Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[BubberMiley]

THat is not cause for dismissal unless his contract has reference.

I could show employers a picture of a woman I hurt, my mother. Childbirth hurts.

How do I say this clearer? The case is settled. He agreed to the settlement. Part of the settlement he agreed to was to pay their legal fees. He paid them for their trouble and his unsuccessful attempt to sue them. He had no leg to stand BEFORE he was charged. Why would things be different now? Most of all, how would he undo the settlement he has already agreed to?

[Big Guy]

Ghomeshi is a sleaze. The crown prosecutor is a jackass.

The prosecution did not take the time and effort to fully vent these witnesses before deciding to take this to court.

The tragedy is not that this sleaze is going to get off but that it will set back the in initiatives to get battered women to come forward with their stories.

What were these ladies thinking by not sharing ALL information with the crown?

[BubberMiley]

The 5000+ text messages between them when they were instructed that they shouldn't talk to each other sounds like the Crown prosecutor might be going after them after this case is dismissed.

[Ash74]

Ghomeshi is a sleaze. The crown prosecutor is a jackass.

The prosecution did not take the time and effort to fully vent these witnesses before deciding to take this to court.

The tragedy is not that this sleaze is going to get off but that it will set back the in initiatives to get battered women to come forward with their stories.

What were these ladies thinking by not sharing ALL information with the crown?

I personally think with the information so far, that these ladies are the ones guilty of setting back the initiatives for battered women to come forward.

[Hal 9000]

Not only have they all 3 women been caught lying and hiding information, it really is starting to look like collusion.

[On Guard for Thee]

THat is not cause for dismissal unless his contract has reference.

I could show employers a picture of a woman I hurt, my mother. Childbirth hurts.

And wasn't it our once Dear Leader Pierre Trudeau who established long ago that the state has no place in our bedrooms? Neither does the CBC or any employee. He loses only unless and only of his contract is a) legal in its morality clause and expressly forbids his actual conduct.

If I showed, for example, my employer the photo of some sexual activity that many would find repugnant but is not illegal could I be fired? Sure, but it would cost them. The only difference between Ghomeshi and anybody is the nature of his contract. And CBC better hope that the morality clause therein is both constitutional and airtight, or they will pay. Do you think that the sharktank lawyers he has working for him now are going to be satisfied with a million or two from Ghomeshi in fees for his criminal case, when 30% to 50% of a fat civil suit from a company with endlessly deep pockets can be litigated or negotiated?

It was totally grounds for dismissal. You can't have a legal contract which says you can bruise and crack ribs on your sex partner. His 1000 word statement was also a possible grounds for dismissal. If he's smart he won't attempt another suit regardless of the outcome of his criminal case.

[Big Guy]

He is obviously in a poorer career position and has lost a lot of earnings because of this court case.

How about he sues the crown for "malicious prosecution and negligent investigation" and looking for damages to his reputation etc.

[Boges]

He is obviously in a poorer career position and has lost a lot of earnings because of this court case.

How about he sues the crown for "malicious prosecution and negligent investigation" and looking for damages to his reputation etc.

His career was damaged before the criminal charges.

I do think the women should see some repersussions for wasting the court's time.

[overthere]

He is obviously in a poorer career position and has lost a lot of earnings because of this court case.

How about he sues the crown for "malicious prosecution and negligent investigation" and looking for damages to his reputation etc.

He will sue everybody: the women, the Crown, the CBC.

Having withdrawn from a previous suit has no bearing on another one.

[overthere]

How do I say this clearer? The case is settled. He agreed to the settlement. Part of the settlement he agreed to was to pay their legal fees. He paid them for their trouble and his unsuccessful attempt to sue them. He had no leg to stand BEFORE he was charged. Why would things be different now? Most of all, how would he undo the settlement he has already agreed to?

Because the basis of the withdrawal was that he had not filed a grievance, as required by the collective agreement. With

It was totally grounds for dismissal. You can't have a legal contract which says you can bruise and crack ribs on your sex partner. His 1000 word statement was also a possible grounds for dismissal. If he's smart he won't attempt another suit regardless of the outcome of his criminal case.

And who says that his sexual affairs on his own time are a cause for dismissal? If for example it became public that somebody privately enjoyed anal adventures involving gerbils wielded by troupes of male midgets could that be grounds for dismissal? Well, no. Not in 2016. Not long ago, simply being gay and making that public was grounds for dismissal. Simply having a moral turpitude clause ain't nearly enough. You have to explain why that damages your brand enough that you choose to terminate a contract and extinguish a career. So far, Ghomeshi has acknowledged that he enjoys rough sex. There is nothing illegal about rough sex, if consenting adults participate. So, far, nobody has proven in a court that an illegal act occurred. Proving that rough sex occurred is not grounds for conviction- or dismissal.

And that is the problem with 'morality' clauses in contracts, the interpretation has nothing to do with the moral repugnance that On Guard For Thee feels for Ghomeshis -so far- legal actions.

Why would it be unwise to pursue a lawsuit after an acquittal? He would have to prove that his career was damaged by the actions of the Crown, his employer, and the complainants. At least two out of those three have very considerable assets. That is an excellent start for any plaintiff, much better than usual.

[BubberMiley]

I'm guessing now that you don't know what the word "settlement" means.

