Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Christie Blatchford: For the accused men overtaken by the #MeToo tsunami, there is no recovery


Criminal courts offer protections and fairness for the accused. The same can’t be said for blog posts, secret investigations and corporate HR procedures



Christie Blatchford

Published on: January 29, 2018 | Last Updated: January 29, 2018 8:00 PM EST




The accused men, clockwise from top left: Patrick Brown, Kent Hehr, Paul Bliss and Rick Dykstra. Ernest Doroszuk/Postmedia; Jim Wells/Postmedia; CTV; Julie Jocsak/Postmedia



Of the four prominent men who fell from grace at warp speed over the last few days, all are finished.

They are former Ontario Progressive Conservative leader Patrick Brown, who lost his job last Wednesday night; federal Sports and Disabilities Minister Kent Hehr, who resigned from cabinet Thursday afternoon; CTV anchor Paul Bliss, who was suspended last Friday; and Ontario PC party president Rick Dykstra, who resigned Sunday night.

It isn’t just that for all but Hehr and Bliss, there simply is no process — not even a hint of one — they can turn to that would allow them to give their side of things and potentially undo the damage done.

Hehr and Bliss have a glimmer of hope, but it is a faint and probably cruel one.

The complaints against Hehr are being investigated by a lawyer hired by the Justin Trudeau government.

That report is likely to remain private, as indeed did the report, also done by a lawyer, for the Liberal party when it was in Opposition and two of its MPs (Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti) were accused of inappropriate conduct and then given the boot.

Now, as then, whatever the lawyer determines in Hehr’s case, details will almost certainly be kept secret.

Bliss’ fate is in the hands of CTV human resources, which acted within hours of the blog post that accused him of sexual assault. The robustness and fairness of CTV’s internal investigation is unknowable to anyone outside the organization and unlikely to ever become public.


Brown and Dykstra haven’t even that ghost of a chance, and it doesn’t matter anyway — there simply is no reputational recovery from allegations of sexual assault or harassment.

And that’s the key — there’s no recovery from allegations.

In this lethality, and the lack of some recognizable and fair process available to the accused men, the #MeToo tsunami has about it a real whiff of McCarthyism.

In two instances, the accusers were anonymous, and so, largely, do they remain, though one of Brown’s (she alleges Brown plied her with drinks, then kissed and groped her against her will before driving her home when she asked) has been identified online.

CTV spokespeople and others have said “but they’re not anonymous” to CTV, and they’re not anonymous to Patrick Brown. That is cold comfort to anyone concerned with transparency and fairness, and the truth of things is unknowable by the casual reader and viewer.

Dykstra’s accuser told her story anonymously. Presumably the former MP knows who she is, since she went to Ottawa Police in 2014 with the same allegations.

She told Maclean’s magazine that on Feb. 11, 2014, after the traditional post-budget party, she went with a group including Dykstra to another bar. Later, the woman, who says both were drunk, decided to go home. She says Dykstra jumped into her cab and insisted she go to his apartment, ignoring her protestations. There, she says, he kissed her against her will and forced her to perform oral sex.

“There simply is no reputational recovery from allegations of sexual assault or harassment.
–​

Police investigated, the National Post has learned, and interviewed several witnesses, including the taxi driver. Dykstra himself co-operated with police.

The Maclean’s story said she “ultimately decided not to lay charges” (complainants actually don’t get to make such decisions) and Dykstra was told by police the alleged victim was no longer co-operating and that they had decided not to proceed.

Fast forward to last weekend.

Dykstra was first told about the Maclean’s story at 6:12 p.m. Sunday.

As he scrambled to find lawyers, who in turn were unsuccessfully scrambling to find specialists in defamation law, the magazine published the story at 10:45 p.m., or about four and a half hours later.

His lawyers, Chris Murphy and John Phillips, released a short statement Monday in which they said Dykstra “categorically denies” the allegations and noted that the writer said he was “anxious to give (Dykstra) every opportunity to provide information” about the allegation.

But in the end, that consisted of a few hours.

