Canadian Politics Today

Beyond Ottawa => Provincial and Local Politics => Topic started by: MH on January 24, 2018, 09:20:15 pm


Title: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 24, 2018, 09:20:15 pm
The single craziest news conference since Rob Ford... Brown faced the cameras and almost broke down as he announced he was accused of sexual misconduct... falsely.  in the 1/2 hour since the news conference his team has resigned.

Very sad day for everyone.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 24, 2018, 09:30:32 pm
The single craziest news conference since Rob Ford... Brown faced the cameras and almost broke down as he announced he was accused of sexual misconduct... falsely.  in the 1/2 hour since the news conference his team has resigned.

Very sad day for everyone.

If he was falsely accused, why did his team resign?  Or did they resign in support of him? 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on January 24, 2018, 09:50:54 pm
If he was falsely accused, why did his team resign?  Or did they resign in support of him?
Because the environment is so toxic they did not want their careers destroyed because they worked to defend someone who could never be *proven* innocent in the court of public opinion.

Given the stakes this is most likely a political tactic by Wynne/Liberal players.
This kind of thing is why the vigilante culture will only lead to grief.
This is why "innocent until proven guilty" is enshrined in our justice system.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 24, 2018, 10:02:37 pm
"Most likely"

Pretty bold.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 24, 2018, 10:34:57 pm
Because the environment is so toxic they did not want their careers destroyed because they worked to defend someone who could never be *proven* innocent in the court of public opinion.
I haven't really been following this, but if so - that's too bad.  I agree it's gone too far in terms of even the slightest allegation destroying someone's life and career.   

Quote
This is why "innocent until proven guilty" is enshrined in our justice system.

And why you think it's just fine to assume "Given the stakes this is most likely a political tactic by Wynne/Liberal players.".   Is there any reason beyond your dislike of Liberals/liberals that you would assume it's a nefarious plot to ruin a Conservative?


Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on January 24, 2018, 10:41:10 pm
And why you think it's just fine to assume "Given the stakes this is most likely a political tactic by Wynne/Liberal players.".   Is there any reason beyond your dislike of Liberals/liberals that you would assume it's a nefarious plot to ruin a Conservative?
I guess that too much of a stretch given the available information but it was motivated by track record of the Liberals who have never let ethics get in the way of being re-elected. We will have to wait and see what the allegations are but the timing is way to convenient.

That said, we can rail about the injustice as much as we like but he likely has to step down for the good of the party and the good of Ontario which desperately needs to kick the corrupt Liberals to the curb. I believe this is why his staff resigned.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 24, 2018, 10:43:52 pm
I guess that too much of a stretch given the available information and it was motivated by track record of the Liberals who have never let ethics get in the way of being re-elected.

I know what you mean; daily, I see the Conservative party post pure bullshit about what the Liberals are up to --- seems like you just can't trust a political party to act ethically. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on January 24, 2018, 11:10:33 pm
I know what you mean; daily, I see the Conservative party post pure bullshit about what the Liberals are up to --- seems like you just can't trust a political party to act ethically.
“Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.” – Mark Twain
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on January 24, 2018, 11:45:08 pm
Because the environment is so toxic they did not want their careers destroyed because they worked to defend someone who could never be *proven* innocent in the court of public opinion.

Given the stakes this is most likely a political tactic by Wynne/Liberal players.
This kind of thing is why the vigilante culture will only lead to grief.
This is why "innocent until proven guilty" is enshrined in our justice system.

Bingo.  Though no evidence Wynne/Liberal Party was behind this.  Maybe her supporters though.  Or it could all be true.  We don't know.  Innocent until proven guilty.  We can't have an environment where men's careers are completely destroyed based on an allegation without any evidence, or we'll have chaos.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on January 25, 2018, 03:37:05 am
I believe this is why his staff resigned.

uhhh... no. Reporting states staff resigned cause Brown initially wouldn't resign as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario . But now he has.

(https://i.imgur.com/M6l4lon.png)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 25, 2018, 07:13:40 am
I guess that too much of a stretch given the available information but it was motivated by track record of the Liberals who have never let ethics get in the way of being re-elected. We will have to wait and see what the allegations are but the timing is way to convenient.

Seems like you're stepping back from the 'set up' accusation, which I appreciate - frankly.  I also concur that this Liberal government is likely the most cynical we have had in memory.

My 'Ontario politics insider' guy tells me that the Liberals AND the PCs had these stories ready to go, and there were rumours about Brown for a long time.  He thinks it was PC party people who did it, maybe sensing that there's another leader ready to win.  His logic is that if the Liberals were behind this, they would have done it with a month to go before the vote.

Quote
I believe this is why his staff resigned.

They are lucky.  If they get a likeable replacement, they could win.  They SHOULD win.  This may in fact promote a new 'just in time' model to leadership campaigns.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 25, 2018, 10:57:21 am
I know what you mean; daily, I see the Conservative party post pure bullshit about what the Liberals are up to --- seems like you just can't trust a political party to act ethically.

Name this bullshit. I can name lots of bullshit the Liberals are up to in Ontario.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 25, 2018, 11:00:13 am
So here are the allegations. I went to the organization I felt most likely to give the juiciest, nastiest angle on it possible, the Toronto Star.

The question I have is whether anyone would care the slightest about these allegations, even if they were true, were he not a politician and were this not the year of 'metoo'.

In the first one you have to bear in mind that Brown was only 22 when elected to Barrie city council (the Star doesn't mention this). Also, Brown is not married.

https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/01/24/pc-leader-patrick-brown-holds-late-night-press-conference-to-deny-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct.html
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 25, 2018, 11:05:55 am
Sounds like the guy is a total creep.   I’m surprised Harper didn’t appoint him the the Senate. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 25, 2018, 11:23:50 am
Name this bullshit. I can name lots of bullshit the Liberals are up to in Ontario.

Yes, the point I am making is that political parties accuse "the other party" of all kinds of bullshit.  A point which TimG got but seems to have gone over your head.  :)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on January 25, 2018, 11:25:44 am
Doesn't sound good for Brown, his career is toast.

What I don't understand is how 2 completely separate allegations from 2 different women can come to light at the exact same time?  How does that work? 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 25, 2018, 11:32:30 am
Giving booze to someone underage is part of it but... tbh I didn't hear any details of 'assault'.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 25, 2018, 11:32:57 am
Sounds like the guy is a total creep.   I’m surprised Harper didn’t appoint him the the Senate.

Why is he a total creep? Because as an unmarried heterosexual guy he came on to young women?
And then backed off as soon as they said no.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 25, 2018, 11:33:32 am
Doesn't sound good for Brown, his career is toast.

What I don't understand is how 2 completely separate allegations from 2 different women can come to light at the exact same time?  How does that work?

People with knives ready... possibly Liberals set to do the same thing 3 weeks before election and PCs saw a chance to put somebody with better poll numbers in.

At this point, that could mean a crash-test-dummy with a picture of Bill Davis duct taped to its face.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 25, 2018, 11:36:52 am
Giving booze to someone underage is part of it but... tbh I didn't hear any details of 'assault'.

Did Brown know how old she was, that she was eighteen not nineteen? Was it his responsibility to find out? They were at a night club. Shouldn't the night club have verified ages? In the case of the first girl they met at a bar and there's no suggestion he plied her with alcohol. Shouldn't the bar have verified her age?

I thought that statement, from the story, was infantalizing. "He and others gave me alcohol".
Sorry? Did they hold you down and shove it down your throat? No? Oh, so you decided to drink on your own as an adult to the point you were 'very drunk'.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on January 25, 2018, 01:03:37 pm
The question I have is whether anyone would care the slightest about these allegations, even if they were true, were he not a politician and were this not the year of 'metoo'.
Seriously? People heard about this and they're appalled by it.

I'm pretty sure if people hear about incidents that don't reach the news.....they're probably also appalled by it.

I know this might blow your mind, but the world doesn't revolve around just the things that you hear or know about.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 25, 2018, 03:49:13 pm
Seriously? People heard about this and they're appalled by it.

Why? What aspect of it strikes people as so unusual they're 'appalled"?

Because what it sounds like to me is two women who Brown tried somewhat ham-handedly to seduce, and immediately stopped when they declined.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Goddess on January 25, 2018, 04:27:35 pm
Why? What aspect of it strikes people as so unusual they're 'appalled"?

Because what it sounds like to me is two women who Brown tried somewhat ham-handedly to seduce, and immediately stopped when they declined.

Unless there's more to these incidents than what is reported, I don't see why this would be appalling.

They willingly drank alcohol, they willingly went to his house, and when he tried to get amorous and when they refused he stopped.

Uncomfortable for both parties, I'm sure, but is it appalling?  Not so sure about that.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on January 25, 2018, 05:26:24 pm
The timing has to be looked at. The story broke coincidentally at a time to detract beautifully from the Liberal hack conviction clearly tainting Kathleen Wynne. That has to have many asking who leaked the story.

Let's review. The rumours associated with Pat Brown have gone on for many years but no one in the press broke the story as they have not for other politicians because there's been no corroborated proof. Now suddenly the CTV news network with unsubstantiated evidence  breaks it right after the Liberal conviction?

You are asked to believe no one knew about this until the time it was broken by CTV. That makes no sense. It was known. You are asked to believe the Liberals sat on it until now. You are asked to believe the NDP sat on it. You are asked to believe the PC Party sat on it and never vented it when he was elected leader.

I say bullshit to that. There is no way a story like this sits and is released at the time it is unless its a deliberate set up. The most obvious choice is Liberals because they have much to gain from the detraction from their scandal.

However I will say to TimG the cynic in me says it might just as well have been an inside hatchet job by the PC's and I will tell you why. There was no love loss for Brown in the PC's. There was open talk they did not want him going into the election based on the feeling he just didn't have what it takes. He was very much a compromise candidate slipping in unintended as the big players divided the vote. So whether wannabee leaders Vic Fedeli, Raitt, etc., got together and said let's get rid of him is possible. Why? If you pick a new leader now with unanimous caucus consensus and no convention-he or she can ride into the election on a higher moral ground than Kathleen Wynne saying when the PC's are in any way associated with wrong doing we act. When the Liberals are they deny. A skilled communications team for the PC's could demonstrate the personal sexual issues of Brown do not reflect on its policies, but the cover up in the Liberals is directly related to Wynne and how she will NOT take responsibility for an election campaign cover-up. Its a high moral ground a skilled PC Leader could storm into office on, complete with white horse and shining armour.

However at this point in time, I don't see any one PC leader candidate with the dynamic screen presence required to carry that off. There just are not any. Now some people mention Carolyn Mulroney. Nonsense. She has never run for audience. You can't parachute a green outside into the Premier's office. You would as a  PC planner, hope she gets elected, shows her stuff, then is promoted to cabinet and then eventually runs for leadership. This magic presto act does not happen.

So who steps in? Vic Fedeli? He comes across very very smarmy and has twice turned off his own party. I think the former wife of the deceased finance Minister in the Harper regime, wants in. I think Hudak loyalists have a few people in mind, but most probably Jim Nielsen who is bland and boring but clean on scandal.

All that said this could easily as be a PC insider back stab as it was a Liberal back stab.

It is also conceivable the stupid public is easily distracted and puts Wynne back in which would be disasterous. Or its conceivable Ms. Horvath comes in based on a vacuum of leadership concern with the other 2 parties another financial disaster.

So what does this mean? I need to run for office. I will appoint Dia Minister of Culture, Godess my Education Minister, and Sir J my Solicitor General and have him crack down and arrest Omni and the other leftist bleedinghearts on this forum. I will make TimG Finance Minister. Anyone else if you want positions, start sucking up. MH if he is lucky I will get a park attendant's job.

On that note I am off to another matrix in the 5th dimension for some intense vibrations before I return in time to see Wynne spelled Wyne based on the Mandela effect.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 25, 2018, 05:36:29 pm
I could  do your job, mine and your significant other's I am sure.

Anyway, the question is whether the Liberals would have waited a little longer on this until the PCs were truly screwed.  It could have been other PC people who knew they still had time to get somebody better.... MUCH better.

tbh I am hoping they come up with somebody with fresh ideas, not another lawyer or hack.  I am hopeful, as these types of things sometimes provide an opening for something new.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 25, 2018, 06:02:30 pm
Well, hell, in a world where you lose your cabinet position because someone said you told her she was 'yummy' in an elevator a decade earlier in another job I suppose actually propositioning a woman should lead to a criminal conviction.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 25, 2018, 07:45:46 pm
I read the Toronto Star story that Sir John linked to earlier.  The headline says Patrick Brown is accused of "sexual misconduct", but after reading the article I'm still trying to figure out what the "misconduct" actually is.  This is a non-story on a par with the Aziz Ansari hatchet-job from earlier this month.



 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 25, 2018, 07:54:46 pm
I read the Toronto Star story that Sir John linked to earlier.  The headline says Patrick Brown is accused of "sexual misconduct", but after reading the article I'm still trying to figure out what the "misconduct" actually is.  This is a non-story on a par with the Aziz Ansari hatchet-job from earlier this month.



 -k

If we take that article on face-value, climbing on top of drunk young ladies without asking is creepy enough to count as “misconduct”.  Certainly wouldn’t want him leader of a political party.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Bubbermiley on January 25, 2018, 07:56:13 pm
I take comfort in knowing that there probably aren't enough indignant resources out there for this trend to include non-celebrities' unsuccessful (or otherwise) attempts to get laid.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Bubbermiley on January 25, 2018, 07:57:34 pm
If we take that article on face-value, climbing on top of drunk young ladies without asking is creepy enough to count as “misconduct”.  Certainly wouldn’t want him leader of a political party.
Never try to **** a squid.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 25, 2018, 08:03:00 pm
Never try to **** a squid.

Keep your maritime rules out east, thanks.  Ontarians don't need your rules.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 25, 2018, 08:05:38 pm
Keep your maritime rules out east, thanks.  Ontarians don't need your rules.

I don’t care where you’re from, it’s still wrong.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on January 25, 2018, 08:38:50 pm
I don’t care where you’re from, it’s still wrong.

What if you're another Squid?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 25, 2018, 08:53:10 pm
If we take that article on face-value, climbing on top of drunk young ladies without asking is creepy enough to count as “misconduct”.  Certainly wouldn’t want him leader of a political party.

She says he started kissing her, laid her down on the bed, and climbed on. And when she told him to stop, he did.  I mean... if you meet somebody at a bar, go home with them, go to their bedroom, and are surprised that they've gotten the impression you're interested in having sex, you might be a moron of some kind. Or terribly naive. Or maybe both. To me this doesn't sound like sexual assault, it sounds like a (pretty understandable) case of misreading someone's signals.

Is this really something that disqualifies someone from public office?  Is this what women are now demanding to be protected against? To me this is getting extremely ridiculous. 

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 26, 2018, 06:01:16 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-resigns-ontario-pc-1.4503040

Here's the story.  While it's definitely not something that would be considered "bad" in the Clinton era, trying to seduce much-younger underlings isn't well-regarded in these times.  I think he would have got a 'pass' from the press even a few years ago.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 26, 2018, 09:11:32 am
She says he started kissing her, laid her down on the bed, and climbed on. And when she told him to stop, he did.  I mean... if you meet somebody at a bar, go home with them, go to their bedroom, and are surprised that they've gotten the impression you're interested in having sex, you might be a moron of some kind. Or terribly naive. Or maybe both. To me this doesn't sound like sexual assault, it sounds like a (pretty understandable) case of misreading someone's signals.

Is this really something that disqualifies someone from public office?  Is this what women are now demanding to be protected against? To me this is getting extremely ridiculous. 

 -k

The one about Kent Hehr is even worse. One woman tweets that he was a creep ten years ago, and sometimes said things like "You're yummy". Seriously? She says she felt 'unsafe".  He's in a wheelchair in a public building! What the hell are you feeling unsafe for!?

I really don't like the terms being tossed around in these cases "Victims" "brave" "survivor". Firstly they're gross exagerations of what happened and second they totally diminish the trauma of **** victims. I mean can you imagine the group therapy session?

"And this is Amy who was gang raped by five men, beaten and spent a month in the hospital."

Amy smiles bravely.

"And then over here is Suzie who was subjected to a disabled man calling her yummy."

Suzie cries hysterically.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 26, 2018, 09:30:00 am
Yeah, or the one where the MP filed a complaint because the other MP said "not my idea of a threesome" while they were having a picture taken was pretty absurd. Or Niki Ashton crying about "gendered violence" because Justin Trudeau brushed against a woman's chest during "Elbowgate".  I hate it. I just hate it.

After the Aziz Ansari story broke, the sharp criticism from older women had observers talking about a rift between "old line" feminists and younger feminists. Old line feminists promoted the view that women are strong and capable and independent.  Younger feminists apparently believe that women are weak stupid babies who need to be protected from everything and can't take responsibility for anything in their lives.   I'm apparently "old line".

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 26, 2018, 09:37:02 am
I don't think a guy should lose his job for calling a woman yummy.  I do think its important that men realize just how uncomfortable and unsettling this kind of behavior can be.  Saying "its not that bad, get over it" isn't helpful simply because it relieves men of the responsibility for their rude and inappropriate behavior.  Its not much different than a man who, when a woman turns down his advances, calls her a ****.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Goddess on January 26, 2018, 11:02:51 am

  I'm apparently "old line".

 -k

Me too.  I don't even find it "uncomfortable and unsettling" when men make a comment like "You're yummy."

Man:  You're yummy!
Me:  Excuse me?
Man:  I said, You're yummy.
Me:  That's what I thought you said.   **walks away**
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 26, 2018, 11:07:30 am
Ok, there's got to be more than just one comment.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Goddess on January 26, 2018, 11:19:57 am
Ok, there's got to be more than just one comment.

Exactly.  That's my point. :)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 26, 2018, 11:26:12 am
Me too.  I don't even find it "uncomfortable and unsettling" when men make a comment like "You're yummy."

Man:  You're yummy!
Me:  Excuse me?
Man:  I said, You're yummy.
Me:  That's what I thought you said.   **walks away**

What if it was a male coworker, or your boss? 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 26, 2018, 11:49:10 am
I've always found Christie Blatchford to be a pretty commonsense columnist, which means the Left generally despise her of course.

For all the other moments #MeToo has wrought, the Patrick Brown story is seminal: A political leader is cut down like a sapling in the forest in a matter of hours, and none of his colleagues, in and outside of the Ontario Conservative party, and including the Ontario premier and the prime minister of Canada, have one word to say in the defence of fair play or the presumption of innocence.

This — not the anonymous allegations of Brown’s accusers from the shadows — is what is shocking and disgraceful about this story


And speaking to the 'brave' accusers: , I can think of almost nothing that requires less fortitude than accusing someone else of wrongdoing when your own face, name and identity are hidden.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-what-happened-to-brown-is-fundamentally-wrong-every-man-in-the-world-is-now-vulnerable/wcm/d585406a-5f73-4698-b777-7791981ec651
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 26, 2018, 11:52:52 am
What if it was a male coworker, or your boss?

Most people won't say things like that unless they believe they have a friendly relationship going with the person they're talking to. And mostly in joking. We're not robots. We do notice things. You can't harass someone, but harassment is defined, in most organizations, as a continuing/ongoing stream of such things after the recipient has made it clear he or she doesn't appreciate it.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on January 26, 2018, 12:04:34 pm
Poor Patrick Brown. Can't a brother just try to **** his much younger female employees in peace?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 26, 2018, 12:06:36 pm
Most people won't say things like that unless they believe they have a friendly relationship going with the person they're talking to. ,

Judging by recent news stories, apparently not.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Goddess on January 26, 2018, 12:41:19 pm
What if it was a male coworker, or your boss?

They usually get the message when I walk away and refuse to engage.

Obviously if they didn't get the message the first time and continued the comments, my first step would be to run to the media.   :D
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on January 26, 2018, 04:43:46 pm
What is going on? Sexual assault is pretty serious business. Its forced action on someone who does not consent. Brown did not force himself on women in fact they admitted he did NOT.  So this is no t about a victim of a sexually assault and therefore they should NOT be put on the same moral  level as someone who has been raped. That to me is trivializing what sexual assault is and saying now anytime a woman regrets her actions on a date she can call it a victimization and blame it on the person she was with. I call it out for what it is bull sheeyat.

If Brown had forced himself on her, that is one thing. If he spiked her drink, that is another thing. If he KNEW in fact she was under 18 that is an issue. The evidence from the very complainants show they in fact were not the target of forced actions of any kind and we have no proof Brown knew they were underage or forced them to do anything. We have people on this forum with no proof he knew anyone was under 18 assuming he did plus  acting as if he forced himself physically on women. He did not through their own admission.

It is as another thread participant rightfully said  another Ansari situation where we have two women 10 years later regretting being with a man and years later wanting to empower themselves as having been victims-of him. If anything lets go back to Gameshi at the CBC and that case for comparison. In that case we had women after the fact regretting their actions with Gameshi who they knew was into sexual dominance and abusive role playing, then agreed to it, then regretted it. If anything people are trying to equate Brown with Gameshi. Using his power as a politician, using his fame to get sex with women. If anything they admitted he never got sex. There is no evidence he used his position to coerce sex.

Do the accusers of Brown have any responsibility for their own actions? Did they find his status sexually attractive? Was it they who thought he was powerful and therefore sexual and then at closer view saw him as a loser?

In Gameshi's case as repugnant as he may be, as narcissistic and self-centered and insensitive as he may be there was never any evidence of ****, i.e. forced sexual acts -if anything the witnesses admitted consent and then after the fact regret for their consenting. That is what has happened again-women after the fact regretting their mistaken impressions of someone however in Brown's case he did not like Gameshi force himself on anyone and the moment they said stop he did. So I argue tts after the fact second guessing by two women who are misusing a serious issue to get personal validation for having made bad choices and so I say its gone too far. The pendelum has swung too far to allow such stories to destroy careers without any defence. Enough.

Hey do me a favour- if you don't want someone to misunderstand you don't go their home alone let alone into their bed-room. Listen. If Brown forced any woman into his house physically or by slipping crap in their drink get back to me. Until then its just smarmy back stabbing political bull sheeyat.

Common sense is being thrown out the toilet. I smell a PC hatchet job by  Lisa McLeod who gave herself away today as the hatchet lady claiming she warned the PC's and they did  not listen to her. Thanks Lisa you just showed who did the hatchet job. Think about it. If she was ignored as she claims she was why did she go public to make herself a misunderstood victim? Why did she need to say what she did and seek vindication? The answer-she wanted revenge for not being picked as leader. She's shown her motive behind the agenda. She got her revenge now and this is what gave her away-she lied. She absolutely and utterly lied. She never originated the warning of Brown's Bachelor boy shenanigans. They had gone on for years before he ran for leadership and were an open source of rumours no different than it was an open secret Jack Layton was beating his wife Olivia Chow and police had been called multiple times, or that Mike Harris was a ****-faced drunk barely able to walk or talk in public in the afternoon and an abusive pig to all his staff. Its not a secret Wynne openly abuses her staff and has had a few in public and has a sewer mouth and has made inappropriate comments at young female staff. Give me a phacking break. The rumours of Trudeau being gay like his father, the rumours of Harper's wife being gay and having an affair with her female RCMP body guard, on and on. Hey who just was in the news posing before his girlfriend telling the world he is getting married to quell roomers of his being a notorious womanizer screwing and dumping women left and right. Hmmm? Oh come on he's the only one with a beard and a turban. Politics is full of sexual misconduct and pathetic people puffing their power as some kind of aphrodesiac. Trump and his porno Stormy Daniels crap with Melina was preggo. Gosh gee. Closet queens, closet pervs, Ministers getting spanked on their bottoms and peed on. Its been circulating for years upon years and its going to continue.

Its politics and its pathetic and its tainting and distracting from the serious issues associated with sexual crimes.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 27, 2018, 10:34:37 am
I agree with much of what you wrote, Rue.  A few minor quibbles.

If he KNEW in fact she was under 18 that is an issue.

In fact the girl was 18.  Underage in this instance refers to the legal drinking age in Ontario, which is 19.  The girl was drinking alcohol underage.  It's pretty bizarre that this is being used as an attack on Brown, as if he were the one responsible for checking her ID before letting her consume liquor.

Gameshi

People remember Ghomeshi being acquitted on the sexual assault charges, but seem to forget that he was also a serial sexual harasser at CBC.  He was acquitted of the first, but never put on trial for the latter.

He would give unwanted "massages" to female staff, he would walk up behind them and grind his Ghomeshi against their behinds, he talked about them in vulgar and demeaning ways. And when numerous female staff at the CBC complained about him and were told, basically, that if they didn't like it they could go elsewhere.  He was "the talent", and they were their to service him.  Ghomeshi was a pig to his female staff, and CBC were his enablers.

Ghomeshi's sexual assault trial was a case of prosecutorial incompetence.  But Ghomeshi's workplace behavior is exactly the kind of thing #MeToo was supposed to be about.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cbc-protected-jian-ghomeshi-say-two-ex-colleagues-with-new-harassment-claims


 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 27, 2018, 10:49:46 am
They usually get the message when I walk away and refuse to engage.

Obviously if they didn't get the message the first time and continued the comments, my first step would be to run to the media.   :D

 ... (10 years later)

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 27, 2018, 10:55:24 am
So this is no t about a victim of a sexually assault and therefore they should NOT be put on the same moral  level as someone who has been raped.

I agree with that.

Quote
... and saying now anytime a woman regrets her actions on a date she can call it a victimization and blame it on the person she was with. I call it out for what it is bull sheeyat.

I don't think calling it 'victimization' is exactly right.  She can certainly complain publicly about being treated badly.  Why not ?

Quote

If Brown had forced himself on her, that is one thing. If he spiked her drink, that is another thing. If he KNEW in fact she was under 18 that is an issue.

Do you think it's ok to show your **** to somebody who works for you ?  That's one of the allegations. 

If so, I have a job for you...

Quote
The evidence from the very complainants show they in fact were not the target of forced actions...

That is not where the bar is for harassment, let alone for behaviour of a public figure, let alone for behaviour by a political leader.

Quote
  I smell a PC hatchet job by  Lisa McLeod who gave herself away today as the hatchet lady claiming she warned the PC's and they did  not listen to her. Thanks Lisa you just showed who did the hatchet job.

Moving on... yes you may be right.

Quote
  The rumours of Trudeau being gay like his father, the rumours of Harper's wife being gay and having an affair with her female RCMP body guard, on and on. Hey who just was in the news posing before his girlfriend telling the world he is getting married to quell roomers of his being a notorious womanizer screwing and dumping women left and right. Hmmm? Oh come on he's the only one with a beard and a turban. Politics is full of sexual misconduct and pathetic people puffing their power as some kind of aphrodesiac. Trump and his porno Stormy Daniels crap with Melina was preggo. Gosh gee. Closet queens, closet pervs, Ministers getting spanked on their bottoms and peed on. Its been circulating for years upon years and its going to continue.

I need a shower.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 27, 2018, 10:57:26 am
In fact the girl was 18.  Underage in this instance refers to the legal drinking age in Ontario, which is 19.  The girl was drinking alcohol underage.  It's pretty bizarre that this is being used as an attack on Brown, as if he were the one responsible for checking her ID before letting her consume liquor.

He didn't drink himself.  And he had booze to give to a young woman who came over ?  That's just weird to me.   

Quote
he was also a serial sexual harasser at CBC.  He was acquitted of the first, but never put on trial for the latter.

What's the charge ?  Really, you are fired if it's true and he was.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 27, 2018, 11:13:40 am
Common sense is being thrown out the toilet. I smell a PC hatchet job by  Lisa McLeod who gave herself away today as the hatchet lady claiming she warned the PC's and they did  not listen to her.

From what I read today, that 'team' of advisers who all resigned the other day helped craft the message he gave when he talked to the media, and were supposed to be in the room with him, but never showed up. Instead they resigned via twitter while he was in front of the cameras...
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 27, 2018, 11:16:38 am
From what I read today, that 'team' of advisers who all resigned the other day helped craft the message he gave when he talked to the media, and were supposed to be in the room with him, but never showed up. Instead they resigned via twitter while he was in front of the cameras...

Wow.  Where did you read that ?  Pretty intriguing information and I don't know what to make of it.  He had a 19% lead so... dunno.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 27, 2018, 11:17:30 am
Poor Patrick Brown. Can't a brother just try to **** his much younger female employees in peace?

How old was Margaret when Pierre Trudeau started **** her, btw? Any idea? From his bio he met her when she was 18 and she was vacationing with her family in Tahiti. He would have been in his mid forties at the time.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 27, 2018, 11:19:16 am
Wow.  Where did you read that ?  Pretty intriguing information and I don't know what to make of it.  He had a 19% lead so... dunno.

The political professionals he had brought in – his chief of staff, campaign director, messaging guru – were out the door before CTV's report about his alleged sexual misconduct had aired. He thought they would be alongside him as he delivered the emergency statement they helped script; instead, he ran from the cameras alone, learning afterward they had announced their resignations on Twitter while he was speaking.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/how-patrick-brown-went-from-ontario-pc-leader-to-yesterdays-man-so-quickly/article37759261/
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 27, 2018, 11:41:09 am
He didn't drink himself.  And he had booze to give to a young woman who came over ?  That's just weird to me.   

I was under the impression that the drinking happened at the bar.  Regardless, I keep lots of goodies at my place that I don't use myself, for the benefit of guests and visitors who might like them.   Ok, so was Brown holding her mouth open and pouring drinks down her throat?

I ask again... where's the "misconduct"?  Even if everything these young women said is completely accurate, so what?

What's the charge ?  Really, you are fired if it's true and he was.

I'm not suggesting there should have been criminal charges brought against Ghomeshi for his conduct at CBC.  I just wanted to emphasize that while he was acquitted of the sexual assault charges he faced in court, he was never exonerated for his conduct at CBC.  Some people may have the impression that Ghomeshi's acquittal in court is also a vindication of his actions while at CBC, but it certainly is not.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 27, 2018, 11:55:34 am
The political professionals he had brought in – his chief of staff, campaign director, messaging guru – were out the door before CTV's report about his alleged sexual misconduct had aired. He thought they would be alongside him as he delivered the emergency statement they helped script; instead, he ran from the cameras alone, learning afterward they had announced their resignations on Twitter while he was speaking.
 

Well there it is.  Maybe they just ran from him.  What an ending.... :(
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 27, 2018, 12:00:09 pm
I was under the impression that the drinking happened at the bar.  Regardless, I keep lots of goodies at my place that I don't use myself, for the benefit of guests and visitors who might like them.   Ok, so was Brown holding her mouth open and pouring drinks down her throat?

I didn't say it was wrong, just weird.  I'm a tea-totaler that keeps booze around for tipsy women who come over and I'm a politician...

Quote


I ask again... where's the "misconduct"?  Even if everything these young women said is completely accurate, so what?

Boss showing employee **** ?

Quote
I'm not suggesting there should have been criminal charges brought against Ghomeshi for his conduct at CBC.  I just wanted to emphasize that while he was acquitted of the sexual assault charges he faced in court, he was never exonerated for his conduct at CBC.  Some people may have the impression that Ghomeshi's acquittal in court is also a vindication of his actions while at CBC, but it certainly is not.

 -k

Yes.  Public figures are expected to be leaders, that's how it is.  It seems, though, that if you claim not to be one you might get an easier ride. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on January 27, 2018, 12:04:01 pm
I smell a PC hatchet job by  Lisa McLeod who gave herself away today as the hatchet lady claiming she warned the PC's and they did  not listen to her. Thanks Lisa you just showed who did the hatchet job.

Conservative proponents need to make up their mind! Either the "outing" was warranted to circumvent a 'closer to election' revealing by "opponents"... or it was, as you say, a "hatchet job". Considering one reads Conservative leader Brown's predilections were well known within party circles for years... for years...

And then to read (now attacked) Lisa McLeod brought notice of these rumours multiple times in the 2017 year-end to, wait for it... wait for it... to Dimiti Soudas (Brown's campaign war-room guy), it is odd that Soudas just sat on the notices/info. One would think Soudas' time as Harper's PMO Director of Communications would have better prepared him!  ;D Ah, yes... those were the days when Soudas ran rough-shod over Harper messaging - good times!
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 27, 2018, 12:23:47 pm
I didn't say it was wrong, just weird.  I'm a tea-totaler that keeps booze around for tipsy women who come over and I'm a politician...

Most people who entertain - and a politician would be one - would keep alcohol around the house for guests.

Quote
Boss showing employee **** ?

Well, sort of boss. He worked in Ottawa and she was a summer student working in his riding. He was not someone she had a lot of contact with. I note she stayed with him as a returning summer student for several years and rarely saw much of him afterward, according to her, so he didn't take any retalation for her turning him down.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 27, 2018, 12:27:31 pm
Most people who entertain - and a politician would be one - would keep alcohol around the house for guests.

I never thought of that.

