Bryan Singer sex abuse allegations

[Shazam!]

I brought Emmerich's name into it because he's known for hosting these types of parties with Singer.

This is "known"? By whom? You?

http://www.queerty.com/los-angeles-...rich-bryan-singers-post-pride-party-20090615/

 

[the G-man]

You lead this topic right off the cliff so maybe you should take your own advice.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the alleged sexual abuse of minors (or adults for that matter) by powerful people, one of whom may or may not be a well known film director..on a board dedicated to discussing movies and television... was a verboten topic.

Or is this okay with you because Singer's alleged victim is white?

 

[JarodRussell]

I brought Emmerich's name into it because he's known for hosting these types of parties with Singer.

This is "known"? By whom? You?

http://www.queerty.com/los-angeles-...rich-bryan-singers-post-pride-party-20090615/

So an after gay pride parade party is by default a party with barely-legal activities, as Legolas suggested?

 

[beamMe]

This is "known"? By whom? You?

http://www.queerty.com/los-angeles-...rich-bryan-singers-post-pride-party-20090615/

So an after gay pride parade party is by default a party with barely-legal activities, as Legolas suggested?

Well, of course, these are gay parties after all. That's how we roll.

... in the fantasy-world of the homophobic.

 

[Professor Zoom]

So much for the presumption of innocence...

Why? Was he arrested, convicted and imprisoned without the seeking out of evidence against him and the offering of a trial by his peers? Because otherwise I've no idea what you're talking about.

You can't be that ignorant. Of course, you know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about being convicted in the media, or BBS's like this. Having a career and a life destroyed because we have only heard one side of a inflammatory story.

"Presumption of innocence" doesn't mean that everyone, everywhere must accept someone accused of something as being innocent until we're proven otherwise. It means that the government and justice system has to presume someone innocent and build a case to convict.

I'm suggesting that we instead of adding more fuel to a fire that maybe, for once, we don't hang the celebrity. That maybe we act like grown ups instead of rushing to judgement.

We can say someone is guilty all we want, we're under no obligation to presume someone is innocent and are allowed to form our own opinions and conclusions based on the information available.

Exactly, on the information available. Which there really isn't. It's accusations. Rumor. So, if you want to create your opinion based on rumor and innuendo, go ahead. But you don't get to lecture from on high.

You are taking gossip and making it fact. What does that say about you?

Seeing a story like this and saying "so much for presumption of innocence" is no different than seeing someone fired for saying something stupid on social media and saying, "so much for Freedom of Speech."

No, because I'm not ignorant. I know what the First Amendment means and how it's actually applied.

Rights don't mean that.

If you ACTUALLY thought that I was LITERALLY meaning it in a legal way, then you've got some issues.

Again, to be clear, because it's clear you didn't understand, I'm talking about being convicted in the court of public opinion, and for a person who relies on the good will of the public to see his movies, to get hired, etc, etc, it could be damning.

A good comparison might be in the 1950s, to be accused of being a communist. Doesn't matter if you were or not, the whispers were enough.

But, you go on and you make your opinion based on what you read on the internets. I'm sure those facts are totally reliable.

 

[Pauln6]

Sexual abuse is bad enough but why no focus on the drugs? Is it so acceptable for Hollywood and media types to obtain and use drugs that this aspect doesn't raise an eyebrow. Hollywood needs to crack down (pun intended) on this sort of thing hard. Random drug test and ban actors, directors and staff from working for 6 months+ like sportsmen.

Respect my authoratai!

 

[beamMe]

Sexual abuse is bad enough but why no focus on the drugs? Is it so acceptable for Hollywood and media types to obtain and use drugs that this aspect doesn't raise an eyebrow. Hollywood needs to crack down (pun intended) on this sort of thing hard. Random drug test and ban actors, directors and staff from working for 6 months+ like sportsmen.

Isn't it up to anyone's own decisions how they treat their own bodies?