“As a fair and just society, we must insist that a person be given more than four hours on a Sunday evening to respond to ruinous accusations.”


Maclean’s didn’t respond to Post emails asking why Dykstra wasn’t given more time, sent Monday first at 1:58 p.m. and again at 4 p.m. By 6 p.m., Maclean’s had failed to respond in about the same length of time the magazine gave Dykstra to answer the questions that would ruin his life.

The accusers of Hehr and Bliss made their allegations first on social media, in the MP’s case by a former staffer named Kristin Raworth who worked at the Alberta legislature a decade ago when Hehr was an MLA, in Bliss’ case by a former journalist named Bridget Brown who wrote a blog.

Brown didn’t name Bliss in the blog, but she did when CTV human resources came calling.

For all that more people now are increasingly dismissive of the criminal courts — albeit no one with more contempt than NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, a lawyer for God’s sakes, who last week said the presumption of innocence is “strictly about the procedures in court” — they offer protections and fairness for the accused person.

The same can’t be said for blog posts, for secret investigations of any sort (whether by mainstream media or hired-gun lawyers), for corporate HR procedures.

And none of it matters anymore: J’accuse; you’re done


http://ottawacitizen.com/opini.....4866200104
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7634
Reputation: 305.5Reputation: 305.5
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:

I agree and at the same time disagree.

I 'get' the party brass trying to frame things as better when PB is gone in the face of these allegations, however the new bar has been levied and set by the actions of the accused and his cohorts (PC Party)

And subsequently (we did not know this last week) there appears to be a slew of folks who are to be named. Perhaps , that muddy water could have been filtered in comparison to some other bomb shells that are to fall. (Hindsight 20 20 here)

It all appears to be too fast a reaction.


If there is "more" and they were aware of it, then its a different discussion.
This aspect is largely nebulous, there may be more or the PC party simply didn't want its caucus and volunteers discussing the appropriate or inappropriate way to ask for oral sex for the next few months.


Toronto Centre wrote:
Heres the kicker I should have included.

He can only do that if he is absolutely sure he is not guilty of anything....no whipping out his dick to the girl , no plying of drinks to the girl (altho that can occur innocently enough)
So if he felt he was innocent of all, fight like hell. If nothing else at the end of his day he can rest easy that he tried.

And .... I know this thinking is extremely hard to pull off. One misstep with a word or two and he sinks once again.
Or...

He comes clean with his version of events. Sometimes getting out front of a story like this results in a favorable outcome. Risky I understand.


Based on the below, it appears you and I are largely on the same page that we aren't talking about criminality here.

So when you state he has to be absolutely sure he isn't guilty of anything;

What's the bar for guilt?

He was a single guy and it sounds like he likely met a few single women during his 20s and into his 30s, if he "whipped it out" and consensual relations occurred but the details of those relations are shocking

Is that guilt?

From my perspective, I want to understand where the line is here.


Toronto Centre wrote:

Yes. Very risky but we see what he is left with and perhaps a fight would have been better for him?


I think that is a discussion we will likely have over a virtual beer on June 8th 2018.
Either the PCs made the right call, or they didn't.

Toronto Centre wrote:

From what I know and have read , no criminality.

The supply of booze to an underager is perhaps an issue , but hell we are allowed to supply our own kids w booze in the house. An 18 yr old female probably looked 'of age' , or the bouncers wanted to let her in to attract the guys.


We are on the same page here;

Toronto Centre wrote:

I dont disagree so much as he shouldve tried that tact.


This is where I can't agree or disagree.

I wasn't in the caucus meeting, he may been flipping over tables and demanding that he be allowed to clear his name and the caucus decided it was a situation where you can resign now or be removed in the morning.

All we know is that he sat with his caucus for a few hours and the call was made to not walk into an election with this over their heads.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 749
Reputation: 102.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cosmostein wrote:

I wasn't in the caucus meeting, he may been flipping over tables and demanding that he be allowed to clear his name and the caucus decided it was a situation where you can resign now or be removed in the morning.