[On Guard for Thee]

Because the basis of the withdrawal was that he had not filed a grievance, as required by the collective agreement. With

And who says that his sexual affairs on his own time are a cause for dismissal? If for example it became public that somebody privately enjoyed anal adventures involving gerbils wielded by troupes of male midgets could that be grounds for dismissal? Well, no. Not in 2016. Not long ago, simply being gay and making that public was grounds for dismissal. Simply having a moral turpitude clause ain't nearly enough. You have to explain why that damages your brand enough that you choose to terminate a contract and extinguish a career. So far, Ghomeshi has acknowledged that he enjoys rough sex. There is nothing illegal about rough sex, if consenting adults participate. So, far, nobody has proven in a court that an illegal act occurred. Proving that rough sex occurred is not grounds for conviction- or dismissal.

And that is the problem with 'morality' clauses in contracts, the interpretation has nothing to do with the moral repugnance that On Guard For Thee feels for Ghomeshis -so far- legal actions.

Why would it be unwise to pursue a lawsuit after an acquittal? He would have to prove that his career was damaged by the actions of the Crown, his employer, and the complainants. At least two out of those three have very considerable assets. That is an excellent start for any plaintiff, much better than usual.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. Mine remains that no illegal act has to be proven before dismissal is justified. As has already been explained, he withdrew his previous attempted suit, probably on sound legal advice that it would fail, not because he was necessarily concerned about a criminal case.

[Big Guy]

..

That is an excellent start for any plaintiff, much better than usual.

But if "somebody privately enjoyed anal adventures involving gerbils wielded by troupes of female midgets could that be grounds for dismissal?" ?

[WestCoastRunner]

I think, at this point, a conviction would essentially criminalize BDSM behaviour. It's technically assault and if you can't consent to assault then a woman can retroactively contend that it was assault even if the other part thought they were doing something that their partner was fine with.

Slippery Slope.

What relevance does a hand job have to do with the case? Even if it's after the fact. Let's remember that this is tried in front of a judge which I think may be in favour of the complainants in this case.

Whoops, I quoted the wrong post.

Edited February 9, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[WestCoastRunner]

So the 3rd complainant was up today. Apparently she admits to giving Ghomeshi a hand job. A detail she forgot to mention in her initial statement to the police.

And the women have been texting each other, something they were told not to do.

These women are embarrassing themselves.

These women aren't embarrassing themselves and that's a disgraceful statement applied to all assault victims.

Whether he is found guilty or not, he is a despicable man who preys on young women to fulfil his sick needs.

[Hal 9000]

What relevance does a hand job have to do with the case? Even if it's after the fact. Let's remember that this is tried in front of a judge which I think may be in favour of the complainants in this case.

Whoops, I quoted the wrong post.

Based on what exactly?

[WestCoastRunner]

Based on what exactly?

For one thing, he is allowing the fourth witness. Had it been tried in front of a jury, he may have disallowed it. He has said that he can tell the difference between what's relevant and what isn't more than a jury can.

[Hal 9000]

These women aren't embarrassing themselves and that's a disgraceful statement applied to all assault victims.

Whether he is found guilty or not, he is a despicable man who preys on young women to fulfil his sick needs.

Yes, they are embarrassing themselves...and they're the reason why women don't come forward as often as they should, and they're the reason why offenders get off. They are disgraceful to actual assault victims.

Your second point - I agree fully.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes, they are embarrassing themselves...and they're the reason why women don't come forward as often as they should, and they're the reason why offenders get off. They are disgraceful to actual assault victims.

Your second point - I agree fully.

Describing victims as embarrassing serves no one.

[Boges]

These women aren't embarrassing themselves and that's a disgraceful statement applied to all assault victims.

Whether he is found guilty or not, he is a despicable man who preys on young women to fulfil his sick needs.

Yes they are embarrassing themselves. They deliberately misled police and colluded with each other even though they were instructed not to.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes they are embarrassing themselves. They deliberately misled police and colluded with each other even though they were instructed not to.

The fourth witness is called to help dismiss collusion. Again, whether they met up with ghomeshi or not after the fact doesn't excuse the assault. Clearly these women have insecurity issues (by returning) but it doesn't mean these assaults didn't happen.

[Boges]

The fourth witness is called to help dismiss collusion. Again, whether they met up with ghomeshi or not after the fact doesn't excuse the assault. Clearly these women have insecurity issues (by returning) but it doesn't mean these assaults didn't happen.

5000 texts where one says "Let's sink this prick"?

Sounds like collusion to me. We'll see what the statement says.

What happened after speaks to credibility. All 3 witnesses did not disclose important evidence.

The women who testified yesterday has video testimony where she flatly denied seeing Ghomeshi after the assault and only recanted after Lucy Decouture was destroyed on the stand last Friday.

What evidence is there that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these assaults happened And/or weren't consensual?

[Hal 9000]

The fourth witness is called to help dismiss collusion. Again, whether they met up with ghomeshi or not after the fact doesn't excuse the assault. Clearly these women have insecurity issues (by returning) but it doesn't mean these assaults didn't happen.

These women all seemed to "forget" stalking him, sending him sexy photos, suggestive emails, flowers, phone calls, invites, and actual sex after the alleged assault. The third 'victim" could say nothing more than "he had a hand on my neck while they were kissing and...He said my friend was controlling".

They've clearly worked on their stories, they've clearly been coached...although it must seem like herding cats from the Crown's perspective.

This case gets worse and worse by the day...by the complainant.

The last witness better toss a couple Hail Marys, because that's the only thing that'll help the Crown

[WestCoastRunner]

Let's see what the judge determines, however I agree the case will likely get tossed. he has another case coming up in June. Will be interesting to see if this case gets tossed.

Edited February 9, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[Hal 9000]

Let's see what the judge determines, however I agree the case will likely get tossed. he has another case coming up in June. Will be interesting to see if this case gets tossed.

To be honest WCR, even the the most staunch feminist should turn their back on this case and these women, they are doing more harm than good. I'm surprised you're trying to defend them.