[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

(11-30-2014 08:58 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(11-01-2014 11:30 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(10-30-2014 07:04 AM)rytech Wrote:  

(10-27-2014 03:27 AM)Nemausus Wrote:  

Jian at his progressive best:

Wonder what Ghomeshi thinks about "women running the world" now.

This is an ROK article waiting to happen.

Contrast his pissed off public Facebook post expressing his side of the story with past Twitter posts.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/11/...s_say.html

Jian is now being accused by 15 women.

He has to make one of three choices now.


(1) Admit that he is a criminal,

(2) Adopt the belief that 15 women that he had sex with just HAPPENED to be bad apples and liars, or

(3) Admit that the world would be better off if women didn't run it.

This just keeps getting better and better

HSLD

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

CBC inquiry concludes management mishandled Jian Ghomeshi - Link

Quote:

CBC failed to provide its staff a workplace "free from disrespectful and abusive behaviour," says the report of an independent investigator hired to examine the corporation's handling of the behaviour of former radio and television host Jian Ghomeshi.

Janice Rubin, a Toronto employment lawyer with expertise in the field of workplace harassment, says in the report that Ghomeshi's behaviour violated CBC standards, and that his behaviour was "considered to create an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment."

The report says there was a tendency that as information was shared "upwards," it became "diluted."

"Less prevalent, but also present in a small number of cases, was behaviour that constituted sexual harassment," the report says, although it asserts that management was unaware of the complaints or allegations about sexual harassment.

It also says management failed to take steps in accordance with its own policies.

"It is our conclusion that CBC management condoned this behaviour."​​

Ghomeshi, the former host of CBC Radio's arts and culture show Q, was fired on Oct. 26, 2014, after executives saw what they described as graphic evidence that he had physically injured a woman.

Rubin led the probe into the scandal that erupted as women came forward with sex and assault allegations against Ghomeshi.

All CBC employees, including current and former employees who worked on Q or the television show Play while Ghomeshi was host, were invited to contact Rubin with their complaints or experiences regarding harassment, violence, discrimination or other inappropriate conduct.

During a conference call with reporters Thursday, CBC president Hubert Lacroix and Heather Conway, executive vice-president of English Services, offered an apology to employees, and to Canadians in general.

Lacroix called the report "troubling," and said it pointed to lapses at the corporation.

"I'm confident we can and will do better," Conway said.

Rubin's report finds there were three instances where management failed to investigate allegations and concerns about Ghomeshi's behaviour while he was working for the corporation.

Additionally, the report's author said it is not believed that an allegation of sexual harassment made by an employee in 2010 was brought to the attention of management, but that it was brought to the Canadian Media Guild (CMG), the employee's union, and the union "has failed to respond properly."

In a statement issued after the report, the CMG said it has been reviewing its approach to representing members facing harassment at work, and has developed "a more fulsome protocol."

"We support all efforts that ensure our workplaces are harassment free, and make the process of getting help clear, fair and effective," said CMG national president Carmel Smyth. "No one should have to suffer harassment at work in 2015."

Around the time the report was released Thursday, CBC announced that two senior managers — radio executive Chris Boyce and human resources executive Todd Spencer — have left the corporation.

Boyce and Spencer had been placed on leave in early January. Boyce had featured prominently in a investigation by CBC's the fifth estate that looked into what CBC managers knew about the Ghomeshi scandal, and how they responded to it.

Several women contacted police, accusing Ghomeshi of harassment and violence. He now faces eight charges, which include seven counts of sexual assault and one of overcoming resistance by choking.

He has repeatedly denied taking part in any violent, non-consensual sexual acts.

Ghomeshi's lawyer has said he intends to plead not guilty to the charges.

Ghomeshi is free on $100,000 bail with numerous conditions.

He is due to return to court on April 28.

[phoenix101]

I haven't really been following this but this seems like a bit of a bombshell/new evidence that popped up on my feed today. One of the victims pretty much wrote emails and a lovey-dovey handwritten letter to Ghomeshi after the alleged assault.

xxxx.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/trial-ghomeshi-1.3434463

Quote:

DeCoutere [complainant] told the police she had not been able to find the emails, because they were in an account that was no longer active.

Henein [Ghomeshi's defence lawyer] did find the emails.

She presented several DeCoutere said she did not remember sending — as well as a handwritten letter Henein said the actress and RCAF captain sent days after the date in which she alleges Ghomeshi slapped and choked her.

