wasn't about the money, it was about his life in tatters and his reputation in ruins  after generations of trying to be a good person.  
He even lost his home, he could never go back to it because he had seen, live on the BBC, (big scoop for them after Yorkshire police had tipped them off) his home being invaded and searched......and this was the first he knew about it. He said he will never get over that.

yes, that's what i mean syl.  i get that he didn't give a stuff about the money side of things, he has no need to care about money after all, but even if he wasn't substantially out of pocket, even if he had ended up being several million better off out of the whole affair, so what.  it doesn't help in any way to alleviate the horror and psycholigical and emotional trauma of what happened to him and the fact that to this day no one knows who made the accusation is a travesty.

and for what?  sensationalism?  a story?  money obviously.  we live in a very sick society

the good thing for CLiff was the amount of people prepared to stand by him and say what utter nonsense it was.  He must have found that a blessing during the dark times

Exactly all that Gels, he looked really ill for a long time, he must have lost stones in weight, and he went from the so called 'Peter Pan' of pop music to a beaten old man, it was really sad to see.

All that over an anonymous man, who was said to have tried to blackmail and threaten Cliff previously, yet still the police and media deemed it right to play it all out in the public eye...all before Cliff was aware of what was happening, it was a disgrace.

Bob Dylan is 80, this alleged 'event' he is accused of happened when he was 24. If it's genuine, why has the person waited till now to ever speak of it?
I know sometimes sexual abuse can traumatise a person for a long time, but this seems just too convenient to me.

HoratioTarr wrote:His music sucks.  

hahahhahahaha very true

but you can't justify a police raid on your home under the media spotlight just for producing sucky music


that concept sucks

HoratioTarr wrote:His music sucks.  

Cliff can sing OK...Bob Dylan can't hold a note, but he has written some good stuff.
Granted, they often sound better when someone else sings them.

I think he's better known as a song writer than a singer.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Well, we'll see if the plaintiffs can bring forth sufficient evidence after this much time.

Yes, but in the meantime, whether evidence is brought forwards or not, the accused ones name is forever associated with child rape.... when people are named before they are found guilty, that's inevitable.

That's what trials are for. If he wins, he'll be vindicated. If she wins...well...then he deserves the reputation.

Syl wrote:Also, in this sort of historic alleged crime, very often there is no actual proof. It's just a matter of who tells the most convincing story.

How much better is it now that we have cell phones and cameras that record events as they happen. It's ridding trials of all that guess work.

gelico wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:His music sucks.  

hahahhahahaha very true

but you can't justify a police raid on your home under the media spotlight just for producing sucky music


that concept sucks

I suppose a good thrashing with nettles wouldn't get a tune out of him either.

My idea of hell is a duet by Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen. The only thing worse being a full album of Pan pipes.

I really don’t see how this can ever be proven? It was fifty six years ago! Why has she come forward now and how would a prosecutor go about gathering enough viable evidence to build a case after all these long years?

I'm trying to imagine someone who's been seething about being raped but has kept schtum for 56 years, and ... utterly failing.

I'm also trying to imagine someone who met someone famous 56 years ago and realised recently that the opportunity to cash in on that encounter was about to expire. I find my imagination has a much easier time with that scenario.

I may be wrong, but given the information we have here, I smell bullshit.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes, but in the meantime, whether evidence is brought forwards or not, the accused ones name is forever associated with child rape.... when people are named before they are found guilty, that's inevitable.

That's what trials are for.  If he wins, he'll be vindicated.  If she wins...well...then he deserves the reputation.

Syl wrote:Also, in this sort of historic alleged crime, very often there is no actual proof. It's just a matter of who tells the most convincing story.

How much better is it now that we have cell phones and cameras that record events as they happen.  It's ridding trials of all that guess work.

Yes, in future cases, like you say, with phones and cameras being so available, actual evidence may be more available.

The problem as it stands now, when someone is accused of historic abuse, given the press interest, their reputation is mud by the time any trial starts, no matter what the outcome is, damage is done.

HoratioTarr wrote:His music sucks.  

One of my favorite songs.

The vid doesn't show, what is it?

