- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 582 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 62252
A young man who accused Kevin Spacey of sexually assaulting him at a seaside restaurant near Boston in 2016 filmed part of the incident, according to court filings obtained by AFP. The 59-year-old star of the "House of Cards" series, who has won two Oscars, is due to be formally charged on January 7 on the island of Nantucket with "indecent assault and battery on a person over 14 years of age."
The young man, identified as William Little and aged 18 at the time of the alleged assault in July 2016, told police he had sent messages, including a video, to his girlfriend via the Snapchat app from the "Club Car" restaurant in Nantucket, where he was working as a bus boy for the summer, according to the court filing. He had remained in the bar after his shift had finished to see Spacey, of whom he was a fan.
After meeting the actor and telling him he was 23 years old -- the legal drinking age is 21 in Massachusetts -- he started drinking first beer and then whiskey with Spacey. Spacey then allegedly invited him back to his place, along with some other friends. The young man declined, suspecting the actor was trying to seduce him. But he stayed in the bar in the hopes of getting a picture with Spacey.
"Will only lingered around because he wanted a picture with Spacey, something for Instagram," the filing said. "Spacey had told him, if you come back with me, I will take a picture with you." That was when Spacey began sexually molesting the young man, the filed charges said. "Will tried to shift away with his body and move Spacey's hands away with his hands but Spacey kept reaching down his pants," it said. "Will said his girlfriend did not believe him so that's when he Snapchatted the video," it said.
He then left the bar on the advice of a woman who reportedly saw "he was in distress." He returned to work the next day and informed the owner of the bar of the incident, the court documents said.
Caught on video trying to force his hand down someone's undercrackers. He's proper fucked.
|>>|| No. 62253
That is pretty unsettling. What the fuck must be swimming around your head to think this is a good idea?
|>>|| No. 62254
He's clearly some form or narcissist, sociopath or psychopath.
He's showing to the world the level of delusion that goes on in his head that enables him to believe he's in the right all along; he's justifying why it's righteous for him to diddle.
|>>|| No. 62256
I don't understand why he felt the need to molest the unwilling. I'm not even remotely famous but I know I could find hundreds of people who would let me pretend to rape them and be very much into it.
|>>|| No. 62257
Presumably he thought he's entitled to take whatever he wants or that nobody can resist the lure of a major celebrity.
|>>|| No. 62260
I think more often people who commit sexual offences don't even consider the other party's objections.
|>>|| No. 62261
Maybe he's horrific at knowing whether someone likes him or not. Some guys are.
|>>|| No. 62262
Although, if you think someone likes you, shoving your hand down their pants is a little forward.
|>>|| No. 62263
>DON'T EVEN CONSIDER THE OTHER PARTY'S OBJECTIONS
A lot of people who've worked with paedophiles have found that the majority don't think they've actually done anything wrong; they convince themselves that the child wanted it and was enjoying it.
|>>|| No. 62264
my m8 got a selfie with spacey a few years back. Do you reckon he got bummed?
|>>|| No. 62267
Award material right there. Golden Raspberry for worst on-screen couple: Kevin Spacey and those lines.
|>>|| No. 62272
That is part of my point although it seems on the surface like we are opposing. The thrill comes from taking what he wants when he wants with no restriction. All paths lead to his indulgence in that moment. He don't have time to plan or form long term plans that is boring. Everything plays out to the rythmn he sets.
And the ego damage from coming down from that now would break him it is much easier at this point to double down.
|>>|| No. 62273
I think you should shag Brooker with a blindfold on then. Seems the logical next step.
|>>|| No. 62274
I don't see how that makes sense. It just means I want to shag a really thick bird instead of a mildly clever one.
|>>|| No. 62275
You have to wonder what was going through the heads of the people who did that. "This will be what the children want"? "The issue of the presence of this inappropriate mural is now solved"? "It is extremely important this artwork is labelled so as to prevent any confusion"?
|>>|| No. 62276
It's now much more likely to frighten and upset the children as they enter, most of whom would previously be oblivious to some old actor's face.
|>>|| No. 62277
I think I was about seven when I had to ask my mum what "cunt" meant because an older kid was throwing batteries at us in the playground (he missed) and this girl shouted
>stop that, you tight cunt
Mum just said it was a bad word.
I don't remember how old I was when I learnt what a paedophile was.
|>>|| No. 62278
I was about five and my friend and I were contemplating brushing snow off a car's bonnet and a man shouted from an upstairs window
>If you touch that car, I'll smack your arses
We started speculating about what arses were and thought maybe it meant hearts since it sounded similar.
|>>|| No. 62279
I think I was in about year 4. We used to sing in primary school "...with a packet of crisps and a big cheesy smile, [person] is a great big paedophile." To the tune of walking in a winter wonderland. The person was usually arsene Wenger.
|>>|| No. 62280
I remember an older kid called my mate a spacker, and when I went home I told my mam and asked what it meant. She just told me it was a bad word but had a bit of a smirk on her face when I said that someone called my friend one, because he was a bit of a spacker to be fair.