All we know is that he sat with his caucus for a few hours and the call was made to not walk into an election with this over their heads.

I am ignorant to the machinations inside, can the party actually force him legally to resign?

If he says No to it, what/how does the next move come about?

And that Chritie Blatchford article is kind of weird.

This outpouring of support for politicians seems odd. Many jobs are sunk on allegations alone. Some get tried and some dont .
Either way, the person is sunk.

The ones who get cleared gets the back page micro lines of "So and So was found not to have anything to do with XYZ "

No one reads it, no one gets the same position back. It is a serious problem albeit small in numbers.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 7634
Reputation: 305.5Reputation: 305.5
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toronto Centre wrote:
cosmostein wrote:

I wasn't in the caucus meeting, he may been flipping over tables and demanding that he be allowed to clear his name and the caucus decided it was a situation where you can resign now or be removed in the morning.

All we know is that he sat with his caucus for a few hours and the call was made to not walk into an election with this over their heads.

I am ignorant to the machinations inside, can the party actually force him legally to resign?

If he says No to it, what/how does the next move come about?


Without digging up the party constitution to cite an exact reference;
*Usually* the caucus can vote to remove a leader accused of something moral ambiguous, the verbiage is usually vague so its a catch all;

But if not, in theory the party could hold a leadership review under whatever the rules of a review would be and have the entire caucus effectively state that they feel he needs to step aside so this can be investigated and would be removed (assuming the party voted that way).

In general there is usually an out the party can use if they need to.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 749
Reputation: 102.3
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, I didnt know.

Kind of a Morals Clause then.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2018 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

is anyone else wondering what happened to Patrick Brown ? we haven't seen or heard from him in a week ?

he had initially said he was going to sue his accusers but has yet to move forward on any legal defence


I'm actually wondering if he's even still in the country ? seem like a good idea to go on vacation rate about now to someplace far away

I doubt he's at his residence In Toronto or someone have seen him and been no sign of him in barrie either . he seems to have disappeared
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4696
Reputation: 254.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No wonder he has gone to ground. His party has branded him a sexual harasser. Years of work have been taken from him. All on the basis of untested ten-year-old allegations that are hugely overblown. He must feel betrayed and violated.

What makes anyone think the next leader is going to be immune to such attacks?

You don't want to look at the reality of how gender interacts with state power in Canada, even when a big bombshell 'of it lands in our laps.

Every political party in Canada is playing identity politics, hoping to out-Trudeau Trudeau. There's no up-side for Conservatives in that debate. It has the practical effect of leaving radical new ideas untested. For the individual to do so courts being labelled as ... what? Right-wing? They call you that already.'

And it could get someone fired, no matter how high he is. With no appeal.

If the best suggestion is to just buckle up, weather the storm, and then hope that a new (unknown) leader will have enough of the right stuff to carry the party to a respectable finish ... because we're so good at divining 'charisma'? ...

But is it a strategy? Or is it just drift?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

( it hasn't been widely reported but I figured out who one of the brown accusers was and it stinks more than I even could of though , apparently she is a close friend with one of the ctv reporters who broke the story and was a reporter herself at the hill times in Ottawa )


CTV Reporter Fails To Disclose Friendship With Brown Accuser



James Di Fiore·Thursday, 1 February 2018



Something is rotten in Canada.

This past week has seen some of the most salacious, despicable, and unethical stories one can remember, and it has almost nothing to do with the details surrounding Patrick Brown’s alleged behaviour.

One of his anonymous accusers has been unmasked, and for good reason.
A CTV News reporter who helped break the story, Rachel Aiello, either failed to mention to her superiors, or was abetted by them, that she has a friendship with Chelsea Nash, one of women who levelled serious accusations against Brown.

Nash and Aiello both worked at The Hill Times, and have known each other for years.
‘Problematic’ doesn’t even begin to describe this revelation, as one of the tenants of being a solid reporter is objectivity, and objectivity is immediately lost when a reporter has a connection or friendship with the subject of their story.