Syl wrote:The vid doesn't show, what is it?

https://youtu.be/keWPBvFQWXQ

The Girl from the North Country with Johnny Cash..

Got it. Thats a lesser known one here.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's what trials are for. If he wins, he'll be vindicated. If she wins...well...then he deserves the reputation.



How much better is it now that we have cell phones and cameras that record events as they happen. It's ridding trials of all that guess work.

Yes, in future cases, like you say, with phones and cameras being so available, actual evidence may be more available.

The problem as it stands now, when someone is accused of historic abuse, given the press interest, their reputation is mud by the time any trial starts, no matter what the outcome is, damage is done.

Anyone's name is called into question by some, if they are accused of rape. What you are saying about ancient evidence goes to the strength of the case, and how solid the case is in the jury's eyes. If the evidence is weak, there is greater likelihood that the jury will acquit.

You do raise an interesting question - do you think that rape should not be a stand-alone crime? Some say that, but for the fact that it has to do with modesty and sex, it's no more than a simple assault and should be charged accordingly.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Yes, in future cases, like you say, with phones and cameras being so available, actual evidence may be more available.

The problem as it stands now, when someone is accused of historic abuse, given the press interest, their reputation is mud by the time any trial starts, no matter what the outcome is, damage is done.

Anyone's name is called into question by some, if they are accused of rape.  What you are saying about ancient evidence goes to the strength of the case, and how solid the case is in the jury's eyes.  If the evidence is weak, there is greater likelihood that the jury will acquit.

You do raise an interesting question - do you think that rape should not be a stand-alone crime?  Some say that, but for the fact that it has to do with modesty and sex, it's no more than a simple assault and should be charged accordingly.

Rape is far more than a simple assault. Apart from taking life or child abuse,I can't actually think of a worse crime.

What I think should be addressed by law is the naming of people who have not even been charged with a crime, must less found guilty.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Anyone's name is called into question by some, if they are accused of rape.  What you are saying about ancient evidence goes to the strength of the case, and how solid the case is in the jury's eyes.  If the evidence is weak, there is greater likelihood that the jury will acquit.

You do raise an interesting question - do you think that rape should not be a stand-alone crime?  Some say that, but for the fact that it has to do with modesty and sex, it's no more than a simple assault and should be charged accordingly.

Rape is far more than a simple assault. Apart from taking  life or child abuse,I can't actually think of a worse crime.

What I think should be addressed by law is the naming of people who have not even been charged with a crime, must less found guilty.

I agree with you on the severity of rape. But as to "naming of people...charged", the US is an open society, and all legal proceedings must be transparent and observable. No Star Chambers.

Unfortunately, that means publishing the facts, including the names of accusers and defendants. The standard is "innocent until proven guilty", as any red blooded American knows. Of course, anyone can twist the logic of the question - where there's smoke there's fire - but the answer to that is to shout that person down. Simply put, that is unAmerican.

It's very American to sue for vast sums of money, which to me seems to be ....considering Dylan is worth around $200 million, a possible way of garnishing this 68 year old womans retirement nest egg.

Syl wrote:It's very American to sue for vast sums of money, which to me seems to be ....considering Dylan is worth around $200 million, a possible way of garnishing this 68 year old womans  retirement nest egg.

You are prejudging. There hasn't been a trial, where each side will have a chance to present evidence. Right now, it's just as likely a story that a young man took advantage of a 12-year old girl to have some fun...Boys will be Boys.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:It's very American to sue for vast sums of money, which to me seems to be ....considering Dylan is worth around $200 million, a possible way of garnishing this 68 year old womans  retirement nest egg.

You are prejudging.  There hasn't been a trial, where each side will have a chance to present evidence.  Right now, it's just as likely a story that a young man took advantage of a 12-year old girl to have some fun...Boys will be Boys.  

Wel IF anything took place 56 years ago, a 24 year old man having sex with a 12 year old isn't 'boys being boys'....it's a paedophile raping a child.

As for evidence, if any existed, I imagine that went cold decades ago.