Henein suggested that DeCoutere was lying about the assault, but the complainant responded that she was not and that it happened.

The suggestion came after the lawyer asked DeCoutere to read the last line of the letter.

"I love your hands," DeCoutere read.

[DrCotard]

Karma is a bitch. Being a Social Justice Wanker and having a Women's degree doesn't pay.

[Nemausus]

Fortunately for Jian, he had a lot of money in the bank, allowing him to hire a top-notch woman lawyer (that's her in the photo). So far she has been grilling all the women who have testified in cross-examination.



From what I've seen so far, I think he's going to to be acquitted. This lawyer lady of his has been able to highlight contradictory behaviour in all the testimonies so far. It's worth noting that there's no jury in this case, just a judge, not sure if that helps or hurts Jian.

Even if Jian is acquitted, he's still already lost everything. He loved his celebrity status. He loved being loved. He'll never recapture the unique position he held in Canadian society again.

[GlobalMan]

(10-26-2014 07:04 PM)Lizard King Wrote:  

The amount of girls, of all ages, who say they like rough sex and bondage etc is quite considerable.

Indeed.

http://www.pornhub.com/insights/pornhub-...-in-review

PornHub Data 2015

It's quite telling that women on average want to watch the rough stuff far, far more than men. Between 87 and 113 percent more.




Some other data for women:

[Nemausus]

Picking up on phoenix101's post, the star complainant got picked apart in court today.

I think it's a pretty good bet that Jian won't be going to prison.

[Captain Gh]

(02-05-2016 11:16 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  

Picking up on phoenix101's post, the star complainant got picked apart in court today.

I think it's a pretty good bet that Jian won't be going to prison.

Wow just wow these emails really reflects Hamstering 101 damn. That really brings home the point that you can't afford to mess with crazy bitches when you have a lot to loose

[EDantes]

Funny how the far left SJWs are more angry about a satirical rape comment Roosh made on his website, than one of their own raping over 8 women.

Reminds me of the Catholic Church decrying the evils of homosexuality while simultaneously covering for their own priests while they diddled more little boys.

[ed pluribus unum]

Surprisingly objective column in the Toronto "Red" Star about the case, and how Ghomeshi's lawyer (razor sharp - I'd hire her if I was ever in the shit) will be pilloried by the femynysts and SJWs for *gasp* appealing to the rule of law and truth over feelings.

TorStar Ghomeshi Trial

Some highlights:

Quote:

No double-X chromosome pass just because the complainants are females who may have been done terribly wrong by Ghomeshi, on trial for sexual assault times four and overcoming resistance by choking.

Quote:

Methodically, Henein deconstructed the women’s evidence and decimated their credibility, exploiting emails and texts, photos and a handwritten letter to knock out the stuffing out of their trustworthiness. She accused them of concocting evidence, of colluding in their testimony and of conducting a predatory hate campaign via media against the defendant.

Quote:

Henein didn’t take her eye of the soft underbelly of their narratives, each replete with towering inconsistencies, reversals, hastily retrieved memories, amended police statements, pungent fabrications, reluctant disclosures and grudging admissions adduced under cross.
Yet none of that should matter a whit, apparently, when the charge is sexual assault, because the mere accusation is de facto truth, how dare anybody dispute it. To test that perceived truth — put it on the stand, examine it, challenge it — is tantamount to horrendous re-victimization of the supplicant.
This was the clarion Henein rang, citing the wisdom of Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, first woman from Quebec appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada:
“One cannot over-emphasize the commitment of courts of justice to the ascertainment of the truth. The just determination of guilt or innocence is a fundamental underpinning of the administration of criminal justice. The ends of the criminal process would be defeated if trials were allowed to proceed on assumptions divorced from reality. If a careless disregard for the truth prevailed in the courtrooms, the public trust in the judicial function, the law and the administration of justice would disappear. Though the law of criminal evidence often excludes relevant evidence to preserve the integrity of the judicial process, it is difficult to accept that courts should ever willingly proceed on the basis of untrue facts.”
Henein: “The words of one of the most significant FEMINIST jurists in this country.” Her emphasis.

TL;DR: No pussy pass; your allegations don't amount to much after the quantity (plethora) of emails, texts, hookups etc. you shared with the defendant after he allegedly 'raped' you.

[Germanicus]

(02-05-2016 05:40 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  

Even if Jian is acquitted, he's still already lost everything. He loved his celebrity status. He loved being loved. He'll never recapture the unique position he held in Canadian society again.

