Bob Dylan is being sued for historical sexual abuse.

First topic message reminder :

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/

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

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?

I'm in favor of trying a rapist for rape, as long as there is any evidence. Leave it to a jury.

Syl wrote: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.

So, it's a cold case. Are you saying that cold cases should not be tried? As long as it's within the statute of limitations (SOL), it's legally permissible. The Legislature undoubtedly took into account the age of the evidence, as well as memories and perception, when they set the SOL. The standard of evidence is more probable than not...so, let the trial begin.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

What other side?

I'm in favor of trying a rapist for rape, as long as there is any evidence.  Leave it to a jury.

Syl wrote: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.

So, it's a cold case.  Are you saying that cold cases should not be tried?  As long as it's within the statute of limitations (SOL), it's legally permissible.  The Legislature undoubtedly took into account the age of the evidence, as well as memories and perception, when they set the SOL.  The standard of evidence is more probable than not...so, let the trial begin.

Your law is different to ours, no better though, that's for sure.

In the similar case here I mentioned, after a 2 year police investigation, where the accused was pulled to shreds by the media, the CPS then decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute so no case to answer.
Two years of hell for nothing.

HoratioTarr wrote:

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.

You are not butting in, it will be interesting to see if Quill does answer.
I agree with everything you say...rape certainly is a heinous crime.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I'm in favor of trying a rapist for rape, as long as there is any evidence.  Leave it to a jury.



So, it's a cold case.  Are you saying that cold cases should not be tried?  As long as it's within the statute of limitations (SOL), it's legally permissible.  The Legislature undoubtedly took into account the age of the evidence, as well as memories and perception, when they set the SOL.  The standard of evidence is more probable than not...so, let the trial begin.

Your law is different to ours, no better though, that's for sure.

In the similar case here I mentioned, after a 2 year police investigation, where the accused was pulled to shreds by the media, the CPS then decided there was not enough evidence to prosecute so no case to answer.
Two years of hell for nothing.

Sufficient evidence?  That's the one thing you must have in order to prosecute.

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 think it's absurd.  But it was expressed to me, among others, by a law enforcement officer, so it's not so far out of mainstream opinion.  I think, like HT, it's a crime that is invasive, humiliating, damaging and life-changing, so it's a unique crime and not just any old assault.

But you seemed so sympathetic to an alleged rapist, that I had to ask where you were coming from.

Original Quill wrote:

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 think it's absurd.  But it was expressed to me, among others, by a law enforcement officer, so it's not so far out of mainstream opinion.  I think, like HT, it's a crime that is invasive, humiliating, damaging and life-changing, so it's a unique crime and not just any old assault.

But you seemed so sympathetic to an alleged rapist, that I had to ask where you were coming from.

I think I have made it abundantly clear where I am coming from Quill.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think it's absurd.  But it was expressed to me, among others, by a law enforcement officer, so it's not so far out of mainstream opinion.  I think, like HT, it's a crime that is invasive, humiliating, damaging and life-changing, so it's a unique crime and not just any old assault.

But you seemed so sympathetic to an alleged rapist, that I had to ask where you were coming from.

I think I have made it abundantly clear where I am coming from Quill.

Until I asked the question, you hadn't at all made that clear.  Frankly, I was rather surprise to see you siding with an alleged rapist in your OP.  Early on - much earlier than your ‘abundant clarity’ – I had to ask you to clarify your position.

I was as tactful, and exculpating as I could be, but I was surprised at your position:

Original Quill wrote: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.

This is my opinion ....I posted this previously and nothing has changed my mind since.

'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.'


And it is't siding with an alleged rapist to feel suspicion in the way the allegation has been made.

Syl wrote:This is my opinion ....I posted this previously and nothing has changed my mind since.

'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.'


And it is't siding with an alleged rapist to feel suspicion in the way the allegation has been made.

You started this thread intimating a different opinion - seemingly prejudging, caring more for Bob Dylan than for the alleged victim.  I asked you THE QUESTION directly, to give you an opening to clarify.  You have responded and I think it is the right answer.