Like I said, in cases this old, it's whoever tells the best story.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are prejudging.  There hasn't been a trial, where each side will have a chance to present evidence.  Right now, it's just as likely a story that a young man took advantage of a 12-year old girl to have some fun...Boys will be Boys.  

Wel IF anything took place 56 years ago, a 24 year old man having sex with  a 12 year old isn't 'boys being boys'....it's a paedophile raping a child.

I agree.

Syl wrote:As for evidence, if any existed, I imagine that went cold decades ago.

Like I said, in cases this old, it's whoever tells the best story.

Do you know what evidence exists? I don't.

Don't be too quick to pre-judge the case. Wait and see. There may be admissions...in a letter, or on an audiotape. You never know. Hear it out.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Wel IF anything took place 56 years ago, a 24 year old man having sex with  a 12 year old isn't 'boys being boys'....it's a paedophile raping a child.

I agree.

Syl wrote:As for evidence, if any existed, I imagine that went cold decades ago.

Like I said, in cases this old, it's whoever tells the best story.

Do you know what evidence exists?  I don't.

Don't be too quick to pre-judge the case.  Wait and see.  There may be admissions...in a letter, or on an audiotape.  You never know.  Hear it out.

It just sounds suspicious to me.
You are right though, we dont know, the result will be interesting.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:It's very American to sue for vast sums of money, which to me seems to be ....considering Dylan is worth around $200 million, a possible way of garnishing this 68 year old womans  retirement nest egg.

You are prejudging.  There hasn't been a trial, where each side will have a chance to present evidence.  Right now, it's just as likely a story that a young man took advantage of a 12-year old girl to have some fun...Boys will be Boys.  

A 24 year old man is not a boy.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:It's very American to sue for vast sums of money, which to me seems to be ....considering Dylan is worth around $200 million, a possible way of garnishing this 68 year old womans  retirement nest egg.

You are prejudging.  There hasn't been a trial, where each side will have a chance to present evidence.  Right now, it's just as likely a story that a young man took advantage of a 12-year old girl to have some fun...Boys will be Boys.  

.Boys will be Boys.  

Paedophiles are paedophiles

corrected it for you, quill

you sound very light hearted about a bloke in his twenties going for a 12 year old, like it's kinda normal

it really isn't

HoratioTarr wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are prejudging.  There hasn't been a trial, where each side will have a chance to present evidence.  Right now, it's just as likely a story that a young man took advantage of a 12-year old girl to have some fun...Boys will be Boys.  

A 24 year old man is not a boy.  

I was facetiously parroting the other side, and what they would argue.  Remember...I'm the one arguing that he should be prosecuted.

Do you argue that Dylan is the victim?

Original Quill wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

A 24 year old man is not a boy.  

I was facetiously parroting the other side, and what they would argue.  Remember...I'm the one arguing that he should be prosecuted.

Do you argue that Dylan is the victim?

What other side?
No one has even remotely suggested that a rape of a 12 year old by a grown man is not the act of a paedophile.

What has been put forwards is that after 56 years, and on the very last day this woman could sue, suddenly she comes forwards to claim monetary damages.

Quill...you also said something else in this thread , quite controversial I thought.
Not sure about you but I have never heard anyone ever claim that rape is 'no more than a simple assault'.
You wrote.....

"do you think that rape should not be a stand-alone crime? Some say that, but for the fact that it has to do with modesty and sex, it's no more than a simple assault and should be charged accordingly."

What is your own opinion on this?

Syl wrote:Quill...you also said something else in this thread , quite controversial I thought.
Not sure about you but I have never heard anyone ever claim that rape is 'no more than a simple assault'.
You wrote.....

"do you think that rape should not be a stand-alone crime? Some say that, but for the fact that it has to do with modesty and sex, it's no more than a simple assault and should be charged accordingly."

What is your own opinion on this?

I'll butt in here with this. Firstly, rape isn't just about sex and modesty as we all know. It's invasive. Humiliating. Life changing. Damaging. Horrific. You can be infected by it, made sterile by it, killed by it. I think it's one of the most heinous crimes there is and should carry a very very harsh sentence. Only today I read that a man has been raped in the UK. By two men.