I think it's a good bet that he'll make an attempt to get back into high society by some extra grovelling and virtue signalling. That even though he's innocent of rape he understands why feminists would be upset with him because men are just so beastly and evil and the SJW's hearts were in the right place to attack him. Them taking him back? Maybe not. But I fully expect this dipshit to lash himself with the social justice whip and beg forgiveness at the top of his lungs.

[Captain Gh]

(02-14-2016 03:42 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 05:40 PM)Nemausus Wrote:  

Even if Jian is acquitted, he's still already lost everything. He loved his celebrity status. He loved being loved. He'll never recapture the unique position he held in Canadian society again.

I think it's a good bet that he'll make an attempt to get back into high society by some extra grovelling and virtue signalling. That even though he's innocent of rape he understands why feminists would be upset with him because men are just so beastly and evil and the SJW's hearts were in the right place to attack him. Them taking him back? Maybe not. But I fully expect this dipshit to lash himself with the social justice whip and beg forgiveness at the top of his lungs.

I'm betting that his next move ( if getting acquitted) will be to sue the CBC for firing him without probable cause. That might be his last chance at cashing in on a major settlement before he falls back in anonymity. I can't see him making a comeback in Canadian (Toronto) Radio. Squeaky clean image is gone!

[TheMost]

Wow GlobalMan, great statistics. I never heard of Mia Khalifa before, but her rise to fame coincides pretty close to when I was telling people that Hijab porn is actually a "thing".

[Atlanta Man]

This case is yet another false accusation falling apart under scrutiny. Bill Cosby's case is going to be like this, a lot of public accusations that fall apart under basic cross examination. Things falling apart under basic scrutiny is par for the course with fake rape.

[HighSpeed_LowDrag]

I saw a segment of CBC's The National tonight that was discussing the Ghomeshi case. They were bringing up the idea of creating special sexual assault courts in Canada where the burden of proof would only be to the "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt."

There's little doubt that this is something that SJWs are going to start pushing for in Canada.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Of course, all those feminists activists ignore that fact that a vast majority of these cases have zero evidence, not a preponderance of.

[Captain Gh]

The more I read and see about this case, it seems that you can't afford to be in the middle anymore. By "in the middle" I mean being part good guy/game guy or family guy/ game guy. It seems that women now want to punish these famous men who portray those 2 sides. Jian Ghomeshi, the coffee shop closet pua guys and Bill Cosby(not caught up in the news, but last I heard he was not proven guilty).

Women don't need game, so they rarely need to work on their personality unless they want to achieve a major personal goal. So when you speak to a woman, you always get the real her, and when she speaks to you, she gets the you that plays the game Game to Bang her! And with experience, when a woman gives you a strong boner, you can lie so congruently that even the best of them can't perceive it, especially in our times!

It seems that it is this inability they want to punish with these Rape allegations. And the more famous you are, the worst it'll be if you fooled them it seems! Trying to play both sides of the fences seems to be getting riskier and riskier as the year, and the hoes go by. I got serious about the game in 2012. and I clearly see the difference that just 4 years made on women. Of course you can still keep a FWB situation going, but it's harder than it was 4 years ago. I'm still in the Game, but I'm starting to see my expiration date on the horizon.

[Paracelsus]

(02-15-2016 02:40 AM)HighSpeed_LowDrag Wrote:  

I saw a segment of CBC's The National tonight that was discussing the Ghomeshi case. They were bringing up the idea of creating special sexual assault courts in Canada where the burden of proof would only be to the "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt."

There's little doubt that this is something that SJWs are going to start pushing for in Canada.

Not to worry: as with New Jersey and alimony, such special courts will come to a crashing halt the moment a man accuses a woman of sexual assault in one of them.

[Just_Die]

The CBC must be trying to cover their asses about potentially having hired a woman beater, but this has got to be one of the biggest take downs of knee-jerk rape accusers and believers I've ever read, very scalding, and by a mainstream outlet no less

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/due-proces...-1.3446739

(02-15-2016 01:18 PM)Captain Gh Wrote:  

The more I read and see about this case, it seems that you can't afford to be in the middle anymore. By "in the middle" I mean being part good guy/game guy or family guy/ game guy. It seems that women now want to punish these famous men who portray those 2 sides. Jian Ghomeshi, the coffee shop closet pua guys and Bill Cosby(not caught up in the news, but last I heard he was not proven guilty).

Women don't need game, so they rarely need to work on their personality unless they want to achieve a major personal goal. So when you speak to a woman, you always get the real her, and when she speaks to you, she gets the you that plays the game Game to Bang her! And with experience, when a woman gives you a strong boner, you can lie so congruently that even the best of them can't perceive it, especially in our times!

It seems that it is this inability they want to punish with these Rape allegations. And the more famous you are, the worst it'll be if you fooled them it seems! Trying to play both sides of the fences seems to be getting riskier and riskier as the year, and the hoes go by. I got serious about the game in 2012. and I clearly see the difference that just 4 years made on women. Of course you can still keep a FWB situation going, but it's harder than it was 4 years ago. I'm still in the Game, but I'm starting to see my expiration date on the horizon.

Why not just be more upfront about who you are then if you can't be in the middle then. For a long time I've been very honest to women that I'm non-monogamous and not boyfriend material.

[Paracelsus]

(02-16-2016 11:51 AM)Just_Die Wrote:  

The CBC must be trying to cover their asses about potentially having hired a woman beater, but this has got to be one of the biggest take downs of knee-jerk rape accusers and believers I've ever read, very scalding, and by a mainstream outlet no less

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/due-proces...-1.3446739

The demand for "special courts" for rape accusations is one aspect of the following feminist principle: Women cannot handle playing by the same rules that men do. Equality for them is playing on the same field with large handicaps in their favour to the point where it's difficult or impossible for them to lose.

Men who have been raped face the same situation as women do: they have to report it, and they have to be prepared to back their allegations in a court where their credibility and recollection can and will be tested. That is the price of the rule of law: you shall not take a person's liberty away unless the prosecution proves each and every element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury of ordinary men and women selected more or less at random. As I heard it said to me once: "The prosecution always whinges that it has to fight criminal cases with one arm tied behind its back. That ignores the fact it always starts the fight with three arms."

Make no mistake that many men have been raped -- in prison and elsewhere -- and do not report the crime for whatever reason. But men are also not out there in large numbers screaming for the rules to be changed in their favour. Even men abused in even worse circumstances than most women are -- as children, and raped by priests or other authority figures -- typically do not insist on star chamber courts for the paedophiles who took their innocence away, they typically demand accountability from the organisations that protected those paedophiles and those organisations reporting the paedophiles to the police.

No, again and again it's women who demand the stacking of the judicial deck against the accused in a criminal court. They see neither the hypocrisy at hand in this when they call it "justice" or the consequences if you do this for one group of crimes and not all others. As the author of that article points out: rape already has special rules in place to assist in convictions. In Canada there are the rules against bringing in a victim's prior sexual past, and in America the Constitution itself provides special rules for rape: normally all people are entitled to a trial in public, with only two exceptions set out in the Constitution: rape ... and matters of national security.

[Ghost Tiger]

(02-16-2016 11:51 AM)Just_Die Wrote:  

The CBC must be trying to cover their asses about potentially having hired a woman beater, but this has got to be one of the biggest take downs of knee-jerk rape accusers and believers I've ever read, very scalding, and by a mainstream outlet no less

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/due-proces...-1.3446739

Methinks the CBC writer, Neil Macdonald has figured out that, if the psycho false accusers can come after libtard Jian Ghomeshi's right to due process today, they can come after libtard Neil Macdonald tomorrow. This little twit had an epiphany in the deep recesses of the CBC Cathedral on Front Street in Toronto that there's nothing protecting him from rabid feminism. Welcome to reality Mr. Macdonald. We've been expecting you.

[Just_Die]

Acquitted: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...e29377074/

Yet more evidence that we live in a patriarch society which systematically refuses to just believe the victims.

[Chargeshot]

(03-24-2016 10:48 AM)Just_Die Wrote:  

Acquitted: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...e29377074/

Yet more evidence that we live in a patriarch society which systematically refuses to just believe the victims.

Glad an innocent man has been legally excused from these false allegations. Sad to know his future career is probably wrecked. Likewise hoping maybe this will be a huge wakeup call to him in regards to feminism.