The legal process provides the solution.  If Dylan is acquitted, he'll be absolved.  If it leaves a mark merely because he is accused, the stink is on those who buy into that theory.  The standard is innocent until proven guilty.  I don't even try to account for prejudiced people.

I started the thread by asking a question, which was, is it fair that someone may be publicly accused of a heinous crime that happened decades ago, when the accused has no notion of who the accuser is.
I also cited a similar case here, where the accused suffered 2 years of hell.

My opinion hasn't changed throughout the thread....yours seems to have done though.
Read back at a couple of remarks you have made.

Syl wrote:I started the thread by asking a question, which was, is it fair that someone may be publicly accused of a heinous crime that happened decades ago, when the accused has no notion of who the accuser is.
I also cited a similar case here, where the accused suffered 2 years of hell.

My opinion hasn't changed throughout the thread....yours seems to have done though.
Read back at a couple of remarks you have made.

The problem with that question is, it could be asked about anyone - is it fair that [name the person] might be publicly accused of a heinous crime?  If not, you're either against criminal law in general, or you have a favorite that you don't like being sued.

My position is unchanged: the law will find [name the person] guilty or innocent, and that will either absolve, or  find the person responsible.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I started the thread by asking a question, which was, is it fair that someone may be publicly accused of a heinous crime that happened decades ago, when the accused has no notion of who the accuser is.
I also cited a similar case here, where the accused suffered 2 years of hell.

My opinion hasn't changed throughout the thread....yours seems to have done though.
Read back at a couple of remarks you have made.

The problem with that question is, it could be asked about anyone - is it fair that [name the person] might be publicly accused of a heinous crime?  If not, you're either against criminal law in general, or you have a favorite that you don't like being sued.

My position is unchanged: the law will find [name the person] guilty or innocent, and that will either absolve, or  find the person responsible.

Sometimes the law finds no case to answer, or not enough evidence to pursue, or the accuser retracts their accusation, I'm sure you being a lawyer have found this to be true numerous times.
However, the named person is still left with all the trauma of having their name publicly dragged through the mud from beginning to end.

Perhaps a law should be introduced that in these historic cases when someone pops up out of the woodwork after decades to make accusations....NO person be named in the press, not until they actually go to court, when at least both sides of the story will be heard before a judgment is made.

Quill, you wrote this post earlier in the thread....

"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. "

Myself, then Gels, then HT challenged it, you didn't bother to address it again.
Any comment now?

Syl wrote:Quill, you wrote this post earlier in the thread....

"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. "

Myself, then Gels, then HT challenged it, you didn't bother to address it again.
Any comment now?

What I wrote, as an attorney, is consistent with legal procedure all along. It's the mantra of Anglo-American law. The word "prejudice" is derived from "pre" and "justice", and means making a decision prior to, and without due process of law. That’s what you are doing in siding with an alleged rapist, no?

I said: you are pre...judging, or going forward without due process of law. Then I pointed out, due process of law requires a trial before deciding, and you are making decisions prior to trial. That’s against due process.

I then pointed out that I had a different initial perception. Dylan - contrary to your perception of an innocent person who is unfairly taken advantage of - fits the stereotype of a young man taking advantage of an under-aged female, in the vulgar spirit of "boys will be boys". It's criminal thinking, and he should be punished for it, but you are trying to absolve him.

You are the one echoing the spirit of ‘boys will be boys’. You try to absolve Dylan, an accused criminal, without a hearing or punishment. That is ‘pre’-‘justice’ in the eyes of the law. You are saying boys, as Dylan was when he allegedly raped this girl - should get off without penance. Your position in untenable in the eyes of Anglo-American law.

That sounds like a load of back peddling to me.

You just don't know how to read. It's called, taking out of context.

Read the context: I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'. Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'? Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position?? Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

Original Quill wrote:You just don't know how to read.  It's called, taking out of context.  

