Wow is this new over there? Here in Australia we have strongly worded warnings about cancer and death along with photographs of fucked up looking feet from associated illnesses and people dying in hospital beds with breathing masks and tubes everywhere and fucked up looking lungs from autopsies of smokers.
Those sorts of warnings / graphic images are already present on the cigarette packaging in Canada. What’s new is that now the warnings will also be printed directly on each individual cigarette!
And every smoker already knows that cigarettes have lots of negative health effects but still smoke anyways because they like it and are willing to gamble. So I wonder what’s the point in this?
Dude, you gotta learn how to cross post lol. There’s a little button on the web interface just for doing it. Afaik, none of the apps have integrated that function yet, but if you’re going to want five or six communities to have the post, it’s worth the extra step of using a browser.
Honest question, what do they do for fun? It seems like basically every Western recreational activity is banned and their jihad is over, so how do these people occupy the time?
Hard to tell what actually happened. Looks like he/she (he?) said thing. Why are some of these charges being brought decades later. If incident happened, the evidence can only be gathered right after, otherwise, it will be just that he/she said, which is not enough for a criminal conviction.
Why are some of these charges being brought decades later.
Because accusing a likeable and famous actor while you’re a nobody, will either be ignored or lead to thousands of hateful messages in your inbox every day, unless enough others came forth first.
Well, then the entire case is just an accusation without much evidence besides "trust me bro" and outside of Weinstein who was notorious, it is very unlikely to result in conviction.
Criminal law requires evidence, otherwise it would be abused by people to get rid of people they don't like or for profit.
This is actually the truth. I am a CSA survivor, and I didn’t report and now I wish so bad I did.
If anyone reading this has recently been through it, report it now! Don’t wait 20 years like me to even confront it and then never have a chance at closure.
Why are some of these charges brought decades later?
If the case isn’t iron clad you’ll have to defend against libel and it gets ugly fast. See for example the case of Evan Rachel Wood or Amber Heard, who had to not only defend herself once, but twice losing once and having her reputation utterly ruined because the one time she lost got so much more media attention.
See also this interview from 2005! Thats 17 years before Weinstein was finally found guilty. www.tmz.com/watch/0-2mpyk0xk/
I think Heard is an excellent example because Depp lost the UK trial, but won the US one which got so much more attention. Plus despite the claim Depp’s side put forth that “the abuse was a hoax” being found libelous, as in the jury decided it wasn’t a hoax, this didn’t get any attention and Heard is made out to be the sole villain in the story and having made it all up to hurt Johnny Depp.
This will make victims think thrice before even speaking up against (much less sue) celebrities as they risk being vilified if the case isn’t ironclad.
A case like this should be ironclad, though. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" is the standard for criminal charges. I wouldn't want people to be convicted of life-ruining crimes based on non-ironclad cases.
I’m saying the evidence doesn’t just have to be “ironclad” enough for a guilty verdict, it has to be so overwhelming that the outcome of the trial can be reasonably certain before a case is made. Why would I argue for the standard for evidence in a trial to be lessened? That doesn’t make sense.
Claiming Heard is victim here is not fair to actual victims but that's just an opinion.
Also, she is celebrity herself, I highly doubt she was scared to sue.
Most people did not believe her for various reasons. Since she decided to take the entire drama into court of public opinion, people are entitled to make their own judgement, which they did, just not in the way she expected or wanted.
Uncanceled, I guess. After reading the background on his case and seeing this outcome I'd imagine we'll see him pop back up in a few projects assuming he doesn't just decide to retire.
While I wish it was easy to condemn Unilever for this, I get it. They have a lot of employees in russia and shuttering operations would have a decidedly negative effect on those people, and it’s not like they can prohibit their employees from taking legally required actions.
It’s not about prohibition, no one wants to be drafted and people are hiding from it, it’s about sharing employees details and location with military recruiters.
Genuine question: where in the article is it mentioned that Unilever is sharing those details? I don’t doubt that they are, but I don’t see that here.
By no means am I defending Unilever here-I consider myself very anti corporate and I don’t think any company should exist that is the size of Unilever, but the real world is less black and white.
Zero chance there isn’t corporate greed involved-that’s why all mega corps like this exist. But if they dip, the Russian state would at least attempt to take over the Unilever properties and operate. That would be no better for the workers-possibly worse.
Then why not say every rouble made in Russia will go to humanitarian aid? I’ll tell you why; it’s because they are still making money by being in Russia. It’s corporate greed through and through. These fuckers make no sacrifice until it hurts their bottom line.
bbc.co.uk
Top