While this doesn’t mean Nash’s account is inaccurate, it stains the Aiello’s reporting, her professionalism, and her expected neutrality. Patrick Brown’s potential of becoming the second most powerful politician in the country was completely dismantled as a result of this reporting, and that cannot be overlooked.
And it gets worse.

Andrew Cohen wrote in the Ottawa Citizen that he was Chelsea Nash’s professor at Carleton. On her experience with Patrick Brown Cohen writes, “She had met him on a flight to Toronto, she told the group. She described Brown as a roué, I recall, a seducer who had texted her, invited her to a bar and, over time, “hit” on her. She would later come to work in his constituency office.

“There was no discernible anger or hurt in her voice; her tone was flat, matter-of-fact, like good reportage. More than anything, she seemed bemused that this boorish lightweight had since gone so far in politics.”

Cohen goes on to say “In the court of public opinion, the accused has no chance anymore.” He’s right, and what chance did Brown have for a balanced story when the reporter failed to disclose her relationship with an anonymous accuser?
I asked Glen McGregor, another CTV reporter who helped break the Brown story, about the friendship between Aiello and Nash. His response, understandably, was, “I’m not able to speak on record about this.”

Everyone seems to be in a state of disarray right now. The PC Party of Ontario excommunicated their leader, so they are likely uninterested in questioning CTV for their sloppy reporting. The PCs are also trying to manage the fallout of party president Rick Dykstra, whose entire career was flushed in roughly four hours when he was accused of sexual assault. The federal Liberal Party is dealing with their own sexual misadventures via a decade old accusation against Kent Hehr, who recently resigned his ministerial post.

Meanwhile, disgruntled ex-Liberal insider, Warren Kinsella, created chaos when he strongly implied in a recent blog post that Justin Trudeau was about to be hit with multiple allegations from women who had signed affidavits. Kinsella may have been trolling the Twitterverse, but it seems to have worked as thousands of people have began to discuss the possibility of Canada’s most renowned male feminist being brought down by the very movement he has so adamantly endorsed.

When I asked Trudeau’s long-time friend and Chief advisor, Gerald Butts, if the PMO would be responding to Kinsella he said, “That is for others to do. His (Kinsella) decade would be made if someone in PMO, especially me, mentioned his name.”
Let’s not forget, none of these accusations – none – have been proven.

The #metoo movement has created a feeding frenzy where allegations have sparked so much emotion and knee-jerk reaction, that destroying a man has never been easier. We’ve all become either too afraid to criticize the vigour behind the cultural shift taking place, or too willing to embrace accusations with nothing but a penchant for blind faith.

The media and the public have collected their pitchforks and torches and have proceeded to march towards their targets, systematically destroying men who have been saddled with embarrassing allegations from mostly anonymous accusers.
And more is coming. I can feel it in the air.


http://archive.li/sV66H#selection-477.0-599.46
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cohen: Patrick Brown affair shows we're entering a world of metaphorical mob rule


Andrew Cohen

Published on: January 30, 2018 | Last Updated: January 30, 2018 12:10 PM EST




Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Patrick Brown leaves Queen's Park after a hasty press conference in Toronto last Wednesday night, in which he denied allegations of sexual misbehaviour. Aaron Vincent Elkaim / THE CANADIAN PRESS



In 2016, over a class dinner on an out-of-town class field trip, one of my students was recalling her experience with Patrick Brown, until recently leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

She had met him on a flight to Toronto, she told the group. She described Brown as a roué, I recall, a seducer who had texted her, invited her to a bar and, over time, “hit” on her. She would later come to work in his constituency office.

There was no discernible anger or hurt in her voice; her tone was flat, matter-of-fact, like good reportage. More than anything, she seemed bemused that this boorish lightweight had since gone so far in politics.

Now, two years later, she (and another woman) have taken their stories of Brown’s sexual misconduct to television. The impact has been seismic. Quite possibly, they have decided who will lead Ontario. Certainly they have decided who won’t.

Had my former student spoken up two years ago, her story would have been ignored or dismissed. But this is 2018, and men of this ilk have met their movement.