Read the context:  I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'.  Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'?  Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position??  Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

I don't know how you can equate anything I have said to agreeing that 'Boys will be boys'....honestly Quill, you would either be sued yourself or laughed out of any court in the UK if you made such outlandish statements.

You actually started off in this thread by saying...
"He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid."

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You just don't know how to read.  It's called, taking out of context.  

Read the context:  I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'.  Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'?  Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position??  Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

I don't know how you can equate anything I have said to agreeing that 'Boys will be boys'....honestly Quill, you would either be sued yourself or laughed out of any court in the UK if you made such outlandish statements.

I was rather surprised when you came out to start this thread with an anti-feminist position.

Syl wrote:You actually started off in this thread by saying...
"He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid."

Yes, I agree that such tactic is always available. There are maneuvers that, even now, can be taken to buy her off. They are distasteful, and have nothing whatsoever with morality, but they are there.

I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You just don't know how to read.  It's called, taking out of context.  

Read the context:  I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'.  Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'?  Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position??  Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

I don't know how you can equate anything I have said to agreeing that 'Boys will be boys'....honestly Quill, you would either be sued yourself or laughed out of any court in the UK if you made such outlandish statements.

I was rather surprised when you came out to start this thread with an anti-feminist position.

Syl wrote:You actually started off in this thread by saying...
"He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid."

Yes, I agree that such tactic is always available. There are maneuvers that, even now, can be taken to buy her off. They are distasteful, and have nothing whatsoever with morality, but they are there.

I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You just don't know how to read.  It's called, taking out of context.  

Read the context:  I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'.  Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'?  Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position??  Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

I don't know how you can equate anything I have said to agreeing that 'Boys will be boys'....honestly Quill, you would either be sued yourself or laughed out of any court in the UK if you made such outlandish statements.

I was rather surprised when you came out to start this thread with an anti-feminist position.

Syl wrote:You actually started off in this thread by saying...
"He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid."

Yes, I agree that such tactic is always available. There are maneuvers that, even now, can be taken to buy her off. They are distasteful, and have nothing whatsoever with morality, but they are there.

I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You just don't know how to read.  It's called, taking out of context.  

Read the context:  I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'.  Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'?  Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position??  Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

I don't know how you can equate anything I have said to agreeing that 'Boys will be boys'....honestly Quill, you would either be sued yourself or laughed out of any court in the UK if you made such outlandish statements.

I was rather surprised when you came out to start this thread with an anti-feminist position.

Syl wrote:You actually started off in this thread by saying...
"He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid."

Yes, I agree that such tactic is always available. There are maneuvers that, even now, can be taken to buy her off. They are distasteful, and have nothing whatsoever with morality, but they are there.

I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You just don't know how to read.  It's called, taking out of context.  

Read the context:  I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'.  Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'?  Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position??  Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

I don't know how you can equate anything I have said to agreeing that 'Boys will be boys'....honestly Quill, you would either be sued yourself or laughed out of any court in the UK if you made such outlandish statements.

I was rather surprised when you came out to start this thread with an anti-feminist position.

Syl wrote:You actually started off in this thread by saying...
"He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid."

Yes, I agree that such tactic is always available. There are maneuvers that, even now, can be taken to buy her off. They are distasteful, and have nothing whatsoever with morality, but they are there.

I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:You just don't know how to read.  It's called, taking out of context.  

Read the context:  I'm the one who is for holding Dylan legally responsible; you are the one who is saying 'let him off Scot free'.  Which fits with treating him like 'boys will be boys'?  Who is trying to say Dylan is a victim?

You're twisting it 180°...perhaps to get yourself out of an anti-feminist position??  Why would I be arguing 'boys will be boys, when it fits your position?

I don't know how you can equate anything I have said to agreeing that 'Boys will be boys'....honestly Quill, you would either be sued yourself or laughed out of any court in the UK if you made such outlandish statements.

I was rather surprised when you came out to start this thread with an anti-feminist position.

Syl wrote:You actually started off in this thread by saying...
"He should have gotten a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), just as Trump usually does whenever he's gotten laid."

Yes, I agree that such tactic is always available. There are maneuvers that, even now, can be taken to buy her off. They are distasteful, and have nothing whatsoever with morality, but they are there.

I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off.

Are you working on the assumption that if you say something often enough, you may be believed?
It won't work .

You accuse me of prejudging..You then go on to say....


"You try to absolve Dylan, an accused criminal"

and

"I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off."


Seems like you are the one prejudging.

Syl wrote:You accuse me of prejudging..You then go on to say....

"You try to absolve Dylan, an accused criminal"

Is he, or is he not accused of a crime by this lady?  You are the one who announced it, in the OP of this thread.  It's criminal conduct, and the accusation has been made; ergo, he is an accused criminal.

Syl wrote:and

"I am in favor of the law taking it's course. Take it to trial and let the world see what a bastard he is. But I think he will buy her off."

Seems like you are the one prejudging.

An accusation has been made of criminal conduct, and as a lawyer, I urge the law to take its course.  You think that is prejudice??

A trial is the farthest thing from pre-judging.  It's the actual process of judging in itself!  It's standard operating procedure, the way modern civilization set it up.  First comes the accusation, then comes the trial.

I'm afraid you are not exactly familiar with how the law works.  When there is a formal accusation, while the accused person is presumed innocent, there must be a determination … a trial must ensue.  The trial determines the guilt or innocence of the person.

In your OP, you are all about condemning the woman for even making the accusation:

Syl wrote: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?

I think it’s fair.  And millions of other people who live under this system of law think it’s fair.  One starts the system of justice rolling by making the accusation, but you condemn the lady for making the accusation.  I think you are prejudging the woman.

I may not be as familiar with the law as you often tell us you are, but I know enough to know that a person is presumed innocent untill proven guilty by law.....so to call him a criminal is prejudging.

You also  presume he would try to 'buy her off'....sounds to me you are not only prejudging his guilt, but prejudging his actions too.

Holy shit, quill. you're jumping about like a box of frogs on this

lololol

lawyer my arse

i believe you have a genuine interest in law, i believe you have studied a lot of case law. you may have even studied for a couple of years but i can't see you ever graduated and actually practised law.

you've been constantly contradicting yourself, twisting everything syl said, trying to put words in her mouth that she never said. you sound like a twat, and that's being really kind

Syl wrote:I may not be as familiar with the law as you often tell us you are, but I know enough to know that a person is presumed innocent untill proven guilty by law.....so to call him a criminal is prejudging.

I didn't call him a criminal. I called him an accused criminal, which he is.

Syl wrote:You also  presume he would try to 'buy her off'....sounds to me you are not only prejudging his guilt, but prejudging his actions too.

A lot of rich folks do it. It's cheaper than legal fees.

gelico wrote:

Holy shit, quill.  you're jumping about like a box of frogs on this

lololol

lawyer my arse

i believe you have a genuine interest in law, i believe you have studied a lot of case law.  you may have even studied for a couple of years but i can't see you ever graduated and actually practised law.

you've been constantly contradicting yourself, twisting everything syl said, trying to put words in her mouth that she never said.  you sound like a twat, and that's being really kind

Is that your 'gina talking? You've got everything upside down.

Original Quill wrote:

gelico wrote:

Holy shit, quill.  you're jumping about like a box of frogs on this

lololol

lawyer my arse

i believe you have a genuine interest in law, i believe you have studied a lot of case law.  you may have even studied for a couple of years but i can't see you ever graduated and actually practised law.

you've been constantly contradicting yourself, twisting everything syl said, trying to put words in her mouth that she never said.  you sound like a twat, and that's being really kind

Is that your 'gina talking?  You've got everything upside down.

Actually Quill, she is spot on.
I haven't twisted anything you have said, in fact I have quoted word for word some of the more outlandish statements you have made,....statements that would get you laughed out of court here, or worse if the judge had  little sense of humour.

I on the other hand made my statement in the OP, and I haven't wavered from it.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is that your 'gina talking?  You've got everything upside down.

Actually Quill, she is spot on.
I haven't twisted anything you have said, in fact I have quoted word for word some of the more outlandish statements you have made,....statements that would get you laughed out of court here, or worse if the judge had  little sense of humour.

I on the other hand made my statement in the OP, and I haven't wavered from it.

Hahaha...you have quoted...and then misinterpreted.

For example, you claim I called Dylan a "criminal", but when you look again you see it's "accused criminal".  Oppps...egg on your face.  That's the problem Syl, you are imprecise, and in arguments you become a bull in a China shop.  Be careful!  Say no more than you mean, and than you can back up.

Now, as for gel's fanny-talk, it's just a personal attack on me.  I can live with that because personal attacks are a de facto admission of defeat on the main point.  I've already pointed out that this place has become a RW mecca, and RW'ers are classic deflectors and liars.  Personal attacks are the classic deflection...RW'ers change the subject because they are out of ammunition on the topic-in-chief!.  It's just their desperation...you have to realize you've defeated them.

So, it's a sign that I have been the only one who has been consistent all along.  I've said, let the legal process take its course...we'll soon find out if Dylan's innocent or guilty!  The MEAN GIRLS don’t know what they think.  They have gone from saying Dylan should go scot-free, to saying they are rabid feminists, and back again, saying Dylan is not an accused criminal when its right there in their face...and when their confusion is pointed out, they retreat to personal attacks.  I have been on-line for well over 20-years; I'm well familiar with RW dodges.

The MEAN GIRLS don't know what they think because they simply don't think things through.  You, however, are able to think things through.

Now then, if you want a tact on your argument, you should stick with arguing that pending a jury verdict, Dylan will suffer the hardship of adverse publicity...and that's a penalty in itself.  But, that very publicity stems from his own fame...and fame means money.  So, he hasn't had it so hard considering that he has gained fame, adulation and lots of money...let him sweat a little, too.

Let the legal process take its course.  Be happy with that.

In this country, when someone has been accused of a crime they are yet to be found guilty of , they are called 'The Accused'. To refer to someone as an 'accused criminal' implies they are a criminal who has been accused of something.
Dylan has not been found guilty of anything.

As for the MEAN GIRLS nonsense, you actually said I was the leader of the mean girls a few years ago...you called me a 'groomer'...which was as daft then as it is now.  

I don't think anyone has argued that Dylan, or any other man who has committed rape  should go 'scot-free'. My point is and has been throughout, no man should be accused of rape by an unknown  'victim', one he may or may not have met 56 years ago, and have their name dragged through the papers whilst the 'victim' remains incognito.

Like I have mentioned, even if there is no case to answer (as was found here with the Cliff debacle) that person caused so much damage, yet was still allowed to get on with their life untroubled and unnamed.

It's wrong.

Syl wrote:In this country, when someone has been accused of a crime they are yet to be found guilty of , they are called 'The Accused'. To refer to someone as an 'accused criminal' implies they are a criminal who has been accused of something.
Dylan has not been found guilty of anything.

In this country, it's "accused criminal" not "The Accused". "Criminal" is a noun. "Accused" is an adjective. So, it's proper English. In America, you always say “accused” or “alleged” when it’s not yet proved.

Syl wrote:As for the MEAN GIRLS nonsense, you actually said I was the leader of the mean girls a few years ago...you called me a 'groomer'...which was as daft then as it is now.

The basic quality of the MEAN GIRLS is they gang up on people. I’m sure you saw the film. Specifically, here, I think the MEAN GIRLS acquired the reputation by ganging up on on eddie when she said something about some victim that was not exactly sympathetic. The main reputation of the MEAN GIRLS comes from their "ganging up" on Wolf. They earned a reputation ... they've gotta live with it.

Syl wrote:I don't think anyone has argued that Dylan, or any other man who has committed rape should go 'scot-free'. My point is and has been throughout, no man should be accused of rape by an unknown 'victim', one he may or may not have met 56 years ago, and have their name dragged through the papers whilst the 'victim' remains incognito.

You intimated as much by giving faint sympathy to the victim of a rape, while criticizing her for merely making the accusation. Not exactly a sympathetic rendition. You treated her as the aggressor, and transposed Dylan into the victim. Let’s get this straight: Let the law run its course and then we’ll know.

To your credit, you do go to the crux of the matter when you focus on the publicity factor. But, as I've said in the above post, for the most part publicity has treated Bob Dylan well, earning him lots of money and adulation. Now, the same publicity comes back around and bites him in the ass. Well...if you are going to seek out publicity, you shouldn't hang around 12-year old's … same as Michael Jackson.

As far as the years it took to bring the accusation to light, there are lots of reasons why women, when raped, don't immediately go to the police. Across the studies, the researchers find that 60.4 percent of women, on average, do not recognize their experience as rape even though it fits the definition — an unwanted sexual experience obtained through force or the threat of force or a sexual experience they did not consent to because they were incapacitated. Particularly vulnerable are those under 13-years of age, who are additionally, frightened and confused by the whole process.

Syl wrote:Like I have mentioned, even if there is no case to answer (as was found here with the Cliff debacle) that person caused so much damage, yet was still allowed to get on with their life untroubled and unnamed.

It's wrong.

So, because your darling Cliff wasn’t guilty, are you saying that means that all women who claim rape are crying WOLF? Of course not. You should know by now, you can’t generalize from specifics … just because Cliff was innocent, doesn’t mean all rapists are innocent.

Like I say, you are afflicted by imprecise thinking, including false (blanket) equivalencies and lack of critical recognition of another’s position. But you have graduated from the MEAN GIRLS … by not immediately going to attacking the messenger.

The 'mean girls' tag is ridiculous, I haven't graduated from them because I have never belonged to a bullying gang.
I actually abhor bullies, online or off.

I very much doubt whether Eddie has ever felt bullied by me or anyone else here....and as for your little mate, he got back a fraction of what he gave out, and tbh, he isn't worth bothering about....so enough said about him.

Back on topic.
I find it very suspicious that a woman lodges a complaint after 56 years, on the very last day she will be heard.
I am aware many women don't report rape, or leave it till something in them triggers and they deal with it, maybe this has happened here, maybe not.

Once more I will say, IN MY OPINION, it's not right for a man to be publicly named and vilified in the press, when the accusers name , whether the case goes ahead or not, whether they win the case or not, remains private.

And in your previous post....once again you prejudge the man....

"for the most part publicity has treated Bob Dylan well, earning him lots of money and adulation. Now, the same publicity comes back around and bites him in the ass. Well...if you are going to seek out publicity, you shouldn't hang around 12-year old's."

Syl wrote:The 'mean girls' tag is ridiculous, I haven't graduated from them because I have never belonged to a bullying gang.
I actually abhor bullies, online or off.

Stop it.  Everyone remembers.  It's a topic even on other sites.

Syl wrote:I very much doubt whether Eddie has ever felt bullied by me or anyone else here....and as for your little mate, he got back a fraction of what he gave out, and tbh, he isn't worth bothering about....so enough said about him.

I believe several of the MEAN GIRLS resigned as members from here as a result of that incident. They since rejoined.

Syl wrote:Back on topic.
I find it very suspicious that a woman lodges a complaint after 56 years, on the very last day she will be heard.
I am aware many women don't report rape, or leave it till something in them triggers and they deal with it, maybe this has happened here, maybe not.

Once more I will say, IN MY OPINION, it's not right for a man to be publicly named and vilified in the press, when the accusers name , whether the case goes ahead or not, whether they win the case or not, remains private.

Nor for a rapist to go free, if he is a rapist.  Why not have a trial to find out.  Remember: Justice delayed is Justice denied.

Syl wrote:And in your previous post....once again you prejudge the man....

"for the most part publicity has treated Bob Dylan well, earning him lots of money and adulation. Now, the same publicity comes back around and bites him in the ass. Well...if you are going to seek out publicity, you shouldn't hang around 12-year old's."