You never hear that word anymore, it seemed to get quickly replaced with Retard because of septicism.
|>>|| No. 62281
I was about five and a dog started humping a girl's leg and another girl said
>It's shagging her. It going to shag her until she has a baby.
and we had no idea what that meant but felt it was an appropriate thing to say whenever we saw a dog humping someone's leg after.
Then an old lady heard us and said
>it's not very nice saying that
The next few times thereafter we would say "It's going to shag her until she has a baby" then instantly chastise ourselves by saying "It's not very nice that." Then the usage of that phrase petered out.
|>>|| No. 62282
I heard a girl say
>girls suck boys willies
very rhythmically, like a chant, and thought it was the most repulsive thing I'd ever heard because i'd only seen flaccid little-boy-dicks at that time and sucking on one of those still seems about as appealing as sucking a slug.
|>>|| No. 62283
I don't care if he's a paedo, i just want him to continue acting. Shame he's unemployable now.
|>>|| No. 62284
I was more bothered by Louis CK. I can't imaging being so upset about seeing a dick (when you're not a minor or anything) that you feel the need to destroy someone's career decades later.
|>>|| No. 62285
Leslie Grantham literally murdered someone and everyone was more shocked by this photo.
>On 3 December 1966, Grantham attempted to rob a taxi driver, Felix Reese, in Osnabrück, Lower Saxony, West Germany. In a struggle between the two men, Reese died from being shot in the head. In his statement to the police following his arrest, Grantham said that he did not know the gun was loaded and it had gone off during the struggle, which would have resulted in a conviction for manslaughter if a jury believed this version of events. However, at his trial in 1967, he was subsequently convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Although he had committed the murder in West Germany, he served the entirety of his imprisonment in various British prisons. This was because soldiers and officers convicted of any criminal offence that warrants a sentence of over two years are automatically transferred to Her Majesty's Prison Service, since they are also automatically dishonourably discharged.
|>>|| No. 62287
Maybe we can say the same about Spacey after he's been to prison and served his tariff.
|>>|| No. 62288
that's literally nothing. the entire context of it comes from one of chris rock's stand up bits about the difference between a black guy and a nigger- But of course, I doubt anybody who is offended by it knows chris rock as anything other than the zebra in madagascar.
if they would have been sat around just making jokes about basketball and crack cocaine fine, but there's literally nothing to be offended over in that video unless you are the worst kind of oversensetive cretin.
we're truly reaching around the horseshoe nowadays. so very liberally oppressive.
|>>|| No. 62289
I think you've hit upon an appropriate name for these people: reacharounds.
|>>|| No. 62293
Claire was fantastic in the first few seasons, and it seemed like they were leading up to her being a much more focused and clever version of Spacey's character who was often tripped up by his own pride.
But then they stopped caring about the slow burning creep of her plans, and just reduced her to 'lol she's throwing him under the bus suddenly'. Then he touched some kids and they just had to roll with him dying and her just suddenly being the new Frank. With no actual Frank to react to her betrayals and machinations, it fell rather flat.
|>>|| No. 62294
Crisps? It's sweets. What kid will jump in the back of your Volvo for crisps?
|>>|| No. 62333
...highlights include when he put the cat out, possibly because it was sexually harrassed, we don't know yet.
I feel like there should be a privacy law that makes this level of stalking in 'the public interest' illegal before the point where they are staring through the mans window all day with a telescope.
|>>|| No. 62334
I have to agree. I can't believe they would be looking at the outside of his house like that. What pieces of shit. That's literally the worst thing I can imagine anyone ever doing.
|>>|| No. 62335
Is that really your point? That because someone does bad things that someone else shouldn't be prevented from also doing a bad thing?
Are you seven?
|>>|| No. 62336
My point is that Spacey deserves whatever he gets. Fuck him. How much privacy did he give to the kid whose bedroom he forced his way into?
|>>|| No. 62337
Last time I checked we had due process. Dishing out punishment isn't the media's job.
|>>|| No. 62338
Then you're a reactionary cretin and entirely missing the point.
We should have privacy laws to protect everyone, including you. We shouldn't forgo them just so we can gawk at a paedo because he deserves it. That sort of thinking is primitive and self serving, and it also enables the media to destroy someone's reputation before they've even stepped foot in court. Just because this isn't the case for Spacey, doesn't mean you should be opposing restrictions on harassment in the name of journalism. It's pretty fucking disgusting that you're so bloodthirsty that you're happy for everyone to potentially suffer just so you can know that Kevin Spacey is having a slightly worse day than he was already, and you should have a long hard think about how short sighted that is.