Power has shifted to the accuser. The age of the aggrieved is without context, subtlety or nuance. In the court of public opinion, the accused has no chance anymore.

Politics has always been cruel; with due process now passé, it is even crueller. All victims are “survivors” and the sins of sexual misbehaviour – the wink, whistle, word or wandering hand – are weighed equally.

For Brown, a career was undone in hours. Like Kellie Leitch – the provocative former Conservative federal cabinet minister who says she is leaving politics – Brown is no loss to public life. He was a charmless chameleon and a shallow careerist who had done little in life beyond politics, his sole credential for wanting to lead Canada’s richest province.

But the manner of his leaving is an injustice, too. I believe my former student, who is smart and able. No woman deserves that treatment. But Brown has no chance to respond.

Going to court would take years; politically, it won’t matter anyway. Against an accusation of sexual misconduct or racism, an apology or explanation is no longer enough.

So it was last fall at Massey College at the University of Toronto, when Michael Marrus, a fellow of the college and an esteemed historian of the Holocaust, made a bad joke at lunch. It brought down his world.

That Marrus was tasteless and maladroit and that his target was the congenial master of the college, not the other diners, did not matter. Nor that Marrus apologized. His apology was rejected and Marrus was excommunicated.

The affair has embarrassed the college, alienated fellows and members and undermined the master, a title since discarded. Could the apology not have been accepted? Could Marrus not have been forgiven?

This is what happens when the accuser rules. We get metaphorical mob rule.

In another place and time, the consequences were catastrophic.

All it took was an accusation to condemn Emmett Till to death. In 1955, he was a black boy, 14, from Chicago, visiting relatives in Money, Mississippi.

He was said to have whistled at the wife of a store clerk. Or talked suggestively to her. Or touched her wrist. Whatever it was, it was too much in the seething South. Two days later, he was pulled from his cousin’s house, tortured, beaten and murdered.

It became the most celebrated crime of its time, animating the civil rights movement. Nothing that day merited Till’s murder, but it didn’t matter.

Angry whites were stringing up blacks all over the South for being “uppity” – or for being at all. An accusation was all it took. It didn’t matter, as the woman revealed recently, that she had lied.

Behold, then, the power of the unchallenged accusation: It cost Emmett Till his life, Michael Marrus his fellowship and Patrick Brown his leadership.


http://ottawacitizen.com/opini.....l-mob-rule
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4696
Reputation: 254.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RCO wrote:
( it hasn't been widely reported but I figured out who one of the brown accusers was and it stinks more than I even could of though , apparently she is a close friend with one of the ctv reporters who broke the story and was a reporter herself at the hill times in Ottawa )


CTV Reporter Fails To Disclose Friendship With Brown Accuser



James Di Fiore·Thursday, 1 February 2018



Something is rotten in Canada.

This past week has seen some of the most salacious, despicable, and unethical stories one can remember, and it has almost nothing to do with the details surrounding Patrick Brown’s alleged behaviour.

One of his anonymous accusers has been unmasked, and for good reason.
A CTV News reporter who helped break the story, Rachel Aiello, either failed to mention to her superiors, or was abetted by them, that she has a friendship with Chelsea Nash, one of women who levelled serious accusations against Brown.

Nash and Aiello both worked at The Hill Times, and have known each other for years.
‘Problematic’ doesn’t even begin to describe this revelation, as one of the tenants of being a solid reporter is objectivity, and objectivity is immediately lost when a reporter has a connection or friendship with the subject of their story.

While this doesn’t mean Nash’s account is inaccurate, it stains the Aiello’s reporting, her professionalism, and her expected neutrality. Patrick Brown’s potential of becoming the second most powerful politician in the country was completely dismantled as a result of this reporting, and that cannot be overlooked.
And it gets worse.

Andrew Cohen wrote in the Ottawa Citizen that he was Chelsea Nash’s professor at Carleton. On her experience with Patrick Brown Cohen writes, “She had met him on a flight to Toronto, she told the group. She described Brown as a roué, I recall, a seducer who had texted her, invited her to a bar and, over time, “hit” on her. She would later come to work in his constituency office.