[Nemausus]

The judge took the four witnesses to task. Some choice quotes from his decision:








Edit: The full judge's decisions has now been posted. Here is the conclusion of his report:

Quote:


[131]
There is no legal bar to convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness. However, one of the challenges for the prosecution in this case is that the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi are supported by nothing in addition to the complainant’s word. There is no other evidence to look to determine the truth. There is no tangible evidence. There is no DNA. There is no "smoking gun". There is only the sworn evidence of each complainant, standing on its own, to be measured against a very exacting standard of proof. This highlights the importance of the assessment of the credibility and the reliability and the overall quality, of that evidence.
[132]
At trial, each complainant recounted their experience with Mr. Ghomeshi and was then subjected to extensive and revealing cross-examination. The cross-examination dramatically demonstrated that each complainant was less than full, frank and forthcoming in the information they provided to the media, to the police, to Crown counsel and to this Court.
[133]
Ultimately my assessment of each of the counts against the accused turns entirely on the assessment of the reliability and credibility of the complainant, when measured against the Crown’s burden of proof. With respect to each charge, the only necessary determination is simply this: Does the evidence have sufficient quality and force to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
[134]
Mr. Ghomeshi did not testify and he called no evidence in defence of the allegations. One of the most important organizing principles in our criminal law is the right of an accused not to be conscripted into building a case against oneself. Every accused facing criminal allegations is entitled to plead not guilty and put the Crown to the strict proof of the charges. An accused has every right to remain silent, call no evidence and seek an acquittal on the basis that the Crown’s case fails to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No adverse inference arises from his decision to do so in this case.

[135]
As I have stated more than once, the courts must be very cautious in assessing the evidence of complainants in sexual assault and abuse cases. Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants. I have a firm understanding that the reasonableness of reactive human behaviour in the dynamics of a relationship can be variable and unpredictable. However, the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence in this trial, illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful. Each individual and each unique factual scenario must be assessed according to their own particular circumstances.

[136]
Each complainant in this case engaged in conduct regarding Mr. Ghomeshi, after the fact, which seems out of harmony with the assaultive behaviour ascribed to him. In many instances, their conduct and comments were even inconsistent with the level of
animus exhibited by each of them, both at the time and then years later. In a case that is entirely dependent on the reliability of their evidence standing alone, these are factors that cause me considerable difficulty when asked to accept their evidence at full value.

[137]
Each complainant was confronted with a volume of evidence that was contrary to their prior sworn statements and their evidence in - chief. Each complainant demonstrated, to some degree, a willingness to ignore their oath to tell the truth on more than one occasion. It is this aspect of their evidence that is most troubling to the Court.
[138]
The success of this prosecution depended entirely on the Court being able to accept each complainant as a sincere, honest and accurate witness. Each complainant was revealed at trial to be lacking in these important attributes. The evidence of each complainant suffered not just from inconsistencies and questionable behaviour, but was tainted by outright deception.
[139]
The harsh reality is that once a witness has been shown to be deceptive and manipulative in giving their evidence, that witness can no longer expect the Court to consider them to be a trusted source of the truth. I am forced to conclude that it is impossible for the Court to have sufficient faith in the reliability or sincerity of these complainants. Put simply, the volume of serious deficiencies in the evidence leaves the Court with a reasonable doubt.

[140]
My conclusion that the evidence in this case raises a reasonable doubt is not the same as deciding in any positive way that these events never happened. At the end of this trial, a reasonable doubt exists because it is impossible to determine, with any acceptable degree of certainty or comfort, what is true and what is false. The standard of proof in a criminal case requires sufficient clarity in the evidence to allow a confident acceptance of the essential facts. In these proceedings the bedrock foundation of the Crown’s case is tainted and incapable of supporting any clear determination of the truth.

[141]
I have no hesitation in concluding that the quality of the evidence in this case is incapable of displacing the presumption of innocence. The evidence fails to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

Jian was a socially awkward, self-involved, radical SJW who was a huge pain in the ass to work with, whether you were male or female. I don't particularly care for him or the left-leaning views he held ( at least before all this).

However, as a heterosexual male living in this country, I am relieved at the way this decision was reached and glad to see that the judge didn't give in to the LOUD calls from the left to #BelieveTheVictims at all costs. Due process was adhered to and the judge analyzed the witnesses claims without emotion, despite all the noise around this case. The judge even went as far as saying "you can't assume every SA complainant is truthful," which, to me, is huge.

This is a good day for men in Canada.

[Atlanta Man]

This forum seems to be the only place on the internet that saw the obvious fact that this case was bullshit from day one. RVF called it here, mattress girl, and UVA hoax- we should be media consultants.