CTV Backpedals On Patrick Brown Allegations

[betsy]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

So again you are saying anything goes.  A 30+ year old man can do anything he wishes with a young woman many years his junior, even one that he is in a position of authority over so long as it is not in the criminal code and she must take it and shut up.

Eh?  Where did I say that?

 

Quote

There are only crimes, and nothing is inappropriate.

According to you, if someone brings forth an allegation against you - you're automatically guilty!  

Accusation = guilt.  

 

It's you that eliminates the constitutional right to  due process.   You decriminalize  defamation. 

Presumed innocent until proven guilty!   You'll uphold gossips as truths!

 

Quote

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence

 

You'll strip people of human rights!

 

Quote

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

 

It's you Impact, who promotes ANYTHING GOES!

 

 

 

Heaven forbid no one who has an axe to grind against you comes out now to say you behaved inappropriately towards her 20 or 30 years ago.   If that happens, and you know it didn't happen....should you lose your job?

Edited February 16, 2018 by betsy

[?Impact]

46 minutes ago, betsy said:

Eh?  Where did I say that?

The entirety of your response says that. You want a criminal conviction, therefore you support the men who have lost their jobs due to sexual harassment without criminal conviction.

[betsy]

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

The entirety of your response says that. You want a criminal conviction, therefore you support the men who have lost their jobs due to sexual harassment without criminal conviction.

EH?  What are you on about?  You don't make any sense!

[AngusThermopyle]

So the latest development in this saga is that Brown is now suing CTV for 10 million. Good stuff, they should be held accountable for their reckless and vile actions. I wonder if they'll eagerly report that?

[?Impact]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

EH?  What are you on about?  You don't make any sense!

Go back and reread what you wrote. You went on about innocence until proven guilty in the American criminal justice system. How many thousands (tens of thousands) men lost their jobs in the past decade because of sexual harassment of women and never had a day in court? They were denied due process. Here we are in a thread about a man who left voluntarily, and you are accusing me of striping people of human rights.

[?Impact]

Just now, AngusThermopyle said:

So the latest development in this saga is that Brown is now suing CTV for 10 million. Good stuff, they should be held accountable for their reckless and vile actions. I wonder if they'll eagerly report that?

Yes, a 30+ year old man making lewd advances on young women including ones that he is in a position of authority over is all sunshine and lollipops in your world, but a news organization reporting news is vile.

 

[AngusThermopyle]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Yes, a 30+ year old man making lewd advances on young women including ones that he is in a position of authority over is all sunshine and lollipops in your world, but a news organization reporting news is vile.

 

I think you meant to say a man who committed no crime and did no harm to anyone is all sunshine and lollipops. I do object to a news organization pillorying an innocent man while doing zero due diligence to ensure that they avoid that very thing. In your world it appears that due diligence is just a pesky inconvenience and should be discounted and avoided at all costs. To hell with the laws of civil society, especially when it suits your agenda.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

In your world it appears that due diligence is just a pesky inconvenience and should be discounted and avoided at all costs. To hell with the laws of civil society, especially when it suits your agenda.

So what about those thousands of other men who have lost their jobs without a criminal conviction?

[AngusThermopyle]

Why are you asking this? Are you seriously trying to deflect from the inane comment you made? Are you so desperate to avoid admitting you're on the wrong side of this that you'll resort to the most inane technique in the book? We're talking about specifics here, Brown and CTV. Thought I'd remind you of that since you seem to have forgotten already.

[?Impact]

2 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

Why are you asking this? Are you seriously trying to deflect from the inane comment you made? Are you so desperate to avoid admitting you're on the wrong side of this that you'll resort to the most inane technique in the book? We're talking about specifics here, Brown and CTV. Thought I'd remind you of that since you seem to have forgotten already.

Wrong side, exactly what sides have you defined? I don't see sides here, I see truth and those who attempt to distort it. I am simply asking for truth and consistency. If you only want criminal due diligence, then there are thousands of men out there that will be suing many companies for $10 million each.

[betsy]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Go back and reread what you wrote. You went on about innocence until proven guilty in the American criminal justice system. How many thousands (tens of thousands) men lost their jobs in the past decade because of sexual harassment of women and never had a day in court? They were denied due process. Here we are in a thread about a man who left voluntarily, and you are accusing me of striping people of human rights.

Your response is convoluted.  I don't understand what you're saying.  How do you know men were denied due process? 

You should read my post and try to understand it.

Edited February 16, 2018 by betsy

[Argus]

4 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, a 30+ year old man making lewd advances on young women including ones that he is in a position of authority over is all sunshine and lollipops in your world, but a news organization reporting news is vile.

There is no actual evidence he made ANY advances. But carry on. I know you're stuck supporting the Liberal party, without regard to truth or wisdom.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Argus

[?Impact]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

There is no actual evidence he made ANY advances.

I never said he did, I am talking about the people excusing that type of behavior. You have done that many times in this case. Now we have people riled up about unknown allegations from an anonymous source about an anonymous MPP,  and everyone is on that because they think the anonymous MPP is a liberal. It seems that the facts are totally irrelevant to some, it is simply how can they leverage them.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

I never said he did,

You are certainly acting like he did.

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

I am talking about the people excusing that type of behavior. You have done that many times in this case.

I don't have your paternalistic view of women as helpless, immature children who need to be protected for their own good from their own decisions which they make as adults.