“There was no discernible anger or hurt in her voice; her tone was flat, matter-of-fact, like good reportage. More than anything, she seemed bemused that this boorish lightweight had since gone so far in politics.”

Cohen goes on to say “In the court of public opinion, the accused has no chance anymore.” He’s right, and what chance did Brown have for a balanced story when the reporter failed to disclose her relationship with an anonymous accuser?
I asked Glen McGregor, another CTV reporter who helped break the Brown story, about the friendship between Aiello and Nash. His response, understandably, was, “I’m not able to speak on record about this.”

Everyone seems to be in a state of disarray right now. The PC Party of Ontario excommunicated their leader, so they are likely uninterested in questioning CTV for their sloppy reporting. The PCs are also trying to manage the fallout of party president Rick Dykstra, whose entire career was flushed in roughly four hours when he was accused of sexual assault. The federal Liberal Party is dealing with their own sexual misadventures via a decade old accusation against Kent Hehr, who recently resigned his ministerial post.

Meanwhile, disgruntled ex-Liberal insider, Warren Kinsella, created chaos when he strongly implied in a recent blog post that Justin Trudeau was about to be hit with multiple allegations from women who had signed affidavits. Kinsella may have been trolling the Twitterverse, but it seems to have worked as thousands of people have began to discuss the possibility of Canada’s most renowned male feminist being brought down by the very movement he has so adamantly endorsed.

When I asked Trudeau’s long-time friend and Chief advisor, Gerald Butts, if the PMO would be responding to Kinsella he said, “That is for others to do. His (Kinsella) decade would be made if someone in PMO, especially me, mentioned his name.”
Let’s not forget, none of these accusations – none – have been proven.

The #metoo movement has created a feeding frenzy where allegations have sparked so much emotion and knee-jerk reaction, that destroying a man has never been easier. We’ve all become either too afraid to criticize the vigour behind the cultural shift taking place, or too willing to embrace accusations with nothing but a penchant for blind faith.

The media and the public have collected their pitchforks and torches and have proceeded to march towards their targets, systematically destroying men who have been saddled with embarrassing allegations from mostly anonymous accusers.
And more is coming. I can feel it in the air.


http://archive.li/sV66H#selection-477.0-599.46


The trouble, even with this rendition, is it characterizes the woman as passive, and ignores the responses she must have given Brown that he read as encouraging. Men recognize a rebuff. They may try to try a second or third time, but with someone you meet on an airplane? Or do you actually show up at the bar? I mean, showing up, dressed alluringly, is part of the dance of gestures, what would be called "romance" if Brown were as dashing ... say ... Jagmeet Singh!

How come Conservatives don't know this?

///////////////////////////////////////////

In response to the Cohen article, can I point out that this isn't mob rule as much as mob manipulation. Chelsea Nash, the woman who picked up a guy in a bar and ended up at his his house, in his bedroom, and sucked his dick ... has made allegations that Brown is responsible for her behaviour.

Do I have that right?

And then social media gots nuts -- who wouldn't, it's got to be the hottest gossip out there, no matter where you line up politically. And some mix of our so-called "representatives" decided that the best way to save themselves was to throw the skipper to the sharks.

Do I have that right?

Where's the mob?

This is how thick our better columnists are, when it comes to events happening in the society. The social media did nothing, as directed behaviour. They didn't symbolically lynch Brown -- his party did! The fact that tongues wagged spooked the people we donated to elect. The fact that it was electronic only means it spread faster than it would have otherwise. They panicked and began thinking in terms of saving themselves!

Do I have that right?

Will any amount of pretending that Brown is guilty (or thqt they knew he was guilty when they made their decision) make it right?

Or will it deny the only possible benefit to come out of this mess -- an improvement in judgement to carry into the future.

