R.I.P Pee Wee ... Paul Reubens Dead @70

Heathen2002 said:
Just because he wasn't convicted doesn't mean that he wasn't a pervert, creep or paedophile,

FACT - Hollywood has enough money to conceal and cover up crimes, especially paedophilia.
FACT - Paul Reubens was was first arrested in 1971 for loitering around an adult theatre.
FACT - Paul Reubens was arrested in 1991 for performing a lurid act in the same area as his 1971 arrest.
FACT - Paul Reubens was arrested in 2002 for have images of sexual nature of a minor under 18yo
FACT - His closest friend, Jeffrey Jones created the child porn and shared the child porn with Paul Reubens
FACT - Jeffrey Jones was later arrested and charged for being in possession of over 70 000 questionable images.

You don't need to be charged to be guilty of a heinous crime, money covers up that sh!t in Hollywood.

And those that want to ignore the FACTS are as guilty as the perpetrators of the crimes....especially those that like to buy gifts for vulnerable youth, and those said perpetrators I would EXPECT to debate FACTS and attempt gloss over facts about registered sex offenders.
Click to expand...
Bruh, my mom was saying the same thing earlier...well in a simpler form. "Was that the guy that was a pedó but ever got charged for it like Michael Jackson"
 
Heathen2002 said:

11. Use of images and linking to our website​

The logo(s) of #1 Chat Avenue is under free-license to use for the purposes of representation and association (linking or related articles) with this website. Linking from other websites to this website is allowed. Alterations of the logo for other uses or misrepresentation of this website through the use of unapproved logos is strictly prohibited.

I request that the Text and the link be restored.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately External links are not allowed here: https://forum.chat-avenue.com/threads/forum-rules.5544/ but Ill ask CM again if any exceptions can be made for Debate Forum or citing news sources if that helps.
 
Heathen2002 said:
Just because he wasn't convicted doesn't mean that he wasn't a pervert, creep or paedophile,

FACT - Hollywood has enough money to conceal and cover up crimes, especially paedophilia.
FACT - Paul Reubens was was first arrested in 1971 for loitering around an adult theatre.
FACT - Paul Reubens was arrested in 1991 for performing a lurid act in the same area as his 1971 arrest.
FACT - Paul Reubens was arrested in 2002 for have images of sexual nature of a minor under 18yo
FACT - His closest friend, Jeffrey Jones created the child porn and shared the child porn with Paul Reubens
FACT - Jeffrey Jones was later arrested and charged for being in possession of over 70 000 questionable images.

You don't need to be charged to be guilty of a heinous crime, money covers up that sh!t in Hollywood.

And those that want to ignore the FACTS are as guilty as the perpetrators of the crimes....especially those that like to buy gifts for vulnerable youth, and those said perpetrators I would EXPECT to debate FACTS and attempt gloss over facts about registered sex offenders.
Click to expand...
your first three points are correct but just show he was a perv.

the second group of three are also correct but incomplete , ( you left out a few. ) The 2002 charge was reduced to some sort of obscenity rap. Im curious why you assume a cover up and not that the District Attorney thought the case would fail or be weak etc?
 
Samwise said:
your first three points are correct but just show he was a perv.

the second group of three are also correct but incomplete , ( you left out a few. ) The 2002 charge was reduced to some sort of obscenity rap. Im curious why you assume a cover up and not that the District Attorney thought the case would fail or be weak etc?
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about 'CHARGES'

I was talking about 'ARRESTS'

THEY are all still FACT, as I said in that post, regardless of weather he was charged or not, you do not get arrested several times on sexual crimes if there wasn't some sort deviant behaviour.

You cannot debate facts, but time and again that lonely brain cell of yours tries to debate something that can't be debated. That it your antagonistic and narcissistic streak that is destroying this site.
 
Heathen2002 said:
Then one or both of the rules need to be editted because they contradict each other...not really suprised though...couldn't organise a root in a brothel.
Click to expand...
I think the one you cited, is about linking this sites logo etc to another - not linking a website to this one.
 
Heathen2002 said:
I wasn't talking about 'CHARGES'

I was talking about 'ARRESTS'

THEY are all still FACT, as I said in that post, regardless of weather he was charged or not, you do not get arrested several times on sexual crimes if there wasn't some sort deviant behaviour.

You cannot debate facts, but time and again that lonely brain cell of yours tries to debate something that can't be debated. That it your antagonistic and narcissistic streak that is destroying this site.
Click to expand...
Oh I see the confusion now- You suggested he was a "paedo " in your post above. I simply noted he was never convicted for that. A conviction is a legal judgement.

I agree he was charged, but a charge is simply an allegation. Those were never tested, and in fact were reduced-so Ive asked you why you thought that was. You seem to prefer a cynical outlook (its all rigged, conspiracy or such)
 
Rest in peace ✌️🕊️ PAUL.

Paul Reubens. So sad he had cancer for six long years.​


Pee-wee Herman. Rest in peace. I used to watch that show. You had great talent on TV and movies.
 
Samwise said:
Oh I see the confusion now- You suggested he was a "paedo " in your post above. I simply noted he was never convicted for that. A conviction is a legal judgement.

I agree he was charged, but a charge is simply an allegation. Those were never tested, and in fact were reduced-so Ive asked you why you thought that was. You seem to prefer a cynical outlook (its all rigged, conspiracy or such)
Click to expand...
the confusion is yours as you are clear as mud.

HE WAS ARRESTED WITH IMAGES OF A MINOR NAKED. HE WAS NOT CHARGED. I suggested he was not charged because there is a proven history of Hollywood protecting their paedophile. If Paul Reuben's was innocent, why was he found with images of a minor under 18?????

get that single brain cell of yours working please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top