I reckon I'm going to get a rant from you about how paedos deserve no mercy, and thus proving with certainty that you still don't get it.
|>>|| No. 62339
This is just perpetuating actual maritime issues and male privilege. Dozens of women complain about Weinstein abusing them for decades and nobody does a thing. One man says Spacey abused him and suddenly he's being cut out of movies he's already shot.
|>>|| No. 62340
You've made a lot of leaps here about what I'm thinking but I'm going to respond in good faith if I may:
He is not being punished, he has some journalists outside his house. Anyone who does anything sufficiently in the public interest gets this treatment, not just paedophiles. If you want to oppose this generally I would probably agree with you but I'm not going to be MORE considerate of a paedophile's feelings than some actress whose just had a baby or a rapper with mental health issues.
I agree that the right to privacy is important, but it's also not relevant here. Wherever we as a society consider the line to be, a camera crew outside his house isn't over it.
|>>|| No. 62342
Especially not when he's still actively courting media attention, which is what the OP is about.
sage for double-post
|>>|| No. 62343
>He is not being punished, he has some journalists outside his house.
Given the shit you can pull with zoom lenses and ultra high res cameras, I'd say that having your privacy eroded in this way amounts to a punishment. You clearly take a different position on this. I'd agree with your position, but then we'd both be wrong, and we can't have that on .gs, can we?
|>>|| No. 62344
The difference is that with Weinstein there's the tacit understanding that a lot of actresses were prepared to suck his dick to be a film star. He abused his position but they clearly were getting something out of it and it is noticeable how certain actresses have seen work dry up since the whole Weinstein scandal broke because being the tart of choice for a producer was they only way they got roles.
|>>|| No. 62345
>He abused his position but they clearly were getting something out of it
And the actors Spacey abused weren't?
|>>|| No. 62347
>ANYONE WHO DOES ANYTHING SUFFICIENTLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST GETS THIS TREATMENT, NOT JUST PAEDOPHILES. IF YOU WANT TO OPPOSE THIS GENERALLY I WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH YOU
THEN WE AGREE.
>I AGREE THAT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S ALSO NOT RELEVANT HERE.
THEY'RE POINTING HIGH POWERED LENSES INTO HIS LIVING ROOM AND CAMPING OUT WATCHING HIM. IF THEY WERE ANYONE BUT JOURNALISTS THEY'D BE CALLED STALKERS, AND I DON'T THINK THE RIGHTS OF THE PRESS should EXTEND TO STARING INTO SOMEONE'S WINDOW WAITING FOR THEM TO DO SOMETHING INTERESTING.
"They were asking for it" is a fairly ironic way to defend Spacey being hounded by the press in particular, and I enjoy that, but I still don't think that should come into it. It really shouldn't be about individuals or a case by case basis, it should be that the press can't and shouldn't do this to anyone. I understand that a celebrity should never expect anonymity, but they should still expect privacy. When we bring legal issues into it I think it's even more important. We don't lose any information if the press has to just publish Spacey allegations and not him looking sad on his balcony.
|>>|| No. 62348
So when they take pictures of anyone's house they are punishing them? I don't see how you can believe that to be honest. When some journalists had tea in Boris Johnson's front garden earlier this year they were (rightly) called out for giving him an easy time and he wasn't accused of any kind of crime. This is how journalism works, they harass people and then write down what happens, its dirty and ugly and I wouldn't like it at all but society is obviously cool with it.
For it to be a punishment they'd have to have a general rule about not going to a person's residence that they have chosen to make an exception to for either Spacey in particular or paedos in general. No such rule exists, they are treating him just like anyone else.
|>>|| No. 62349
>THIS IS HOW JOURNALISM WORKS, THEY HARASS PEOPLE AND THEN WRITE DOWN WHAT HAPPENS, ITS DIRTY AND UGLY AND I WOULDN'T LIKE IT AT ALL BUT SOCIETY IS OBVIOUSLY COOL WITH IT.
Then the point is they should stop doing it and we should not be cool with it
You seem to agree that it must be an unpleasant experience, yet you think it should continue just because it's already happening?
>NO SUCH RULE EXISTS, THEY ARE TREATING HIM JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.
Yes, they're harassing him just like they'd harass anyone else in a high profile case. The argument here is that they should stop doing that to everyone.
|>>|| No. 62350
>No such rule exists, they are treating him just like anyone else.
So Weinstein wasn't doing anything wrong because he expected the same compliance from all the women he cast?