Do I have that right?
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the 2 articles I found last night are very interesting , accuser #1 still remains a mystery who is the now 28 year old women claiming that brown picked her up in a bar ?

but now that we know more about accuser #2 , and the facts about her and her close relationship with the CTV reporter , her accusations are starting to appear more doubtful unless she is able to provide more proof or a witness comes forward

the fact she told her friends at Carleton about meeting Brown but never once said she had been sexually assaulted or in his bedroom , leads to more doubt about that part of her story ? why has it never come out till now ? why did her past stories about brown never contain much of what she now claims ?

and her past job at the Hill Times is also odd , its a political newspaper , based out of parliament hill , if she worked there she'd have close connections with a lot of mp's and important people in Ottawa , what role did that play in her coming forward ?


in my view it appears Brown is guilty of going after the wrong woman but that is about it , little proof she was ever in his bedroom but he made an error in judgement in chasing after her to begin with but it wasn't a big enough sin to justify ruining his career over
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chelsea Nash is also clearly a very intelligent young women , I had read many of the articles she wrote for the hill times over the years but never knew who she was . she clearly has an in depth knowledge of the Canadian political system . much more than an average person her age would have

she clearly knew that by making an accusation against brown of a sexual nature that it was going to ruin his chances of becoming premier , she knew how politics worked and how the media covers those sort of events , she wasn't an uninformed and naïve young women


but her articles for the hill times appeared rather balanced and looking thru them I never saw any biased , you can see that she wrote 100's of full length articles about federal politics for this paper


https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/author/chelseanash/page/2/
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

( she is also clearly an expert on the topic of sexual harassment , she did an in depth report on it in early 2017 for that newspaper , it focused on Ottawa and parliament hill , but she never mentioned the Brown accusations until now )



Speak Out
Tuesday April 4th, 2017 with Ali Sandstrom and Patrick Butler

Hill Times reporter Chelsea Nash has been investigating sexual harassment and assault on Parliament Hill. She's here to tell us about it. We look ahead at what's next for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the eve of its 35th anniversary.

Skip Sub-navigation

Listen Now About Prior Playlist Next Playlist All Playlists Search


Skip to Tracks



Hill Times reporter Chelsea Nash has been investigating sexual harassment and assault on Parliament Hill. She's here to tell us about it. We look ahead at what's next for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the eve of its 35th anniversary. And Rights News Round Up is back!

https://cod.ckcufm.com/programs/497/31789.html


she wrote an in depth article for the hill times about sexual harassment on parliament hill , she is clearly an expert on this topic , if not the expert in Ottawa on this topic , yet there is nothing in her articles about herself allegedly being a victim of sexual harassment by an MP ?

the fact the Brown accusations came from her ? really is weird and leads to a lot of unanswered questions


https://www.hilltimes.com/2017/04/19/parliament-power-problem-culture-sexual-harassment-prevails-staffers/103541
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4696
Reputation: 254.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I take it that Chelsea Nash is not the plaintiff in this non-case. She's the reporter. But she was given an assignment to find sexual harassment amongst politicians, and guess what -- she would 'find' it, wouldn't she?

Particularly if you ignore, as are all the folks on here, the reality of how sexual encounters are negotiated, you know, the dance of gestures, how they begin to mirror or other, or how she touches him, which let's him know that he might touch too, if he's judicious about it. And so on. I guess none of you people have a clue about romance.
RCO





Joined: 02 Mar 2009
Posts: 7284
Reputation: 253.6
votes: 3
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I take it that Chelsea Nash is not the plaintiff in this non-case. She's the reporter. But she was given an assignment to find sexual harassment amongst politicians, and guess what -- she would 'find' it, wouldn't she?

Particularly if you ignore, as are all the folks on here, the reality of how sexual encounters are negotiated, you know, the dance of gestures, how they begin to mirror or other, or how she touches him, which let's him know that he might touch too, if he's judicious about it. And so on. I guess none of you people have a clue about romance.



Chelsea Nash is apparently one of the 2 women accusing Brown of sexual harassment , she did appear to meet him when he was an mp but had never talked about being sexually assaulted until now

she wrote all the hill times articles about sexual harassment and is the expert in Ottawa on the issue
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 4

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Blatchford: What happened to Brown is fundamentally wrong

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB