No, just that you’re spent so many posts alleging some kind of large-scale campaign to establish judicial misconduct when the misconduct is a matter of fact established by court finding. That’s the funny part.

But you are not seeing the issue - the issue is that, legally, once she was inconsistent in one thing, every single thing she says becomes questionable (at least from a defense standpoint). You are accepting her at her word that the encounter happened that way (and to be clear, I believe her as well). However, the…

1.) Where does it suggest the cops badgered her to say anything? Point out where that’s alleged for me, please.

That’s not what the point is. The point is that the victim’s OWN WORDS throw into doubt and confusion what is probably the single most central element of a rape case - non-consent. She stated she was not sure if she had consented or not. If she cannot be sure of that, there’s no rape case. Non-consent is the crux of a…

I get that you’re embarrassed to be shown up by, you know, facts, but please try to refrain from rudimentary psycho-analysis. It doesn’t help your case and it makes you look worse then you already do, sweetheart.

I hear what you’re saying, but I think you leave out something pretty major: isn’t there a duty on the part of the prosecution to decide whether or not the cost to the victim is worth the trial?

Um....what makes you think Jez is a “feminist” site? They’ve said repeatedly that it’s not - it’s a “women’s website.”

Good job on the attempted gaslighting by claiming I’m “receptive to the campaign.” No, it’s not possible that I’m just a lawyer who can read a court opinion and discern findings of fact and draw rational conclusions from them - no, I’m just a dupe of a campaign. F off with that nonsense. You’re the one moving the…

I’m not quite sure what the point of this article is. Is it suggesting that the police (in reality, the prosecutor’s office) should have pursued charges either way? Because, um, if you’re charging rape, you need to be able to establish non-consent. Having a victim say “I’m not sure if it was consensual or not”…

Except he didn’t open up America. The Scandinavians were coming to America centuries before him.

You mean the guy who didn’t actually discover America?

I would judge that by the context - if the post was examining the merits of the film as a film, I wouldn’t expect them to, because such an article would be an examination of the film, disassociated from Polanski the man. If it was an examination of Polanski’s influence on the film or something along those lines, I’d…

Probably because that would require disclaimers on a whole lot more than Chuck Berry. If you don’t believe in supporting anybody who is, or ever was, problematic from a feminist perspective, you can never lay eyes on a Picasso painting (domestic abuser), never watch anything by Alfred Hitchcock or Stanley Kubrick…

Um....how is a judicial decision, issued by a judge in Los Angeles who had no prior connection to the Polanski case making a finding of an improper ex parte communication become a “sympathetic” source, in your view? This is getting slightly embarrassing for you (although it was before). You’re really flailing to make…

Um...would a judge be neutral enough? As per Wikipedia, Polanski tried to have the charges dismissed on the basis of judicial impropriety due to the ex parte communications. Look up the case - the judge who heard his motion was named Peter Espinoza in Los Angeles, who found, factually, that the original trial judge…

I think you missed my whole point. You argue about society becoming the “caregiver” to these people. So basically, you object to money being spent on them. But how does that differ from a person using taxpayer funded social services? Is society the “caregiver” of them as well? Or any person living on public housing?…

But we do that either way - when they’re in jail, or when they’re in society and using social services. And is it really caregiving if society is reaping major benefits from keeping them isolated? I’d see that more as a worthy expense.

I know there’s “supposed” to be a distinction, but I never seem to work up the energy to care - it seems like the damage they do is basically the same, so I think more in those terms. The only people I know who really care about the difference are people who, uh, kind of give me the creeps.

Actually, a pedophile is defined as somebody with exclusive or primary attractions to prepubescent children. Saville’s victims were primarily, but not exclusively, teenagers and young women (although he went all over). So...try again there.

There have been proposals that they basically remain in what would be akin to a long-term residential facility. Prison of course is highly punitive and has very serious restrictions on freedoms. Residential facilities tend to far more lax, but the primary point is that one cannot voluntarily leave. I do not believe in…