Also, he's "actively courting" the media the same way a scantily-clad woman is "actively courting" rapists.
|>>|| No. 62351
>So when they take pictures of anyone's house they are punishing them?
Er, yeah. There's no way they can argue in good faith that they're not encouraging people to track them down. "A private individual did something regrettable last week. Here's the front of their house, complete with their cars parked on it, in the Wankbridge area of Twatley, West Bumfuck, which you can clearly see from this 4K photo is number 22." There's literally no legitimate journalistic reason for that and it stews my piss slightly that they can get away with it.
>I don't see how you can believe that to be honest.
I think Specsavers have a deal on at the moment.
|>>|| No. 62357
How to fix British journalism #1: Legally require that corrections are printed in the same size and prominence as the original article. Front page lies mean a front page "oops, we're stupid thicko lying bastards."
How to fix British journalism #2: Question headlines are to be outright banned or treated the same as statements for the purposes of corrections, libel suits, etc.
|>>|| No. 62360
can you cunts stop linking to the daily mail
telling yourself you're doing it to laugh at it or doing it ironically isn't any better than doing it for other reasons
|>>|| No. 62361
By that logic none of my many crimes, sins and miscellaneous moral failings can be justified!
|>>|| No. 62364
>SLIDE IT IN DADDY STATE, UMF!
I HATE THE mentality we HAVE in this country THAT SOMEHOW every problem can and should be solved with an Act of Parliament. When it comes to privacy v. freedom of the press it's much more complicated and something Spacey can already make a good case for some compo being that everyone involved is a grown man.
Laws won't solve this problem because as usual it will just be circumvented (if not outright ignored while the police are busy logging everyone's porn id). Any given societies press is an extremely complex animal and knee-jerk reactions only hand the state more powers over what is in print despite what Hugh Grant may tell you. The real solution is one that recognises the British press to be an incestuous mess led by incompetent buffoons who remain in charge only because newer publications can't compete.
GO OUT AND GET SOME AIR YOU brie-munching metrosexual guardian reader.
GO ON THEN M9. TELL US of THIS MYTHICAL BETTER JOB YOU GOT THAN TAKING PICTURES OF SLAGS.
|>>|| No. 62366
Nothing there is much more statist than the current system of requiring papers to print a correction. They've just got to print it a bit bigger.
|>>|| No. 62367
What I don't get is why celebrity stalkers don't pretend to be paparazzi. It's the perfect excuse to be constantly following someone and all you have to do is invest in a camera.
|>>|| No. 62368
I think what drives a stalker is typically their belief that they could have, or already do have, a personal or intimate relationship with the person they're stalking, so them actively deciding to pretend to be a pap would be like them admitting that the celeb isn't actually going to be their girlfriend.
Having said that I'm sure I read of some stalker pretending to be the celeb victims maid or housekeeper or whatever to get inside the house, so maybe more stalkers should be considering devious plans.
|>>|| No. 62425
There's only one Kevin Spacey
Only one Kevin Spacey
He'll mosey along
Have a tug on your dong
Which really isn't something that should be trivialised via the medium of a football chant.
|>>|| No. 62432
>The actor states in a motion obtained by DailyMail.com that the teenager 'claimed he was a 23-year-old student studying business at Wake Forest University' after he 'sought out a friend for the specific purpose of introducing him to [Spacey].'
>It goes on to state that the teen 'welcomed drinks from [Spacey], let [Spacey] put his arm around him near the piano while they did sing-a-longs and even left the bar to smoke with [Spacey].' That behavior, combined with the fact that the teen gave Spacey his number, suggests 'mutual and consensual flirting' states the motion.
>At no point does Spacey deny groping the young man.
>The motion states that once Spacey began to grope his accuser the teen 'did not object to the alleged touching, he did not ask [Spacey] to stop and he did not remove himself from the situation.' In the initial filing the accuser said that this was because he froze, and suggested his lack of an erection as proof he was not enjoying the sex act.
Is an erection proof one way or another whether an assault occurred?
|>>|| No. 63461
Well yes his Lawyer agrees.
>Video from Magic Hour Rooftop Bar and Lounge in Manhattan showed no criminality on Gooding’s part, lawyer Mark Heller told the Associated Press. “There is not the slightest scintilla of inappropriate conduct on his part,” Heller said.
>After reviewing the security video, Heller said he was hesitant to let Gooding surrender but decided to go through with it. He said he was surprised police and prosecutors were moving forward with the case.
|>>|| No. 63751
I wonder if we'll get the headline of "Relieved Spacey" and 'actor relaxes after tense case and watches a bit of TV' with picture of him doing so taken through his window with a telescopic lenses
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]