I bloody hope not, although the person who abused me is long gone, and I hope it was slow and painful.
From that article:
Good job it wasn't a Disney productionStars of 1968 'Romeo and Juliet' sue Paramount over nude scene
The stars of 1968's 'Romeo and Juliet' are suing over the nude scene they filmed when they were just 15 and 16 years old.www.dailymail.co.uk
55 years on, they've clearly thought long and hard about it..........
Or they're both stuck for a few quid?
No - following the Catholic Church abuse scandals, the Statute of Limitations on sexual abuse cases in America was lifted for 3 years to allow claims to be made, from 1 January it was lifted again so expect literally 1,000s of claims to be filed up until 2025 - tbh anyway, so there should NOT be - the law should not expect a naive 15 year old child to take a powerful film directors to court - or even recognise that what they suffered is a violation of their rights and that they had any power to say no.
bit awkward for the case, presenting themselves as having suffered decades of trauma from being forced to go naked against their will at last minute.
For a director to expect a 15 year old girl to appear in ANY state of undress is worrying to say the least , but she certainly didn`t seem naive from the interview comments she made . And while at that age she would not have taken on a court case against such a man , surely with guidance she would of done so in the ensuing 10-20 years , but 55 years ? . Whilst there should never be a limitation on sexual abuse cases , this just smacks of a payday - i refer again to her quotes in her 2018 interviews .
I understand your point but don’t think read my post properly - first of all, I was responding to the specific question of time limits asked by @Rodney Thomas - the Statute of Limitations (requiring cases to be filed within 2 or 3 years of a minor reaching their 18th) has only been lifted recently (and for a limited window), and in fact the SoL have been a bone of contention for many years - that was the point I was responding to - also, I was answering a case in principle that a 15 year old child should not be expected to make a claim against a powerful film maker or even know that she has the power to say ‘no’. That is why it has been argued the SoL should not exist for child abuse cases.
Totally agree with everything you say , and you are correct i probably did read your post incorrectly , my limited Legal knowledge is severely hampered by the fact i don`t actually have anyI understand your point but don’t think read my post properly - first of all, I was responding to the specific question of time limits asked by @Rodney Thomas - the Statute of Limitations (requiring cases to be filed within 2 or 3 years of a minor reaching their 18th) has only been lifted recently (and for a limited window), and in fact the SoL have been a bone of contention for many years - that was the point I was responding to - also, I was answering a case in principle that a 15 year old child should not be expected to make a claim against a powerful film maker or even know that she has the power to say ‘no’. That is why it has been argued the SoL should not exist for child abuse cases.
I make no judgment of the ‘Romeo and Juliet’ case - I don’t know the case details, nor have access to the testimonies or what the specific charges are so not in a position to judge either way. However, I do believe that if the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings or the #mettoo movement have shown us anything, it is that someone alleging abuse should be at least heard without being pre-judged by the kangeroo court of social media.
and while as i say i totally agree with you , there should never be any protection removed from sexual abuse victims e.g. SoL i do think this instance is being used solely for monetary gain in an already incredibly litigious society .
if there was indecency or exploitation the state should have prosecuted at the time. as they didnt, we might conclude no crime deemed to occur, or threshold for law was different in 1960's. as it reads, the claim could remove the word "sexual" and still hold as a civil case, a couple of then teenage stars claiming exploitation suing for damages.I make no judgment of the ‘Romeo and Juliet’ case - I don’t know the case details, nor have access to the testimonies or what the specific charges are so not in a position to judge either way. However, I do believe that if the Ford-Kavanaugh hearings or the #mettoo movement have shown us anything, it is that someone alleging abuse should be at least heard without being pre-judged by the kangeroo court of social media.
Lol - that’s a circular argument if ever there was one - no prosecution case occurred at the time (because child abuse cases are typically filed retrospectively and the State can’t prosecute if a charge has not been made) therefore no crime was committed - if no crime was committed, therefore no abuse took place.
I’ve been up the Crem working