Quote
Well, sort of boss. He worked in Ottawa and she was a summer student working in his riding. He was not someone she had a lot of contact with. I note she stayed with him as a returning summer student for several years and rarely saw much of him afterward, according to her, so he didn't take any retalation for her turning him down.

Yes, that's not alleged.  Did she work for his office, though ?  If so, he's "the" boss if not her immediate supervisor.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 27, 2018, 12:39:57 pm
They usually get the message when I walk away and refuse to engage.

Fair enough; that has been my reaction in the past too. But perhaps I'm a little less blase because on one occasion when something like that happened to me, the boss simply told the rest of the staff a different story, resulting in a workplace so uncomfortable for me that I left.  I'd said nothing about the incident, by the way.  This was before there was any recourse for harassment at work.

So why should women object to being called "yummy" in an elevator by her male colleague or boss, or even a stranger?   Because it's demeaning.  It implies that regardless of a woman's professional accomplishments, she essentially exists for the sexual gratification of men.  She is nothing more than a walking ****/breasts, and - at least in some people's minds- she should be grateful and feel complimented when a man comments on her sexual attributes.

I've said multiple times that I don't think a man should lose his job when he's behaved oafishly and I'm saying it again.  At the same time, I'm also critical of the attitude that a woman who does say something about these minor actions is over-reacting.   I think dismissing these women's complaints is tantamount to telling men that they don't have to do better, we understand and accept that they can't control themselves, that we are willing to be seen as sexual objects first and foremost, and colleagues secondly.

I'm not against complimenting, either.   If a man, whether boss/colleague/stranger, wants to compliment how I look, saying "You look nice today" should be acceptable (though I know there are those who would consider this over the line).  Even if he privately thinks I'm hot-as-hell and he'd like to do me all day long, controlling his outward expression of those thoughts is what should be the expectation.  After all, they can and do so with male colleagues:  no matter how much they may despise someone they are doing business with or working with, they are expected to keep those feelings and thoughts invisible.  As a woman, why should I expect or accept anything less?

So how about if we don't just walk away - why don't we use verbal communication instead of body language?  How about if we say "That was inappropriate and I want an apology" instead?   How about if we make men responsible for their behavior, immediately and directly?  Because silently walking away doesn't seem to be solving the problem, and going to the media with the result of destroying someone's career isn't a solution either.   
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 27, 2018, 01:48:37 pm
A fellow Conservative MP knew there was something going on and brought it up with the party. 

So people in his own party knew he was a creep.   That doesn’t mean he should go to jail...   but should a creepy guy who tries to get young women drunk and have his way with them be leader of a political party? 

http://torontosun.com/news/provincial/lisa-macleod-says-she-told-pcs-about-patrick-brown-rumours-weeks-ago


Quote
PC MPP Lisa MacLeod warned the party apparatus that she’d heard many rumours of former leader Patrick Brown’s “inappropriate touching or multiple girlfriends.”

MacLeod said she raised the issue a couple of times, including with a member of the campaign team who looked into the allegations but reported back that he hadn’t heard anything.

The rumours were not detailed and had no names attached, but they were frequent enough to cause her concern, she said Friday.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 27, 2018, 02:38:33 pm
A fellow Conservative MP knew there was something going on and brought it up with the party. 

So people in his own party knew he was a creep.   That doesn’t mean he should go to jail...   but should a creepy guy who tries to get young women drunk and have his way with them be leader of a political party?

Rumors of multiple girlfriends or innapropriate touching(?). What does that even mean? if there was any evidence something would have been done. Another story said that one of his competitors in the leadership contest hired a private detective to look into such things but he found no evidence. Apparently Brown and a couple of other younger single male MPs were quite the players while in Ottawa.

Is that illegal? I believe Pierre Trudeau was known as something of a playboy too, in his time.

I would say, btw, that her bringing this up publicly now is not likely to endear her to the party.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on January 27, 2018, 03:00:54 pm
You keep bring up PET like anyone excuses him. It’s blind partisan rhetoric and a ridiculous straw man.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 27, 2018, 04:12:43 pm
You keep bring up PET like anyone excuses him. It’s blind partisan rhetoric and a ridiculous straw man.

Uh... like anyone excuses him? He's worshipped by Liberals, and got elected multiple times. The mere fact Justin has "Trudeau" as a last name was enough to make him the great talisman for them and have him anointed as party leader. You think he'd be prime minister if his name wasn't Trudeau? You think the name Trudeau would be such an attractive one if Liberals or the public in general thought he was a disgusting pervert?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 27, 2018, 04:29:23 pm
Rumors of multiple girlfriends or innapropriate touching(?). What does that even mean? if there was any evidence something would have been done.

Also from the Sun article:   
Quote
“People knew about these stories, and it wasn’t that they thought they were untrue, they just thought that they wouldn’t come out.”

The source said this crisis is now an opportunity for the party to take a hard look at these types of issues and accept responsibility for having promoted and profiled this leader.

They knew he was a creep, but tried to keep it from getting out.   They knew he’d be toast. 


Quote
Is that illegal?

I said in the post you quoted that no one thinks he should go to jail....   but having a creepy guy for a political leader isn’t the best choice probably.


Quote
I believe Pierre Trudeau was known as something of a playboy too, in his time.

Ummm....  ok.

The 70’s called....   they want their Pierre Trudeau criticisms back.   He’s dead and irrelevant to any topic about politics in 2018.

Uh... like anyone excuses him? He's worshipped by Liberals, and got elected multiple times. The mere fact Justin has "Trudeau" as a last name was enough to make him the great talisman for them and have him anointed as party leader. You think he'd be prime minister if his name wasn't Trudeau? You think the name Trudeau would be such an attractive one if Liberals or the public in general thought he was a disgusting pervert?

So I’m confused....   you thought what Trudeau did in 1978 was bad?  But it’s OK for the potential PC leader to do the same things now?   Or it was OK then, but it was Trudeau, so you are going to set your hair on fire about it anyway? 

40 years ago....    and you’re bringing this up in relation to this topic because you think it’s relevant somehow? 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 27, 2018, 06:03:32 pm
So I’m confused....   you thought what Trudeau did in 1978 was bad?  But it’s OK for the potential PC leader to do the same things now?   Or it was OK then, but it was Trudeau, so you are going to set your hair on fire about it anyway? 

40 years ago....    and you’re bringing this up in relation to this topic because you think it’s relevant somehow?

Yeah, because most of the Left, including Cybercoma, still worship the ground he once walked on and don't give a rats ass that he was boffing a teenager when he was in his late forties. So much do they admire and revere him they put his airhead son into the same job just because he was named Trudeau.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on January 27, 2018, 09:08:11 pm
Yeah, because most of the Left, including Cybercoma, still worship the ground he once walked on and don't give a rats ass that he was boffing a teenager when he was in his late forties. So much do they admire and revere him they put his airhead son into the same job just because he was named Trudeau.
You know I’m not a Liberal, right?

Worship the ground they walk on? Don’t make me laugh.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 28, 2018, 11:02:08 am
Well I'm still intrigued by this Margaret Trudeau thing.  So, if I have this right, people in the late 1960s thought it was okay that an 18 year old woman could have a relationship with a much older man, if that was what she wanted?  And now 50 years later an 18 year old woman is too vulnerable to make those decisions for herself?

What happened?  Did women get weaker and dumber in the past 50 years?

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 28, 2018, 11:24:22 am
Well I'm still intrigued by this Margaret Trudeau thing.  So, if I have this right, people in the late 1960s thought it was okay that an 18 year old woman could have a relationship with a much older man, if that was what she wanted?  And now 50 years later an 18 year old woman is too vulnerable to make those decisions for herself?

What happened?  Did women get weaker and dumber in the past 50 years?

 -k

Child marriages have fallen out of fashion, too.  It doesn't mean that 15-year-olds are dumber and weaker than they used to be.

At the time, as I recall, a lot of men were envious and a lot of women sighed and shook their heads.    And of course, the assumption by many was that, in the way of women everywhere and throughout history, Margaret had essentially prostituted herself in return for money and status.  It wasn't completely uncontroversial and Margaret did spend a bit of time defending her interest in an older man.   I think the lack of wholesale condemnation had more to do with women still being seen as needing a man to be complete and fullfilled, rather than a reflection of an 18 year old being fully mature and autonomous and able to make her own decisions.

How young are you, anyway?  :) 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 11:37:58 am
You know I’m not a Liberal, right?

Worship the ground they walk on? Don’t make me laugh.

You seemed to say a lot of good things about him back on that other site.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 11:40:40 am
At the time, as I recall, a lot of men were envious and a lot of women sighed and shook their heads.    And of course, the assumption by many was that, in the way of women everywhere and throughout history, Margaret had essentially prostituted herself in return for money and status. 

You can't ignore the fact Trudeau was hugely admired and for some reason I've never understood, thought of as extremely sexy and debonair by women of the time.

Brown... not so much.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 28, 2018, 11:58:03 am
You can't ignore the fact Trudeau was hugely admired and for some reason I've never understood, thought of as extremely sexy and debonair by women of the time.

I wasn't one of those women, though my mother was.  Only in history does he seem to have been hugely admired; in my more redneck part of Canada, opinion was split, though its not like there were huge discussions about it.   Anyway, it didn't matter because it was Eastern Canada who decided our prime ministers.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 28, 2018, 12:51:10 pm
How young are you, anyway?  :)

I'm 34... so much too young to remember Trudeaumania.  Also, growing up in Alberta in the 1980s the word "Trudeau" inspired a completely different kind of "mania". 

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 28, 2018, 01:52:40 pm
You can't ignore the fact Trudeau was hugely admired and for some reason I've never understood, thought of as extremely sexy and debonair by women of the time.

I love the man indeed!

The original goat herder lover who opened the floodgates and allowed my family to immigrate in 1982.

The fact that you’re shaking your fist at the sky over it 35 years later is just the icing on the cake.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 02:46:58 pm
I love the man indeed!

The original goat herder lover who opened the floodgates and allowed my family to immigrate in 1982.

The fact that you’re shaking your fist at the sky over it 35 years later is just the icing on the cake.

So there's nothing wrong with 47 year old playboys **** 18 year old girls as long as he's pro immigration. About as thoughtful as most of what you post.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 28, 2018, 03:14:36 pm
So there's nothing wrong with 47 year old playboys **** 18 year old girls as long as he's pro immigration. About as thoughtful as most of what you post.

What happens between consenting adults isn't really my business.  Margaret Trudeau was hardly a victim in that relationship. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on January 28, 2018, 03:19:06 pm
So there's nothing wrong with 47 year old playboys **** 18 year old girls

What can we do?  Men are **** and are genetically programmed to lust after young women to bear their children.  It's nature, and regardless of how much we disapprove, it's no big surprise when it happens.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 28, 2018, 03:28:06 pm
What can we do?  Men are **** and are genetically programmed to lust after young women to bear their children.  It's nature, and regardless of how much we disapprove, it's no big surprise when it happens.

Look at someone like Mick Jagger in his 70's still knocking up 20 year olds.  He's a rock start and will forever sleep with 20 year olds, fact of life. 

Trudeau was like a rock star in his own way and he had women swooning over him.  I can't blame him for hooking up with Margaret but the key point is that their relationship was consensual like Mick Jagger's.

You can't compare it to someone who can't take no for an answer and persistently shows unwanted attention.  Big difference.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on January 28, 2018, 03:42:52 pm
What can we do?  Men are **** and are genetically programmed to lust after young women to bear their children.  It's nature, and regardless of how much we disapprove, it's no big surprise when it happens.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact I was raised by a single mom, but the huge respect I had for her existed equally alongside that lust for young women I developed when I got to that age. I had my fun but I never have had to look in the rear view mirror and cringe. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 28, 2018, 04:29:04 pm
So there's nothing wrong with 47 year old playboys **** 18 year old girls as long as he's pro immigration. About as thoughtful as most of what you post.

Do you think there’s something wrong with it?  Or only whe someone you don’t like for political reasons does it?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on January 28, 2018, 04:44:09 pm
What happens between consenting adults isn't really my business.  Margaret Trudeau was hardly a victim in that relationship.
The fact that people like SirJohn still can’t grasp the idea of consent is why #metoo exists.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 28, 2018, 05:30:29 pm
Right but what ABOUT age ?

Cyber brought it up.  I don't think it's an issue but it also doesn't fly with a lot of women.  It just does not, whether it's right or wrong.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on January 28, 2018, 05:35:33 pm
OK so then we shouldn't assault babies but once they are able to walk it's fine.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 28, 2018, 05:56:20 pm
OK so then we shouldn't assault babies but once they are able to walk it's fine.

Who are you speaking to ?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 06:00:19 pm
What happens between consenting adults isn't really my business.  Margaret Trudeau was hardly a victim in that relationship.

And neither were the two women complaining about Patrick Brown years later. So why is Brown a creep but Trudeau a hero?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 06:00:54 pm
You can't compare it to someone who can't take no for an answer and persistently shows unwanted attention.  Big difference.

True. Patrick Brown took no for an answer. He's still ruined.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 06:01:41 pm
Do you think there’s something wrong with it?  Or only whe someone you don’t like for political reasons does it?

I like to point out the hypocrisy of people who will condemn a man as a sick creep but then worship another who did basically the same thing.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 06:02:25 pm
The fact that people like SirJohn still can’t grasp the idea of consent is why #metoo exists.

So you're saying Brown didn't take no for an answer, is that it?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on January 28, 2018, 06:03:15 pm
The fact that people like SirJohn still can’t grasp the idea of consent is why #metoo exists.
Consent has nothing to with the Browse case. In this case, when Brown initiated sexual contact the woman indicated she did not consent and Brown stopped. IOW, exactly as one would expect. It seems like some #metoo activists will only be happy unless all sexual contact is initiated by the woman because no man can risk misreading signals and initiating contact because making a wrong call could be used to destroy their career 10 years later.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 06:03:52 pm
Right but what ABOUT age ?

Cyber brought it up.  I don't think it's an issue but it also doesn't fly with a lot of women.  It just does not, whether it's right or wrong.

Of course it doesn't fly with women! Women clearly and for obvious reasons don't like the idea that men find them less sexy the older they get (hard to blame them) and that men will forever be boys lusting after 19 year old hotties. Womens instincts, as I have posted earlier, are entirely different and they rarely have much sexual interest in young men. They have interest in an actual relationship with them even less often.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on January 28, 2018, 06:04:26 pm
Who are you speaking to ?

I'm speaking to anyone who thinks that age should be a consideration with regard to the determination as to what constitutes sexual assault.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on January 28, 2018, 06:07:28 pm
Of course it doesn't fly with women! Women clearly and for obvious reasons don't like the idea that men find them less sexy the older they get (hard to blame them) and that men will forever be boys lusting after 19 year old hotties. Womens instincts, as I have posted earlier, are entirely different and they rarely have much sexual interest in young men. They have interest in an actual relationship with them even less often.

WHO THE **** gave you authority to speak for all men and all women? It's just creepy!
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 06:08:35 pm
WHO THE **** gave you authority to speak for all men and all women? It's just creepy!

You wear your mom's panties to bed, don't you?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on January 28, 2018, 06:39:15 pm
You wear your mom's panties to bed, don't you?

Leave it to sir argus to come with **** like that. Now back to the basement.

Um, just wondering if you are male or female?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 28, 2018, 06:48:39 pm
Consent has nothing to with the Browse case.

Hmmm.  Seems to me he DID flash her without asking.  A subordinate.  And it WAS in his bedroom.

Inappropriate, but not assault IMO.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 28, 2018, 06:49:56 pm
Here:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations-from-two-women-resigns-as-ontario-pc-leader-1.3774686

Quote
She says she was drunk when Brown invited her for a tour of his home. When the pair entered the bedroom, Brown closed the door and exposed his **** to her.

"He pulled down his pants said, and I don’t know if he said 'suck my dick' or 'put this in your mouth,' but something along those lines,” she said.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on January 28, 2018, 07:06:14 pm
Hmmm.  Seems to me he DID flash her without asking.  A subordinate.  And it WAS in his bedroom.
And she choose to go into his bedroom.

Inappropriate, but not assault IMO.
The fact that she was his employee makes him somewhat culpable. But that is not what people are talking about. People are talking about a perverse definition of consent where any attempt to initiate sexual activity by the man is considered assault it the attempt is rejected.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 28, 2018, 07:11:11 pm
And neither were the two women complaining about Patrick Brown years later. So why is Brown a creep but Trudeau a hero?

Well, if Trudeau pulled down his pants and asked Margaret to suck his d!ck upon meeting her, we did not hear about it.  So there's that.

If it's any consolation, I personally don't think that he said/she said alone should've disqualified him but apparently his party didn't want to gamble on him. 

I'm guessing they knew he's a pig and they feared more women coming forward closer to election time. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on January 28, 2018, 07:12:37 pm
And she choose to go into his bedroom.
The fact that she was his employee makes him somewhat culpable. But that is not what people are talking about. People are talking about a perverse definition of consent where any attempt to initiate sexual activity by the man is considered assault it the attempt is rejected.

No, only if the attempt is continued beyond the rejection.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 28, 2018, 07:18:39 pm
Womens instincts, as I have posted earlier, are entirely different and they rarely have much sexual interest in young men. They have interest in an actual relationship with them even less often.

What kind of medieval drivel is this nonsense? 

Young men are hot and lots of women date younger men. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 28, 2018, 08:51:02 pm
What kind of medieval drivel is this nonsense? 

It's basic social psychology. Men's instincts are to look for breeding age females. Womens are to look for a protector/provider. Not saying culture and upbringing don't have an impact but that's the instinct.

Quote
Young men are hot and lots of women date younger men.

As in almost none. I've never talked to a woman who had much interest in young men beyond looking. Usually when I hear 40 year old women talk about 20 year old men it's 'yeah, he's cute, but he's a baby."

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 28, 2018, 10:37:18 pm
Hmmm.  Seems to me he DID flash her without asking.  A subordinate.  And it WAS in his bedroom.

Inappropriate, but not assault IMO.

If he walked into her office at work and showed her his ****, then obviously that's completely unacceptable.

If you're in somebody's bedroom after a night of drinking, you're not in a workplace situation anymore. One might argue that a boss should have his employee in his bedroom after a night of drinking in the first place, but IMO the responsibility on that issue is split 50-50.

Also I was under the impression that this girl was a volunteer who organized a charity event for him, not an actual "employee" per se.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 29, 2018, 01:19:34 am
As in almost none. I've never talked to a woman who had much interest in young men beyond looking. Usually when I hear 40 year old women talk about 20 year old men it's 'yeah, he's cute, but he's a baby."

Now we're getting off topic, but I have to call you out on this...

First of all, I think younger men are hot so there.  Now you've talked to one who does. 

Second, men say the same BS, it doesn't mean it's true.  Mr. BC_c always says that to me about young women being pretty but he wouldn't be into one.  A little piece of me laughs inside because I know he's lying.

Third, youth = beauty and desirability so the older party has to bring something else to the table (usually money and/or status).  Historically, it's been men who've have the wealth but as women gain independence, we're seeing a lot more older women with younger men.  Just look at celebrities (J Lo, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, Robin Wright, Demi Moore) and you'll see this perfect example of feminist economics at play.

Fourth, judging by the number of dating sites geared toward older women and younger men, I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about.  As usual.

Last but not least, aren't you the one always telling us our personal experiences with immigrants don't count?  How come you think your own personal experiences with women should be so universally accepted?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 29, 2018, 05:52:15 am
Off topic, also: If I were single I would not 'get with' women younger than me.  That would be a dead end, and would just feel like I was tricking stupid people into being with me.  I know lots of women my own age, and we flirt and appreciate each other on the whole.

I have known guys my age who pursued women in their 20s and they look foolish.  The guy who catches one looks even worse.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 29, 2018, 05:54:25 am

If you're in somebody's bedroom after a night of drinking, you're not in a workplace situation anymore. One might argue that a boss should have his employee in his bedroom after a night of drinking in the first place, but IMO the responsibility on that issue is split 50-50.
 

"She should have known better" than to take a tour of his house doesn't excuse him from flashing her.  And once we're discussing that question, anyway, a politician in question has been dragged down. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on January 29, 2018, 08:40:44 am
"She should have known better" than to take a tour of his house doesn't excuse him from flashing her. 

If you end up in somebody's bedroom after a night out drinking together, whipping it out and asking for a hummer isn't "inappropriate", it's just clumsy.

And once we're discussing that question, anyway, a politician in question has been dragged down.

Maybe so.  I mean, lots of things render a politician unelectable.  Finding out that he likes his steak well done with ketchup, or eats pizza with a knife and fork, or refers to a basketball hoop as a ring, for example, would be likewise disqualifying in the eyes of many voters.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 29, 2018, 10:41:28 am
I like to point out the hypocrisy of people who will condemn a man as a sick creep but then worship another who did basically the same thing.

No one brought up a dead PM from 40 years ago....    you bringing him up is a complete red herring.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 29, 2018, 11:30:58 am
No one brought up a dead PM from 40 years ago....    you bringing him up is a complete red herring.

I brought it up to show what a hypocrite some people are. I'm sorry if that upsets you... nawwwh, not even slightly.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on January 29, 2018, 11:37:24 am
I brought it up to show what a hypocrite some people are. I'm sorry if that upsets you... nawwwh, not even slightly.

other than satisfying your anti-Trudeau fixation, was age discrepancy the prevailing concern raised in regards former Ontario Conservative leader Patrick Brown?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 29, 2018, 11:41:55 am
First of all, I think younger men are hot so there.  Now you've talked to one who does. 

I'm sorry you can't read but I never said that older women don't think younger guys are hot.

Quote
Second, men say the same BS, it doesn't mean it's true.

Men say that to their wives, not to each other. And as I said, I'm not talking about having an ongoing relationship as in couples. A lot of men recognize that is problematic with a much younger women in terms of interests and maturity. That doesn't mean they don't want to **** the brains out of that 18 year old if only she'd let them.

Quote
Third, youth = beauty and desirability so the older party has to bring something else to the table (usually money and/or status).  Historically, it's been men who've have the wealth but as women gain independence, we're seeing a lot more older women with younger men.

No question that if you're rich that makes up for a lot. But we see tons of fairly ordinary guys who are far from rich and not even that attractive having affairs with much younger women. Men are much more into going for young women than women are.

Quote
Fourth, judging by the number of dating sites geared toward older women and younger men,

There are lots of sites on the internet. That's meaningless.

Quote
Last but not least, aren't you the one always telling us our personal experiences with immigrants don't count?  How come you think your own personal experiences with women should be so universally accepted?

I wasn't using my anecdotes as evidence of something which I thought was pretty universally accepted as true. But I keep forgetting what fanatics you SJWs are and how desperate you are to attack me on any possible subject because I dare to say things unflattering about your cherished beliefs - like immigration. So I suppose I have to back it up so you and the rest of the mob of morons from the left can turn your frenzied attention to the next thing I decide to post.

It is a commonly accepted idea that men prefer the company of younger women, while women prefer men who are older. This is also in keeping with Parental Investment Theory, which maintains that men are attracted to women who advertise signs of fertility — that is, youth. Conversely, women are drawn to older men since they typically have greater resources. Indeed, this phenomenon of men preferring younger mates and vice versa is technically known as the age differential effect, and it has been well-documented. In a classic study of human mating from 1989, David Buss surveyed 37 cultures across 6 continents and found that in every culture in question, men preferred to marry younger women (2.66 years younger on average) and women preferred to marry older men (3.42 years older on average). In addition, Buss collected actual age differences at marriage for 27 of the 37 cultures, and across the board men normally married women who were younger than themselves.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/head-games/201308/when-it-comes-dating-do-age-differences-matter
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 29, 2018, 11:45:35 am
If you end up in somebody's bedroom after a night out drinking together, whipping it out and asking for a hummer isn't "inappropriate", it's just clumsy.

I'd like to repeat that everyone keeps accepting this statement as if that was what really happened. This is the testimony of someone years later trying to make herself look good. I find it extremely unlikely that a sober guy who has been involved in politics for years - which is all about persuading people to like you -- who is trying to persuade some hot chick to give him a blow job is going to be so crass as to just drop his shorts and tell her to blow him. I find it even more incredible given she apparently complied. There was almost certainly a lot of byplay before that.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on January 29, 2018, 02:26:45 pm
I brought it up to show what a hypocrite some people are. I'm sorry if that upsets you... nawwwh, not even slightly.

Why would you think I’m upset?

So who’s a hypocrite?   These people only exist in your own mind....   no one here brought up Trudeau or compared the two people.   ::)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 29, 2018, 04:38:44 pm
The fact you and MH and all you other sanctimonious righteous holier than thou sexual moral police have not mentioned Trudeau is exactly the point.
 

If you think I like Justin Trudeau then you are a secret genius of some kind.

I also don't think dating somebody younger is tantamount to assault however I don't think it's politically tenable... today.

Keep looking for hypocrisies, you might stumble on my principles at some point.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 29, 2018, 09:23:20 pm
Q: "Mike why do you feel that way"
A: "Moral reasons"
Q: "You are holier than thou !"

In other words, if you feel guilty about your morality don't put it on me.  Everybody has to decide for themselves how to act.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 30, 2018, 01:25:45 am
I'm sorry you can't read but I never said that older women don't think younger guys are hot.

Yes you did, you said:  As in almost none. I've never talked to a woman who had much interest in young men beyond looking. Usually when I hear 40 year old women talk about 20 year old men it's 'yeah, he's cute, but he's a baby."

Men say that to their wives, not to each other. And as I said, I'm not talking about having an ongoing relationship as in couples. A lot of men recognize that is problematic with a much younger women in terms of interests and maturity. That doesn't mean they don't want to **** the brains out of that 18 year old if only she'd let them.

This is what you said:  Womens instincts, as I have posted earlier, are entirely different and they rarely have much sexual interest in young men. They have interest in an actual relationship with them even less often.

And I can say the same thing to you.  Women may say that to you about not being interested (or maybe the women you know really aren't), but I've known plenty of women who said and thought differently.  For fun or as relationships.

No question that if you're rich that makes up for a lot. But we see tons of fairly ordinary guys who are far from rich and not even that attractive having affairs with much younger women. Men are much more into going for young women than women are.

Lots of non-rich women have relationships with younger men as well.  I'm just talking about the paradigm shift in society where women now work and have independence.  Our social roles have changed.  Along with that comes more of the same thing men have doing all their lives and that's dating/**** younger than themselves.

There are lots of sites on the internet. That's meaningless.

No it's very relevant.  You're the one adamantly saying women just aren't interested in younger men and the fact that there are half a dozen sites for doing just that means you're obviously wrong.

As for your psychology today article, yes, I don't dispute that there are probably more men than are interested in younger women than vice versa but it's not psychological issue so much as a sociological one. 

If it were, tides would not be changing as the role of women change with us seeing more and more older women dating younger men.   

In any case, your initial statement about women just not being into younger men is downright caca.  Some women, most women even, maybe.  But definitely not a general phenomenon and definitely not from a small cohort as the women you've talked to in life.

Here is a good read for you if you're interested. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/fashion/15women.html



Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 30, 2018, 05:48:32 am
If you end up in somebody's bedroom after a night out drinking together, whipping it out and asking for a hummer isn't "inappropriate", it's just clumsy.

"She should have known better" than to take a tour of his house doesn't excuse him from flashing her." 

Quote
Maybe so.  I mean, lots of things render a politician unelectable.  Finding out that he likes his steak well done with ketchup, or eats pizza with a knife and fork, or refers to a basketball hoop as a ring, for example, would be likewise disqualifying in the eyes of many voters.

Or flashing his **** at an 18-year old who was drinking at his house.

Come on, the guy is a politician.  This shows ZERO judgment.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 30, 2018, 10:34:57 am
In any case, your initial statement about women just not being into younger men is downright caca.  Some women, most women even, maybe.  But definitely not a general phenomenon and definitely not from a small cohort as the women you've talked to in life.

You realize that you concede that it might well be that most women aren't interested in younger men in the second sentence and then repudiate any possibility that this a 'general phenomenon' in the one which follows?

A good synonym for 'most women' would be 'a general phenomenon.'

And I'll take a listing of all the consistent academic studies over the years on this from a psychologist over a NYT culture writer. I'll also take her word and that of other academics that it IS in fact a psychological/instinctual issue rather than entirely cultural too.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on January 30, 2018, 10:35:43 am
"She should have known better" than to take a tour of his house doesn't excuse him from flashing her." 

Or flashing his **** at an 18-year old who was drinking at his house.

Come on, the guy is a politician.  This shows ZERO judgment.

I don't believe that was what happened. It makes no sense on any level.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 30, 2018, 10:45:11 am
Fair enough, but that is a different response from 'what did he do' or 'he didn't do anything'
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on January 30, 2018, 01:20:38 pm
I agree with much of what you wrote, Rue.  A few minor quibbles.

In fact the girl was 18.  Underage in this instance refers to the legal drinking age in Ontario, which is 19.  The girl was drinking alcohol underage.  It's pretty bizarre that this is being used as an attack on Brown, as if he were the one responsible for checking her ID before letting her consume liquor.

People remember Ghomeshi being acquitted on the sexual assault charges, but seem to forget that he was also a serial sexual harasser at CBC.  He was acquitted of the first, but never put on trial for the latter.

He would give unwanted "massages" to female staff, he would walk up behind them and grind his Ghomeshi against their behinds, he talked about them in vulgar and demeaning ways. And when numerous female staff at the CBC complained about him and were told, basically, that if they didn't like it they could go elsewhere.  He was "the talent", and they were their to service him.  Ghomeshi was a pig to his female staff, and CBC were his enablers.

Ghomeshi's sexual assault trial was a case of prosecutorial incompetence.  But Ghomeshi's workplace behavior is exactly the kind of thing #MeToo was supposed to be about.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/cbc-protected-jian-ghomeshi-say-two-ex-colleagues-with-new-harassment-claims


 -k

Sorry just read this. Totally agree.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Bubbermiley on January 30, 2018, 01:24:25 pm
Or flashing his **** at an 18-year old who was drinking at his house.

Come on, the guy is a politician.  This shows ZERO judgment.
That may be so, but it worked, didn't it?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 30, 2018, 01:34:54 pm
That may be so, but it worked, didn't it?

Yes, and like every man who ever lived he made a bad decision to get some sex.  Sorry for your luck, flasher man...
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on January 30, 2018, 02:11:24 pm
You realize that you concede that it might well be that most women aren't interested in younger men in the second sentence and then repudiate any possibility that this a 'general phenomenon' in the one which follows?

A good synonym for 'most women' would be 'a general phenomenon.'

And I'll take a listing of all the consistent academic studies over the years on this from a psychologist over a NYT culture writer. I'll also take her word and that of other academics that it IS in fact a psychological/instinctual issue rather than entirely cultural too.

The NYT article is full of studies and surveys and it's well researched.

And I'm not a mind-reader, if you are talking about generalizations don't say things like:

Womens instincts, as I have posted earlier, are entirely different and they rarely have much sexual interest in young men. They have interest in an actual relationship with them even less often.

It sure sounds like it's some kind of rarity when it's not.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on January 31, 2018, 04:01:01 pm
Yes, and like every man who ever lived he made a bad decision to get some sex.  Sorry for your luck, flasher man...

You are awful smug and self righteousness on this topic.  Mist be quite something to have such holier then thou testacles. I am sure they shine forth with divinity.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on January 31, 2018, 05:25:28 pm
You are awful smug and self righteousness on this topic.  Mist be quite something to have such holier then thou testacles. I am sure they shine forth with divinity.

I don't think I have said that what he did was morally reprehensible as much as I have said it was untenable, politically.  That means the accusation of self-righteousness on my part is incorrect.

I also never said I am innocent of sexual harassment.  I wouldn't go into politics, and I have even said on here that I am guilty. 

But I am sure you will not read this and bring up your dumb accusation many times in the future.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: JMT on February 01, 2018, 09:35:18 am
You are awful smug and self righteousness on this topic.  Mist be quite something to have such holier then thou testacles. I am sure they shine forth with divinity.

 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 01, 2018, 11:27:35 am
Personally I'm glad this whole situation gives a chance for Caroline Mulroney to become leader & premier and continue the magnificent political dynasty of her father.  Since her daddy brought in the very popular GST, I hope she brings in the CST (Caroline Sales Tax), maybe at a 30% rate so Ontario's hydro system can be fixed.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 01, 2018, 03:28:49 pm
https://twitter.com/CBCToronto/status/959170274343211008

Caroline Mulroney -> IN.

Ontario PCs now have a clear choice: Caroline Mulroney and a future or DoFo and a toilet.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 01, 2018, 03:38:31 pm
One must wonder if Doug wouldn't have the same DNA as his brother, and does Ontario want another drugged up, drunk driving, weirdo running the province.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 01, 2018, 04:44:37 pm
He's a non-drinker apparently.  He's the embodiment of the disoriented and disinterested voter.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 01, 2018, 04:58:32 pm
I suspect Mulroney will be a catchier name in Ont. They may not want to take a chance on another Ford.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 01, 2018, 05:37:51 pm
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

You seem paralyzed. Have you gone to a doctor?  Maybe some prune juice JMT? Hmmm?