 

[Pauln6]

Sexual abuse is bad enough but why no focus on the drugs? Is it so acceptable for Hollywood and media types to obtain and use drugs that this aspect doesn't raise an eyebrow. Hollywood needs to crack down (pun intended) on this sort of thing hard. Random drug test and ban actors, directors and staff from working for 6 months+ like sportsmen.

Isn't it up to anyone's own decisions how they treat their own bodies?

Sure as long as they aren't funding terrorism, slavery, and murder. This isn't unique to drugs industries but the argument holds true. While it's illegal these wealthy people that are glamourising the practice should suffer a punishment commensurate with their incomes.

 

[beamMe]

Sexual abuse is bad enough but why no focus on the drugs? Is it so acceptable for Hollywood and media types to obtain and use drugs that this aspect doesn't raise an eyebrow. Hollywood needs to crack down (pun intended) on this sort of thing hard. Random drug test and ban actors, directors and staff from working for 6 months+ like sportsmen.

Isn't it up to anyone's own decisions how they treat their own bodies?

Sure as long as they aren't funding terrorism, slavery, and murder. This isn't unique to drugs industries but the argument holds true. While it's illegal these wealthy people that are glamourising the practice should suffer a punishment commensurate with their incomes.

You sure seem to have some issues with "these wealthy people".

You know what you could do? You could stop watching TV and films, stop reading books, stop listening to music. Short of a nuclear bombing from the orbit, that's the only way to make sure your money doesn't add to their "glamourising the practice".

 

[the G-man]

Sexual abuse is bad enough but why no focus on the drugs? Is it so acceptable for Hollywood and media types to obtain and use drugs that this aspect doesn't raise an eyebrow. Hollywood needs to crack down (pun intended) on this sort of thing hard. Random drug test and ban actors, directors and staff from working for 6 months+ like sportsmen.

Isn't it up to anyone's own decisions how they treat their own bodies?

Sure as long as they aren't funding terrorism, slavery, and murder. This isn't unique to drugs industries but the argument holds true. While it's illegal these wealthy people that are glamourising the practice should suffer a punishment commensurate with their incomes.

It seems to me that the bigger issue in the case with drugs is the allegation that some people may have been drugged and/or abused while under the influence of drugs. That's a separate and distinct form of sexual abuse from abuse of someone who's underaged. As such, it warrants some discussion from that angle.

 

[beamMe]

Isn't it up to anyone's own decisions how they treat their own bodies?

Sure as long as they aren't funding terrorism, slavery, and murder. This isn't unique to drugs industries but the argument holds true. While it's illegal these wealthy people that are glamourising the practice should suffer a punishment commensurate with their incomes.

It seems to me that the bigger issue in the case with drugs is the allegation that some people may have been drugged and/or abused while under the influence of drugs. That's a separate and distinct form of sexual abuse from abuse of someone who's underaged. As such, it warrants some discussion from that angle.

Only and if it turns out to be true.

 

[Pauln6]

Isn't it up to anyone's own decisions how they treat their own bodies?

Sure as long as they aren't funding terrorism, slavery, and murder. This isn't unique to drugs industries but the argument holds true. While it's illegal these wealthy people that are glamourising the practice should suffer a punishment commensurate with their incomes.

You sure seem to have some issues with "these wealthy people".

You know what you could do? You could stop watching TV and films, stop reading books, stop listening to music. Short of a nuclear bombing from the orbit, that's the only way to make sure your money doesn't add to their "glamourising the practice".

Right so I punish myself because of their lawbreaking? Unless everybody is willing to punish themselves too the lawbreaker suffers no detriment whatsoever. Even when one sponsor pulls out another one is ready to jump right in.

In my defence I'm fairly intolerant of anybody rich or poor using illegal drugs. What I was inferring was that a fine that can be quite hefty for an ordinary person means little to a wealthy person. I'd have no issue with people using home grown weed occasionally personally, it's less harmful than tobacco and alcohol. But when obtained from a criminal source I really don't like the ripple effect it has on society.

 

[the G-man]

Sure as long as they aren't funding terrorism, slavery, and murder. This isn't unique to drugs industries but the argument holds true. While it's illegal these wealthy people that are glamourising the practice should suffer a punishment commensurate with their incomes.

It seems to me that the bigger issue in the case with drugs is the allegation that some people may have been drugged and/or abused while under the influence of drugs. That's a separate and distinct form of sexual abuse from abuse of someone who's underaged. As such, it warrants some discussion from that angle.

Only and if it turns out to be true.

So, your position is that it isn't a valid issue to discuss in general from a public policy standpoint, unless and until a particular celebrity is found guilty of it?

 

[Mudd]

The idea that entertainers might be as bereft of sexual morality as Republican officeholders is disturbing.

 

[Gov Kodos]

You lead this topic right off the cliff so maybe you should take your own advice.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the alleged sexual abuse of minors (or adults for that matter) by powerful people, one of whom may or may not be a well known film director..on a board dedicated to discussing movies and television... was a verboten topic.

You have proof of this in Singer's case, rather than tarring with aspersion and innuendo which is all you've done?

Or is this okay with you because Singer's alleged victim is white?

Baiting now?

 

[beamMe]

It seems to me that the bigger issue in the case with drugs is the allegation that some people may have been drugged and/or abused while under the influence of drugs. That's a separate and distinct form of sexual abuse from abuse of someone who's underaged. As such, it warrants some discussion from that angle.

Only and if it turns out to be true.

So, your position is that it isn't a valid issue to discuss in general from a public policy standpoint, unless and until a particular celebrity is found guilty of it?

In general, no.
In this case, in particular, yes.

I think it's unfair to paint Singer - as this thread is about him - with that broad abuse-brush now, since nothing is proven yet.

Maybe a separate thread?

 

[Melakon]

This thread has the feeling of a rabble rouser trying to stir up the masses with "Ooooooh, a Hollywood celebrity is accused of something distasteful! Let's string him up!" before this case can even go to trial. I get the feeling the OP is envisioning Singer as another Jeffrey Jones.

 

[beamMe]

This thread has the feeling of a rabble rouser trying to stir up the masses with "Ooooooh, a Hollywood celebrity is accused of something distasteful! Let's string him up!" before this case can even go to trial. I get the feeling the OP is envisioning Singer as another Jeffrey Jones.

Who looks like an aged version of Conan O'Brien in his Wiki-photo

 

[Pauln6]

We've had a spate of historical investigations in the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal over here. Very few of them lead to prosecutions and fewer still to conviction regardless of long standing concerns. So many people stepped forward with Saville that it's likely he would have been nailed if he'd been alive. Without forensic evidence convictions based on limited allegations are a tougher sell. I don't anticipate that the allegations will get all that far, especially if they were not taken further at the time. Some celebrities will pay their accusers off to avoid bad publicity though.

When I was 21, I effectively 'sexually assaulted' a rather willing 16-year old which was technically illegal in the UK as the age of consent was then 21... although that might only have applied to buggery, I'm not that sure now as they equalised the age of consent here shortly after. Since he was more experienced than I was would that be an example of a young man grooming an older guy or was I morally in the wrong? Two weeks later he was dating someone aged 28...

 

[beamMe]

We've had a spate of historical investigations in the wake of the Jimmy Saville scandal over here. Very few of them lead to prosecutions and fewer still to conviction regardless of long standing concerns. So many people stepped forward with Saville that it's likely he would have been nailed if he'd been alive. Without forensic evidence convictions based on limited allegations are a tougher sell. I don't anticipate that the allegations will get all that far, especially if they were not taken further at the time. Some celebrities will pay their accusers off to avoid bad publicity though.

I think it was Jimmy Carr on QI who said, that around the time the BBC Broadcasting House was being demolished and the complex was a huge building site, it was the safest time it has ever been for children to play there.

When I was 21, I effectively 'sexually assaulted' a rather willing 16-year old which was technically illegal in the UK as the age of consent was then 21... although that might only have applied to buggery, I'm not that sure now as they equalised the age of consent here shortly after. Since he was more experienced than I was would that be an example of a young man grooming an older guy or was I morally in the wrong? Two weeks later he was dating someone aged 28...

Of course you weren't morally in the wrong.