Small price to pay for all those riches.  My reference to Michael Jackson was not accidental.  He, too, was maligned over associations with 12-year old's.  It's just common horse sense: if you live by publicity, make a whole lot of money by publicity, and receive adulation by publicity, you will learn not to do things, or associate with people, bound to cause attention.  So, it's the price you pay.

Whether true or not, this woman has made the accusation of rape.  We don't know whether she's telling the truth or not, just as we don't know whether Bob Dylan is guilty or innocent.  The publicity factor is not her fault; it is of his doing, so I feel that's on his side of the ledger.  But, it's just there, and they will have to deal with it.  It certainly doesn't justify not letting law take its course, and that includes her right to make the accusation.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:The 'mean girls' tag is ridiculous, I haven't graduated from them because I have never belonged to a bullying gang.
I actually abhor bullies, online or off.

Stop it.  Everyone remembers.  It's a topic even on other sites.

Maybe on the ONE other site you go to gossip on.  

Syl wrote:I very much doubt whether Eddie has ever felt bullied by me or anyone else here....and as for your little mate, he got back a fraction of what he gave out, and tbh, he isn't worth bothering about....so enough said about him.

I believe several of the MEAN GIRLS resigned as members from here as a result of that incident.  They since rejoined.

I don't think anyone 'resigned,  a couple, including me had a break, only Fen didn't return, which is a shame, I like her.

Syl wrote:Back on topic.
I find it very suspicious that a woman lodges a complaint after 56 years, on the very last day she will be heard.
I am aware many women don't report rape, or leave it till something in them triggers and they deal with it, maybe this has happened here, maybe not.

Once more I will say, IN MY OPINION, it's not right for a man to be publicly named and vilified in the press, when the accusers name , whether the case goes ahead or not, whether they win the case or not, remains private.

Nor for a rapist to go free, if he is a rapist.  Why not have a trial to find out.  Remember: Justice delayed is Justice denied.

Syl wrote:And in your previous post....once again you prejudge the man....

"for the most part publicity has treated Bob Dylan well, earning him lots of money and adulation. Now, the same publicity comes back around and bites him in the ass. Well...if you are going to seek out publicity, you shouldn't hang around 12-year old's."

Small price to pay for all those riches.  My reference to Michael Jackson was not accidental.  He, too, was maligned over associations with 12-year old's.  It's just common horse sense: if you live by publicity, make a whole lot of money by publicity, and receive adulation by publicity, you will learn not to do things, or associate with people, bound to cause attention.  So, it's the price you pay.

Whether true or not, this woman has made the accusation of rape.  We don't know whether she's telling the truth or not, just as we don't know whether Bob Dylan is guilty or innocent.  The publicity factor is not her fault; it is of his doing, so I feel that's on his side of the ledger.  But, it's just there, and they will have to deal with it.  It certainly doesn't justify not letting law take its course, and that includes her right to make the accusation.

How can the publicity be HIS doing?
Did he run to the papers to let them know he is being accused of raping a 12 year old 56 years ago??

And if you think, when one nears the end of their life, being accused and dragged through courts for a heinous crime that you vehemently deny you committed, is a 'small price to pay. for success'....you have a very odd way of looking at life.

Syl wrote:Maybe on the ONE other site you go to gossip on.

No, it was talked about on several sites.

Syl wrote:I don't think anyone 'resigned, a couple, including me had a break, only Fen didn't return, which is a shame, I like her.

How would we know? It was something that was made bigger than it needed be, because the MEAN GIRLS decided to flex their muscles.

Syl wrote:How can the publicity be HIS [Dylan’s] doing?
Did he run to the papers to let them know he is being accused of raping a 12 year old 56 years ago??

They wouldn't even care, if it was someone named Alfred Pennypacker. Because it is Bob Dylan - a name associated with the fame that he cultivated to gain him money and adulation - people pay attention. To the degree that it weighs heavy because of publicity, that's on him.

Syl wrote:And if you think, when one nears the end of their life, being accused and dragged through courts for a heinous crime that you vehemently deny you committed, is a 'small price to pay. for success'....you have a very odd way of looking at life. Evil or Very Mad

His age is more of his mother's and father's doing. I have neither involvement, nor interest. As for the alleged crime: 1) if he did it, he's been caught; and 2) if he's innocent, he'll be vindicated, and everyone will know about it.

Let the law take its course…it’s as right as rain.

Frankly, reading Quill's posts are like watching a flag twisting in the wind. Both get boring after a while and you go and find something else to do..

Vintage wrote:Frankly, reading Quill's posts are like watching a flag twisting in the wind. Both get boring after a while and you go and find something else to do..

Another of the MEAN GIRLS heard from. The fact is, Syl is conversing and I'm responding. If it's boring, please do go... No one cares.

That's just it I do go away, as do others.
A conversation would be good to follow except for the attempts at disavowing, u turns and the like.

Vintage wrote:That's just it I do go away, as do others.
A conversation would be good to follow except for the attempts at disavowing, u turns and the like.

Well, it doesn't really involve you. Syl has a few questions and makes comments, and I've answered. But it's dwindling down...I don't really think there's anything new. But...take it up if you wish.

I'm off the check out the rest of the board.

No one here is a 'mean girl'.
It actually sounds like a name a silly 15 year old would call a rival 15 year old.

I do agree with Quill on one thing, neither of us has anything new to add.
A good time to stop.

Syl wrote:No one here is a 'mean girl'.
It actually sounds like a name a silly 15 year old would call a rival 15 year old.

I do agree with Quill on one thing, neither of us has anything new to add.
A good time to stop.

Quill is a mean girl.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:No one here is a 'mean girl'.
It actually sounds like a name a silly 15 year old would call a rival 15 year old.

I do agree with Quill on one thing, neither of us has anything new to add.
A good time to stop.

Quill is a mean girl.

Hahaha...that made me laugh.

So, Red, you've joined the MEAN GIRLS, have you?  You will periodically have to gang-up on people who disagree with any of you - lots of personal attacks, but you like that - and you will have to flounce from the site if the wife of the GM is involved.  But you will be groupies with lots of fun merry-makers...you can sit around at Morris dances, sup on vegetarian stacks, and give mediocracy a handsome face.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Quill is a mean girl.

Hahaha...that made me laugh.

So, Red, you've joined the MEAN GIRLS, have you?  You will periodically have to gang-up on people who disagree with any of you - lots of personal attacks, but you like that - and you will have to resign from the site if the wife of the GM is involved.  But you will be groupies with lots of fun merry-makers...you can sit around at Morris dances, sup on vegetarian stacks, and give mediocracy a handsome face.  

I think you're a dickhead. That's my own personal opinion. The fact that others find you problematic is hardly a surprise to me. You've earned it.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hahaha...that made me laugh.

So, Red, you've joined the MEAN GIRLS, have you?  You will periodically have to gang-up on people who disagree with any of you - lots of personal attacks, but you like that - and you will have to resign from the site if the wife of the GM is involved.  But you will be groupies with lots of fun merry-makers...you can sit around at Morris dances, sup on vegetarian stacks, and give mediocracy a handsome face.  

I think you're a dickhead. That's my own personal opinion. The fact that others find you problematic is hardly a surprise to me.  You've earned it.  

You need to get on the phone and get the other girls motivated. Nothing like a good target for...
THE MEAN GIRLS

For Quill...as you have brought this topic up again on another thread....

According to the complaint, the emotional effects of the abuse on JC included depression, humiliation and anxiety that “are of a permanent and lasting natures and have incapacitated plaintiff from attending her regular activities”.

Maybe Quill, who knows court procedure better than me, can explain what possible regular activities this woman can no longer attend....56 years after the event took place.

One would assume at aged 12, the activities she attended would be different to the activities an adult would enjoy.
So how can the two be equated?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/aug/16/bob-dylan-accusations-sexual-abuse-lawsuit