Here let me refresh you as to why I called MH's words out as smug self righteous crap:

1.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2018, 10:55:24 am »
Do you think it's ok to show your **** to somebody who works for you ?  That's one of the allegations. 

Clarification for the confused JMT:  The above words are a misrepresentation and make it sound like Brown  exploited his position at work to gain sexual access over a person.
There is zero evidence of that. Also the above wording is bullshit. It makes it sound like he pulled his pecker out at work without her consent.
The question also misses the very point of the issue. Each day across the world, millions of people phack their employers and employees on consent.
If MH or you want to be the moral police on who adults should phack  its smug not to mention farsical.

Let's be clear-there is zero evidence Pat Brown forced his **** on anyone. He did not flash it. He was in a bed-room with someone. They were in his phacking bed room. What did they go up there for?
In MH's world he watched far too many Rock Hudson-Doris Day movies.
 


2.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2018, 10:57:26 am »

He didn't drink himself.  And he had booze to give to a young woman who came over ?  That's just weird to me.   

Clarification to the confused JMT: Read the above. Another crock of self righteous crap. In MH's world its wierd to offer someone a drink when they come over. Yah right. He should have played scrabble and never have put down on the board the word ****. Got it.

3.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2018, 12:00:09 pm »

Boss showing employee **** ?


Clarification to the confused JMT: Read it. Seems MH is obsessed with the fact that a man might show his **** in his bed-room late at night to a woman who came up to his bed-room on her consent because he is her
boss? Yah I know its a difficult point for him to grasp if you excuse the pun.

Oh but wait....there was more in the above because MH stated:

"Yes.  Public figures are expected to be leaders, that's how it is.  It seems, though, that if you claim not to be one you might get an easier ride. "

Yes indeed. Unmarried politicians should not have sex and no one should  phack theuir employees. Got it. Sounds like a Priest's sermon-yah the one from the Priest who never touched himself once let alone choir boys.

4.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo

« Reply #106 on: January 29, 2018, 05:52:15 am »
•   Quote
Off topic, also: If I were single I would not 'get with' women younger than me.  That would be a dead end, and would just feel like I was tricking stupid people into being with me.  I know lots of women my own age, and we flirt and appreciate each other on the whole.

I have known guys my age who pursued women in their 20s and they look foolish.  The guy who catches one looks even worse.

Clarification to the confused JMT: Read the above. What because that is MH's way of doing things its to be pronounced as he did like he's an authority on what age men should look for in women? What crap. Plenty of older men date younger women and vice versa. Biological age is but one criteria of selection for most of us. Pat Brown did not go after a minor. If he did its a legal issue and  it could be manifestations of hebeophilia or pedophilia depending on the age difference. It was not. There was no forcing of sex with minors.  End of story.

The fact MH has moral standards about age means sweet phack all in terms of how the law defines sexual behavour or how Pat Brown or anyone else should. Once there is no legal issue as to majority age, the issue is CONSENT something MH seems to have drifted from in favour of his own mor;l pronouncements as to when and where we men pull out our penises. Thank you his opinion means nothing to me and my ****.

5.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #124 on: January 30, 2018, 01:34:54 pm »
Yes, and like every man who ever lived he made a bad decision to get some sex.  Sorry for your luck, flasher man...

Clarification to the confused JMT: Read the above. Its written sloppily as if  making a decision to get some sex is automatically wrong and that Pat Brown should  not have sex and was a flasher. Bull crap x 2.

Hope that clarified things.

That said I wish to  I assure all women on this board, particularly Dia, Godess and Kimmy my **** is under lock and key.

The fact that I personally believe men my age 61 look ridiculous with women in their 20's means sweet phack all. What 2 consenting adults without coercion do is not my business and I do not want to  hear about it.

Molest a child or teen ager, force yourself on someone then yes I want the state to step in. Otherwise it aint my business. I am more concerned with what Kathleen Wynne and her stink legion of Liberals have done.





Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 01, 2018, 05:41:02 pm
None of that says I am self-righteous or that I wouldn't have been caught doing something wrong myself.

You are also inferring things that I didn't say.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 01, 2018, 06:20:28 pm
Caroline has zero political experience (worrisome).  On the other hand, she did her undergrad at Harvard & has a law degree from NYU & works in finance, plus she has 4 kids.  Sounds like a superwoman who knows how to kick ass.  Could be interesting...
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 01, 2018, 09:15:54 pm
You seem paralyzed. Have you gone to a doctor?  Maybe some prune juice JMT? Hmmm?

Here let me refresh you as to why I called MH's words out as smug self righteous crap:

1.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2018, 10:55:24 am »
Do you think it's ok to show your **** to somebody who works for you ?  That's one of the allegations. 

Clarification for the confused JMT:  The above words are a misrepresentation and make it sound like Brown  exploited his position at work to gain sexual access over a person.
There is zero evidence of that. Also the above wording is bullshit. It makes it sound like he pulled his pecker out at work without her consent.
The question also misses the very point of the issue. Each day across the world, millions of people phack their employers and employees on consent.
If MH or you want to be the moral police on who adults should phack  its smug not to mention farsical.

Let's be clear-there is zero evidence Pat Brown forced his **** on anyone. He did not flash it. He was in a bed-room with someone. They were in his phacking bed room. What did they go up there for?
In MH's world he watched far too many Rock Hudson-Doris Day movies.
 


2.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2018, 10:57:26 am »

He didn't drink himself.  And he had booze to give to a young woman who came over ?  That's just weird to me.   

Clarification to the confused JMT: Read the above. Another crock of self righteous crap. In MH's world its wierd to offer someone a drink when they come over. Yah right. He should have played scrabble and never have put down on the board the word ****. Got it.

3.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2018, 12:00:09 pm »

Boss showing employee **** ?


Clarification to the confused JMT: Read it. Seems MH is obsessed with the fact that a man might show his **** in his bed-room late at night to a woman who came up to his bed-room on her consent because he is her
boss? Yah I know its a difficult point for him to grasp if you excuse the pun.

Oh but wait....there was more in the above because MH stated:

"Yes.  Public figures are expected to be leaders, that's how it is.  It seems, though, that if you claim not to be one you might get an easier ride. "

Yes indeed. Unmarried politicians should not have sex and no one should  phack theuir employees. Got it. Sounds like a Priest's sermon-yah the one from the Priest who never touched himself once let alone choir boys.

4.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo

« Reply #106 on: January 29, 2018, 05:52:15 am »
•   Quote
Off topic, also: If I were single I would not 'get with' women younger than me.  That would be a dead end, and would just feel like I was tricking stupid people into being with me.  I know lots of women my own age, and we flirt and appreciate each other on the whole.

I have known guys my age who pursued women in their 20s and they look foolish.  The guy who catches one looks even worse.

Clarification to the confused JMT: Read the above. What because that is MH's way of doing things its to be pronounced as he did like he's an authority on what age men should look for in women? What crap. Plenty of older men date younger women and vice versa. Biological age is but one criteria of selection for most of us. Pat Brown did not go after a minor. If he did its a legal issue and  it could be manifestations of hebeophilia or pedophilia depending on the age difference. It was not. There was no forcing of sex with minors.  End of story.

The fact MH has moral standards about age means sweet phack all in terms of how the law defines sexual behavour or how Pat Brown or anyone else should. Once there is no legal issue as to majority age, the issue is CONSENT something MH seems to have drifted from in favour of his own mor;l pronouncements as to when and where we men pull out our penises. Thank you his opinion means nothing to me and my ****.

5.

Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
« Reply #124 on: January 30, 2018, 01:34:54 pm »
Yes, and like every man who ever lived he made a bad decision to get some sex.  Sorry for your luck, flasher man...

Clarification to the confused JMT: Read the above. Its written sloppily as if  making a decision to get some sex is automatically wrong and that Pat Brown should  not have sex and was a flasher. Bull crap x 2.

Hope that clarified things.

That said I wish to  I assure all women on this board, particularly Dia, Godess and Kimmy my **** is under lock and key.

The fact that I personally believe men my age 61 look ridiculous with women in their 20's means sweet phack all. What 2 consenting adults without coercion do is not my business and I do not want to  hear about it.

Molest a child or teen ager, force yourself on someone then yes I want the state to step in. Otherwise it aint my business. I am more concerned with what Kathleen Wynne and her stink legion of Liberals have done.

I actually tried to read one of your length, usually nonsensical screeds, hoping that maybe you wouldn't degenerate into some scummy comment about some body part or other, and you almost made it. Too bad.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 02, 2018, 01:30:07 pm
The above denial ironically evidences your continued know it all  beyond approach snot nosed superiority and puffed sense of self and your delusion into believing you can issue edicts as to how Pat Brown should make **** appearances.  You engage in classic constipated  leftist politically correct lynch mob  behaviour. Get the ****! I have seen the movie only the **** used to be called Frankenstein. A monster it was! It frightened people. It had to be burned!  Me I am one of those people who think Frankenstein was just at the wrong place at the wrong time and misunderstood. Frankenstein never initiated violence. His head may be ugly to Lord MH of Moral Mountain but I doubt MH's **** looks that much different. Yoou've been challenged for leftist smarmy politically correct preaching using yourself as Jesus, the human example of behaviour. You choice to introduce your personal self to the topic, now I reject your ****. Had you refrained from your own personal references I might have taken you seriously.
 Your **** can't possibly stink analysis of how others should  behave is laughable.

Then you are joined by another leftist righteous saint Moonlight of Graham offended I used the word ****. Yegards man **** **** ****.

What is it you leftist know it all snots can't admit you fart like anyone else or parts of the anatomy scare you.

Here maybe this can help you.


http://www.kellevision.com/kellevision/2009/01/outraged-the-psychology-of-righteous-indignation.html

Get back to me when you want to talk about sexual assault in an intelligent manner. I have no time for leftist phacktards making pronouncements about what is proper **** behaviour.

Good God man, your preoccupation with the penises of others is pathetic.

Nothing like a good old ****, snot, fart, **** rant from Rue. Did I miss anything?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 02, 2018, 03:45:12 pm
I feel weirdly validated here.  <3
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 05, 2018, 05:40:58 pm
I love you leftists. You come on this board cluster clucking about Pat Brown's **** then act offended when you read the word **** and fart.

Did you miss anything. Yes of course. Your fly do it up.

Here maybe this will entertain Omni, MH and you other **** analysts:

http://www.toptenz.net/top-ten-famous-male-member.php

I'll leave the **** envy crap to you.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: JMT on February 05, 2018, 11:12:01 pm
Rue, quit saying weird ****.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on February 06, 2018, 12:53:46 pm
I actually tried to read one of your length, usually nonsensical screeds, hoping that maybe you wouldn't degenerate into some scummy comment about some body part or other, and you almost made it. Too bad.

Masochist.  I gave up at the start of #2.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 06, 2018, 01:08:19 pm
I'm surprised you people still take the time to read those rants.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 06, 2018, 01:14:10 pm
I'm surprised you people still take the time to read those rants.

We've probably laid the groundwork for yet another.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 06, 2018, 02:08:22 pm
He’s real sensitive about the length of his (pause) posts.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 06, 2018, 10:08:18 pm
So, the one woman cited in the article met Brown in a bar, and went back to his place, and gave him a hummer.

Does anybody really want to argue that there's a problem here?

And if so, does anybody have any suggestions as to how to solve this "problem"?

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on February 07, 2018, 12:23:33 am
The only problem is that he’s a creep...   the Party ditched him.   I don’t hear anyone saying he should go to jail, or did anything illegal.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 07, 2018, 05:05:54 am

And if so, does anybody have any suggestions as to how to solve this "problem"?


I think they solved it.  And you have a chance at a conservative version of a Justin Trudeau now, which is nice.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 07, 2018, 05:06:30 am
Uhhhh.... I meant that in the best possible way  8)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 07, 2018, 09:16:53 am
I think they solved it.

Soooo what problem got solved?  Young men trying trying to pick up younger women in bars? Is that the problem that got solved?


And you have a chance at a conservative version of a Justin Trudeau now, which is nice.
...
Uhhhh.... I meant that in the best possible way  8)

I'm not emotionally invested in the Ontario PCs at all.  "I" am not getting a conservative version of Trudeau.  Ontario PC supporters might come out at a net benefit from ditching Brown before all is said and done.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 07, 2018, 10:12:45 am
Soooo what problem got solved?  Young men trying trying to pick up younger women in bars? Is that the problem that got solved?

The leader with bad judgement, having sex with women in his employ, etc. is gone.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 07, 2018, 01:36:38 pm
Rue, quit saying weird ****.


Lol.

source: BING


1.suggesting something supernatural; uncanny:


Ahah. Lol.  What a friggin joke.  Stop saying weird ****. Look out. What because I don't join in with the boys in the Pat Brown **** of Righteousness this
is "weird ****". Lol.  What's your role now? Are you threatening me or asking me? Lol.

What is it about a woman in someone's bed-room on her own choice that makes it hard for you to understand how it could be construed?

Pat Brown is not the issue. People like you and the assortment of outraged men who jump all over each other in an **** to sound the most righteous are. You all are quick to make yourselves feel like moral saints at the expense of Pat Brown. You pretend a man in his bed-room late at night with a woman has bad judgement if he thinks she went in there for sex. Got it and what crap. Then when I don't agree with  your posing as moral purveyors of acceptable sexual behaviour you call me weird. Right.

Weird **** my ass.

source: http://www.kellevision.com/kellevision/2009/01/outraged-the-psychology-of-righteous-indignation.html

"By pointing out the errors of someone else we are attempting to position ourselves as better than them.  People with low self esteem, people who are unhappy in their lives, people who are frustrated with where they are in life are most susceptible to self-righteous indignation.  By finding someone we believe to be less than or worse than ourselves and condemning them, we manage to feel some sort of superiority. "

The above is the analysis I provided to MH and others all in a tizzy about where Patrick Brown should pull out his ****. MH initiated that discussion not I. He referred to him as a flasher, not I. However isn't it interesting he depicts him as a flasher, and you find it weird I challenge that and mention he did not flash his ****.

Tell me does your selective outrage like Moonlight's make you feel superior to me and Pat Brown and Lord knows who else? Lol. Weird **** my ass.

Here's another portion from the above site  directly applicable to you JMT:

"If you can only bring yourself up by putting other people down perhaps you need to look at that.  Perhaps your time and energy would be better spent developing your own character rather than shooting down other people's. "

You don't like my opinion, don't read it but don't tell me what I can think or write or infer that because I challenge a bunch of boys trying to act tough at the expense of Pat Brown, it makes my words weird ****. You are a bunch of pathetic me toos who cluster phack on Pat Brown's behaviour and now me for defending him. Ooooh. You told me. Got it.

source: http://www.bretlsimmons.com/2012-03/beware-the-self-righteous-fool/

"Self-righteous folks only care what we think when we agree with what they think...

It’s only when the self-righteous individual attempts to exclude or discount the voice of others that we need to respond; that rude behavior is unacceptable and it merits an assertive request to “please stop doing that.” Ignoring the behavior is tantamount to colluding with it. "

JMT, Cyber, Moonlight, MH, there's only one thing to say-you point the finger at Brown to detract from your own closets.

Weird **** my ass. You **** on Brown because he's not on this forum to explain himself. None of you would say what you do if you were one on one with him. Not one of you.

Weird ****? No. A double standard yes. You can personally **** all over Brown's character, but if someone does the same thing to you, look at you, you need JMT to come on the board and say "stop saying that..."

How pathetic.

People like you and your moral outrage make me want to puke all over your leftist progressive correctness. If you were even in the slightest way concerned about women, you would talk of them. You don't. Not one of you have mentioned safety or security issues of women. Not one.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 07, 2018, 06:49:53 pm
People like you and your moral outrage make me want to puke all over your leftist progressive correctness. If you were even in the slightest way concerned about women, you would talk of them. You don't. Not one of you have mentioned safety or security issues of women. Not one.

Rants like the above make me want to puke all over the holier-than-thou Conservative superiority that emanates from right-wingers like a black miasma of bitterness and vacuous hatred.   
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on February 07, 2018, 07:50:30 pm
I think someone stopped taking their meds.... 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: JMT on February 07, 2018, 08:09:19 pm
That's the kind of weird **** I'm talking about....
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 07, 2018, 08:50:28 pm
The leader with bad judgement, having sex with women in his employ, etc. is gone.

Ok.  As long as we're being clear that the problem being fixed is Progressive Conservative optics, and not some problem that women are facing.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 08, 2018, 06:20:20 am
Ok.  As long as we're being clear that the problem being fixed is Progressive Conservative optics, and not some problem that women are facing.
 

I believe that we're seeing a values change.  It has nothing to do with people being safe but a new candid view of public figures, and a fearlessness about talking about men being "creeps" - a new word that has resonance.

I didn't see this coming.  As a man, I have been a creep.  I could get called out for past behaviour, and I would admit it but I am not a public figure.  It's a scary time but I can't claim that my behaviour was above reproach so I have to take what comes at me.  Scary.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 11:49:38 am
Ok.  As long as we're being clear that the problem being fixed is Progressive Conservative optics, and not some problem that women are facing.

 -k

The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Until they get those super realistic robot sex dollars, of course...
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 11:50:53 am
I didn't see this coming.  As a man, I have been a creep.  I could get called out for past behaviour, and I would admit it but I am not a public figure.  It's a scary time but I can't claim that my behaviour was above reproach so I have to take what comes at me.  Scary.

Was it pretty much normal male behaviour at the time?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 08, 2018, 11:57:03 am


I didn't see this coming.  As a man, I have been a creep.  I could get called out for past behaviour, and I would admit it but I am not a public figure. 

Yah you don't see too much coming or going. I agree with that. For example you don't see that whether you are a public or private figure, the standards of behaviour are no different. Your artificial distinction at this juncture in your righteous lectures is crap.

But hey you now have confessed. Hope that cleansed your soul and I hope pissing on Brown for behaviour no different than yours to make yourself feel better in your mind is justified by the above double standard.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 08, 2018, 12:00:58 pm
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Until they get those super realistic robot sex dollars, of course...

People mistake inter-personal communications and behaviour. It happens. The moral saints on this board chose to take a mistake and turn it into a platform to **** on Conservatives and presume to define themselves in a position of talking down to Brown as if they never did the same thing. The issue is this sanctimonious bullshit
from these men who claim to speak for the woman or women who encountered Brown. The issue is the sanctimonious bullshit they try pull claiming Brown forced himself on people inappropriately which was never the case.

This thread is an example of the double standard fascist positions of those claiming to be leftist progressives. Their views on sexual morality are no different then the Muslim clergy council running Iran or ISIL. The only difference is they think their reactionary **** don't stink and trying to exploit a mistake in signals as something other than what it was.




Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 12:41:14 pm
People mistake inter-personal communications and behaviour. It happens. The moral saints on this board chose to take a mistake and turn it into a platform to **** on Conservatives and presume to define themselves in a position of talking down to Brown as if they never did the same thing. The issue is this sanctimonious bullshit
from these men who claim to speak for the woman or women who encountered Brown. The issue is the sanctimonious bullshit they try pull claiming Brown forced himself on people inappropriately which was never the case.

This thread is an example of the double standard fascist positions of those claiming to be leftist progressives. Their views on sexual morality are no different then the Muslim clergy council running Iran or ISIL. The only difference is they think their reactionary **** don't stink and trying to exploit a mistake in signals as something other than what it was.

So it seems your theory is that understanding that pouring booze into an underage girl, or using your power at work to get laid, is/are wrong, then you are a fascist. Gotcha. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 08, 2018, 01:06:14 pm
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Until they get those super realistic robot sex dollars, of course...
Champion of the rights of women and the LGBTQ community, arbiter of immigration, right here.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 02:00:40 pm
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Until they get those super realistic robot sex dollars, of course...

Men should be able to control themselves rather than expecting women to.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 02:09:52 pm
Champion of the rights of women and the LGBTQ community, arbiter of immigration, right here.

And he's standing up for **** guys, whom we should just expect to behave in stupid, clumsy ways and to wheedle/force sex on women whenever they can.   Women need to modify theor behavior because men are just too **** to do do. 

Well, except for men who are from a "goatherding" country.  In that case this "natural" behavior of **** men is barbaric and those poor women are subject to an oppressive and misogynist culture.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 02:26:26 pm
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Until they get those super realistic robot sex dollars, of course...

Yet again you presume to speak for an entire group of people with what is obviously simply your own opinion. I don't know what group of hetero men you associate with and I won't go down your rabbit hole by trying to speak for the ones I know, but if I did I would have a very different opinion. I can speak for myself though, and can tell you that I have never had to pressure, or whine, or beg or otherwise...whatever you had in mind there, to have had some very enjoyable relationships over the years. Maybe that's why I seem to have a more positive approach to the subject.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 02:29:03 pm
Champion of the rights of women and the LGBTQ community, arbiter of immigration, right here.

Did I say something which was wrong or which you care to dispute?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 02:30:55 pm

Men should be able to control themselves rather than expecting women to.

I'm not disputing that.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 02:32:06 pm
And he's standing up for **** guys, whom we should just expect to behave in stupid, clumsy ways and to wheedle/force sex on women whenever they can.   Women need to modify theor behavior because men are just too **** to do do. 

Well, except for men who are from a "goatherding" country.  In that case this "natural" behavior of **** men is barbaric and those poor women are subject to an oppressive and misogynist culture.

Jesus God, sometimes you're just about as dumb as one of those **** goats.
Don't pretend to interpret what I've said with anything approaching reality since your beliefs are so divorced from it.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 02:34:01 pm
Yet again you presume to speak for an entire group of people with what is obviously simply your own opinion. I don't know what group of hetero men you associate with and I won't go down your rabbit hole by trying to speak for the ones I know, but if I did I would have a very different opinion. I can speak for myself though, and can tell you that I have never had to pressure, or whine, or beg or otherwise...whatever you had in mind there, to have had some very enjoyable relationships over the years. Maybe that's why I seem to have a more positive approach to the subject.

Yes, yes, we know you stride the earth like a God of all that is noble, holy and perfect. Why, the sun itself radiates out of your ass and flowers fall at your feet as you walk down the sidewalk. The wind itself sings in joy at being permitted to waft across your upturned nose.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 02:36:34 pm
Yes, yes, we know you stride the earth like a God of all that is noble, holy and perfect. Why, the sun itself radiates out of your ass and flowers fall at your feet as you walk down the sidewalk. The wind itself sings in joy at being permitted to waft across your upturned nose.

Once again you get a little ticklish when you get refuted. Nothing new here.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 02:39:46 pm
I'm not disputing that.

You seem to be with your drivel about bribing, pressuring, whining, (when did you ever have to whine for sex, on second thought forget I asked that, don't wanna know) as though it's just normal man stuff.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 03:01:31 pm
I'm not disputing that.

Other than downplaying the bad sexual behavior of men by claiming its their "nature" and declaring that its women's nature to 'control' male sexual behavior...or expect the worst.

Average stupid religious leader;
Men are hornier and more violent than women
Women need to dress and behave modestly so they don't attract the sexual attention of men.   If a woman is subjected to unwanted sexual attention, she must take responsibilty for her part, whether its her dress, how she behaves or where she went.  Oh, yes, the man is bad too ... But what do you expect, given man's nature?

Average stupid middle aged Westerner:
Men are hornier and more violent than women.
Women should expect men to be **** and potentially violent and deal with it.  If a woman is subjected to unwanted sexual attention, she must take reaponsibilty for her part, whether its her dress, how she behaved or where she went.  Oh, yes, the man is bad too ... But what do you expect, given man's nature?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 03:05:16 pm
Jesus God, sometimes you're just about as dumb as one of those **** goats.
Don't pretend to interpret what I've said with anything approaching reality since your beliefs are so divorced from it.

Perhaps the problem is in what you are saying.   Ever think of that?   Oh, of course not .... you are convinced that you are a God of all that is noble, holy and perfect. Why, the sun itself radiates out of your ass and flowers fall at your feet as you walk down the sidewalk. The wind itself sings in joy at being permitted to waft across your upturned nose.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 04:44:27 pm
Once again you get a little ticklish when you get refuted. Nothing new here.

You didn't 'refute' anything. You were just virtue signaling. You're probably just as much a creep as MH claims he is too, so quit wallowing in your own moral superiority.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 04:46:48 pm
Other than downplaying the bad sexual behavior of men by claiming its their "nature" and declaring that its women's nature to 'control' male sexual behavior...or expect the worst.

I don't know if you've lived your entire life in a cave or just have no clue about how the world operates. But I talk about it the way it is, not the way I fantasize about it. And sure bad behavior is not to be excused, but it IS to be expected that some men WILL behave badly and that a lot of men will swerve back and forth across the line because they're not entirely sure where the line is. Especially since society keeps changing its location. And especially since judging the line requires judging the response of an individual they probably don't know very well.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 04:48:27 pm
Perhaps the problem is in what you are saying.   Ever think of that? 

If you question the veracity of what I'm saying about society then challenge it with logic or evidence, rather than making **** up about what you presume I meant.

Quote
Oh, of course not .... you are convinced that you are a God of all that is noble, holy and perfect. Why, the sun itself radiates out of your ass and flowers fall at your feet as you walk down the sidewalk. The wind itself sings in joy at being permitted to waft across your upturned nose.

And learn to criticize without simply engaging in "I know you are, but what am I"
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 08, 2018, 04:52:52 pm
Was it pretty much normal male behaviour at the time?

Yes but nothing you would want your sister to hear about.  But nobody would say anything either. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 08, 2018, 04:58:31 pm
For example you don't see that whether you are a public or private figure, the standards of behaviour are no different. Your artificial distinction at this juncture in your righteous lectures is crap.

The standards are the same but the cost of accusations is great.

Once again you call me "righteous", although you dropped the "self-".  Here's my quote on myself once again for you:

"I could get called out for past behaviour, and I would admit it but I am not a public figure.  "

Now a RIGHTEOUS person would never admit they sinned, and would look down on sinners.  I just think you don't know what it means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/righteous

"Free from guilt" = NOT ME


Quote
But hey you now have confessed.

I did before also, and I pointed out after that that I had confessed.

Quote
Hope that cleansed your soul and I hope pissing on Brown for behaviour no different than yours to make yourself feel better in your mind is justified by the above double standard.

Nowhere did I "**** on brown".  I stated what he did: showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager that he got drunk.  Those are just the facts, Lady Rue.  If you find that sentence morally reprehensible look inside yourself.  I wouldn't stop hanging around a friend who admitted that, as long as he admitted it and wasn't proud of it.  I have done things on that level and if somebody stated it I would feel rightly ashamed.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 08, 2018, 04:58:58 pm
Be a mensch.  Own your sin.  Don't try to be better than you are.  That's what self righteous people do.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 08, 2018, 05:44:20 pm
The standards are the same but the cost of accusations is great.

Once again you call me "righteous", although you dropped the "self-".  Here's my quote on myself once again for you:

"I could get called out for past behaviour, and I would admit it but I am not a public figure.  "

Now a RIGHTEOUS person would never admit they sinned, and would look down on sinners.  I just think you don't know what it means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/righteous

"Free from guilt" = NOT ME


I did before also, and I pointed out after that that I had confessed.

Nowhere did I "**** on brown".  I stated what he did: showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager that he got drunk.  Those are just the facts, Lady Rue.  If you find that sentence morally reprehensible look inside yourself.  I wouldn't stop hanging around a friend who admitted that, as long as he admitted it and wasn't proud of it.  I have done things on that level and if somebody stated it I would feel rightly ashamed.


1. The cost of sexual assault is the same no matter who does it-that is the point and your attempt to create a double standard as to the moral behaviour of politicians and non politicians when it comes to imposing sex on someone is illogical. No Brown had no special moral obligation different than yours or mine when it comes to a private matter in his bed-room. His bed-room is not your arena for you to enter and tell him what he must do. The police and the law not you only get involved in his bed-room if he sexually assaulted someone-he did not so all your clucking is meaningless crap.

2. You claim to be both righteous and self righteous in your words. Here since you seem to be choking on that let me explain it for you:

source: BING

right·eous.

ADJECTIVE
1.(of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous:

self-right·eous.

ADJECTIVE

having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior:

Do me a favour save the righteous and self righteous attempts at trying to suggest you don't  understand the difference.

3. You lectured me that: " a RIGHTEOUS person would never admit they sinned, and would look down on sinners"...then you went on to say and I quote:
"Nowhere did I "**** on brown".  I stated what he did: showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager that he got drunk."

The latter statement clearly indicates you continue to **** on Brown by saying and I quote again because you have a selective righteous memory: " he showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager".

You again prove my point as to what a sanctimonious blow hard you are. There is no evidence Brown "showed off his dick", that is your projection.  Also your accusations he got someone drunk suggests he forced them to drink which is an out and out lie a total and utter lie.

You have no proof he forced alcohol on anyone yet you lie to make it seem as if he stalked a minor and poured alcohol down her throat.

The more you respond, the more you illustrate why I challenge your false morally superior smug tone.

Then on top of  it you just couldn't resist posing as righteous and self righteous yet again suggesting since you "confessed" on this forum it means you do not sin when you talk of Brown. What a phacking joke.

What did you confess to? Lol. You think if you come on this board and say you may have been a jack ass as a young man that presto you now are the pillar of moral truth and infallible source of when Brown should pull his **** out and with who? Hah.

If Dia thinks your intent is to defend women she needs to read your bilge in more detail Your just another man pulling out his pecker to Brown saying your pecker is better than his.

So if I understand you saint MH,  you only pull your **** out at the appropriate time,-you never show it off-and you are in the position of commenting on Brown's pecker because you "confessed".
What a joke. What a sanctimonious attempt to justify being a holier than thou **** owner. Hah.

Get real.  It will take more than a half assed ambiguous forum  confession to make you moral judge of anyone. If you can not  get that and if your disciples can't get that, be my guest start your religion-The Church of Non Showing Off **** Bearers. Knock yourselves out singing your song and turning me into your Satan. I welcome it.

To me you are just another twisted clergy pervert posing as an authority on God's way.

You bet my constituency is different. It consists of people just like me and that young woman and Brown. We will and dolook to each other for understanding and a better way to communicate. We sure as hell do not need you and your clucking peacocks judging us before or after or during the fact.

Oh wow man that last sentence was like so weird man.

Yah the idea I would think we all need to speak about each other's mistakes in a non judgemental way oh wow  man that's like weird. Why can't we crucify Brown right MH? Who you and your disciples crucify Brown? You-Saint MH?

You typify everything about we men and how we deal with our penises that we need to question.

Men and women, both of us for the exact same reasons, were born with the gift to make individual decisions as to how we deal with and control our bodies. I argue it should remain that way. The last thing I want is you and your perverted followers preaching to me or anyone.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 08, 2018, 05:45:48 pm
The thing with Brown is that it doesn't even matter to the PC's if what he did was true or not.  It's just bad optics to go into an election with a guy accused of sexual misconduct, so the PC's felt they needed to dump him.  He could be 100% innocent, and he should be assumed innocent until proven guilty, but the court of public opinion is most powerful here because a lot of voters will assume he's guilty & a creep and even though they shouldn't assume anything until the evidence is played out in courts, it still would hurt the PC party at election time.

What sucks is that this happens with all sorts of big companies during this #MeToo campaign.  Joe Blow who works for giant corporation X is accused of sexual harassment, & giant corporation X could do the proper thing like ie: suspend the guy until an investigation &/or trial is completed, but businesses are afraid of being seen as being soft on sexual harassment and the resulting bad PR so they just fire the guy ASAP without any due process just so they can save face.  This isn't really fair, people's lives & careers can be ruined over false allegations now very, very easily.

Yes all allegations must be taken 100% seriously and women protected from potential predators, but due process of the law must also be followed.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 08, 2018, 05:54:25 pm
Perhaps the problem is in what you are saying.   Ever think of that?   Oh, of course not .... you are convinced that you are a God of all that is noble, holy and perfect. Why, the sun itself radiates out of your ass and flowers fall at your feet as you walk down the sidewalk. The wind itself sings in joy at being permitted to waft across your upturned nose.

Nonsense.  Your personal bias distorts your perception of his opinions. With due respect you are missing his point.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 08, 2018, 05:58:14 pm
Other than downplaying the bad sexual behavior of men by claiming its their "nature" and declaring that its women's nature to 'control' male sexual behavior...or expect the worst.


You have removed what he said out of its context and meaning.

It is the primal nature of the male homo sapiens to have a sex drive. That is what he said.

It is the primal imperative that women biologically are the ones who reproduce and so are pursued by men to do  just that.

That is all he has said. He has condoned nothing. He has justified nothing.

He has simply stated what Jane Goodall could have told you and not caused you so much upset.

We are primates. We have primal urges. Nothing in what he said is new or profound.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 08, 2018, 06:00:24 pm
And he's standing up for **** guys, whom we should just expect to behave in stupid, clumsy ways and to wheedle/force sex on women whenever they can.   Women need to modify theor behavior because men are just too **** to do do. 

Well, except for men who are from a "goatherding" country.  In that case this "natural" behavior of **** men is barbaric and those poor women are subject to an oppressive and misogynist culture.

You have totally misrepresented what he said.

He stated and I agree that BOTH men and women equally have a responsibility to control our individual  bodies and judgement as to what to do with our individual bodies.

Brown did not force himself on anyone. That was and remains the context that started this thread. He wt he did not at any time force himself on anyone.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 08, 2018, 06:03:19 pm
So it seems your theory is that understanding that pouring booze into an underage girl, or using your power at work to get laid, is/are wrong, then you are a fascist. Gotcha.

You  have lied. Provide the evidence that Brown poured booze into an underaged girl or used his power at work to force sex on anyone. Provide the evidence. I call you out as a pathological liar.

Provide the evidence. See its easy for you to engage in libel on this forum you can hide behind a pseuto name can't  you. Go on provide the evidence.  "Gotcha"? With what?  Go on provide the evidence.

What a joke.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 06:41:28 pm
Yes but nothing you would want your sister to hear about.  But nobody would say anything either.

Then aren't you trying to hold yourself up to the standards of today rather than simply admitting you were a man like any other of your day? Now, granted, if it were Omni he wold have been the most caring, sensitive, sharing, girlyman around in the 1950s and 1960s and every girl would have wanted to be his friend and admired him his being so in touch with his feminized side and wouldn't  have even thought twice about stripping and changing around him because of course he wouldn't even look without permission, but we can't all be Omni.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 06:54:59 pm
Nonsense.  Your personal bias distorts your perception of his opinions. With due respect you are missing his point.
His justifications sound exactly like what was whispered to me at 12, as his hands roamed around ... "This is what men do,"   Or when I was 16, still a virgin and my best friend's father laid on top of me, muttering about how he may as well get some.   Or my mother's reaction, when I told her ... "Well, thats how men are.   Maybe you shouldn"t have been there."

So yeah, I do have some personal bias against sexist, entitled men who think that just because they are men with "natural" urges they have no choice but to be stupid, clumsy, rude, harass women, assault women, **** women.   I have no patience for the attitude that men's appetites are the responsibility of women to control because they don't have the same urges and can act as "gatekeepers" for sex.  What a **** cop-out.

I know exactly what Argus is talking about because I grew up in the same era and believing the same thing; in an earlier life, I even used the same argument against women who expressed the notion that men could and should control themselves.  It is bullshit but this belief is why women still don't admit to following their own natural urges because if they do they are denigrated as sluts, with terms like "disease-filled" and "loose enough to drive a mack truck through".  Its why **** victims are interrogated on the stand about how they dressed, if they drank, their previous sexual hostory.  The underlying assumption is that men are going to try by whatever means necessary and if they are succeasful that must mean that the "gatekeeper" failed in her duty.
 
I know exactly what Argus means.  The problem is that he doesn't and apparently neither do you.



Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 06:59:26 pm
Then aren't you trying to hold yourself up to the standards of today rather than simply admitting you were a man like any other of your day? Now, granted, if it were Omni he wold have been the most caring, sensitive, sharing, girlyman around in the 1950s and 1960s and every girl would have wanted to be his friend and admired him his being so in touch with his feminized side and wouldn't  have even thought twice about stripping and changing around him because of course he wouldn't even look without permission, but we can't all be Omni.

And again the argument .... A "real man" would not be able to control his rapey urges when confronted by a **** female.

What a lame-ass attitude.
 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 07:09:10 pm
His justifications

I didn't 'justify' anything, you twit. I was simply stating how it is. In the same way as saying poor people are more likely to rob than rich people, men are more likely to try to get sex than women, who are the gatekeepers of sex. Are poor people less moral than rich people? No, but they have a lot more motivation. Does saying that suggest all poor people are thieves? Only if you're an idiot. Does saying that mean we should excuse poor people who steal? Get real, for Gods sakes.

Quote

I know exactly what Argus means.  The problem is that he doesn't and apparently neither do you.

Oh sorry. I didn't realize you were so **** omniscient you could know what I mean better than I do.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on February 08, 2018, 07:15:33 pm
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Until they get those super realistic robot sex dollars, of course...

This is nonsense.   What you’re describing is a creep, or perhaps a sociopath with a lack of impulse control.  Someone who can’t control their urges and try to prey on people to have their urges fulfilled.   Normal heterosexual men don’t actually work that way.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 07:16:55 pm
And again the argument .... A "real man" would not be able to control his rapey urges when confronted by a **** female.

What a lame-ass attitude.

We aren't talking about ****. We're talking about Patrick Brown. Or had you forgotten in your desperate need to equate all rude or disrespectful behaviour by men with ****?
But by all means, since you can't actually discuss what anyone says, go ahead and make up what you think they probably meant to say and then accuse them for that.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 08, 2018, 07:18:37 pm
This is nonsense.   What you’re describing is a creep, or perhaps a sociopath with a lack of impulse control.  Someone who can’t control their urges and try to prey on people to have their urges fulfilled.   Normal heterosexual men don’t actually work that way.

I'm not descriping "a" person. I'm simply pointing out that men want sex and women are the ones they want it from. That means that everything men do to get what they want in life, from a to z, will come into play across the spectrum of male and female interaction.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 07:21:21 pm
I
Oh sorry. I didn't realize you were so **** omniscient you could know what I mean better than I do.

Right.  From the guy who purports to know what women in hijabs think and feel, what progressives think and what they'll do, and all about women's sexual interest.  At least I keep my "mind reading" limited to a single person and based on his own words.   Thats gotta be better than mind reading entire swaths of people about whom I know nothing other than their gender, political leanings or an item of clothing they choose to wear.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 08:11:42 pm
Yes but nothing you would want your sister to hear about.  But nobody would say anything either.

My stars, Michael! What did you do? Tell a girl she looked pretty?  Invite her back to your place to listen to your Dick Dale records in hope that you might end up necking later? Squeeze her behind while you were dancing?

How can you live with yourself with this sort of thing on your conscience?  Have you discussed any of this with Mrs H?  Do you think she'll forgive you when she finds out??

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 08:15:08 pm
Then aren't you trying to hold yourself up to the standards of today rather than simply admitting you were a man like any other of your day? Now, granted, if it were Omni he wold have been the most caring, sensitive, sharing, girlyman around in the 1950s and 1960s and every girl would have wanted to be his friend and admired him his being so in touch with his feminized side and wouldn't  have even thought twice about stripping and changing around him because of course he wouldn't even look without permission, but we can't all be Omni.

I certainly was not a girlyman in the 50's or 60's. I had to wait until the 70's to start thinking about girls in a romantic sense. But you do like to make assumptions, even on peoples DOB. I wouldn't say I was the MOST caring, sensitive, etc., etc., but they were certainly part of my repertoire. That's maybe why I was able to have a lot of lady friends, not girlyfriends. Sounds like you are perhaps a tad jealous.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 08:19:20 pm
Men should be able to control themselves rather than expecting women to.

If we're talking about assault and refusing to accept rejection, then of course.

But by "men should be able to control themselves" you mean that men shouldn't flirt with women they meet, then this is getting out of hand.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 08:42:32 pm
Again, I don't think pouring booze into an under age girl you plan to have sex with is hardly flirting. At least not in my town.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 08, 2018, 08:51:53 pm
If we're talking about assault and refusing to accept rejection, then of course.

But by "men should be able to control themselves" you mean that men shouldn't flirt with women they meet, then this is getting out of hand.

 -k

This:
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Men will do anything to get laid, and it's up to women to stop them.

I object to that attitude in the strongest possible terms.  Women are not gatekeepers and it's up to men to stop themselves.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 09:02:35 pm
Again, I don't think pouring booze into an under age girl you plan to have sex with is hardly flirting. At least not in my town.

He brought her into the bar? He forced her to drink alcohol?  CITE??

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 09:06:27 pm
This:
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

Men will do anything to get laid, and it's up to women to stop them.

I object to that attitude in the strongest possible terms.  Women are not gatekeepers and it's up to men to stop themselves.

Men will try to get laid. And that's not a problem unless force or intimidation is involved.  The goal here should be to give women the confidence to say "no thank you" when they're not interested, and for men to accept that and move along.


 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 09:17:46 pm
He brought her into the bar? He forced her to drink alcohol?  CITE??

 -k

What does it matter how she got to the bar?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 09:30:41 pm
What does it matter how she got to the bar?

It matters because this is a legal adult who made her own choices.  She didn't get dragged in off the street against her will.  She was of the age of majority and bears her own responsibility for underage drinking, as well as other decisions she made that night.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 09:43:11 pm
It matters because this is a legal adult who made her own choices.  She didn't get dragged in off the street against her will.  She was of the age of majority and bears her own responsibility for underage drinking, as well as other decisions she made that night.

 -k

So you're happy to dismiss the choices he made that night?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 10:14:28 pm
So you're happy to dismiss the choices he made that night?

Why not?  If he did something that you think is a "problem" that needs to be "solved", please elaborate.


 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 10:28:13 pm
Why not?  If he did something that you think is a "problem" that needs to be "solved", please elaborate.


 -k

We don't really know what he did, it's a he said/she said item at this point. But I wonder why these two women would simply decide to make up such stories just out of the blue.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on February 08, 2018, 10:39:53 pm
If we're talking about assault and refusing to accept rejection, then of course.

But by "men should be able to control themselves" you mean that men shouldn't flirt with women they meet, then this is getting out of hand.

 -k

Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think getting a girl drunk and whipping down your pants can be considered flirting.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 10:52:08 pm
Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think getting a girl drunk and whipping down your pants can be considered flirting.

The whole scenario gives me the creeps. Even as a young guy hitting puberty back in the day it would have. Maybe it's partly to do with being raised by a single mom whom I respected so strongly.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 08, 2018, 10:59:49 pm
Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think getting a girl drunk and whipping down your pants can be considered flirting.

Agreed.  I would never and have never done anything remotely like what Patrick is accused of doing.  It's creepy.  It's not quite ****, but it's sneaky, aggressive, and just plain rude & inappropriate.

You want sex?  You don't show a woman your dick or jump on top of them and start forcing kisses.  You flirt, then if the woman is receptive you go for 1st base, then if that's receptive you go for 2nd base etc until you get to home base.  Guys who try to go directly to 2nd base etc. without getting the green light to even go to 1st base are a-holes.  Never in my life have I tried to kiss someone without it being pretty clear, via body language, touching/holding hands etc, that the other person wanted it too.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 08, 2018, 11:01:49 pm
We don't really know what he did, it's a he said/she said item at this point. But I wonder why these two women would simply decide to make up such stories just out of the blue.

Even if he did exactly what she claims, so what?   Her version of the story is: they met at a bar in 2007-- he would have been 28 at the time, and she was 18.  After drinks, she and a mutual friend went to Brown's place, and at some point that evening he pulled out his **** and asked for a hummer, and she obliged. As far as I can tell, in regard to this incident the worst Brown is guilty of is being crass.

This may well not be the sort of courtship you'd read about on the society pages, but regarding the facts of the case as the girl herself stated them: what would you like to outlaw here?  Men shouldn't ask for hummers anymore?  People shouldn't date people more than 5 years from their own age?  Maybe the drinking age should be raised to 25? Maybe the age of consent should be raised to 30?    What, precisely, would people like to see done to prevent such tragedies in the future?

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: msj on February 08, 2018, 11:13:17 pm
Agreed.  I would never and have never done anything remotely like what Patrick is accused of doing.  It's creepy.  It's not quite ****, but it's sneaky, aggressive, and just plain rude & inappropriate.

You want sex?  You don't show a woman your dick or jump on top of them and start forcing kisses.  You flirt, then if the woman is receptive you go for 1st base, then if that's receptive you go for 2nd base etc until you get to home base.  Guys who try to go directly to 2nd base etc. without getting the green light to even go to 1st base are a-holes.  Never in my life have I tried to kiss someone without it being pretty clear, via body language, touching/holding hands etc, that the other person wanted it too.

Awww, isn’t that cute: 27 years old and have never kissed a girl!   ;D
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 08, 2018, 11:13:53 pm
Even if he did exactly what she claims, so what?   Her version of the story is: they met at a bar in 2007-- he would have been 28 at the time, and she was 18.  After drinks, she and a mutual friend went to Brown's place, and at some point that evening he pulled out his **** and asked for a hummer, and she obliged. As far as I can tell, in regard to this incident the worst Brown is guilty of is being crass.

This may well not be the sort of courtship you'd read about on the society pages, but regarding the facts of the case as the girl herself stated them: what would you like to outlaw here?  Men shouldn't ask for hummers anymore?  People shouldn't date people more than 5 years from their own age?  Maybe the drinking age should be raised to 25? Maybe the age of consent should be raised to 30?    What, precisely, would people like to see done to prevent such tragedies in the future?

 -k

Perhaps some early education to help guide people not to let the urges that follow puberty to outweigh the idea of respect.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on February 08, 2018, 11:22:14 pm
Agreed.  I would never and have never done anything remotely like what Patrick is accused of doing.  It's creepy.  It's not quite ****, but it's sneaky, aggressive, and just plain rude & inappropriate.

You want sex?  You don't show a woman your dick or jump on top of them and start forcing kisses.  You flirt, then if the woman is receptive you go for 1st base, then if that's receptive you go for 2nd base etc until you get to home base.  Guys who try to go directly to 2nd base etc. without getting the green light to even go to 1st base are a-holes.  Never in my life have I tried to kiss someone without it being pretty clear, via body language, touching/holding hands etc, that the other person wanted it too.

Bravo. From a woman’s perspective that’s exactly what we want too.

This whole thing about getting a woman drunk to make a move is very date rapey. The rest is just as bad.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 08, 2018, 11:39:56 pm
Bravo. From a woman’s perspective that’s exactly what we want too.

This whole thing about getting a woman drunk to make a move is very date rapey. The rest is just as bad.

Good to hear.  I agree it's date-rapey, it's exploitative.  Brown wasn't drunk from what I remember.  I grew up being taught that you don't take advantage of women when they're intoxicated, especially if you aren't.

This is all about being a decent human being.  Be a man, a real man.  If you want to get laid, most women are attracted to confident assertive gentlemen who know how to treat a woman right & with respect.  Some gals are attracted to alpha wannabe jerks who treat them like crap, but that doesn't mean you should act like that.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 09, 2018, 06:55:23 am
My stars, Michael! What did you do? Tell a girl she looked pretty?  Invite her back to your place to listen to your Dick Dale records in hope that you might end up necking later? Squeeze her behind while you were dancing?

Actually, it's not funny to me.  Maybe there is a way to discuss these things but on another thread.

Quote
How can you live with yourself with this sort of thing on your conscience?  Have you discussed any of this with Mrs H?  Do you think she'll forgive you when she finds out??

Yes, she would.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 08:37:49 am
Men will try to get laid. And that's not a problem unless force or intimidation is involved.  The goal here should be to give women the confidence to say "no thank you" when they're not interested, and for men to accept that and move along.


 -k

Men trying to get laid is different then men will do anything to get laid, don't you think?  There should be mutual  interest, not one person seen as guarding the entry, whilst the other one seeks to overcome that guard by any means possible, whether it's begging, bribing, tricking or forcing.  Yes, I know Argus didn't say force, but it's part and parcel of the "do anything to breach the walls" attitude he claims as the natural state of affairs between men and women.

Not to mention the whole idea of men being such slaves to their urges that they'll do whatever it takes to get sex should be anathema to any self-respecting man.  MG's description of mutual interest clearly expressed through body language is what I would describe as the natural state of affairs between people.  Even male animals determine the receptivity of the female before getting it on.  The description provided by Argus is a holdover from the Christian tradition which forbade female sexual interest and strongly discouraged men from seeking any but procreative sex from their wives.   "Fun" sex was had with prostitutes.  His description reeks of disrespect for women generally and especially women who give up the gate too easily, and it also demeans men.

I don't think Brown should go to jail, or even be charged from what I understand what happened.   But he sure as hell shouldn't get a pass because he's just a man clumsily doing what men do, which was getting some however he could.



Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 09:21:34 am
It matters because this is a legal adult who made her own choices.  She didn't get dragged in off the street against her will.  She was of the age of majority and bears her own responsibility for underage drinking, as well as other decisions she made that night.

 -k
Oh, are you one of those people who blame women for being assaulted or harassed when they drink or dress inappropriately? Gross.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 09:23:40 am
Agreed.  I would never and have never done anything remotely like what Patrick is accused of doing.  It's creepy.  It's not quite ****, but it's sneaky, aggressive, and just plain rude & inappropriate.

You want sex?  You don't show a woman your dick or jump on top of them and start forcing kisses.  You flirt, then if the woman is receptive you go for 1st base, then if that's receptive you go for 2nd base etc until you get to home base.  Guys who try to go directly to 2nd base etc. without getting the green light to even go to 1st base are a-holes.  Never in my life have I tried to kiss someone without it being pretty clear, via body language, touching/holding hands etc, that the other person wanted it too.
This is that "radical" idea that women are human beings with their own thoughts, feelings, and motivation, not just a means to an end. I can't believe there's people who would turn this basic principle into some sort of partisan and politicized idea. It's disgusting.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 09, 2018, 09:48:03 am
Oh, are you one of those people who blame women for being assaulted or harassed when they drink or dress inappropriately? Gross.

How about you read what she wrote. I 100% stand by everything she said on this thread. You clearly have not read what she wrote or understood it and this is precisely why I don't just challenge
but now ridicule what you said. You did not read what she wrote and you come on this forum part of a group that have precisely done what you accuse others have, turned this issue into a partisan one.

Omni and MH have made unfounded accusations, out and out lies that Brown used his employment status and or physical force to compel women into sex and booze. Those are lies.

This issue is being presented that way precisely because Brown is a "Conservative". I couldn't care less what his political affiliation is.

The issue was and remains about consent. The young women who went back to his home have a responsibility to control their bodies and their safety over their bodies. It must begin and end with them on an individual level. Your patronizing attitude acts as if its up to a man to decide that. So of course you can't grasp her point or mine.

I spent 30 years dealing with sex crimes. I read now a bunch of pathetic boys jumping all over one another in the name of politically correct posturing presuming to reduce this issue to what a man does.

You don't get it. Brown did not force himself on anyone. Had he, then he would belong in jail. He did not. He did not force himself on anyone. Therefore it becomes a matter of choice, of individual choice, and women will decide when and where they will go and if they learn from certain mistakes they will but they don't and can't learn from mistakes if they put themselves in dangerous positions and then do not examine the choices they made to see if they could have done something safer.

That's the reality of the world we live in. You haven't had to sit in a room with a rapist and get in their head as I have. They are people who use power and access. Those are the two operative words, power and access.

They place themselves in positions where they have access to the vulnerable. Then they use their power, money, body size, job position perhaps to force themselves on their target. You and the rest of your
moral saint pack have no proof, not an ounce of proof Brown used power, money or his body to force his way to have sex. None. Zero. Yet you take a second hand news story, which is called heresay evidence, which has never been corroborated, and you react like true SA Nazi Brown shirts. Your cause is righteous and you will persecute Brown.

How does that empower the woman who made a bad decision to go to his house? How does that help her? It doesn't,. It helps your ego because you engage in a competition with Brown as to who has the better **** and uses it better. You are just a miserable boy who senses someone is down and you can jump on this person to make yourself feel better.

The woman who went to his house needs to make better judgements. She needs to undersrtand that if she drinks she is vulnerable. She needs to learn that if she goes to a man's house alone, especially to his bed-room that choice she made is dangerous. That is what she needs to learn from her father, mother, friends, strong role models. She needs to learn her body is her body and her choices as to it begin and end with her, not you, not me, not MH.

My role as a man with my daughters is to empower them to make proper individual choices. My role as a teacher is to do the same with female and male students equally. My role as a prosecutor was to put rapists in jail not make myself feel superior to them.  My moral judgments would not help society. Next, when I have worked in therapy groups with violent men I don't judge them. Moral judgment means phack all. Its a matter of explaining what happens when they choose to impose power or force without consent of an equal partner. Moral judgment? Bull ****. Its about explaining to men or women, a simple rule, treat people as you want to be treated.

All of you are so busy preaching morality you can't see the basic issue Kimmy is talking about or for that matter the basic facts. As Sir J has tried to say, men have a prime instinct a sexual drive. Its inherent. Its born within us. If we do not learn to repress it, chaos ensues and a stable society can not be built. That is the most basic and fundamental of psychological and religious concepts. Religion was created to repress the sexual drive and create for it rules so that men would not kill each other fighting for the same mate. Where religion went off the track was in deciding to portray women as the source of evil, of temptation and their bodies as something to cover up and subject. It missed the actual point which is if we respect and have a healthy attitude about a woman's body, we don't ****. You boys screaming for Brown's head (both his heads actually) still haven't understood the basic point. He behaved exactly as you have and will continue to behave. You will continue to behave that way until instead of seeing Brown as detached from you-you understand every God damn one of us males has made mistakes with women and need to learn from them and it doesn't mean we are evil, rapists, etc.

Now go on and continue with your moral indignation and now presuming to tell a woman how she must understand her body. Good luck.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on February 09, 2018, 09:50:03 am
This is that "radical" idea that women are human beings with their own thoughts, feelings, and motivation,

Just not when they've had a beer or two, right?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 09, 2018, 10:00:27 am
Men trying to get laid is different then men will do anything to get laid, don't you think?  There should be mutual  interest, not one person seen as guarding the entry, whilst the other one seeks to overcome that guard by any means possible, whether it's begging, bribing, tricking or forcing.  Yes, I know Argus didn't say force, but it's part and parcel of the "do anything to breach the walls" attitude he claims as the natural state of affairs between men and women.

Not to mention the whole idea of men being such slaves to their urges that they'll do whatever it takes to get sex should be anathema to any self-respecting man.  MG's description of mutual interest clearly expressed through body language is what I would describe as the natural state of affairs between people.  Even male animals determine the receptivity of the female before getting it on.  The description provided by Argus is a holdover from the Christian tradition which forbade female sexual interest and strongly discouraged men from seeking any but procreative sex from their wives.   "Fun" sex was had with prostitutes.  His description reeks of disrespect for women generally and especially women who give up the gate too easily, and it also demeans men.

I don't think Brown should go to jail, or even be charged from what I understand what happened.   But he sure as hell shouldn't get a pass because he's just a man clumsily doing what men do, which was getting some however he could.


Hang on. J, Kimmy, I, do not justify any man's stupid actions. What SJ said is men have a primal sexual urge. That is an inherent fact. It does and can make some men slaves to it if they don't learn to control it and learn how to express it in a healthy way.  Men who do not learn that their sexual urges are healthy, men who struggle to deal with their sexuality are quick to dettach any unresolved or on going sex issues and place them on an external other male and project their anxieties over their unresolved issues on that male. Its what we do. We men try avoid our own unresolved sexual behaviour issues by making them exist in someone else and pissing on that person. Why do I say that-30 years of being in a room one on one with violent men and rapists. It aint rocket science. Its what I learned simply from listening.

Some men will do anything to get laid yes. That is reality. Don't tell me as a father with daughters I should not teach my daughters that. I did. I taught them respect for their bodies and what they do with them begins and ends with them-they can never ever depend on a man to understand that. That is what SJ was getting at.

My contempt at some of the responses on this board has been laid wide open because I know that those of us who scream the loudest pointing out the behaviour of others have our own unresolved issues.

You know what mine is? Its going to sleep knowing how many rapists walked out the door I was sitting with and I could do sweet phack all. It doesn't mean ****. I have to now teach both men and women as a teacher the exact same things-treat others as you would have them treat you-the basic basic fundamental rule of fairness.

Moral preaching-not from me. I am in no position to preach. I got blood all over my hands that won't wash off. Its part of the job. You clean toilets, its hard to ever fully think you have or will ever have clean hands and that is o.k. I chose that profession. I just don't think any of us help such issues playing at being saints.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 10:13:44 am

Hang on. J, Kimmy, I, do not justify any man's stupid actions. What SJ said is men have a primal sexual urge.
He is also saying that it is up to women to 'control' that for men by being 'gatekeepers'.  How can you keep supporting such a backassward attitude?

Quote
That is an inherent fact. It does and can make some men slaves to it if they don't learn to control it and learn how to express it in a healthy way.
 
He offers it up in this thread and in other threads as if there is nothing we can really do it about it, it's merely a fact of life - men are **** and violent; it's up to women to adjust their actions to account for that.  How can you support such a backasswards attitude?

How about you offer support to the men here who say men do not have the excuse of being slaves to their urges?  How about we support the idea that women also have urges, no less inherently sexual and primal than men - that their role isn't 'gatekeeper' against men's unrestrained sexual drive?    How about we make men responsible for themselves, instead of talking about how they have a primal drive that is only stopped by a woman's virtue?   Maybe, if that had happened at some point in the last 150 years, you wouldn't have had to sit through so many **** trials, and maybe we wouldn't be seeing men being pilloried for being jackasses, or have to warn our daughters about date **** drugs.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:08:39 am
Right.  From the guy who purports to know what women in hijabs think and feel, what progressives think and what they'll do, and all about women's sexual interest.  At least I keep my "mind reading" limited to a single person

I don't need to mind read nor even use my own experience. There is a massive amount of academic studies and surveys about male and female interactions and sexual interests, fantasies and desires out there.

And must you bring your outrage about my not respecting your religion into every **** conversation?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:10:07 am
Again, I don't think pouring booze into an under age girl you plan to have sex with is hardly flirting. At least not in my town.

Then don't do that. Brown didn't do it, but you talk about it a lot like, well, maybe that was your thing back in the day...
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:11:40 am
So you're happy to dismiss the choices he made that night?

Why are you so intent on dismissing the choices she made that night? You sound incredibly paternalistic in how you're basically treating her like a little girl who had no control of herself and was simply this dainty delicate child-like creature at the mercy of a lascivious male.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:15:14 am
Call me old-fashioned but I don’t think getting a girl drunk and whipping down your pants can be considered flirting.

Again we see this paternalistic attitude that if a woman gets drunk it's the responsibility of the guy she was with.

This is at the heart of why I have such contempt for the progressive identity politics set. They all claim to believe in equality, but whenever anyone, usually a conservative, treats people equally they get outraged! Holding a woman to the same standard as a man! Why that's sexist!
She went to a bar on her own. She drank on her own. She went to his bedroom on her own.

As for the bullshit story about how he just whipped down his pants - and then she gave him a blowjob - seriously!? What kind of a **** was she anyway? I mean, a guy, she just met with no preliminaries, just whips it out, says "blow me" and she says "Okay!" and does it? Just like that? That's the story she's telling? And nobody even questions how logical that is?!
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:16:13 am
The whole scenario gives me the creeps. Even as a young guy hitting puberty back in the day it would have. Maybe it's partly to do with being raised by a single mom whom I respected so strongly.

Do you have to virtue signal every single day? We know how special you are. You probably even do girls hair for them.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 11:17:42 am
How about you read what she wrote. I 100% stand by everything she said on this thread. You clearly have not read what she wrote or understood it and this is precisely why I don't just challenge but now ridicule what you said. You did not read what she wrote and you come on this forum part of a group that have precisely done what you accuse others have, turned this issue into a partisan one.

Perhaps you are the one not understanding the inherent harm the attitude of male=uncontrolled/female=controlled actually is to both men and women. 

Quote
I couldn't care less what his political affiliation is.
Given the way in which you hurl insults on Liberal politicians, I do not believe this for a second.

Quote
The issue was and remains about consent. The young women who went back to his home have a responsibility to control their bodies and their safety over their bodies. It must begin and end with them on an individual level. Your patronizing attitude acts as if its up to a man to decide that. So of course you can't grasp her point or mine.
And it is also on you, and other men, to refute the notion put forth by SJ that men's sexual urges are so primal, natural, biologically driven, that they cannot control themselves and will push for sex in any way they can get it.  This is what MG, Omni, MH, BC Cheque and I are doing.   How about you take a moment and try to understand that instead of going on a rant.

Quote
I spent 30 years dealing with sex crimes. I read now a bunch of pathetic boys jumping all over one another in the name of politically correct posturing presuming to reduce this issue to what a man does.
While completely missing SJ's attempt to reduce the actions of a grown man down to 'animal in lust' vs. 'woman as keeper of virtue'.

Quote
Therefore it becomes a matter of choice, of individual choice, and women will decide when and where they will go and if they learn from certain mistakes they will but they don't and can't learn from mistakes if they put themselves in dangerous positions and then do not examine the choices they made to see if they could have done something safer.
And he had the "choice" to treat the woman he was with with respect; not to whip out his dick and expect a BJ or start raining kisses on a woman just because he was alone with her.  They were stupid to overdrink, I agree; but to act as if he's being unfairly accused and that his actions were in line with what a 'natural' man would do is why men keep doing those stupid things.

Quote
That's the reality of the world we live in. You haven't had to sit in a room with a rapist and get in their head as I have. They are people who use power and access. Those are the two operative words, power and access.    They place themselves in positions where they have access to the vulnerable. Then they use their power, money, body size, job position perhaps to force themselves on their target. You and the rest of your moral saint pack have no proof, not an ounce of proof Brown used power, money or his body to force his way to have sex.
Was one of them not 19 at the time, and he 35?  Did she not work for him?  Was she not at a staff party, a party that moved to HIS home?  Was he not an MP at the time?  And did he not then make advances on her?  Just what is that but "power and access"?   That he stopped when she asked him to is good; that he tried at all "because men will do anything to get sex" is the problem.   A truly respectful, adult and controlled man would not have made any advances whatsoever.  Period.  And your support for his actions, and your support for SJ's 'natural man' argument is disgusting to me.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-resigns-ontario-pc-1.4503040

The other one was in *HIGH SCHOOL* - that means underage drinking.  A stupid decision on her part, no question and yes, she's vulnerable - and Brown, who was NOT drinking, knew it.  Again - Power and Access.   He had it, and he used it.   
https://www.cp24.com/news/women-who-accused-brown-of-misconduct-were-reluctant-to-speak-out-ctv-reporter-1.3775056

Note what McGregor says in the article cited above:   
Quote
McGregor said rumours have long been circulating about sexual harassment on Parliament Hill.

“Parliament Hill is a situation where you have, by definition, a lot of middle age men and a lot of young women staff,” he said.

“You have this basic built-in power imbalance and you have up here a lot of events. Pretty much any day of the week when the house is sitting, you can go somewhere and there (are) parties with MPs and free wine flowing all the time. So it’s a problematic situation.”

Power and access.  Brown had it, and he used it.  And you think we should heap blame on the women, that we're being unfair to Brown.  **** that.

http://None. Zero. Yet you take a second hand news story, which is called heresay evidence, which has never been corroborated, and you react like true SA Nazi Brown shirts. Your cause is righteous and you will persecute Brown.

Why are you assuming these women are lying?   Did they not 'gatekeep' well enough?

Quote
How does that empower the woman who made a bad decision to go to his house? How does that help her?
In one case, the rest of the party also made a 'decision to go to his house'; are those decisions equally as bad, or is only her decision bad because she was the one he made moves on?   And, even if a woman does make a 'bad decision', does that mean the man gets a 'free pass' to make a pass?  Or assault her?  Or **** her?  Just where do you expect a man to behave well?
 
Quote
All of you are so busy preaching morality you can't see the basic issue Kimmy is talking about or for that matter the basic facts. As Sir J has tried to say, men have a prime instinct a sexual drive. Its inherent. Its born within us. If we do not learn to repress it, chaos ensues and a stable society can not be built.

SJ, Kimmy and now you are so busy trying to blame the women and excuse the men in these scenarios that you are missing the point:  both men and women have a sexual drive; it is up to both men and women to ensure the other person is 'into it', and neither side has a higher responsibility to 'prevent sex' and neither side gets to say "oh, but my drive is so much stronger, I just have to do anything to get some". 

Quote
That is the most basic and fundamental of psychological and religious concepts.
It certainly is a *religious* concept. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:17:47 am
Never in my life have I tried to kiss someone without it being pretty clear, via body language, touching/holding hands etc, that the other person wanted it too.

Because that would be unlikely to get a good reception. Nor would you just whip your pants down and ask some girl you just met for a blow job. I mean, how often is THAT likely to produce positive results!? Like never unless you're paying her.

And yet, that is allegedly what happened, which I call bullshit on.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 11:21:30 am
And must you bring your outrage about my not respecting your religion into every **** conversation?

Must you bring your contempt and disrespect for anyone who doesn't kowtow to your ignorant, racist, sexist and xenophobic attitudes into every **** conversation?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 11:28:18 am
Because that would be unlikely to get a good reception. Nor would you just whip your pants down and ask some girl you just met for a blow job. I mean, how often is THAT likely to produce positive results!? Like never unless you're paying her.

And yet, that is allegedly what happened, which I call bullshit on.

Why would you doubt it?  You tell us that men are slaves to their sexual urges, that they'll do anything in their power to get women to have sex with them, and then you doubt some of the things they'll actually do.  Why would a man crawl on top  of a sleeping girl to have sex?  Are you going to call me a liar when I tell you that happened to me?  Or how about the guy who, just like Brown, did whip out his **** to 'show me how big it was' - no doubt he thought that would impress me enough to jump on it.   Or like the guy who picked me up from my parent's home to babysit his daughter for the evening, thought maybe if he just pulled over on the way to his house, he could cop a quick feel.  Do you know how it feels to be 16, shocked, scared and trying to act normal cause you don't know what else the **** to do? 

You are such an ignorant ass, you know nothing about what men will do; instead you validate their 'overwhelming' sexual urge and warn us 'they'll do whatever to get sex', and we're just a stupid bunch of twats if we get taken advantage of.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:30:26 am
Men trying to get laid is different then men will do anything to get laid, don't you think?  There should be mutual  interest, not one person seen as guarding the entry, whilst the other one seeks to overcome that guard by any means possible, whether it's begging, bribing, tricking or forcing.  Yes, I know Argus didn't say force, but it's part and parcel of the "do anything to breach the walls" attitude he claims as the natural state of affairs between men and women.

I will try this again. I never said men are slaves to their urges, nor that they would try anything to get laid. However, the urge is strong. A young man basically wants to have sex with every cute girl he meets, right then and there. If you're a cute girl and are in a college class, you can pretty much take it for granted every straight guy there wants to **** you. Do they? No. Do they all jump across the desks to have at you? No. Can you walk up and down the halls and interact with them, have lunch with them, chat with them, without a thing happening? Sure. Men mostly control themselves. Their desire for sex only leaks out around the edges in public, sometimes in the way they look at a woman, or in the way they compliment them, even politely.

And men are not a monolithic bloc, all highly intelligent and cultured, all with total self-control, all with excellent abilities to assess the reception or likely reception of various attempts at seduction or flirtation. Women are, unsurprisingly, unpredictable, and each is a product of their own life experience which has built an individual personality which means what works on one will annoy or irritate another. Expecting that every man will guess right all the time is ludicrous. So there are going to be all kinds of moves made which are not reciprocated with interest returned.

Add in that mos women don't want to hurt a guy's feelings, and try to dissuade unwanted approaches in an oblique manner rather than simply saying "I'm not interested in you.".  Now add in alcohol, on both sides.

And btw, add in that how physically attracted she is to the guy often governs how she responds more than what he says or does. A fat guy in a wheelchair telling a woman she looks yummy might provoke indignation but I wonder if a really hot looking guy said the same if she wouldn't smile receptively.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:33:52 am
Must you bring your contempt and disrespect for anyone who doesn't kowtow to your ignorant, racist, sexist and xenophobic attitudes into every **** conversation?

I get along fine with people who disagree with me. I have issues with sub-literate cretins without the intelligence to discuss issues and who insist on making every conversation about ME, because of how self-righteous they are that I dare to disagree with their emotionally overwrought, fact-free opinions.

If you want to talk about Islam yet again we can do that. But I thought this was about Patrick Brown. So put your burka away on this topic.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:36:36 am
Why would you doubt it?

Because it's stupid. If you understood the difference between stupid and smart you'd probably realize how stupid most of your views were.

Quote
You tell us that men are slaves to their sexual urges,

No, you tell us that. You made it up because you're too **** dumb to refute what I actually say so insist on making **** up and pretending I said that instead.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 11:39:51 am
And it is also on you, and other men, to refute the notion put forth by SJ that men's sexual urges are so primal, natural, biologically driven, that they cannot control themselves and will push for sex in any way they can get it.

I never made any such claim, you sanctimonious moron.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 11:46:50 am
You made it up because you're too **** dumb to refute what I actually say so insist on making **** up and pretending I said that instead.

You wrote:
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

How is that not saying that men are slaves to their sexual desire and that nothing will stop them from trying to satisfy that desire?  I am damn certain that by 'otherwise' you didn't actually intend to include force, but it certainly is a wide open door for a lot of other men, isn't it?  Encouraging young girls to drink, whipping the dick out, manipulating young women, using threats of job loss, or violence, using drugs, simply raping by force - all of that falls under 'otherwise'. 

Following that statement up with statements designed to insult Omni as being a 'girly-man' because he advocated for a different approach than 'anything goes' when pursuing sex, and implying women wouldn't be safe if **** around a 'real man' - what message do you think you are sending?  That men should be responsible for their own behavior?  Not really; the whole message is that 'real men' crave sex, and women are not safe around them.


Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 09, 2018, 12:15:42 pm
You wrote:
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

How is that not saying that men are slaves to their sexual desire and that nothing will stop them from trying to satisfy that desire?  I am damn certain that by 'otherwise' you didn't actually intend to include force, but it certainly is a wide open door for a lot of other men, isn't it?  Encouraging young girls to drink, whipping the dick out, manipulating young women, using threats of job loss, or violence, using drugs, simply raping by force - all of that falls under 'otherwise'. 

Following that statement up with statements designed to insult Omni as being a 'girly-man' because he advocated for a different approach than 'anything goes' when pursuing sex, and implying women wouldn't be safe if **** around a 'real man' - what message do you think you are sending?  That men should be responsible for their own behavior?  Not really; the whole message is that 'real men' crave sex, and women are not safe around them.

Not only that but he tried to make me a lot older than I am. I am used to the endless insults when he gets refuted, but messing with my age, now that hurts, especially today. I have a date with some candles later on. But not THAT many candles. :D
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 01:00:38 pm
Perhaps you are the one not understanding the inherent harm the attitude of male=uncontrolled/female=controlled actually is to both men and women. . . .
You actually read what he wrote? His ideas aren't interesting enough to waste my time.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 01:02:39 pm
I get along fine with people who disagree with me.
The evidence on this forum and MLW show otherwise. You're quick to insult people who challenge you.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 01:04:18 pm
what message do you think you are sending?  That men should be responsible for their own behavior?  Not really; the whole message is that 'real men' crave sex, and women are not safe around them.
"Not really"??? Not at all. You're generous.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 01:06:06 pm
You actually read what he wrote? His ideas aren't interesting enough to waste my time.

Are you Rue-shaming me????    ;D

Sometimes he does post stuff I find interesting; I most often skip past the inevitable insults and ranting. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 01:16:14 pm
Are you Rue-shaming me????    ;D

Sometimes he does post stuff I find interesting; I most often skip past the inevitable insults and ranting.
I'm not shaming you. I'm envious of your time. Hell, I didn't even read your whole reply. I just responded because I saw you respond to it.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 01:25:31 pm
I'm not shaming you. I'm envious of your time. Hell, I didn't even read your whole reply. I just responded because I saw you respond to it.

I was kidding anyway, didn't think you were.  Yeah, some days I have more time than other days.  Or maybe that's more interest.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 01:35:24 pm
Not only that but he tried to make me a lot older than I am. I am used to the endless insults when he gets refuted, but messing with my age, now that hurts, especially today. I have a date with some candles later on. But not THAT many candles. :D

Well, Happy Candle-Day then.   I have a similar date in a couple of months, it's a biggie and officially entitles me to age-related discounts.   Why is Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" playing in my head now????
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 09, 2018, 01:40:41 pm
Well, Happy Candle-Day then.   I have a similar date in a couple of months, it's a biggie and officially entitles me to age-related discounts.   Why is Bruce Springsteen's "Glory Days" playing in my head now????

Thank you and let me return the same wish for your upcoming. Why is Neil Young's "old man take a look at my life" playing in my head?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on February 09, 2018, 02:11:57 pm
You wrote:
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

How is that not saying that men are slaves to their sexual desire and that nothing will stop them from trying to satisfy that desire?  I am damn certain that by 'otherwise' you didn't actually intend to include force, but it certainly is a wide open door for a lot of other men, isn't it?  Encouraging young girls to drink, whipping the dick out, manipulating young women, using threats of job loss, or violence, using drugs, simply raping by force - all of that falls under 'otherwise'. 


I think there can be a middle-of-the-road argument on this issue.  I think it could true that generally speaking, men are more wired to seek sex and for women to be the 'gate-keepers', however, I think Moonlight Graham nailed it in how to go about opening up that gate.  A decent man picks up the ok signals and proceeds bit by bit ensuring that there is reciprocity every step of the way. 

What I don't like to see is people excusing when a man doesn't respect a woman's lack of participation or blaming a woman for drinking too much when men take advantage of her inability to properly consent.  I don't think it's asking too much for men NOT to take advantage of drunk women just because some women enjoy drinking in the same way many men do.

I like to drink.  I like to get drunk.  I wish I would not have to worry about being date-raped if I'm too drunk the way men don't have to worry about it.  It's complete male privilege to think a drunk woman is partly responsible for a man's bad behaviour. 

If what these women say is true (and I usually believe women when there is more than one), was not proper male/female etiquette.  Him purposely getting a woman drunk in order to lower her inhibitions and go against the male/female etiquette just makes him more of a predator. 

It's just slightly better than spiking someone's drink, but it's the exact same mentality.


Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 02:23:46 pm
You wrote:
The problem women have is they are the gate-keepers for sex, and men want sex all the time. That means nothing will stop (heterosexual)men trying to persuade, seduce, influence, put pressure on, whine, beg, bribe, or otherwise seek to get women to let them in.

How is that not saying that men are slaves to their sexual desire

It was a generalization about the male instinct and acknowledgement that among several billion people there is going to be a huge variance in desire, in ability, in the degree of social adjustment, control and behavior. Not to mention an understanding of what any individual woman wants. It was not in any way, shape or form depicting men as slavering, uncontrolled sexual beasts.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 02:26:55 pm
The evidence on this forum and MLW show otherwise. You're quick to insult people who challenge you.

You didn't go into my ignore file because you challenged me. You went into my ignore file because of the increasingly bitter, angry and insulting responses you delivered to every opinion I gave, which was then causing me to respond and getting me in trouble with the moderator.

Again, like many of the progressives, you find those who disagree with your positions to be detestable people and much prefer assuming a moral stance to attack them rather than bother with their opinions, which of course, you disregard as having no validity without a second thought (or even a first). All your views are gloriously infused with the righteous certainty of the true believer, and all who question them are vile heretics.


Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 02:39:45 pm
I think there can be a middle-of-the-road argument on this issue.  I think it could true that generally speaking, men are more wired to seek sex and for women to be the 'gate-keepers', however, I think Moonlight Graham nailed it in how to go about opening up that gate.  A decent man picks up the ok signals and proceeds bit by bit ensuring that there is reciprocity every step of the way.

I would agree wholeheartedly with one caveat. Your use of the term 'decent' is not entirely accurate in that not all men have the ability to pick up those signals to the same degree. We are not all born with the same degree of empathy or understanding for one another.

Quote
I like to drink.  I like to get drunk.  I wish I would not have to worry about being date-raped if I'm too drunk the way men don't have to worry about it.  It's complete male privilege to think a drunk woman is partly responsible for a man's bad behaviour. 

I partially disagree. I agree that it is a privilege straight men have that they know getting drunk is not going to get them jumped by some strange woman. Although to a great degree that's because they don't CARE if they get jumped by some strange woman while drunk. And again, I'm obviously generalizing. I also don't think anyone thinks a drunk woman is responsible for a man's bad behavior. On the other hand, I don't excuse a drunk woman for HER behavior, like so many others seem to.

Explain to me the fairness of the  law on sexual consent while intoxicated. To me it seems deeply sexist and paternalistic. Women, however drunk THEY GET THEMSELVES, have no responsibility and indeed cannot even give legal consent to sex, even if they very strongly want to. However, the guy who is equally drunk may not use his own drunkenness as any kind of a defense as to why he had sex with her enthusiastic consent. How is that in any way fair or equal? Her drunkenness means she lacks the ability to form an intelligent thought but his drunkenness is deliberately not considered? Either HUMANS are responsible for getting themselves drunk and what they do when drunk or they're not. Which is it?

Note that if a man is drunk or  takes **** and deliberately murders someone, his being high or drunk can be used as a defense. Most likely he'll be found guilty of manslaughter instead. Yet in sex we place all the burden on the male and none on the female to drink responsibility and mind their behavior. That's entirely sexist. I acknowledge that man can be more consequence free if they get drunk in that women are not likely to 'take advantage' of that, but the fact women have more consequences means they ought to be more careful. Unfair? Sure. But that's the way things are.



Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 09, 2018, 02:40:26 pm
Him purposely getting a woman drunk in order to lower her inhibitions and go against the male/female etiquette just makes him more of a predator. 

It's just slightly better than spiking someone's drink, but it's the exact same mentality.

Exactly.   Remember that guy, Paul Jordan on DTES some years ago who would pick up women and provide them alcohol till they died.  They went willingly, they even drank what he gave them willingly, but he was no less a predator because of their willing participation. 

This is not to say that Brown's behavior is as reprehensible as Jordan's, but if a guy shows a pattern of inappropriate sexual behavior towards intoxicated women, that's a problem that is beyond a man hoping he'll get lucky and making a wrong move or a woman drinking too much and maneuvered into being alone with a man.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 09, 2018, 02:57:08 pm
I would agree wholeheartedly with one caveat. Your use of the term 'decent' is not entirely accurate in that not all men have the ability to pick up those signals to the same degree. We are not all born with the same degree of empathy or understanding for one another.

I partially disagree. I agree that it is a privilege straight men have that they know getting drunk is not going to get them jumped by some strange woman. Although to a great degree that's because they don't CARE if they get jumped by some strange woman while drunk. And again, I'm obviously generalizing. I also don't think anyone thinks a drunk woman is responsible for a man's bad behavior. On the other hand, I don't excuse a drunk woman for HER behavior, like so many others seem to.

Explain to me the fairness of the  law on sexual consent while intoxicated. To me it seems deeply sexist and paternalistic. Women, however drunk THEY GET THEMSELVES, have no responsibility and indeed cannot even give legal consent to sex, even if they very strongly want to. However, the guy who is equally drunk may not use his own drunkenness as any kind of a defense as to why he had sex with her enthusiastic consent. How is that in any way fair or equal? Her drunkenness means she lacks the ability to form an intelligent thought but his drunkenness is deliberately not considered? Either HUMANS are responsible for getting themselves drunk and what they do when drunk or they're not. Which is it?

Note that if a man is drunk or  takes **** and deliberately murders someone, his being high or drunk can be used as a defense. Most likely he'll be found guilty of manslaughter instead. Yet in sex we place all the burden on the male and none on the female to drink responsibility and mind their behavior. That's entirely sexist. I acknowledge that man can be more consequence free if they get drunk in that women are not likely to 'take advantage' of that, but the fact women have more consequences means they ought to be more careful. Unfair? Sure. But that's the way things are.

Yet another group of unsubstantiated assumptions to try and protect men's bad behavior. If you think the burden is unfairly placed on the male, maybe you'd like to explain the Alberta judges comments to a woman in a **** case as to why didn't she keep her legs together.Maybe that's the "way things are" were you grew up, but not where a lot of us grew up. Regardless of whether or not drink is involved acceptance of sexual aggression must be mutually agreeable or it must stop. End of story.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: BC_cheque on February 09, 2018, 03:37:19 pm
I would agree wholeheartedly with one caveat. Your use of the term 'decent' is not entirely accurate in that not all men have the ability to pick up those signals to the same degree. We are not all born with the same degree of empathy or understanding for one another.

And that's what we are all debating here, was Patrick Brown a bumbling man who didn't get it when a woman wasn't into him or was he a predator?  None of us were there but the thing that stands out to me is the fact that a sober man went out of his way to buy drinks and get a young woman drunk.  To me that seems predatory and thereafter I judge his actions as such.  I don't think he was bumbling so much as he is not the kind of man who understands proper male/female etiquette in seeking sex.

I partially disagree. I agree that it is a privilege straight men have that they know getting drunk is not going to get them jumped by some strange woman. Although to a great degree that's because they don't CARE if they get jumped by some strange woman while drunk. And again, I'm obviously generalizing. I also don't think anyone thinks a drunk woman is responsible for a man's bad behavior. On the other hand, I don't excuse a drunk woman for HER behavior, like so many others seem to.

Explain to me the fairness of the  law on sexual consent while intoxicated. To me it seems deeply sexist and paternalistic. Women, however drunk THEY GET THEMSELVES, have no responsibility and indeed cannot even give legal consent to sex, even if they very strongly want to. However, the guy who is equally drunk may not use his own drunkenness as any kind of a defense as to why he had sex with her enthusiastic consent. How is that in any way fair or equal? Her drunkenness means she lacks the ability to form an intelligent thought but his drunkenness is deliberately not considered? Either HUMANS are responsible for getting themselves drunk and what they do when drunk or they're not. Which is it?

Men are less choosy in their sexual partners, sure, but most of them would not like to be molested by a woman they have no interest in if they were drunk.  And if they are intersted in the woman, I'm sure they would lose respect for her if she took advantage of them while drunk.  If they were inebriated it would be just as much assault as the other way around so I don't see the sexism.
Note that if a man is drunk or  takes **** and deliberately murders someone, his being high or drunk can be used as a defense. Most likely he'll be found guilty of manslaughter instead. Yet in sex we place all the burden on the male and none on the female to drink responsibility and mind their behavior. That's entirely sexist. I acknowledge that man can be more consequence free if they get drunk in that women are not likely to 'take advantage' of that, but the fact women have more consequences means they ought to be more careful. Unfair? Sure. But that's the way things are.



That's a silly comparison.  A woman drunk and high committing murder could not claim her drunkenness as innocence either.  Again, no sexim.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 04:08:32 pm
Yet another group of unsubstantiated assumptions to try and protect men's bad behavior.

I couldn't help notice that your blather didn't contradict anything I said. Congratulations on contributing nothing of interest once again.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 04:19:29 pm
And that's what we are all debating here, was Patrick Brown a bumbling man who didn't get it when a woman wasn't into him or was he a predator?  None of us were there but the thing that stands out to me is the fact that a sober man went out of his way to buy drinks and get a young woman drunk.  To me that seems predatory and thereafter I judge his actions as such.  I don't think he was bumbling so much as he is not the kind of man who understands proper male/female etiquette in seeking sex.

And when in life have you ever heard one side of a story accusing someone of wrongdoing which was 100% neutral, accurate, complete and honest? Note in the first case she never claimed he bought her drinks, just that she'd been drinking. I also simply don't believe that a man drops his pants in front of a strange woman, tells her to give him a blowjob, and gets it. Maybe if he's Lebron James, but sure as hell Patrick Brown is not Lebron James.

Quote
Men are less choosy in their sexual partners, sure, but most of them would not like to be molested by a woman they have no interest in if they were drunk.  And if they are intersted in the woman, I'm sure they would lose respect for her if she took advantage of them while drunk.  If they were inebriated it would be just as much assault as the other way around so I don't see the sexism.

Let's get real here. Has it ever happened that a man, waking up to realize he had drunken sex with a drunken woman starts feeling ashamed of himself, then goes to the police to report it? I doubt it ever has or ever would. This law is written with woman-as-victim in mind and man-as-predator. So yes it's sexist. Either neither side had the intellectual ability to consent or both did. If alcohol diminishes your ability to judge so as to make your consent impossible it has to diminish  your judgement to understand consent from the other party.

Quote
That's a silly comparison.  A woman drunk and high committing murder could not claim her drunkenness as innocence either.  Again, no sexim.

Of course she could and would. Our legal system recognizes intent as a primary factor in crime. Since consumption of **** and other drugs and alcohol diminishes the ability to form a proper intent it also diminishes liability in crime. Likewise any other type of mental impairment which interferes with the ability to know what you are doing is criminal can reduce or even eliminate punishment. Since alcohol is adjudged to do just that in just about every single crime that the justice system deals with why was it specifically exempted in the case of sex?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 09, 2018, 04:31:30 pm
I couldn't help notice that your blather didn't contradict anything I said. Congratulations on contributing nothing of interest once again.

Most everything you have said on this subject has been contradicted a number of times. I'm just letting others suffer the wrath of a refuted sir argus' insults for a while.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 04:33:54 pm
You didn't go into my ignore file because you challenged me. You went into my ignore file because of the increasingly bitter, angry and insulting responses you delivered to every opinion I gave, which was then causing me to respond and getting me in trouble with the moderator.

Again, like many of the progressives, you find those who disagree with your positions to be detestable people and much prefer assuming a moral stance to attack them rather than bother with their opinions, which of course, you disregard as having no validity without a second thought (or even a first). All your views are gloriously infused with the righteous certainty of the true believer, and all who question them are vile heretics.
Yet my comment had nothing to do with me or your ignore list, but here you are....talking about me because like I said, when your views are challenged you resort to attacking the poster.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on February 09, 2018, 05:50:19 pm
The 1st claim is problematic because 1. the girl was underage to drink (though Brown may not have known that, she was 18 I think, but you should still ask if you're 29 at the time & a girl looks young), 2. she was drunk & he wasn't, which is predatory on Brown's part.

Now, she did voluntarily suck on his dick after he asked for it, he didn't force her, but she was still intoxicated.  Brown wasn't drunk in either story.  I think Brown was inappropriate here & predatory, if this story true.

The 2nd situation I think is more problematic. He was in a position of authority over her, as her boss.  He made sure she had lots to drink, then when drunk brought her into his room, then allegedly kissed her and got on top of her with an erect **** without her consent.  If both cases are true, Brown has a pattern of trying to take advantage of much younger intoxicated women.  Not sure the legal ramifications if any, but the guy is a creep.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 09, 2018, 06:27:13 pm
Yet my comment had nothing to do with me or your ignore list,

No, nor anything to do with the subject. It had to do with me. When people decide the proper subject is me and their sanctimonious evaluation of how inferior my morality is because I disagree with them I always change the subject to them and what assholes they are.

And then, believe it or not, some of them actually get indignant and snivel about me insulting them! Can you believe how pathetic they are!?

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 09, 2018, 07:12:26 pm
My my.  Look at the length of this post !  Not sure why you have focussed on me here, but I have some time to try and parse this response.  Lets see:


1. The cost of sexual assault is the same no matter who does it-that is the point and your attempt to create a double standard as to the moral behaviour of politicians and non politicians when it comes to imposing sex on someone is illogical. No Brown had no special moral obligation different than yours or mine when it comes to a private matter in his bed-room. His bed-room is not your arena for you to enter and tell him what he must do. The police and the law not you only get involved in his bed-room if he sexually assaulted someone-he did not so all your clucking is meaningless crap.

I think we have already said Brown didn't commit sexual assault.  This is about the cost of inappropriate behaviour.  The public will decide what is a private matter.

Quote
2. You claim to be both righteous and self righteous in your words. Here since you seem to be choking on that let me explain it for you:

source: BING

right·eous.

ADJECTIVE
1.(of a person or conduct) morally right or justifiable; virtuous:

self-right·eous.

ADJECTIVE

having or characterized by a certainty, especially an unfounded one, that one is totally correct or morally superior:

Do me a favour save the righteous and self righteous attempts at trying to suggest you don't  understand the difference.

Well you modified your description of me to the former.  I have admitted inappropriate behaviour so I don't claim virtuosity in the regard of male behaviour.

Quote
3. You lectured me that: " a RIGHTEOUS person would never admit they sinned, and would look down on sinners"...then you went on to say and I quote:
"Nowhere did I "**** on brown".  I stated what he did: showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager that he got drunk."

The latter statement clearly indicates you continue to **** on Brown by saying and I quote again because you have a selective righteous memory: " he showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager".

That is what he did.  It says nothing about my virtuosity to describe his actions.

Quote

You again prove my point as to what a sanctimonious blow hard you are. There is no evidence Brown "showed off his dick", that is your projection.  Also your accusations he got someone drunk suggests he forced them to drink which is an out and out lie a total and utter lie.

You have no proof he forced alcohol on anyone yet you lie to make it seem as if he stalked a minor and poured alcohol down her throat.

That's the allegation.  I am willing to hear his response.  Also I didn't say he forced them to drink. 

Quote

The more you respond, the more you illustrate why I challenge your false morally superior smug tone.

Then on top of  it you just couldn't resist posing as righteous and self righteous yet again suggesting since you "confessed" on this forum it means you do not sin when you talk of Brown. What a phacking joke.

What did you confess to? Lol. You think if you come on this board and say you may have been a jack ass as a young man that presto you now are the pillar of moral truth and infallible source of when Brown should pull his **** out and with who? Hah.

If Dia thinks your intent is to defend women she needs to read your bilge in more detail Your just another man pulling out his pecker to Brown saying your pecker is better than his.

So if I understand you saint MH,  you only pull your **** out at the appropriate time,-you never show it off-and you are in the position of commenting on Brown's pecker because you "confessed".
What a joke. What a sanctimonious attempt to justify being a holier than thou **** owner. Hah.

Yes, you are putting your **** words in my mouth.  Keep bellowing, though.  It won't change what I did.

Quote
Get real.  It will take more than a half assed ambiguous forum  confession to make you moral judge of anyone. If you can not  get that and if your disciples can't get that, be my guest start your religion-The Church of Non Showing Off **** Bearers. Knock yourselves out singing your song and turning me into your Satan. I welcome it.


I didn't judge Brown, I spoke only of the politics.  I am not turning you into the devil.  You are more like the Tasmanian Devil.

Quote
To me you are just another twisted clergy pervert posing as an authority on God's way.

You bet my constituency is different. It consists of people just like me and that young woman and Brown. We will and dolook to each other for understanding and a better way to communicate. We sure as hell do not need you and your clucking peacocks judging us before or after or during the fact.

Oh wow man that last sentence was like so weird man.

Agreed on the last sentence. 

Quote

Yah the idea I would think we all need to speak about each other's mistakes in a non judgemental way oh wow  man that's like weird. Why can't we crucify Brown right MH? Who you and your disciples crucify Brown? You-Saint MH?

You typify everything about we men and how we deal with our penises that we need to question.

Men and women, both of us for the exact same reasons, were born with the gift to make individual decisions as to how we deal with and control our bodies. I argue it should remain that way. The last thing I want is you and your perverted followers preaching to me or anyone.

Not sure why you are whirling about.  I speak to the politics and my 'smug' phrasing is simply how Brown behaved, if given a spin to illustrate how it would appear to the morally righteous.

It only took me 10 minutes to respond to this, and that's not bad.  Let's see if you come back with an even longer post claiming all the same things over and over again.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 09, 2018, 08:31:33 pm
No, nor anything to do with the subject. It had to do with me. When people decide the proper subject is me and their sanctimonious evaluation of how inferior my morality is because I disagree with them I always change the subject to them and what assholes they are.

And then, believe it or not, some of them actually get indignant and snivel about me insulting them! Can you believe how pathetic they are!?

So why not just try to rise above the insults for a more loftier discussion, even when you are refuted?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 09, 2018, 09:40:58 pm
No, nor anything to do with the subject. It had to do with me. When people decide the proper subject is me and their sanctimonious evaluation of how inferior my morality is because I disagree with them I always change the subject to them and what assholes they are.

And then, believe it or not, some of them actually get indignant and snivel about me insulting them! Can you believe how pathetic they are!?
Case in point.

I wasn’t evaluating your morality. You said you get along fine with people who disagree with you. I merely said there’s evidence to the contrary here and at MLW.

Now look at you. You’re practically tripping all over yourself trying to take shots at me, while trying to demonstrate that this isn’t what you do. It’s pretty funny actually. Your post reads like the definition of dramatic irony.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:01:33 am
  This is what MG, Omni, MH, BC Cheque and I are doing.   

And what white men are doing everywhere is invoke the systems that they are culturally invested in to make sure that their conception of justice is invoked.  That immutable principles that happen to favour them are buttressed.

So any changing of language, the idea that sexual harassment can only be pursued as a sex crime through the traditional justice system, the idea that nothing needs to change is the anthem.  They don't understand that things that don't bend will break.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:02:29 am
1. Nor would you just whip your pants down and ask some girl you just met for a blow job. 

2. And yet, that is allegedly what happened, which I call bullshit on.

I don't think he just met her and what does it matter ?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:03:05 am
Must you bring your contempt and disrespect for anyone who doesn't kowtow to your ignorant, racist, sexist and xenophobic attitudes into every **** conversation?

Then rise above.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:05:15 am
I never made any such claim, you sanctimonious moron.

Just catching up.  Lots of insults on this thread. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:06:17 am
The evidence on this forum and MLW show otherwise. You're quick to insult people who challenge you.

That might be true, but you at least someone with some intelligence and some idea of principles that you can experiment with here.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:11:26 am
. I think it could true that generally speaking, men are more wired to seek sex and for women to be the 'gate-keepers'
 

I got in a lot of trouble once for suggesting this in mixed company.  It's not a given that women are 'wired' any differently, and how much of a factor culture is in the discussion.  Don't assume that it's the former.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:19:03 am
We are not all born with the same degree of empathy or understanding for one another.

We have to avail ourselves of a new technology called "language" then.

Quote
  And again, I'm obviously generalizing.

Yes.

Quote
I also don't think anyone thinks a drunk woman is responsible for a man's bad behavior. On the other hand, I don't excuse a drunk woman for HER behavior, like so many others seem to.

I think if a drunk woman forced herself on a drunk man, with evidence, a court would have no choice but to convict her.  There's no reason to think otherwise.

Quote
Explain to me the fairness of the  law on sexual consent while intoxicated. To me it seems deeply sexist and paternalistic. Women, however drunk THEY GET THEMSELVES, have no responsibility and indeed cannot even give legal consent to sex, even if they very strongly want to. However, the guy who is equally drunk may not use his own drunkenness as any kind of a defense as to why he had sex with her enthusiastic consent. How is that in any way fair or equal? Her drunkenness means she lacks the ability to form an intelligent thought but his drunkenness is deliberately not considered? Either HUMANS are responsible for getting themselves drunk and what they do when drunk or they're not. Which is it?

I doubt that the letter of law differentiates gender in such cases.  The devil would be in the details of the case.  And as such, if you can find a case where the system failed you're talking about something else:

- System failure
- Bias of the stakeholders who are supposed to be objective
- etc.

And if those points are the topic, then you are of a group with those who decry the system's failure to prosecute the guilty as well as its failure to excuse the innocent.  And now you're talking about system design.  That's really an interestin gtopic.

Quote
Note that if a man is drunk or  takes **** and deliberately murders someone, his being high or drunk can be used as a defense.

It may be true, but it depends in my mind whether we have 1st 2nd 3rd degree sex assault.  I don't know if we do.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:20:19 am
maybe you'd like to explain the Alberta judges comments to a woman in a **** case as to why didn't she keep her legs together.

System failure.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:24:16 am
 
1. Has it ever happened that a man, waking up to realize he had drunken sex with a drunken woman starts feeling ashamed of himself, then goes to the police to report it?

2. I doubt it ever has or ever would.

3. This law is written with woman-as-victim in mind and man-as-predator. So yes it's sexist. 

1. This is a cultural artifact.  If women weren't expected to be virginal 'gatekeepers' then there would be no difference in the behaviour, right ?  Or ?

2. "Ever would." That's going to change as men become more culturally even with women, or, sorry, when the proverbial girly man takes over and the gutters are overflowing with the tears of wimps.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:29:29 am
  Not sure the legal ramifications if any, but the guy is a creep.

And hence, he's gone.  "They elected a creep as the party leader, Ma, and we all are so excited to vote for him !" said nobody at any time ever.

They don't even elect ugly people.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:39:32 am
Wow.  TEN posts in a row.  I am sure busy at work.  This looks like the topic du jour if not the topic of the year.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 08:40:12 am
I would be willing to participate in a 'confessions' thread if others would also.  I'll even go first.  This would be to show my lack of virtuosity in this topic.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 10, 2018, 10:02:38 am
I got in a lot of trouble once for suggesting this in mixed company.  It's not a given that women are 'wired' any differently, and how much of a factor culture is in the discussion.  Don't assume that it's the former.

Any social psychologist would flatly contradict you. We are bound by our instincts to a far greater degree than we really understand.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 10:30:52 am
Any social psychologist would flatly contradict you. We are bound by our instincts to a far greater degree than we really understand.

Maybe. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_desire#Theoretical_perspectives

Quote
That being said, sociocultural influences may push males and females into gender-specific roles where the use of social scripts dictating the appropriate feelings and responses to desire and activity are expected. This may lead to conflict where an individual’s wants may be unfulfilled due to the anticipated social consequences of their actions, causing frustration. Some theorists suggest that the experience of sexual desire may be socially constructed. However, some argue that although sociocultural factors are very influential over the experience of sexual desire, they don’t play a large role until after biological initially influences desire.[9] Another view is that sexual desire is neither a social construction[14] nor a biological drive.[15] According to James Giles, it is rather an existential need that is based on the sense of incompleteness that arises from the experience of being gendered.[13]

It doesn't seem to be conclusive, from that excerpt.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 10, 2018, 10:35:00 am

Perhaps you are the one not understanding the inherent harm the attitude of male=uncontrolled/female=controlled actually is to both men and women. 

Given the way in which you hurl insults on Liberal politicians, I do not believe this for a second.

And it is also on you, and other men, to refute the notion put forth by SJ that men's sexual urges are so primal, natural, biologically driven, that they cannot control themselves and will push for sex in any way they can get it. 

This is what MG, Omni, MH, BC Cheque and I are doing.   How about you take a moment and try to understand that instead of going on a rant.
While completely missing SJ's attempt to reduce the actions of a grown man down to 'animal in lust' vs. 'woman as keeper of virtue'.
And he had the "choice" to treat the woman he was with with respect; not to whip out his dick and expect a BJ or start raining kisses on a woman just because he was alone with her.  They were stupid to overdrink, I agree; but to act as if he's being unfairly accused and that his actions were in line with what a 'natural' man would do is why men keep doing those stupid things.

Was one of them not 19 at the time, and he 35?  Did she not work for him?  Was she not at a staff party, a party that moved to HIS home?  Was he not an MP at the time?  And did he not then make advances on her?  Just what is that but "power and access"?   That he stopped when she asked him to is good; that he tried at all "because men will do anything to get sex" is the problem. 

 A truly respectful, adult and controlled man would not have made any advances whatsoever.  Period.  And your support for his actions, and your support for SJ's 'natural man' argument is disgusting to me.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-resigns-ontario-pc-1.4503040

The other one was in *HIGH SCHOOL* - that means underage drinking.  A stupid decision on her part, no question and yes, she's vulnerable - and Brown, who was NOT drinking, knew it.  Again - Power and Access.   He had it, and he used it.   
https://www.cp24.com/news/women-who-accused-brown-of-misconduct-were-reluctant-to-speak-out-ctv-reporter-1.3775056

Note what McGregor says in the article cited above:   
Power and access.  Brown had it, and he used it.  And you think we should heap blame on the women, that we're being unfair to Brown.  **** that.

http://None. Zero. Yet you take a second hand news story, which is called heresay evidence, which has never been corroborated, and you react like true SA Nazi Brown shirts. Your cause is righteous and you will persecute Brown.

Why are you assuming these women are lying?   Did they not 'gatekeep' well enough?
In one case, the rest of the party also made a 'decision to go to his house'; are those decisions equally as bad, or is only her decision bad because she was the one he made moves on?   And, even if a woman does make a 'bad decision', does that mean the man gets a 'free pass' to make a pass?  Or assault her?  Or **** her?  Just where do you expect a man to behave well?
 
SJ, Kimmy and now you are so busy trying to blame the women and excuse the men in these scenarios that you are missing the point:  both men and women have a sexual drive; it is up to both men and women to ensure the other person is 'into it', and neither side has a higher responsibility to 'prevent sex' and neither side gets to say "oh, but my drive is so much stronger, I just have to do anything to get some". 
It certainly is a *religious* concept.


In regards to your first sentence which is a bit convalluted I most certainly did state that each gender has equal responsibility for their own choices they make.

In regards to my insulting Liberals it has nothing to do with the issue of this thread but now that you mention it, I think Justin Trudeau is a perfect parody with everything wrong with the Liberals and I completely and utterly hold him and the provincial and federal Liberals in contempt. I find them to be reactionary and fascist. Katheen Wynee too. Pierre Trudeau was my member of Parliament.  I voted for him. You remember him. He was in his 60's when he married a 22 year old manic-depressive women. Ask Omni and MH and the rest of the panel their moral analysis of that relationship and get back to me.

In regards to your reference as to what SJ said-I did not read his comment as saying men are not responsible for their sex urges, only that women must also see themselves as gatekeepers of their own bodies. You have a different take on what he said then I did. That's happened a few times. Its also not on me to repudiate or refute what you think he said. I don't and have have never stated I believe men are not responsible for their bodies and their choices as to how they express their sexuality.

Next, while I know you feel you have joined a round table of nights extolling the virtues of male chivalry, I disagree. I think you are sitting around a table of immature boys engaged in a competition over whose **** is more righteous.  You ALL **** on Brown questioning his morality, motives and behaviour and when the same is done back to you, lol the lot of you **** your pants. You can't handle the very treatment you hurl at Brown.

But let's now focus on this sentence of yours:

"A truly respectful, adult and controlled man would not have made any advances whatsoever.  Period."

What a crock.Respectful men and women, respectful, dignified, civil, adults, whether they be men or women have made advances when they should not have. Mistakes Dia are easy for you to morally judge. Its called hindsight. Anyone can do what you do which is to sit in a chair far removed from the actual incident in question and play should have could have. Save it.
Save that presumptious, moral hindsight for someone else. In my line of work I have seen people make many mistakes in many degrees of the behaviour you over-simplify. Save your simplistic labeling for someone else. Its not period. Its not an absolute because you say so. You are not beyond approach. Your moral view is not beyond challenge or criticism. Get off the throne.

Then you stated:

"And your support for his actions, and your support for SJ's 'natural man' argument is disgusting to me."

What disgusts you is just another way of telling me you have strong emotional reactions to what SJ writes. Oh I get that. Not my problem. You know I find what the panel of knights you have entered into righteous chorus with sing repulsively. So phacking what. They find me weird. I mean **** happens. Its all in the eye of the beholder or was that also weird to try point out is what I have been trying to repeat to you and your choir boys over and over.

Everytime Celine Dion sings I take cover. Go pay millions to see her sing. I hope she comforts you. Vote for Justin. I hope he makes you feel empowered....

but please do not project on me beliefs I have never stated I support. 

I have challenged false statements. You and your knights of shining armour or is it well placed penises are relying on heresay, second hand comments that have never been substantiated to cast judgement on Brown and assume what he did. In fact today he did respond to your assumptions as to what he did stating neither happened.I remain neutral as to what actually happened. You do not.

So don't put words in my mouth or claim I believe things I never said I believed. See on this forum it works like this. The same people that assume they know what people like me think, also claim they don't read what I write because its "too long". That is what lazy, intellectually dishonest people do. When they disagree with someone and have no idea how to repudiate it they claim they didn't read what I said or they use brilliant analysis such as "that's weird, stop it".  Excuse me if I show contempt for such responses.

In regards to your last sentence, you are again putting words in the mouths of SJ or Kimmy. I did not read anything in what they said, that suggested what you are now saying.







Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 10, 2018, 10:51:00 am
My my.  Look at the length of this post !  Not sure why you have focussed on me here, but I have some time to try and parse this response.  Lets see:

I think we have already said Brown didn't commit sexual assault.  This is about the cost of inappropriate behaviour.  The public will decide what is a private matter.

Well you modified your description of me to the former.  I have admitted inappropriate behaviour so I don't claim virtuosity in the regard of male behaviour.

That is what he did.  It says nothing about my virtuosity to describe his actions.

That's the allegation.  I am willing to hear his response.  Also I didn't say he forced them to drink. 

Yes, you are putting your **** words in my mouth.  Keep bellowing, though.  It won't change what I did.

I didn't judge Brown, I spoke only of the politics.  I am not turning you into the devil.  You are more like the Tasmanian Devil.

Agreed on the last sentence. 

Not sure why you are whirling about.  I speak to the politics and my 'smug' phrasing is simply how Brown behaved, if given a spin to illustrate how it would appear to the morally righteous.

It only took me 10 minutes to respond to this, and that's not bad.  Let's see if you come back with an even longer post claiming all the same things over and over again.

Tasmanian Devil! Lol. Weird Tasmanian devil. Ahah.

In regards to your first sentence, you've said a lot of things and of course you continue to judge Brown. Your memory as to what you said seems to be defective.  Here let me feed it back to you yet again:

"Nowhere did I "**** on brown".  I stated what he did: showed off his dick to an underaged intoxicated teenager that he got drunk."

You keep deny pissing on Brown and in the above sentence you deny pissing on him, then **** on him in the very next sentence.  Why do you deny your pissing problem? I find it hilarious. You are lecturing that Brown inappropriately flashed his dick while denying you are out of control not just flashing yours but peeing on Brown as well. Lol

Also relax. Don't hide behind the word  "we" when responding to me. If you are that frightened of me you need to turn yourself into a plural to make you sound more credible you  need to relax man. You don't need to hide in a pack for protection to debate me. Lol. 

Also may I  again kindly remind you that what you define as inappropriate behaviour or for that matter  what your round table of penises in shining armour feel about properly exposed penises means nothing to me.

As far as I am concerned you and "we" done nothing but expose your collective peckers from the moment you started responding on this thread to **** on Brown. You've been pissing away ever since and from my  vantage point you aint making that big a splash.

So I modified my description of you?  Uh no. I didn't modify anything. If you can't understand what self righteous and righteous mean I gave you the definitions. If you still have problems let me know if the splash analogy has helped.

Now can you  stop with the denials. Get real Of course  you spoke and continue to speak of your virtuousity as well as continuing to  morally judge Brown. It oozes in each word you  emit about him.  That shtick where you engaged in confessional on this forum to mount the rationalization for judging Brown-I mean that was weird.  As I understand it, you claim you can judge Brown because you have confessed and so that magically absolves you no of morally judging Brown as you continue to morally judge him. Uh yah. So you can lynch people  once you make a confessional. That's quite the religion you have.

Speaking about Tasmanian Devil  are you so sure the Satan you see in Brown is not just your own reflection projected on him ? Oh come on now. I have sat down to talk with Satan many times. Its called Self-reflection MH.  Some of us panic when we realize Satan is a self-reflection  and so we project it on to others and into detached entities trying to rid ourselves of it from within.

Was that last  reference to Tasmanian Devil for you man?

When you spend many  many years locked in rooms with violent sex offenders and abusers MH like social workers, nurses, doctors, prison guards, lawyers, police have done, we will tell you we see not just demons but pieces of ourselves in those demons and we have to learn how to sort that out MH or we end up useless. What we learned is morally judging others is just an excuse an individual uses for not coming to grips with their own inner demons. The tatoos, the steroids to make muscles, the gold teeth, the growls, the lunges, the biting, its all the acts of a frightened individual scared of their own shadow. They kill and beat and **** others because they are deathly afraid of what they see in a mirror. They think if they project it onto their victim and extinguish the victim, it goes away only it does not, it just gets stronger and bigger with each **** or kill.

Transference and counter-transference is what call it when we realize the demons in the room are reflecting back ugly reflections of ourselves and we quickly have to compartmentalize that so we can focus. Its not about  moral  judgement. See you see Brown as a bad man to crucify. He's your Satan, not mine. Satan to me exists in every life form its just one of many relative states between the polarized opposites. Moral judgement wont t contain negative energy or behaviour- it  just spreads it.  Acknowledging evil or negative behaviour is an inherent trait we all have is the first step.  The next step is by learning that evil and good begins and ends in each of us with the choices we make as individuals  as to how we will behave.

Of course we are all gatekeepers. Each one of us is the gatekeeper of our own heaven and hell so to speak. This crap where Brown is evil and needs to be punished is a crock of ****.

You think he's Satan, not me.

You cast that judgement. Pretending you didn't at this point in the thread is stupid.

People eat themselves whole not Satan.

You think Brown was inappropriate right. Get back to me when you've had to sit and listen to a mad man who eats people rant at you. Hah.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 10, 2018, 10:55:35 am
Dia you stated:

"Note what McGregor says in the article cited above:   

Power and access.  Brown had it, and he used it."

and

"Why are you assuming these women are lying?" 


The article you refer to  provides no direct first hand corroborated evidence of the above. So I unlike you do not accept it as truth until  such time as itsproven to be true.

I assume nothing.

Its you doing the assumption and engaging in your rationalization to react and join in with a lynch mob.

You choose to assume a second hand heresay article is the gospel. I don't follow gospels. You mistake me for you.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 10, 2018, 11:01:07 am
Right.  From the guy who purports to know what women in hijabs think and feel, what progressives think and what they'll do, and all about women's sexual interest.  At least I keep my "mind reading" limited to a single person and based on his own words.   Thats gotta be better than mind reading entire swaths of people about whom I know nothing other than their gender, political leanings or an item of clothing they choose to wear.

Dia go  back and read the above. Its precisely what you are doing with and to Brown.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 10, 2018, 11:06:38 am
So Brown has finally given an interview about this and given his side of the story. He refutes everything said, with some degree of believability.

A couple of things struck me about this. First, the following:

That “friend,” when contacted by Postmedia, called her version of events, that she, he and Patrick went up to the room together “false allegations.” He did go into the bedroom to charge his phone, the friend, who asked not to be identified, said, but never saw her and Patrick alone.

The friend said he told CTV the allegations were false, but that was not reported in the story.


Interesting that CTV wouldn't report the denial since it's just about the only possible witness to the events described. Another one which struck me as believable comes from Brown's girlfriend at that time. Who was there in the house. Brown incidentally, says the girl followed him into the bedroom and kissed him, not the other way around.

Patterson said she and a girlfriend noticed the young woman following Brown around at the party.

“We went back to his house and the girl was kind of following him around which annoyed me,” she said. “And then Patrick ended up driving her home… and he spent the rest of the evening with me and Katie, my girlfriend.

“There was no sign of anyone distressed, like she didn’t seem distressed or anything like that,” she said.


Again, from a person other than the two involved, which makes it sound more believable than Brown's denial.

http://nationalpost.com/news/provincial/absolute-lies-patrick-brown-refutes-sex-misconduct-allegations/wcm/d13a596f-2ee9-404e-82a8-a0448e56cdd5
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 11:25:21 am
In regards to your first sentence, you've said a lot of things. Your memory as to what you said seems to be defective.  Also don't hide behind the word  "we". If you are that frightened of me you need to turn yourself into a plural to make you sound more credible knock off the pack behaviour. You don't need to hide in a back to debate me.

We = you and me.  ie. I agree.  No assault.

Quote
What you define as inappropriate behaviour or for that matter your round table of properly exposed penises define, means nothing to me. As far as I am concerned you've done nothing but expose your collective peckers from the moment you started writing on this thread. You've been pointing ever since and from my angle you've come up very short. In fact its clear your contributions as to penises and when they should be exposed means very little.  Zip over both your heads.

Inscrutable.  Inscrotable.


Quote
Well I modified my description of you? What does that mean? Do you even know?  I didn't modify anything. You can't understand what self righteous and righteous mean. They are not different in how they were being used to describe your words. They still aren't. Modified. Right.

Agreed.  Right.

Quote
Of course spoke and continue to speak of your virtuousity and continue to morally judge Brown. It oozes in each word you  emit about him. You engaged in confessional on this forum to mount the rationalization for judging Brown. In fact you claim you can judge him because you have sinned and said you sinned. There you go. You can lynch people  once you make confessional. Good for you. That's quite the religion you have.

As predicted, you continue to chase your tail ignoring my words.

Quote

Read it back genius.

Agreed.  Genius.

Quote
Look either sit on the Pope's throne or  retire like Benedict. I suggest the latter.  Then again the current as is the case with the former Pope like you doesn't seem to want to confront his demons.

Anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Quote
You so sure the Satan you see in Brown is not just your own reflection projected on him hmmmm? Oh come on now. I have sat down to talk with Satan many times. Self reflection MH. We all do it. It clearly scares you.

Was that last one too weird for you man?

Raging senility.  Paranoid focus on me.  Inability to accept facts.

I can call Brown a "****-showing alcohol-giver" because that's what he is.  You infer judgment and moralism, well that's because you are the puritan.  I guess you are too snow-white to ever have done anything bad.  This is called 'projection' by psychiatrists.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/traversing-the-inner-terrain/201304/projection-and-identity

Quote
n the last blog we said the following, which will be a launching for what must be said next:

It’s time to consider the possibility that there is a self—a part of us that is real, unique and essentially us—which can be seen as distinct from what we’ve incorporated as identity based on others projections, rejections, actions and reactions towards us. And if that is true, how much of you is really authentic self, and how much is identity?

In following up on that, as I promised to do, we have to look at those projections, rejections, actions and reactions and how they become identity—an identity that is NOT who we actually are.

We'll start with projection. Projection is just what it sounds like. Imagine the old design of the movie projector in which the film was passed over the light, sending the image on the film to a projecting lens, which then reflected that image onto a screen.

That’s exactly how it works psychologically. Some issue has been pushed into the unconscious. But that issue has energy and is constantly looking for release from its prison in the unconscious. So, it projects it through the lenses of the eye—a convex psychological eye that can only look at the external world rather than the internal one—and the issue is suddenly seen in someone else.

The problem is that when people project their “stuff” onto us, they tend to act as if their projection has something to do with who we really are. They treat us, in other words, as if their projection were valid. And, particularly if we are vulnerable, we tend to believe that perhaps they are describing something real about us—something that we may not even be able to see.

This is when I hear clients say, “They say I’m … and I guess I am.” Particularly when these projections come from significant family members, we tend to be so vulnerable to their influence, and they tend to repeat their projective words so frequently that it becomes very difficult for us to believe that what they are saying is not true.

A father, who grew up feeling as if he could never really establish himself in comparison to his peers who got ahead rapidly while he stayed home and got soused might quite easily tell his son that “you are going to amount to a big, fat nothing.” This is clearly projection, for it is the father who feels like a nothing, but he cannot allow himself to really sit with, receive and do something about that feeling, so he just hands it over to his son. The son, having heard this several times from a father he love desperately and wants terribly to please, takes this projection on as identity and begins to act on it as if it fully describes him.

This is just one example of many regarding the business of projection, but it clearly demonstrates how we formulate a sense of ourselves from other people’s stuff. The father could just as easily need to see the son as the golden boy he never got to be.  But if the son could somehow see that this really has nothing whatsoever to do with him, but is rather all about how the father feels about himself, he would not incorporate it into his identity and would not begin to act as if it were so. But typically children cannot make those assessments.

Every now and then, however, as clinicians we run into children who somehow just know that Dad is wrong—that he’s telling them stuff that isn’t true. They may be really mad at him or even hate him. And this anger or hatred, while most would say a child should not be so angry or hate a parent, might just save the child’s life—or at least her sense of self.

But the truth is that it is not uncommon at all for parents to project their own unresolved issues onto their children without even knowing it, because projections are largely unconscious impulses. But as we become adults it is possible to look back over our childhoods and begin to see how we took on these projections—simply because by now we can see our parents clearer.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 11:28:00 am


Again, from a person other than the two involved, which makes it sound more believable than Brown's denial.
 

Yes, it calls the accusation into question.  Brown is out, though.  Too late for him.  Sad situation all around.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 10, 2018, 11:37:20 am
SJ, Kimmy and now you are so busy trying to blame the women

Blame for what, exactly? Giving a guy a hummer?  I don't think she needs to be blamed or feel embarrassed ir guilty or anything.

 -k

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 10, 2018, 11:42:42 am
Yes, it calls the accusation into question.  Brown is out, though.  Too late for him.  Sad situation all around.

So what's the remediation?

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 10, 2018, 11:43:35 am
Yes, it calls the accusation into question.  Brown is out, though.  Too late for him.  Sad situation all around.

Also, for what it's worth, reading around the net, the former intern who complained has been identified on a number of sites, including Frank, as Chelsea Nash, who is gay, a former Hill Times reporter and colleague and friend of Rachel Aiello, when she too worked on the Hill Times. Here's a picture of them together.    http://archive.li/sV66H

No one has yet identified the other girl as far as I know.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 12:03:28 pm
So what's the remediation?
 

Admonish those who didn't do their jobs well enough.  Punish those who lied.  (Shrugs)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 10, 2018, 12:04:47 pm
So we have one accusation which appears false based on factual errors in the story. An accusation that contained no allegation of wrongdoing on Brown's part. An accusation that appears to have been included only because of its salacious nature.

And a second accusation which also contains nothing approaching the level of criminal wrongdoing, which purposefully omitted statements from other individuals who were at the house that night, and focused entirely on the account of a witness who happens to be a longtime friend of the reporter.

I'm curious as to whether there's any connection between Aiello or Nash and the other accuser.

I think CTV needs to provide a statement here.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 10, 2018, 12:05:36 pm
Admonish those who didn't do their jobs well enough.  Punish those who lied.  (Shrugs)

A stern wag of the finger to CTV and the reporters involved?  I suspect Brown is going to be asking for something more substantial...

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 12:15:37 pm
A stern wag of the finger to CTV and the reporters involved?  I suspect Brown is going to be asking for something more substantial...
 

Sure.  In this atmosphere, I think ignoring substantive disagreements with an informant is tantamount to negligence and I am a little suspicious of it.  Every journalist would/should know about the Washington Posts being targeted with a fake story and sharpen their guard against such things.

But stupid happens.  I know it.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 10, 2018, 01:42:14 pm
Sure.  In this atmosphere, I think ignoring substantive disagreements with an informant is tantamount to negligence and I am a little suspicious of it.  Every journalist would/should know about the Washington Posts being targeted with a fake story and sharpen their guard against such things.

This isn't a case of a politically motivated operation trying to dupe a reporter with a fake story. This is a case of a reporter collaborating with a friend and presenting it as an objective news piece.  It raises an obvious question of bias and makes the failure to interview other people who were at Brown's house at the night of the party extremely conspicuous.  At the bare minimum the journalistic standard would be to disclose the relationship between the reporter and the witness. Most likely CTV would have assigned the story to another reporter, which makes one wonder whether Aiello told CTV anything about that.

It also raises questions about the credibility of the second account, particularly given the factual inaccuracies in her story that were reported today.

But stupid happens.  I know it.

Right now this has the appearance of malice as well as stupidity.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 10, 2018, 03:15:54 pm


Right now this has the appearance of malice as well as stupidity.
 

I can't understand why/how.  For something like this to happen that way, it must have been a hit job from a rival or somebody else up there.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 11, 2018, 12:38:39 pm
I can't understand why/how.  For something like this to happen that way, it must have been a hit job from a rival or somebody else up there.

It seems to me that this is a career-making opportunity for a reporter, just as the Aziz Ansari story was a brand-making moment for "babe.net". That might be a powerful incentive to spruce things up a bit to make for a juicier story.


I think the standards of journalism require the disclosure of a connection like that.  When the CTV runs a story about Bell Media, they disclose that Bell is their parent company, for example. Columnists make similar disclosures when they're writing about subjects they have a personal relationship with. If Aiello is friends with the feature witness in her story, failing to disclose that is a glaring omission.

So that leads to the question: does Rachel Aiello actually have a personal relationship with the feature witness in her story?


While trying to find out more on that question, I stumbled onto this article.  The Ontario PC party ended its relationship with a law firm after one of the lawyers, Joseph Villeneuve, publicly named the accuser:

Quote
He also referred to reports that the woman is a former work colleague and friend of Rachel Aiello, one of the CTV reporters, something the network denies.

“I think the public deserves to know when a reporter is in a close relationship with an anonymous source,” he said. “It doesn’t pass the smell test … Frankly, there seems to be an intentional or negligent attempt to mislead about the fact they were acquainted for years before this disclosure. Fairness dictates that a disclaimer should’ve been made.”

But Matthew Garrow, a spokesman for CTV, said the allegation that Ms. Aiello was close friends with the woman in the story is false.

“Because this woman had worked on Parliament Hill, CTV News took steps before publication and broadcast to ensure that there was no previous contact with any of our journalists that would influence our reporting of this story,” he said. “Our legal counsel participated in this process.”
http://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ontario-pcs-fire-lawyer-allied-with-patrick-brown-after-he-attacks-browns-sexual-misconduct-accuser-online

Soooo... Brown obviously knows who the anonymous accuser is.  Did Joseph Villeneuve also know who she is? Did he drop the correct name in his Facebook rant?  Probably. Villeneuve is a personal friend of Brown, and it seems likely that the law-firm working on the file for the Ontario PCs would have that information as well.  It seems likely that Villeneuve had the right name.

The next question is whether the accuser is Chelsea Nash, as Frank Magazine and others have been claiming?  Did Frank get that information from Villeneuve's Facebook posts or from other sources connected with Brown?

I did a little google-sleuthing myself and found that Chelsea Nash was indeed at the "Hockey Night in Barrie" event that the anonymous accuser said she organized for Brown. In this 2014 photo gallery, Nash is pictured in one of the photographs, holding a clipboard talking to one of the players.
https://www.simcoe.com/news-story/4760779-celebrating-hockey-night-in-barrie/
It seems more than likely that Chelsea Nash is indeed the anonymous woman in the article. It's probable that there's other information around to support that as well-- LinkedIn profiles and so on.

Did Aiello and Nash have a personal friendship?  Yes. This is easily verifiable with a bit of googling.  One can find that they were two of the four members of the "Hill Times Headliners" lawn-bowling team when they worked at the Hill Times, for example.

But CTV says this just isn't so...
Quote
But Matthew Garrow, a spokesman for CTV, said the allegation that Ms. Aiello was close friends with the woman in the story is false.

“Because this woman had worked on Parliament Hill, CTV News took steps before publication and broadcast to ensure that there was no previous contact with any of our journalists that would influence our reporting of this story,” he said. “Our legal counsel participated in this process.”

It's hard to reconcile CTV's statement with the anonymous woman being Chelsea Nash.  It seems like either everybody has it wrong and Chelsea Nash isn't the anonymous woman, or else CTV is lying about having done due diligence on a connection between the two.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 13, 2018, 11:41:13 am

Inscrutable.  Inscrotable.

Anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Raging senility.  Paranoid focus on me.  Inability to accept facts.

I can call Brown a "****-showing alcohol-giver" because that's what he is.  You infer judgment and moralism, well that's because you are the puritan.  I guess you are too snow-white to ever have done anything bad.  This is called 'projection' by psychiatrists.


In regards to your first comment I am not interested in you scrotum thanks.

In regards to my comments about religion they were not anti Catholic.The concept of Satan I referenced and you appear to continue to see in Brown is not particular to nor was it meant to challenge Catholicism. In fact people trace the Christian (not Catholic) definition of Satan to Zoroastrianism although there were a plethora of religious and philosophies referring to an evil fallen God or evil essence long before Zoroastrianism. Your attempt to slur me with a false accusation I hate Catholics was pathetic and it was a pale attempt to demonize me and use Catholics as your hate agent to hide behind. This has nothing to do with Catholicism as you are well aware just like Satan as you are well aware is a theme in numerous religions not just Catholicism.


Next, the raging senility comments, well at least they show your bull **** holier then thou smug sanctimonious cloak fell off so we can  now see the real you-a hateful, judgmental  name caller in reference to those who disagree with you or those you decree as evil.

Next, your comment and I quote: " I can call Brown a "****-showing alcohol-giver" because that's what he is."  that was a very moving argument. Full of principled reasoning and logic.

So there we have it,  Brown is a poo face cuz you said so.  Lol. Got it.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 13, 2018, 12:06:31 pm
I can't understand why/how.  For something like this to happen that way, it must have been a hit job from a rival or somebody else up there.

To understand why just read back all your posts on this thread. It doesn't take much to incite hatred and find a lynch mob.

Unfortunately there is no shortage of people  who need to hate others to give meaning and purpose to themselves.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 13, 2018, 01:01:46 pm
It seems one's ability to withstand MeToo allegations are contingent on your popularity at your work place.

TVO Host Steve Paikin has been successful in fighting off allegations from former Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Thompson.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/paikin-allegations-1.4525367

Quote
Ontario TV anchor Steve Paikin is one of the few high-profile men to publicly fight back against sexual harassment allegations, but at least one crisis management expert says the political pundit could be even more aggressive in the battle to reclaim his reputation.

Damage control specialist Randi Rahamim says Paikin did "exactly what he needs to do" by defending himself in a lengthy Facebook post in which he dismissed the claim as "complete fiction."

But if he's innocent, Rahamim says there's more the veteran journalist can do to change the headlines.

"He's one step below what he needs to do — which is if you really believe that someone's defaming you, or threatening you inappropriately, you're going to take legal action," says Rahamim, a principal at the public affairs firm Navigator.

"I would recommend that he bundle that together and be more aggressive in his response."

The host of TVO's flagship current events program The Agenda broke his silence Tuesday with an online statement in which he deemed "100 per cent false" an allegation that he propositioned a woman for sex in exchange for airtime.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 13, 2018, 01:20:25 pm
TVO Host Steve Paikin has been successful in fighting off allegations from form Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Thompson.

Thompson made allegations against Rob Ford several years ago as well. I wonder if that has influenced perceptions about Thompson.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 13, 2018, 02:07:32 pm
your bull **** holier then thou

Nope.

Quote
name caller

Scrotum hater.

Quote
those who disagree with you or those you decree as evil.

Nope.  They are A-OK.

Quote
  that was a very moving argument. Full of principled reasoning and logic.

Thanks,


Quote
So there we have it,  Brown is a poo face cuz you said so.   

I wouldn't call you righteous for calling Brown that, assuming you are also a poo face.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 13, 2018, 08:29:42 pm
It seems one's ability to withstand MeToo allegations are contingent on your popularity at your work place.

TVO Host Steve Paikin has been successful in fighting off allegations from former Toronto mayoral candidate Sarah Thompson.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/paikin-allegations-1.4525367

Robyn Urback wrote a column on the subject that makes some interesting points in regard to both Paikin and Brown.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/me-too-paikin-1.4527003

In regard to Paikin:

 -Urback writes that usually when public figures have been accused, more accusers have come forward (hence the name #MeToo...) to support the initial allegations with their own. Nothing of the sort has happened in regard to Paikin. If Paikin were the kind of guy to offer a spot on his show in exchange for sexual favors, isn't it likely that he's made the offer to women other than just Thomson? Nobody has come forward to say so. The absence of more accusers doesn't mean Thomson isn't telling the truth, but it seems odd that Thomson would be the only one he made this offer to.

 -she also says that they in the news business hear far more than gets reported.  She says that nobody in the news business was surprised when claims were made against Patrick Brown, for example.  But Urback says that no such rumors have circulated around Paikin.

In regard to Brown, her points somewhat cancel themselves out. I have also read on social media that nobody who has spent any time in bars in Barrie was surprised to hear that Brown was in the habit of trying to pick up young women.  And yet, at the same time, in spite of the highly public accusations made against him, no additional accusers have come forward.  We still only these two somewhat dubious accusers.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2018, 07:11:56 am
It comes out that the one woman who said she was underage lied about that and that one of the women were friends with the reporter.

This is some first class Bullshit.

Women should be furious that this is what this movement has turned into.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 14, 2018, 07:22:23 am
Robyn Urback wrote a column on the subject that makes some interesting points in regard to both Paikin and Brown.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/me-too-paikin-1.4527003

In regard to Paikin:

 -Urback writes that usually when public figures have been accused, more accusers have come forward (hence the name #MeToo...) to support the initial allegations with their own. Nothing of the sort has happened in regard to Paikin. If Paikin were the kind of guy to offer a spot on his show in exchange for sexual favors, isn't it likely that he's made the offer to women other than just Thomson? Nobody has come forward to say so. The absence of more accusers doesn't mean Thomson isn't telling the truth, but it seems odd that Thomson would be the only one he made this offer to.

 -she also says that they in the news business hear far more than gets reported.  She says that nobody in the news business was surprised when claims were made against Patrick Brown, for example.  But Urback says that no such rumors have circulated around Paikin.

In regard to Brown, her points somewhat cancel themselves out. I have also read on social media that nobody who has spent any time in bars in Barrie was surprised to hear that Brown was in the habit of trying to pick up young women.  And yet, at the same time, in spite of the highly public accusations made against him, no additional accusers have come forward.  We still only these two somewhat dubious accusers.

 -k
This is a genetic fallacy, the inverse of ad populum. You’re implying that the accusations are untrue because there aren’t more accusations. That conclusion does not logically follow the premise. Taken to an extreme, it’s akin to saying, “he couldn’t have murdered someone because I’ve never heard about him murdering anyone else.”
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 14, 2018, 08:05:37 am
Women should be furious that this is what this movement has turned into.

The thing is, because we are dealing with institutions that value reputation and are accountable: there IS recourse.

If this was a hit job, then we may see Brown back in cabinet again.  He's also young enough to go at the leadership another time. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 14, 2018, 08:07:51 am
This is a genetic fallacy, the inverse of ad populum. You’re implying that the accusations are untrue because there aren’t more accusations. That conclusion does not logically follow the premise. Taken to an extreme, it’s akin to saying, “he couldn’t have murdered someone because I’ve never heard about him murdering anyone else.”

Fair enough, but the rules are understandably being rewritten and one of the *new* rules says that multiple complaints will make a story reportable.  Would you have a single, uncorroborated complaint make the news ?

If so, then you are now talking about zero checks and balances, which to me is going too far the other direction from the fallacy of "innocent until proven guilty" ie. only court prosecutions should be reported.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 08:14:28 am
It comes out that the one woman who said she was underage lied about that and that one of the women were friends with the reporter.

This is some first class Bullshit.

Women should be furious that this is what this movement has turned into.

I agree that women should be furious about women who make false allegations.   On the other hand, on this story, there is no real proof that PB's claims are true either.  CTV says they did their due diligence to ensure that the reporter didn't know either of the woman.  As I understand the story, a friend of PB's takes a guess about who the woman is and based on that guess, says she and the reporter were friends. 

As for the other woman, maybe she lied deliberately, or maybe the incident happened as she said but she really was mistaken about exactly when.  I don't think its unusual for people to remember something significant, but not recall exactly how old they were at the time. 

If some people were too quick to believe the women on minimal information, then perhaps other people are too quick to denounce them on minimal evidence.   
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2018, 08:22:23 am
Would this story be as salacious if the lady admitted he was over 19?

PB's fate was sealed a mere handful of hours after the story was run. And now we're finding out that the story has holes in it. But he probably doesn't get to be leader again. He should sue both women for lost salary and reputation.

This is the problem with this movement. It moves the pendulum in the complete opposite direction and any claim is to believed even if the woman stays anonymous.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 08:48:20 am
Would this story be as salacious if the lady admitted he was over 19?

PB's fate was sealed a mere handful of hours after the story was run. And now we're finding out that the story has holes in it. But he probably doesn't get to be leader again. He should sue both women for lost salary and reputation.

This is the problem with this movement. It moves the pendulum in the complete opposite direction and any claim is to believed even if the woman stays anonymous.

I agree, there is too much of a rush for judgement.  On the other hand, it wasn't so long ago that there was no rush to judgement at all; if a woman said anything, she was ignored and predatory men could continue as they wished.   I wonder sometimes if this kind of immediate reaction against a man isn't in part a reaction to Trump having had a multitude of accusations against him and those accisations being completely dismissed. 

Although the actions of PB as described by these women still serms credible to me given his position and from what I know of male behavior generally, I think there needs to be a better way of ensuring fairness.  Women do make false allegations and men should not be penalized unfairly if they do.  On the other hand, women also tell the truth and men who take advantage of women through 'power and access' should face consequences.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 14, 2018, 09:33:16 am
Fair enough, but the rules are understandably being rewritten and one of the *new* rules says that multiple complaints will make a story reportable.  Would you have a single, uncorroborated complaint make the news ?

If so, then you are now talking about zero checks and balances, which to me is going too far the other direction from the fallacy of "innocent until proven guilty" ie. only court prosecutions should be reported.
I’m not particularly interested in aspects of reportability. I’m more concerned with the shifting norms that are dissolving the code of silence that victims had been socially regulated into adopting.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 14, 2018, 09:39:55 am
Fair enough, but the rules are understandably being rewritten and one of the *new* rules says that multiple complaints will make a story reportable.  Would you have a single, uncorroborated complaint make the news ?

If so, then you are now talking about zero checks and balances, which to me is going too far the other direction from the fallacy of "innocent until proven guilty" ie. only court prosecutions should be reported.
Since you brought it up though, it’s reportable because he’s visible.

Consequently, the media has a responsibility not to report “single, uncorroborated complaints.” They should be doing their diligence, instead of cashing in on a cultural moment. However, that’s the consequence of media being structured by a capitalist economy. What we see, hear, and read are a function of a rationality driven by profit motive.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 09:44:29 am
I agree that women should be furious about women who make false allegations.   On the other hand, on this story, there is no real proof that PB's claims are true either.  CTV says they did their due diligence to ensure that the reporter didn't know either of the woman. As I understand the story, a friend of PB's takes a guess about who the woman is and based on that guess, says she and the reporter were friends. 

In his response to the accusations last weekend, Brown repeated the earlier claim that the reporter and the accuser know each other.

Clearly Patrick Brown himself knows who the accuser is. Her explanation of her role at the constituency office, how they met, and so on, means there couldn't be two women who meet the description.  Brown's friends would probably know as well. Certainly those who were at the party that night would know who she is. It's not top secret information... it was a constituency office, not a CIA black site. And if you look at my own detective work on the previous page, you can see that the woman named Frank Magazine seems likely.

So it makes you wonder if CTV actually did any research on the relationship between the reporter and the witness, or if they got caught with their pants down and are making the claim that they did their homework as a matter of legal butt-covering.

As for the other woman, maybe she lied deliberately, or maybe the incident happened as she said but she really was mistaken about exactly when.  I don't think its unusual for people to remember something significant, but not recall exactly how old they were at the time. 

Two things about that.  First off, getting significant details wrong-- be it the house they were actually in, or the time of year it happened, brings the whole account into question. And secondly, her age at the time and her being still in highschool is one of the factors that fueled the indignation over the story. Finding out that she had already graduated and might not have even been 18 when this actually happened changes the complexion of the story somewhat.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 09:49:20 am
This is a genetic fallacy, the inverse of ad populum. You’re implying that the accusations are untrue because there aren’t more accusations. That conclusion does not logically follow the premise. Taken to an extreme, it’s akin to saying, “he couldn’t have murdered someone because I’ve never heard about him murdering anyone else.”

I'm not presenting it as an iron-clad proof.  Urback makes the case in her own article.  There could be other women who haven't come forward. It could be that Thomson is the one and only person Paikin has ever tried that move on.  Both of these things are possible.  Robyn Urback argues that this just doesn't fit the pattern.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 09:54:01 am
Women should be furious that this is what this movement has turned into.

I am getting there.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 14, 2018, 10:32:09 am
I’m not particularly interested in aspects of reportability. I’m more concerned with the shifting norms that are dissolving the code of silence that victims had been socially regulated into adopting.

Sure.  And reporting norms are integral to that change, right ?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 14, 2018, 10:33:42 am
  However, that’s the consequence of media being structured by a capitalist economy. What we see, hear, and read are a function of a rationality driven by profit motive.

That is yet to be determined.  What happened with Brown could have been:

1) True, accurate, timely reporting
2) An opportunist springing a trap
3) Profit motive

We may never know.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2018, 10:35:49 am
If it's true that one of the accused is friends of the reporter, this story should have never run. Shame on CTV.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 14, 2018, 10:44:24 am
That is yet to be determined.  What happened with Brown could have been:

1) True, accurate, timely reporting
2) An opportunist springing a trap
3) Profit motive

We may never know.
I based my response on your premise of “single, unsubstantiated claims.”
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2018, 11:08:03 am
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-accusers-stand-by-allegations-1.3802657

Quote
The comments made about me on social media were demeaning, victim-blaming and misogynistic. My privacy was invaded, my character was assassinated, and I was subjected to gratuitous slurs about my private life and relationships. The comments that I have been subjected to ignore altogether the abuse of power by an older sober man over a young intoxicated woman," she said.
She now says that she was of legal drinking age and out of high school. Brown was a Conservative member of Parliament at the time of the alleged incident.
It has been a painful ordeal, her lawyer David Butt said.
"Just the backlash, the misogyny, the hatred, the online trolling of false, demeaning and very hurtful things has really taken a toll," he told CTV News in an interview.
In a statement addressing the first accuser’s timeline, Butt said: "These are the sorts of collateral details that inevitably fade over time… These sorts of issues arise routinely in historical cases and cannot be blamed on survivors, because coming forward is such a difficult act for which it often takes years to gather the strength and courage."

You can't expect people to have all the facts correct when trying to ruin a man's life 10 years after the fact. . . because doing so is really hard.  ::)

We see with Gian Ghomeshi that even though you can poke holes in an accusers claim, your life still gets ruined.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 14, 2018, 11:11:57 am
. And if you look at my own detective work on the previous page, you can see that the woman named Frank Magazine seems likely.-
Although I have the greatest respect for your acumen generally, I was not impressed with this particular display.  It seemed to me you started with an assumption that the woman named was correct and went on from there to "prove" it. 

Quote
So it makes you wonder if CTV actually did any research on the relationship between the reporter and the witness, or if they got caught with their pants down and are making the claim that they did their homework as a matter of legal butt-covering.

Of course that is the question, but it seems to me CTV has more to lose by not doing their due diligence in terms of ensuring the women and their reporter were at arms length than PB and friends have by claiming they didn't.  Where CTV definitely failed was in not corrobating dates; surely they could and should have confirmed that PB lived in the house at the time the incident was said to have happened.

Quote
Two things about that.  First off, getting significant details wrong-- be it the house they were actually in, or the time of year it happened, brings the whole account into question.

And secondly, her age at the time and her being still in highschool is one of the factors that fueled the indignation over the story. Finding out that she had already graduated and might not have even been 18 when this actually happened changes the complexion of the story somewhat.
I disagree that getting one's age slightly wrong, and what time of year are terribly significant details after a decade; people's memories are a lot more fallible than most of us think.  It is true that still in high school is more dramatic story, but when it comes down to it, if he's 35 and in a position of power when he behaves inappropriately, does it matter if she's 18 or 19 or even 20?

It seems to me there's a willingness here to give him the benefit of the doubt that wasn't accorded these women even before PB's denials. 

On the other hand, if it can be shown conclusively that these women lied and that CTV was complicit, then I agree thay PB should take them to court and they should have to pay for ruining his career.   At this point, I don't think there's enough proof for that. 

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 14, 2018, 11:53:33 am
I based my response on your premise of “single, unsubstantiated claims.”

Ok.  So the Paikin case...

That seems like a real anomaly.  Did Sarah Thompson go public first ?  Curious.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 14, 2018, 02:02:30 pm
Nope.

Scrotum hater.

Nope.  They are A-OK.

Thanks,


I wouldn't call you righteous for calling Brown that, assuming you are also a poo face.



Hah!

All that said and finally MH said something funny, Brown has now hired a private dick to investigate the allegations.

The irony continues.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 14, 2018, 02:10:01 pm

The irony continues.

And the intrigue.  I'm starting to think that he's innocent.  Nobody guilty protests that much unless they're crazy.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Goddess on February 14, 2018, 02:17:17 pm
And the intrigue.  I'm starting to think that he's innocent.  Nobody guilty protests that much unless they're crazy.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/brown-challenges-accusers-to-press-charges/ar-BBJ8wV9?li=AAggNb9

Yup.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 14, 2018, 02:21:36 pm
Press charges ?  That was never part of it was it ?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 14, 2018, 02:41:52 pm
And the intrigue.  I'm starting to think that he's innocent.  Nobody guilty protests that much unless they're crazy.

In most of these cases its somewhere in between. Neither of them is "lying". People's interpretations of events are fluid and of course subjective and memory as
you probably are aware is at best inaccurate. We remember about 30% of an actual incident, then the remaining 70% we add on later. Its like a dream. When you wake up
you remember fragmented pieces of the dream then fill in the rest to have it make sense. We do that. We remember bits and pieces in our short term memory. Then when we transfer that short term memory into our long term memory we fill in the missing pieces. We don't know we do that. Its an automatic thing. Now when we lie deliberately the lie will be much more elaborate with conflicting time lines not the same time line.

Anyways a true pathological liar no one  can catch. Innocent lying as I call it everyone does and its why on cross examination we lawyers look like geniuses making people seem mistaken. The tough thing is when as a therapist you sit down and try wade through fact and fiction.  That line often never exists.

I think in this case its a matter of some young women looking for attention and either mad at Brown for treating them coldly and not as civilly as they would have wanted (common with fans) and Brown being socially inept or very poor in inter-personal skills. Neither side are liars. Both sides have equal reason to feel poorly treated.

Its very dangerous being publically known. It attracts people to you for "fan" behaviour. Fans usually place unrealistic projected thoughts and responses on to the target of their idolization and when its not returned they can get quite angry. We have seen that with stalkers and fans killing idols.

I think Brown may have been inept but the question remains whether he was deliberately abusive. One he can learn from to be more sensitive, the other well it would deal with possible criminal behaviour making it far more complex to deal with. The question asked of people with sexual behaviour is whether it was deliberate and pre-meditated or not. That's the starting point as well as whether it was physically violent or not.

The combination of physical violence with deliberate premeditated behaviour is the most serious followed by deliberate premeditated behaviour and non physical but abusive behaviour. Those are your no.1 and 2 in priority when dealing with sexual allegations.

If its as a result of non violent mutual communication errors, the preferred course of action is to deal with each party distinctly and privately and suprisingly they do not need to apologize to each other. They in fact  need to be taught to understand what triggered their behaviour, what better ways there are to deal with the triggers and their behaviour and to forgive or apologize to themselves when they come to grips with what they could have done better.

The personality profile of Patrick Brown would suggest someone who had little social exposure to women in his formative years due to a speech impediment and so as he became an adult and now wore suits and compensated for those lonely years he would have been emotionally delayed in terms of dating and dealing with women. Certainly his hair cut suggested  he was delayed in emotional development as was his
closeness to his sister which is not a bad thing but would suggest a shyness he needed help with and leaned on his sister for. Her seeing him as a perfect gentle boy would seem to show a protection imperative she learned to shield him from ridicule for his speech impediment.

I do think it was possible Brown missed signals,  but to say he was a deliberate in sexual assault would not suit his profile. He has compensated for his insecurities by learning to speak eloquently and confronting directly his weakness and discussing it openly. That is something admirable. So people like that don't as a general rule act violently. Violence is as a general rule  the expression of someone who has not compensated or been able to come to grips with a fear or unresolved issue which is not Brown's profile.

Everything I say of course is psychological speculation and only meant as conversation and to say neither side should be turned into a villain.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 14, 2018, 02:46:58 pm
Press charges ?  That was never part of it was it ?

That won't happen.  That's the language of a professional reputation damage control public relations person. Its supposed to act as a deterrent to anyone saying
anything else. No lawyer would give such advise. You can't restrict someone's freedom of speech. If anything you could sue them for slander (oral) or libel(in writing) comments
but no there would be no criminal charges. Sounds like his damage control team is trying to intimidate the two complainants and will soon be curtailed by his lawyer. They clearlyu don't appear to be on the same page at this point.

In fact  as his lawyer I would say who cares Pat shut up and do not say anything and the more they say the better it will be as they will trip themselves up in inconsistencies so just stay quiet and do not react..

If he's done  nothing wrong he must travel the high ground. If he sounds  angry and lashing out its bad. His lawyer will tell him and his pr team to shut up. They have to tell Brown to dettach from the issues because like you say the public if they see him unusually angry seeking revenge won't see him anymore as the underdog but an abusive angry man.

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2018, 03:37:00 pm
The personality profile of Patrick Brown would suggest...

Ok, you are getting way to deep for me. The simple point is Brown was in his 30s, and coming onto teenagers. We may not know all the details after this long a time, and he may have not committed a crime. The point is was his behavior appropriate for someone we look up to as a leader?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2018, 04:31:00 pm
Ok, you are getting way to deep for me. The simple point is Brown was in his 30s, and coming onto teenagers. We may not know all the details after this long a time, and he may have not committed a crime. The point is was his behavior appropriate for someone we look up to as a leader?

You know who JTs father was right? You think he didn't try to get laid?

The MeToo movement now has retroactively made people who tried to get laid sex criminals?

Imagine if a woman was judged by dating an older man. Would that be acceptable?

Brown has released a forceful statement saying that the women should report to police if they feel they've been wrong. He's not **** around.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-blasts-ctv-news-1.4535358

Quote
CTV News fabricated a malicious and false report about me from two anonymous accusers. After a long three weeks, CTV News has now admitted that it got it wrong.
Initially, the reporter (and I use that term very loosely) claimed my first accuser was a high school student under legal drinking age. Running scared over its lousy reporting, CTV News now says my accuser was out of high school at the time and was of legal drinking age. Clearly concerned about the backlash it has been receiving as a result of its biased and false reporting, CTV News is trying to change its story and claims the incident happened one year later. The significance of this changed story is monumental.
Not even having the decency to come clean and admit that they recklessly published a poorly researched report, CTV is burying this new fact, hiding it in the middle of an online story. In fact, CTV is doubling down on its terrible reporting, digging a deeper hole for itself, by featuring more of my accuser’s lies.
I can also tell you that CTV News did not disclose last night that their reporter, Glen McGregor, called an acquaintance of mine yesterday to ask him if he had driven my first accuser to my home - a claim that was made by her. He categorically told CTV that this was completely untrue.
I thought surely, CTV News would report on my acquaintance‘s evidence. I was wrong. CTV chose not to report the truth because the facts contradict their phony, made up narrative.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2018, 05:17:05 pm
You know who JTs father was right? You think he didn't try to get laid?

Fidel Castro... yabut, hot weather and 'Latin influences' are contributing factors!
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 14, 2018, 05:19:10 pm
The MeToo movement now has retroactively made people who tried to get laid sex criminals?

both women/accusers reiterate their claims against Mr. Brown

Quote
"By daring my client to go to the police, Mr. Brown destroys the credibility of his self-proclaimed support for women who have suffered sexual mistreatment," he said in a statement.

"No one with a contemporary understanding of the dynamics of sexual victimization and its aftermath would be so insensitive and patriarchal as to try to dictate to a survivor what her healing path should be, much less goad her."
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 14, 2018, 06:50:57 pm
Quote
By daring my client to go to the police, Mr. Brown destroys the credibility of his self-proclaimed support for women who have suffered sexual mistreatment," he said in a statement.

"No one with a contemporary understanding of the dynamics of sexual victimization and its aftermath would be so insensitive and patriarchal as to try to dictate to a survivor what her healing path should be, much less goad her."

Ahh so fighting back only perpetuates the abuse. He should just take his ruined life quietly and politely. I imagine a defamation lawsuit would be much worse for these victims. If a crime had been committed they should back up those claims in court. But no crime was committed.

Who cares of the accusers lied about the more salacious parts of the story. Who cares one of the accusers was friends with the reporter. We should just accept the narrative and not ask any further questions.


Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 14, 2018, 08:05:11 pm
Ahh so fighting back only perpetuates the abuse. He should just take his ruined life quietly and politely. I imagine a defamation lawsuit would be much worse for these victims. If a crime had been committed they should back up those claims in court. But no crime was committed.

Who claimed a crime was committed?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on February 14, 2018, 08:11:33 pm
Who claimed a crime was committed?
What Brown likely wants is the "victims" to explicitly state that they are not accusing him of any crimes. This is a reasonable expectation and would serve to reduce the damages they would be assessed in any defamation lawsuit. If they refuse to do that they further undermine their credibility and increase the potential damages.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 08:51:37 pm
The simple point is Brown was in his 30s, and coming onto teenagers. We may not know all the details after this long a time, and he may have not committed a crime. The point is was his behavior appropriate for someone we look up to as a leader?

The earlier incident, the 2007 incident, occurred when Brown was 28 and the "victim" was 19.  The (updated) facts according to the "victim" are that she went to a bar, met a guy, had drinks, went home with him, and gave him a consensual hummer.

He wasn't a leader, an MP, or any of that at the time. She didn't work for him.  So why in the blue hell was the first woman's story in the news in the first place?

"Woman, 19, gets drunk and has consensual oral sex, feels regret later" isn't a news story. She shouldn't feel bad. We all probably did something stupid involving alcohol and/or sex when we were 19. But it's not a news story.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 14, 2018, 09:57:18 pm
Although I have the greatest respect for your acumen generally, I was not impressed with this particular display.  It seemed to me you started with an assumption that the woman named was correct and went on from there to "prove" it. 

I started with a hypothesis-- that Frank Magazine named the correct woman-- and set out to test that hypothesis. That's a completely valid line of inquiry.

I found some circumstantial evidence in favor of the theory, and nothing that discredits it. I think Chelsea Nash being at the "Hockey Night In Barrie" event that the anonymous accuser said she organized for Brown is certainly persuasive. It's not proof, but if it's not her then it must be an awfully small world.

The media are not reporting either woman's identity (and for good reason, I believe.)   But remember that people know. Brown knows, his friends know, probably a lot of gossip and rumors are going around Barrie from people who know. Remember that the one accuser who changed her story now says she has been receiving harassment and threats about the story, so her name is out there as well.

Of course that is the question, but it seems to me CTV has more to lose by not doing their due diligence in terms of ensuring the women and their reporter were at arms length than PB and friends have by claiming they didn't.  Where CTV definitely failed was in not corrobating dates; surely they could and should have confirmed that PB lived in the house at the time the incident was said to have happened.

I think whether CTV did or didn't do any research, they have to say they did their research before going to press, because to say otherwise would be to admit liability in the inevitable lawsuit.

I disagree that getting one's age slightly wrong, and what time of year are terribly significant details after a decade; people's memories are a lot more fallible than most of us think.  It is true that still in high school is more dramatic story, but when it comes down to it, if he's 35 and in a position of power when he behaves inappropriately, does it matter if she's 18 or 19 or even 20?

A reminder that the girl who claimed to have been underage drinking was the 2007 incident, which was when Brown was 28, not 35, and not in a position of power over her or anybody else.

And I say "bullshit!" to the claim that it doesn't change the story. Look back earlier in the thread and see how many of the indignant outcries about Brown feature variations on "she was in HIGHSCHOOL!" or "she was UNDERAGE!"  "He was pouring drinks down the throat of an UNDERAGE HIGHSCHOOL GIRL!" "HE SHOWED HIS **** TO A HIGHSCHOOL GIRL!!!!"  I think it's clear and obvious that "underage" and "highschool" added a lot of fuel to the fire.

I think that every time I pointed out that nothing Brown was accused of actually rose to the level of wrongdoing, I was shouted down with some variation of "Underage!!!" "Highschool!!!" "Alcohol!" and "Weiner!"  Well, she wasn't underage, she wasn't in highschool, and if a 19 year old wants to drink alcohol and snack on weiners, she is free to do so.

It seems to me there's a willingness here to give him the benefit of the doubt that wasn't accorded these women even before PB's denials. 

And I say "bullshit!" to this as well. These women weren't given the benefit of the doubt?  Their word was taken as gospel until one of them got caught in a lie and the claim was made that the other is a friend of one of the reporters.

Brown, on the other hand, was deemed guilty from day 1.

On the other hand, if it can be shown conclusively that these women lied and that CTV was complicit, then I agree thay PB should take them to court and they should have to pay for ruining his career.   At this point, I don't think there's enough proof for that.

Obviously there's no proof of anything yet. But right now we're certainly at a point where CTV's story is facing some questions and they will be called on to address the questions about their reporting.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 15, 2018, 05:32:16 am
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/provincial/key-accusation-against-patrick-brown-false-ctv-now-admits/wcm/b0fc3b8d-f7db-4b30-a808-50ed71b6371e

CTV now says she wasn't underage.  Oops.  Somebody is going to wear this and it is starting to look like it will be CTV.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 15, 2018, 06:21:01 am
And... the issue is now framed as the women saying he made "unwanted sexual advances". 

The changing morality is that THAT alone is considered inappropriate.  Perhaps they have a case if he did it repeatedly, but these stories don't seem to be direct evidence of that.  And the question in these cases (which came from the Aziz Ansari case also) is: shouldn't we expect them to say 'no' once ?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 08:12:19 am
Unwanted sexual advances is such a weird term. You didn't want those advances. Great. Whatever. The term should be inappropriate sexual advances because the appropriateness of the encounter is within the accused person's control when it is not. Then it becomes a question of whether or not a reasonable person would find the context of the advances inappropriate (e.g., large age difference, social power differences). Unwanted presumes the accused person has access to another person's inner thoughts and ideas when they do not. You could elevate inappropriate to unwanted only if she makes clear that the advances are unwanted and he continues to act upon them. In that case, unwanted is still a strange term, as it's a euphemism for harassment. When someone makes it plainly obvious they're not interested and you continue to push yourself on them, it's harassment.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 15, 2018, 08:16:38 am
Unwanted sexual advances is such a weird term. You didn't want those advances. Great. Whatever. The term should be inappropriate sexual advances because the appropriateness of the encounter is within the accused person's control when it is not. Then it becomes a question of whether or not a reasonable person would find the context of the advances inappropriate (e.g., large age difference, social power differences). Unwanted presumes the accused person has access to another person's inner thoughts and ideas when they do not. You could elevate inappropriate to unwanted only if she makes clear that the advances are unwanted and he continues to act upon them. In that case, unwanted is still a strange term, as it's a euphemism for harassment. When someone makes it plainly obvious they're not interested and you continue to push yourself on them, it's harassment.

Especially when you find out 10 years later that they were unwanted.

Go to any dance club anywhere on Earth and you'll see unwanted sexual advances. Are we in a world now where these advances now cost people their jobs?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 08:29:52 am
Especially when you find out 10 years later that they were unwanted.

Go to any dance club anywhere on Earth and you'll see unwanted sexual advances. Are we in a world now where these advances now cost people their jobs?
When you're a politician, the public's perception of you is very important. Your public image becomes a banner for the values of the people who vote for you. It doesn't matter whether you are a sleezebag who preys on younger women, it matters whether or not the voters see you as that.

This goes for others with public images as part of their roles in their professions.

Now for someone who doesn't have a public image, if the things they do are bad enough that they're thrown into the public spotlight then their public image may include an identity as an employee of a particular place, even though it doesn't have to. The employee's public image then becomes the corporate image. See for example that fire fighter situation on Twitter a few years back. I don't remember the details. His job wasn't in the public, but when the story of his poor behaviour broke it put him in the public. His image, which until then was private, was tied to his job as a firefighter. When his image became public, that fire department was tied to his image and his poor behaviour was transitively tied to the fire department.

The media has a tremendous responsibility, as MH alluded to previously, to report responsibly. They shouldn't just be publishing everything that comes across their desks in the interest of "free speech." The fact that people's images become public through the process of reporting on their behaviours is a consequence that journalists shouldn't take lightly. The person they're reporting on can suffer fallout from it.

I wouldn't worry about Patrick Brown though. Losing his place as leader of the PC's is hardly going to affect his life opportunities. He'll transition into some other kind of job pretty easily, I imagine.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 15, 2018, 08:33:25 am
I wouldn't worry about Patrick Brown though. Losing his place as leader of the PC's is hardly going to affect his life opportunities. He'll transition into some other kind of job pretty easily, I imagine.

I think being Premiere was his dream though. And it seems he's being railroaded. This case is also an interesting case study on this movement. What happens when a man fights back? What happens if he sues his accusers?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 15, 2018, 08:38:53 am
I think being Premiere was his dream though. And it seems he's being railroaded. This case is also an interesting case study on this movement. What happens when a man fights back? What happens if he sues his accusers?

I think he should.  I am not convinced these women are lying, but I do think that at the very least there needs to be more accountability when it comes to making accusations that destroy people's careers or lives.  And if it ultimately turns.out.thay these women were persuaded to make these accusations at the behest of his political rivals, those people should have to face consequences as well. 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2018, 09:17:00 am
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/provincial/key-accusation-against-patrick-brown-false-ctv-now-admits/wcm/b0fc3b8d-f7db-4b30-a808-50ed71b6371e
CTV now says she wasn't underage.  Oops.  Somebody is going to wear this and it is starting to look like it will be CTV.

Sure, could you point out where they previously claimed she was underage?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 15, 2018, 09:27:28 am
Sure, could you point out where they previously claimed she was underage?

The claim that she was drinking underage and was 18 at the time of the incident was made prominently in CTV's original story.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 15, 2018, 09:31:21 am
https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/01/24/pc-leader-patrick-brown-holds-late-night-press-conference-to-deny-allegations-of-sexual-misconduct.html

Quote
The alleged incident occurred over 10 years ago. At the time, Brown was a politician in Barrie. The student met him at a bar with a mutual friend. She was under Ontario’s legal drinking age at the time. Brown, a teetotaller, wasn’t drinking but invited both back to his home, the woman told CTV.

This was the narrative when the story broke. Don't change the narrative now that we find out it wasn't true.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 15, 2018, 09:37:57 am
Perhaps we should pick a board to argue this  :P ;)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2018, 09:53:46 am
The claim that she was drinking underage and was 18 at the time of the incident was made prominently in CTV's original story.

My bad, I was confusing age of consent with legal drinking age.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 15, 2018, 09:55:34 am
The Age of consent in Canada is like 14. We'd be talking Stat **** if that was the case.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 15, 2018, 09:57:28 am
The Age of consent in Canada is like 14. We'd be talking Stat **** if that was the case.

I hope you are not doing it with any 14 or 15 year old(s), or you are in for some legal trouble.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: cybercoma on February 15, 2018, 10:00:27 am
The Age of consent in Canada is like 14. We'd be talking Stat **** if that was the case.
Conservatives raised it to 16; if you're in a position of authority, then 18. It used to be 18 for gay men as well, but I'm not sure if that was changed by the Liberals recently.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 15, 2018, 10:44:39 am
Sure, could you point out where they previously claimed she was underage?

Pretty sure they did.  Why else would they be correcting it ?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 15, 2018, 12:31:42 pm
The earlier incident, the 2007 incident, occurred when Brown was 28 and the "victim" was 19.  The (updated) facts according to the "victim" are that she went to a bar, met a guy, had drinks, went home with him, and gave him a consensual hummer.

He wasn't a leader, an MP, or any of that at the time. She didn't work for him.  So why in the blue hell was the first woman's story in the news in the first place?

"Woman, 19, gets drunk and has consensual oral sex, feels regret later" isn't a news story. She shouldn't feel bad. We all probably did something stupid involving alcohol and/or sex when we were 19. But it's not a news story.

 -k

Because the reporter needed a second person to validate the first one, her girlfriend's claim. Note that according to Brown's girlfriend at that time, WHO WAS IN THE HOUSE, it was the girl who followed Brown around to the point it was annoying her. Brown says the girl came onto him and he rejected her and then drove her home.

The second one's statement is now contradicted by the friend of Brown she alleges she accompanied to his bedroom with. That man now says he never went to Brown's bedroom that night except to charge his phone, and that he never accompanied Brown or the woman there or saw either of them there at any point.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 15, 2018, 03:35:26 pm
What Brown likely wants is the "victims" to explicitly state that they are not accusing him of any crimes. This is a reasonable expectation and would serve to reduce the damages they would be assessed in any defamation lawsuit. If they refuse to do that they further undermine their credibility and increase the potential damages.

His latest comments seem to make that clear for sure. He challenged the complainants to press police charges if they believe he acted criminally. To my relief he has not taken an approach to sue them, just CTV. I was worried he was so angry he would try sue the complainants as well which would not help.   To salvage his reputation he must rise above seeking revenge on the complainants. As for CTV I think they are pathetic. Just my opinion but I think he can come out of this damage if he treats the issue as a genuine misunderstanding which he learns from and rises above lashing out at the complainants. He has to stay away from what appears to be abusive responses to them in this damn theatre of politics. Whether he goes after CTV is another story. Both CTV and CBC have become trash outlets of gossip.  I hate them both for their biases and lack of journalistic integrity these days. I miss Rex Murphy and Gwynne Dyer.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Rue on February 15, 2018, 03:47:37 pm
The Age of consent in Canada is like 14. We'd be talking Stat **** if that was the case.

It works like this:

1-any sex without the consent of a partner is sexual assault and a crime
2-as a  general rule he age of consent to sexual activity is 16 years BUT in situations where the 16-18 year old is having sex with someone in a position of trust, authority or dependence, it could be considered statutory **** until they are 18, and after 18 it might not be considered a sexual assault if there was consent, but there could be other criminal charges dealing with possibly fraud;
3-a  14 or 15 year old can consent to sexual activity as long as the partner is less than five years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person. (this means  if the partner is 5 years or older than the 14 or 15 year old, any sexual activity is a criminal offence)
4-then there is the legal rule or doctrine of  "close in age" exception for 12 and 13 year olds and it works like this-believe it or not a  12 or 13 year old can consent to sexual activity with a partner as long as the partner is less than two years older and there is no relationship of trust, authority or dependency or any other exploitation of the young person (which means that if the partner is 2 years or older than the 12 or 13 year old, any sexual activity would be a criminal offence).

So some of your detractors have it wrong and they can go to: http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html.

A lot of people don't know all of the above. You clearly seem to have known so I thought I should clarify on your behalf.

In other words, a person must be at least 12 years old to be able to legally agree to sexual activity.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 15, 2018, 09:10:58 pm
OH BY THE WAY we now have confirmation that the accuser and Aiello were coworkers at the Hill Times:
Quote
Since CTV exposed the allegations, Brown has questioned the news organization’s reporting and whether the outlet failed to disclose that one of the women accusing Brown of sexual misconduct and Rachel Aiello, one of the CTV journalists who reported on the story, worked together at the Hill Times, shared at least one journalistic byline and were seen at events together.

“They were colleagues and co-workers, but I don’t know if they were or are real ‘friends,’ said Hill Times editor Kate Malloy.

edit to add: https://globalnews.ca/news/4025367/patrick-brown-allegations-fabricated-political-assassination/

That directly contradicts CTV's claim that there was no connection between the reporter and the accuser.


 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 16, 2018, 09:12:47 am
I saw part of a Global interview with Patrick Brown.  He's vehement and believable.  But there was an odd moment when he said he did not voluntarily resign; the interviewer seemed genuinely surprised by this and confirmed it with him twice.   But it seems several people who were at the discussion with Brown said he did resign voluntarily.  Perhaps its only PB who tells the truth ever.

