Hollywood Faggot Director accused of ass raping little boy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...singer-accused-of-1999-sex-abuse-of-teen-boy/

So we all know that Brandon Routh became Superman cuz he cock gargled Singer and from the new X-men trailer and the awful Jack the Giant Killer, it looks like he's butt ramming the guy who plays Beast. But now it's come out that he raped a little boy in a hot tub.

I wouldn't worry too much. Our enlightened friends on the left will say it wasn't really "rape rape."

It's okay, he's a democrat.

I'm more upset that he raped the X-Men franchise by leaving the last movie for Ratner to fuck up.

I hope it's not true, but innocent until proven guilty.

1. The alleged victim was 17.

2. The abuse is said to have happened in two different cities and, thus, on at least two different occasions.

3. This is supposed to have happened in 1999, 15 years ago.

4. There is, apparently, no documentation (e.g., police report) from the time.

Whatever Singer may have done, the alleged victim let this lie for a long time. And is the alleged victim now bringing criminal charges? No, he's suing for money.

I'm skeptical that anything qualifying as real abuse actually took place.

From what I read on BBC, the charge is that he coerced a 17 year old into sex parties, not that he "ass-raped a little boy".

EDIT: What Paladin said.

When did a 17 year old become a "little boy" ?

In a lot of places (including several US states), a 17 year old can legally consent.

I agree with the comments I read on CNN.

Yeah, this coming out just over a month before X-Men: Days of Futures Past releases...yeah, this reeks of someone hoping to get a quick settlement from 20th Century Fox.

As such I hope they destroy him in court, then Singer sues him for slander/libel and takes everything he owns.

I thought about adding that to my reply "In most of the world for most of history 17 is an adult".

Shortly after that accident with the time-travel machine.

We don't talk about it.

Ray: This is how you debunk pedophilia claims without being a pedo supporter.

I'm amazed the OP didn't stick in something about him being a Jew while he was at it.

Notably including Hawaii, where this lawsuit is happening.

So, lesbian shoes adds another DST to his record.

Interesting, I didn't know it was happening here.

When it was Trayvon Martin.

Touché

Zing! Nice.

That's what Singer said.

This from the guy whose last exit from the board involved picture after picture of big black cocks.

14th Doc could have said the exact same thing and been called a pedophile for it. Does anyone really believe that was really about anything other than Sokar not liking his politics?

Everyone does. He literally defended Polanski having sex with a kid.

Further, it wasn't sokar who brought that to the forefront over WF's attention. It was maud dib.

No, just you now.

Do you think you get something out of lying, or are you so stupid that you believe your own bullshit after awhile?

He thinks Jesus doesn't read the Internet.

He defending Polanski not having to spend jail time 30 years later on the fact that that victim in question had said she'd forgoven him. Not that I agree or defend that sentiment but that =/= being cool with child sex.

Apparently it's an open secret that this guy has boy fuck parties with Roland Emmerich. Which makes me even more excited for Independence Day 2.

Except that what it amounts to is Polanski getting a "get out of jail free" card for drugging and raping a child and 14th Doctor being cool with that idea. Not a lot of wiggle room there, especially when one considers that Polanski was already being given special treatment on account of his celebrity status when he ran from the softball version of justice being served. In all of that, it's like the child rape just kind of got swept under the rug, so while strictly speaking he didn't defend child rape, defending the idea that a child rapist shouldn't be punished for said child rape is pretty damn close to it.

No. What it amounts to is 14th forgetting that crimes are prosecuted by the government, not the victim. It's an endorsement of justice and public order as vengeance, thereby obviating the need for justice or improvement of public order when vengeance is forsaken.

If you think that justice is separate from vengeance and public order and therefore object to this, then good for you! You might just not be a conservative.

Considering his attitude in that thread about the guy who nearly got killed for accidentally hitting a kid and then actually stopping and trying to do the right thing like any non-psychotic person might, I guess he's nothing if not consistent.