   
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 09:21:30 am
I saw part of a Global interview with Patrick Brown.  He's vehement and believable.  But there was an odd moment when he said he did not voluntarily resign; the interviewer seemed genuinely surprised by this and confirmed it with him twice.   But it seems several people who were at the discussion with Brown said he did resign voluntarily.  Perhaps its only PB who tells the truth ever.

The Star have a recording of him on with Tory MPPs saying: “Despite the fact that this is character assassination and false allegations, I don’t want any of us to set back on our mission to defeat Kathleen Wynne ... I want nothing more than to see you all successful in replacing this corrupt government. When you work 20 hours a day like I do on defeating this government I would never want to be an obstacle to you defeating this government ... I’ve asked (director of communications) Rebecca (Thompson) to prepare a statement that I will resign.

It sounds like he is losing it.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Goddess on February 16, 2018, 10:10:41 am
The Star have a recording of him on with Tory MPPs saying: “Despite the fact that this is character assassination and false allegations, I don’t want any of us to set back on our mission to defeat Kathleen Wynne ... I want nothing more than to see you all successful in replacing this corrupt government. When you work 20 hours a day like I do on defeating this government I would never want to be an obstacle to you defeating this government ... I’ve asked (director of communications) Rebecca (Thompson) to prepare a statement that I will resign.

It sounds like he is losing it.

Sounds to me more like a "voluntarynotvoluntary" kind of thing.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on February 16, 2018, 10:12:29 am
The Star have a recording of him on with Tory MPPs saying: “Despite the fact that this is character assassination and false allegations, I don’t want any of us to set back on our mission to defeat Kathleen Wynne ... I want nothing more than to see you all successful in replacing this corrupt government. When you work 20 hours a day like I do on defeating this government I would never want to be an obstacle to you defeating this government ... I’ve asked (director of communications) Rebecca (Thompson) to prepare a statement that I will resign.

It sounds like he is losing it.

Didn't he say that he was prepared to resign, hence the request for the statement, but that the release of the statement was done without his knowledge or permission?

Perhaps it was the result of a minor miscommunication.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 10:23:14 am
Didn't he say that he was prepared to resign, hence the request for the statement, but that the release of the statement was done without his knowledge or permission?

Perhaps it was the result of a minor miscommunication.

As Goddess says it was involuntary voluntary, but regardless he did say the words. I wouldn't say it was a 'minor' miscommunication, that sounds fairly major to me. The point is however he made it clear that he was resigning. Perhaps it was in the heat of the moment, and the next day he refused to sign the letter prepared, but that doesn't change the fact he resigned.

If he can't be clear about what happened in the heat of the moment 2-3 weeks ago, how can we trust his memory on the heat of the moment (in the room with a young girl certainly involves a lot of heat) from 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on February 16, 2018, 10:30:24 am
As Goddess says it was involuntary voluntary, but regardless he did say the words. I wouldn't say it was a 'minor' miscommunication, that sounds fairly major to me. The point is however he made it clear that he was resigning. Perhaps it was in the heat of the moment, and the next day he refused to sign the letter prepared, but that doesn't change the fact he resigned.

If he can't be clear about what happened in the heat of the moment 2-3 weeks ago, how can we trust his memory on the heat of the moment (in the room with a young girl certainly involves a lot of heat) from 10 years ago.

Like dia I only saw part of the interview, and I was doing something else, but also like her, that part stood out for me.  My take was that he was prepared to resign, but didn't lower the boom himself.  So he says, of course.

As to your last assertion, I have no opinion, not having followed the story anywhere but on here and the "other site" really.  If he is innocent I do hope he follows through on his threat to sue, and I hope he takes CTV for millions.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 10:37:38 am
I hope he takes CTV for millions.

Why CTV? They pursued a very important story, they interviewed the accusers and at least one person one of them confided in years ago, they immediately made corrections when they were identified. It sounds like there was also a lot of related stories about his time on Parliament hill that the general public was not aware of and has come out after this story, I am sure there were members of the media that heard those stories years ago but didn't report them until we got to this level of detail. What did CTV do wrong? How should the media handle stories, not report anything, or only report what you want to hear?

Yes there need to be journalistic standards met. What make you think that CTV didn't meet them. A story of this prominence would have many senior CTV officials and legal team vetting it, or so I would expect. This is not like the standard bullcrap that rags like the Rebel put out and you never seem to have problems with them.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on February 16, 2018, 10:45:14 am
Why CTV? They pursued a very important story, they interviewed the accusers and at least one person one of them confided in years ago, they immediately made corrections when they were identified. It sounds like there was also a lot of related stories about his time on Parliament hill that the general public was not aware of and has come out after this story, I am sure there were members of the media that heard those stories years ago but didn't report them until we got to this level of detail. What did CTV do wrong? How should the media handle stories, not report anything, or only report what you want to hear?

Yes there need to be journalistic standards met. What make you think that CTV didn't meet them. A story of this prominence would have many senior CTV officials and legal team vetting it, or so I would expect. This is not like the standard bullcrap that rags like the Rebel put out and you never seem to have problems with them.

I've never read the Rebel in my life!  Not once that I remember, anyway.  It's always possible I read a link on here without realising the source, but given the reputation it has I would probably have figured it out.

Still, I haven't been writing the Wikipedia entry on this incident, so if you say CTV are no more culpable than the BBC or The Australian I'll believe you.  Why did I hear he was thinking of suing them? 
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on February 16, 2018, 10:52:03 am
I knew I'd seen it somewhere.  This link was posted on the other site, but I just read the link, and never opened it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/brown-lashes-out-at-accusers-says-resignation-letter-sent-without-permission-1.3804832
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 10:52:49 am
so if you say CTV are no more culpable than the BBC or The Australian I'll believe you.  Why did I hear he was thinking of suing them?

I have no idea how culpable CTV is, I am just saying that in absence of any direct evidence to the contrary I would presume they are not going to risk their reputation and liability on an allegation of this prominence without a sound vetting.

Why did Mulroney sue (and win) the federal government, even though he took a lot of cash?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 16, 2018, 11:08:17 am
I have no idea how culpable CTV is, I am just saying that in absence of any direct evidence to the contrary I would presume they are not going to risk their reputation and liability on an allegation of this prominence without a sound vetting.

Like figuring out that one of the accused wasn't under drinking age and the other was a former associate of the reporter?

Those are HUGE!!! gaffes.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 11:18:27 am
Like figuring out that one of the accused wasn't under drinking age and the other was a former associate of the reporter?

Those are HUGE!!! gaffes.

One victim originally reported that the event occurred in 2006 (I believe) but later corrected that to 2007 (I believe). Yes, that is significant but not a HUGE gaffe, and certainly has nothing to do with CTV. There are a lot of significant events that have happened to me over the years, unless I had something written down I would be hard to give them a date. Those that I can give a date to are because they relate to something that is well known and I can look up the date. I can tell you some things that happened to me on November 22, 1963, I remember some parts of it but most I do not,  but the date is easy for me. Other things I can tell you in much more detail, but I would be hard pressed to remember the year let alone the date.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 16, 2018, 11:25:40 am
If your memory of something is hazy, then don't go to the press!!!

The standard for going to the press to ruin people's lives is sooooo low now. You should at least have all your ducks in a row.

These mistakes call the entire story into question. Is Brown's sin really just trying to get laid?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 11:40:36 am
If your memory of something is hazy, then don't go to the press!!!

Hazy is meaningless, it is about the importance of context. The date was not the important issue that someone would remember, it is the details about what happened.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 16, 2018, 11:57:13 am
If your memory of something is hazy, then don't go to the press!!! 
People don't realize their memory is hazy.   In the book "Stumbling on Happiness" researchers talked to people about what they were doing the day Kennedy was killed some years after the event, then compared what these same people said they were doing immediately following the assasination; some of the accounts were quite different and yet people insisted their *later* accounts were correct.

Memory is extremely fallible.  Most of what we think we remember is truly a patchwork of fact and fantsy. 

Quote
The standard for going to the press to ruin people's lives is sooooo low now.

It does look like CTV failed in thoroughly ensuring that the stories would withstand fact checking.  But that doesn't mean the women are deliberately lying or that PB is entirely innocent of innapropriate behavior.

Dan Gilbert's "Stumbling on Happiness" is a really good book if one wants to understand just how fallible people are when it comes to things like memories and eye-witness accounts,  and just how our reality is shaped by the assumptions our brain makes and of which we are entirely unaware and have no control over.  And its very readable.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 12:15:43 pm
researchers talked to people about what they were doing the day Kennedy was killed some years after the event, then compared what these same people said they were doing immediately following the assasination

Yes, that is the date I choose above. I was 3 years 8 months old at the time. I can't tell you much about the day, certainly compared to what I could tell you then. I can however tell you about one event that happened that day that I do remember, and a little bit of the aftermath.

The day of the moon landing I can tell you where I was because I remember watching it on television at home. I also remember the Apollo 8 going around the moon at home, but couldn't tell you what I saw and if it included the genesis speech, etc. I also remember some other parts back then but not sure if I saw them at home or school or just heard about them (eg. I remember talk about the golf club but don't actually remember seeing it).

The point is I am able to distinguish what is clear and what is not. People may fill in the spaces to pretend they have clarity, I prefer to say what is hazy. Most of the events I have good clarity on happened in my teens and later. For example I know some thing very clearly about each of my kids being born, yet there is a lot I don't remember around them as well. It has to do with the significance of the event that makes it personal. That is why I remember more about the event that happened when I was 3 than many events when I was 8 or 9, although I remember far more events from when I was 8 or 9.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 16, 2018, 02:20:13 pm
I saw part of a Global interview with Patrick Brown.  He's vehement and believable.  But there was an odd moment when he said he did not voluntarily resign; the interviewer seemed genuinely surprised by this and confirmed it with him twice.   But it seems several people who were at the discussion with Brown said he did resign voluntarily.  Perhaps its only PB who tells the truth ever.

 

I believe what he said was the resignation announcement was not sent with his permission. Ie, he might have asked someone to draft it, but did not approve it being sent out.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 16, 2018, 03:14:09 pm
Rumour is he's back in the race.   ???
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 16, 2018, 03:50:26 pm
Rumour is he's back in the race.   ???

That would be idiotic on his part. It would be bad for the party, and thus his doing it would demonstrate his unfitness.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: the_squid on February 16, 2018, 07:16:22 pm
That would be idiotic on his part. It would be bad for the party, and thus his doing it would demonstrate his unfitness.

Bad for the party??   LOL

They have a crazy anti-sex ed candidate....    Doug Ford, whi is also anti-sex ed, anti science and a liar...   

that party is doing its best to lose the next election.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on February 16, 2018, 07:18:28 pm
That would be idiotic on his part. It would be bad for the party, and thus his doing it would demonstrate his unfitness.
I agree but a errant mouse click meant the wrong response was posted (mod: anyway to reverse a response once clicked?).
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 16, 2018, 07:27:01 pm
that party is doing its best to lose the next election.

Find something you are good at, and keep doing it.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on February 16, 2018, 08:32:48 pm
I agree but a errant mouse click meant the wrong response was posted (mod: anyway to reverse a response once clicked?).

I don't think so.  I tried to reverse an inadvertent dumb vote once, and JMT said it couldn't be done.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: bcsapper on February 16, 2018, 11:08:23 pm
Normally I reciprocate with "dumb votes", but I'm going to take that one in the spirit it was obviously intended...
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 16, 2018, 11:21:04 pm
God made the least photogenic human ever.  And he said "Lord, I'm gonna sell hash, then run for office"

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DWM2TXfXkAA5jbB.jpg)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 16, 2018, 11:23:59 pm
He probably has the same contacts brother Rob had.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 16, 2018, 11:34:37 pm
(https://i.imgur.com/zLymRkw.png)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Omni on February 17, 2018, 12:20:03 am
(https://i.imgur.com/zLymRkw.png)

Yep, totally the same contacts.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 17, 2018, 11:39:23 am
Why CTV? They pursued a very important story, they interviewed the accusers and at least one person one of them confided in years ago, they immediately made corrections when they were identified. It sounds like there was also a lot of related stories about his time on Parliament hill that the general public was not aware of and has come out after this story,

Name one.  As far as I know we're still at two accusations.

All that has come out is that it's general knowledge in Barrie that Brown liked to go to bars and try to meet women.

I am sure there were members of the media that heard those stories years ago but didn't report them until we got to this level of detail. What did CTV do wrong? How should the media handle stories, not report anything, or only report what you want to hear?

Yes there need to be journalistic standards met. What make you think that CTV didn't meet them. A story of this prominence would have many senior CTV officials and legal team vetting it, or so I would expect. This is not like the standard bullcrap that rags like the Rebel put out and you never seem to have problems with them.

Brown's lawsuit against CTV will probably focus on


 -failure to disclose a connection between the reporter and the constituency office staff member Brown allegedly tried to kiss.   CTV claims that it looked at this and found no connection between the reporter and witness. That's been contradicted by Kate Malloy, their editor at Hill Times, who said that the two certainly did work together and know each other. There's clearly a strong potential for bias that the reader would usually be made aware of. We normally see disclosures like "Bell Media is a parent company of CTV News" when relationships exist that might suggest a potential for bias. Why not in this story?

 -failure to do adequate research. Failing to verify that Brown lived where the first accuser said he lived, or talk to the bartender who allegedly served the girl all this alcohol before she went home with Brown, or talk to other people who were at the house party where the staffer claims he tried to kiss her, for example.  They talked to the first girl's bestie but didn't find anybody who might provide a more objective recollection of events.  That they only interviewed witnesses that would support their story seems highly selective. One wonders if that might be because of bias (see prior point) or perhaps CTV was looking for a blockbuster story.

 -if I recall correctly they didn't give Brown much opportunity to respond before going to press with the story. They didn't give names or dates and only gave him a short time to respond.  If they had confronted him with the allegations and given him a chance to say "look, I didn't even live in a 2 story house at the time" CTV wouldn't have ended up wearing so much egg on their face when the accuser had to change her story.

I am not a lawyer, obviously, but those are 3 areas where I think CTV **** up this story badly. And those are the areas I would concentrate on if I were Brown's lawyers.  I think there's a legitimate case to be made that CTV didn't do their due diligence, and therefore that CTV participated in defaming Brown and causing him substantial professional and personal harm.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 17, 2018, 12:08:44 pm
All of that may be true but how does it lead to a successful lawsuit, ie. awarding of money, if the substantive facts are true ?

So, revelation of these relationships results in him stepping down (ostensibly) and/or the party assessing him to be unelectable and dumping him.  He tries to sue by saying the reporter knew a witness, or they got the number of stories in his house wrong ?

Doesn't seem enough, but let's see if he puts the money up to try to sue CTV.  I'm sure they have lawyers.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 17, 2018, 12:34:29 pm
All of that may be true but how does it lead to a successful lawsuit, ie. awarding of money, if the substantive facts are true ?

So, revelation of these relationships results in him stepping down (ostensibly) and/or the party assessing him to be unelectable and dumping him.  He tries to sue by saying the reporter knew a witness, or they got the number of stories in his house wrong ?

Doesn't seem enough, but let's see if he puts the money up to try to sue CTV.  I'm sure they have lawyers.

The most lurid part of the allegation-- "underage" and "highschool" turned out to be completely false.  I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that this story would have been viewed much differently by the general public if it had been presented as "19 year old meets man in bar, goes home with him, gives him consensual hummer."  And as I explained above I think this is something CTV could have easily avoided if they had confronted Brown with the details of the allegation before going to press.  They failed to do adequate research, at great cost to Brown's reputation and career.

As for the other accuser, it's a "he-said she-said" story where CTV never told the audience the "he-said" part, and failed to disclose that the reporter and the accuser are friends.   CTV claimed that they did their due diligence on that aspect, so it was apparently important to them defending themselves. CTV clearly got it wrong... is it still important?


Do you disagree that CTV's reporting on this story was seriously flawed, Michael?

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 17, 2018, 01:04:26 pm
They got some key facts wrong, but if they were misinformed by their sources it might be hard to show malicious intent, negligence, or damages.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 17, 2018, 01:31:22 pm
And as I explained above I think this is something CTV could have easily avoided if they had confronted Brown with the details of the allegation before going to press.  They failed to do adequate research, at great cost to Brown's reputation and career.

timeline I read has Brown being contacted 6 hours before the news report was released publicly... a period in which he, apparently as described, did not offer comment back. However, during that period Brown called the last-minute news conference to deny a pending news report about sexual misconduct, and decry it as "categorically untrue."

Per Canadian Press Feb 16:
Quote
Statement from CTV News:

CTV News stands by our reporting and will actively defend against any legal action. We welcome the opportunity to defend our journalism in court. - Matthew Garrow, Director of Communications, CTV News

Per TorStar Feb 14:
Quote
Matthew Garrow, director of communications at CTV News, said the network “continues to stand by its reporting on Patrick Brown.”

“Patrick Brown’s allegations regarding our reporting are false. As we reported once again last night, the two women have reiterated their allegations of sexual misconduct by Patrick Brown,” said Garrow.

“His attacks on our journalistic practices are groundless and wrong. CTV News continues to ask Patrick Brown if he thinks the two women accusing him of sexual misconduct are lying. He has yet to respond,” he said.

“CTV News will continue to report on this matter undeterred by Patrick Brown’s groundless allegations.”
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 17, 2018, 03:04:20 pm
They got some key facts wrong, but if they were misinformed by their sources it might be hard to show malicious intent, negligence, or damages.

They also interviewed the guy who allegedly went into the bedroom with Brown and the second woman, and he said it never happened. Since he didn't corroborate the story but actually contradicted it they decided not to mention the interview. That doesn't sound unbiased to me. It sounds like they only wanted to include information which supported their narrative.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 17, 2018, 03:17:57 pm
failure to disclose a connection between the reporter and the constituency office staff member Brown allegedly tried to kiss.

Failing to verify that Brown lived where the first accuser said he lived, or talk to the bartender who allegedly served the girl all this alcohol before she went home with Brown, or talk to other people who were at the house party where the staffer claims he tried to kiss her, for example.

if I recall correctly they didn't give Brown much opportunity to respond before going to press with the story.


The connection not being disclosed would be an issue, if it is true.

They had a story about the source and Brown, it was about what happened, the location had zero relevance at the time. This was a story of circumstances, not a criminal investigation.

Brown was obviously contacted before the story went to press because he is the one that broke the story to the public. The only timeline I am aware of is between when Brown broke the story, and CTV published it. The more important times are when CTV went to Brown for comment, and when they originally intended to break the story; do you have any insight into those times because they are the only one relevant to your comment.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 17, 2018, 03:21:48 pm
They also interviewed the guy who allegedly went into the bedroom with Brown and the second woman, and he said it never happened. Since he didn't corroborate the story but actually contradicted it they decided not to mention the interview. That doesn't sound unbiased to me. It sounds like they only wanted to include information which supported their narrative.

Yes, if they interviewed someone with contradictory evidence then that should have been part of the story. Do we have any confirmation on that detail?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 17, 2018, 03:22:06 pm
Why is it an issue if the witness and reporter knew each other?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 17, 2018, 03:28:01 pm
Why is it an issue if the witness and reporter knew each other?

The issue is the lack of full disclosure, not that they knew each other. I guess one other factor that should be considered as well is that if the witness (accuser?) was to remain anonymous, then disclosure would be more difficult.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: SirJohn on February 17, 2018, 03:30:55 pm
Yes, if they interviewed someone with contradictory evidence then that should have been part of the story. Do we have any confirmation on that detail?

There's no actual evidence of anything. But the guy himself says that they interviewed him and he told them it hadn't happened.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 18, 2018, 10:15:33 am
timeline I read has Brown being contacted 6 hours before the news report was released publicly...

6 hours? That's an hour longer than Babe.net gave Aziz Ansari to respond, so I guess that's something.

a period in which he, apparently as described, did not offer comment back. However, during that period Brown called the last-minute news conference to deny a pending news report about sexual misconduct, and decry it as "categorically untrue."

If they contacted him 6 hours before the story aired, then clearly they didn't do any investigation into his side of the story. They obviously could have spared themselves a lot of egg-on-the-face regarding the girl who changed her story after he demonstrated that her time-line was false.

If the guy who is the subject of your story discredits one of your primary witnesses, you have to ask why your crack investigative journalists didn't find the error in her account first.

Per Canadian Press Feb 16:

Quote
Statement from CTV News:

CTV News stands by our reporting and will actively defend against any legal action. We welcome the opportunity to defend our journalism in court. - Matthew Garrow, Director of Communications, CTV News

Of course Garrow is going to say they stand by their reporting. What else is he going to say? "Oh man, we really **** up this time"?  Of course not.  They'll fight up til the moment they're told to write a cheque, or up to the point where they decided the damage to their reputation is not worth the cost, whichever comes first.

Per TorStar Feb 14:
Quote
Matthew Garrow, director of communications at CTV News, said the network “continues to stand by its reporting on Patrick Brown.”

“Patrick Brown’s allegations regarding our reporting are false. As we reported once again last night, the two women have reiterated their allegations of sexual misconduct by Patrick Brown,” said Garrow.

“His attacks on our journalistic practices are groundless and wrong. CTV News continues to ask Patrick Brown if he thinks the two women accusing him of sexual misconduct are lying. He has yet to respond,” he said.

“CTV News will continue to report on this matter undeterred by Patrick Brown’s groundless allegations.”

And as for challenging Brown to call the women liars, that's bait. He won't do that because it's a bad PR move.  Brown offered a version of events regarding accuser #2 that differs from her version.  Maybe her version is correct, or maybe her version is not correct. If her version is not correct, it doesn't mean she's deliberately lying.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: TimG on February 18, 2018, 10:38:00 am
And as for challenging Brown to call the women liars, that's bait. He won't do that because it's a bad PR move.  Brown offered a version of events regarding accuser #2 that differs from her version.  Maybe her version is correct, or maybe her version is not correct. If her version is not correct, it doesn't mean she's deliberately lying.
What gets lost in the coverage of stories like this is human memory is as pliable as play-dough which means memories change over time. This means people can honestly "remember" events from the past that are complete fiction. They are not lying because they believe their memories to be true but, without corroborating evidence, no justice can be served by simply assuming that old memories are factual. In this case, the false memories could be come coming from Brown or the woman or both. We can't really know.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 18, 2018, 10:45:52 am
The connection not being disclosed would be an issue, if it is true.

So, by the way, the woman named earlier by Frank Magazine is the accuser.

Quote
“Recipients of the annual Scholarship in Broadcast Journalism are chosen by Carleton University’s School of Journalism and Communication, with no connection to the journalism practiced by CTV News,” explained Matthew Garrow, a spokesman for CTV News. “The bursary is funded by CTV Ottawa affiliate CJOH TV.”
http://vancouversun.com/news/provincial/furey-brown-accuser-won-award-from-ctv/wcm/0b093c3f-5366-4256-91fb-285372ca4dbe

The woman receiving the scholarship doesn't mean she has a connection with CTV News.  But guess who won that scholarship?  (Name Redacted) won that scholarship, it's listed on her LinkedIn profile.   (Name Redacted) was at the "Hockey Night In Barrie" event the accuser claimed to have organized for Brown. Kate Malloy from the Hill Times confirmed that Rachel Aiello and the accuser worked together at the Hill Times. Guess who worked with Rachel Aiello at the Hill Times? (Name Redacted) did. 

At this point, it's very difficult to believe that the accuser could be anybody other than (Name Redacted). 

So why does that matter?

It matters because you or I or anybody else with 5 minutes and an internet connection could easily find that Rachel Aiello and (Name Redacted) know each other.  They went lawnbowling together-- that's not a sexual metaphor, they were 2 of the 4 members of the "Hill Times Headliners" lawnbowling team. They've been photographed together, they cowrote at least one piece for Hill Times.

And yet Mr Garrow claims that CTV did their due diligence and found there was no connection.  Could they have really investigated that?  Given how easy it is to find a connection between the two names, how could CTV have actually looked into it at all and not found a connection?

From the above Vancouver Sun article:
Quote
Brown’s lawyer, Mark Sandler, suggested to the Sun recently that the relationship should have been disclosed in the original story.

“What I also found somewhat disturbing, and I’m not sure the whole story is out yet, is the relationship that existed between the second accuser and one of the key reporters on this story from CTV,” Sandler said.

“CTV has said they’ve done some due diligence in this area,” Sandler said. “To be frank, I don’t see how they could have done any due diligence to leap to the conclusion that…the relationship wasn’t problematic.”


They had a story about the source and Brown, it was about what happened, the location had zero relevance at the time. This was a story of circumstances, not a criminal investigation.

Maybe not. But did CTV make any effort to investigate the actual truth of the allegation?  Isn't there some onus on the reporters to make sure the witness's story checks out before they put the story on air?

Brown publicly blew up their witness's story.  Wouldn't it have been a lot better for CTV if their own reporters had discovered the discrepancy first, rather than the network ending up in this extremely embarrassing situation of having a major element of their story blow up in their face.

Brown was obviously contacted before the story went to press because he is the one that broke the story to the public. The only timeline I am aware of is between when Brown broke the story, and CTV published it. The more important times are when CTV went to Brown for comment, and when they originally intended to break the story; do you have any insight into those times because they are the only one relevant to your comment.

Waldo indicates that they gave Brown 6 hours. I had read somewhere-- I believe in his Facebook post-- that he had been given little time and no specific names or dates about the allegations against him. So how was he really supposed to respond?


 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 18, 2018, 11:00:05 am
They got some key facts wrong, but if they were misinformed by their sources it might be hard to show malicious intent, negligence, or damages.

Damages are obvious.  This story has clearly caused catastrophic damage to Brown's career and reputation.

Negligence? I think that Brown's lawyers will try to demonstrate that CTV did not do adequate research to verify the truth of the allegations before taking them to press. The blunder in which the witness had to revise her story to correct a significant factual mistake is something CTV could have caught if they had done more research. They also seem to have conveniently failed to interview any witnesses who were not supportive of the accusers.

Malice?  Malice doesn't necessarily mean "we're going to take down Patrick Brown". It could also mean "we're going to make this into a blockbuster story" or "Chels is my buddy and I want her side of this to look good" or something like that. Any effort to make the story "juicier" at the expense of the plaintiff (ie, Brown when he sues) could be argued to be malicious.  Again, there's a strong appearance of bias here, which is why the connection between the reporter and the witness is extremely uncomfortable for CTV.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 18, 2018, 11:54:51 pm
6 hours? That's an hour longer than Babe.net gave Aziz Ansari to respond, so I guess that's something.

If they contacted him 6 hours before the story aired, then clearly they didn't do any investigation into his side of the story.

as he lawyered-up, I expect Brown took direction not to respond to CTV, not to convey, as you say, "his side of the story". This would have been his chance to (presumably) have the CTV article include pertinent details... from his perspective. Odd that he would go mute in that regard - yet call a news conference to deny the allegations - yes? Methinks your cub-reporter/sleuthing attempt needs work!

Quote
Brown says, via {his lawyer} Villeneuve, that CTV first contacted his office for comment at around 4:30 p.m. on the day of the report, but that he first learned of the allegations an hour later. Brown says his lawyer then “sent notice to CTV before they aired demanding they not.”

“It is important to note that Mr. Brown did not respond to our request for comment, nor did he request a deadline extension for his response,” CTV communications director Matthew Garrow says in an email. “However, he did call a pre-emptive news conference prior to our story airing. We understand Mr. Brown’s advisors knew for a number of days we had been working on a story prior to us reaching out to Mr. Brown for comment.”

(per Canadaland Article - Graeme Gordon - February 16, 2018)
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 19, 2018, 09:35:30 am
as he lawyered-up, I expect Brown took direction not to respond to CTV, not to convey, as you say, "his side of the story". This would have been his chance to (presumably) have the CTV article include pertinent details... from his perspective. Odd that he would go mute in that regard - yet call a news conference to deny the allegations - yes? Methinks your cub-reporter/sleuthing attempt needs work!

Maybe so. I'm not a lawyer or a reporter, just an average person with an internet connection.  I don't know what the protocol is in breaking a story like this. I do know that if CTV had done more investigating they wouldn't have ended up in such an embarrassing situation.

And, if I (or any other average person with an internet connection) can find that their reporter and their witness are friends, it seems hard to believe that CTV's investigators and legal team couldn't.  Mr Garrow told us they investigated this and found no connection between the two.  Does that seem believable?

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 19, 2018, 01:49:07 pm
Damages are obvious.  This story has clearly caused catastrophic damage to Brown's career and reputation.

Ok, but to separate that out from what would be a reasonable response from the party (ie. had an a relationship with a staffer) and assess damages, I don't know but it seems difficult to me.

Quote
Negligence? I think that Brown's lawyers will try to demonstrate that CTV did not do adequate research to verify the truth of the allegations before taking them to press. The blunder in which the witness had to revise her story to correct a significant factual mistake is something CTV could have caught if they had done more research. They also seem to have conveniently failed to interview any witnesses who were not supportive of the accusers.

That might be impactful if we're talking about the age of the person who complained about him, but not if we're talking about the number of flours of his house.

Quote

Malice?  Malice doesn't necessarily mean "we're going to take down Patrick Brown". It could also mean "we're going to make this into a blockbuster story" or "Chels is my buddy and I want her side of this to look good" or something like that. Any effort to make the story "juicier" at the expense of the plaintiff (ie, Brown when he sues) could be argued to be malicious.  Again, there's a strong appearance of bias here, which is why the connection between the reporter and the witness is extremely uncomfortable for CTV.

 -k

If it's about a "juicier" story, I think that can only be established if they exaggerated facts.  It's "malicious" if they are explicitly trying to do him damage, I think is the definition.

I don't know that the relationship matters, either, if the facts are right.  Why a witness knowing a reporter represents "bias" is beyond me.

Has he sued yet ?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 20, 2018, 01:20:26 am
Ok, but to separate that out from what would be a reasonable response from the party (ie. had an a relationship with a staffer) and assess damages, I don't know but it seems difficult to me.

Well, first off, there was no claim of an inappropriate relationship.  There's a claim of one incident of inappropriate touching and sexual advance toward a subordinate.

Secondly, trying to assess what portion of the damage is directly attributed to CTV's shortcomings is putting the cart before the horse.

And thirdly, I think Brown's lawyers will be able to make a very strong argument that the bulk of the damage to Brown's reputation and career have come as a result of the sensationalistic and completely false pairing of the words "underage", "highschool", and "****" in the original article. 


That might be impactful if we're talking about the age of the person who complained about him, but not if we're talking about the number of flours of his house.

Michael! We're only talking about the number of floors in his house because it was a key piece of evidence that discredited the witness's timeline of when the incident occurred.   Her claim that the incident occurred in an upstairs bedroom of a 2-story house proved that it couldn't have happened while she was still underage or in high-school, because Brown didn't live in a 2-story house until well after she had graduated and was of legal age for drinking.  That's why people were talking about the number of floors in Brown's house. 

I'd think that if they were doing their due diligence, finding out where the incident took place and finding out whether Brown actually lived there would probably have been key steps in verifying the woman's story.


But wait!  There's more!!

The man who she claimed drove him to Brown's house says no such thing ever happened. But that's not the interesting part.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-allegations-1.4535373

The interesting part is that the man says he didn't even know she claimed he did until last week, when CTV called to fact-check the story.

Key excerpt:
Quote
The man says he only found out on Tuesday the woman was identifying him as the person who drove her to Brown's when CTV called him to fact-check her story.

In an article published on Wednesday Feb 14, "Tuesday" seems to indicate February 13.

Got that?  CTV called him to fact-check the witness's story 2 weeks after they put her story on the air.

Does it really sound like they did their due diligence before this ****-typhoon went to press?

They only decided to fact check her story after she got caught very publicly in a major inaccuracy.  That, my friend, is not the action of a network that did its due diligence before they went to air.  That is the action of a network that just found out they made a big mistake and is scrambling to find out what else they might have failed to check.  You don't investigate your own story 2 weeks after you went to air with it. That's not investigative journalism mode, that's damage control mode.

They done **** up, Michael.

If it's about a "juicier" story, I think that can only be established if they exaggerated facts.  It's "malicious" if they are explicitly trying to do him damage, I think is the definition.

Not so.  He doesn't have to show that they were deliberately trying to cause him harm, he just has to show that they caused harm and that they failed to live up to reasonable standards of journalism. (hypothetically, by not bothering to actually fact-check the accusers' stories by interviewing relevant witnesses.)

From an ethical point of view, I think that if you're going to press with a story that is going to destroy somebody's career or their life, you'd better make sure you have your facts right.  And if not, "lol, sorry about your career bro" isn't going to cut it. 

I don't know that the relationship matters, either, if the facts are right.  Why a witness knowing a reporter represents "bias" is beyond me.

It presents an appearance of bias.  If you're going to do a story where one of your besties is one of the key parties, your story had better be immaculate. And this trainwreck is nowhere close to immaculate.  At this point it has a very slanted appearance, which opens the door to speculation of bias.

If the connection between the reporter and the witness doesn't matter, why did CTV spokesman Mr Garrow say that they investigated before they went to press?  You might think it doesn't matter, but CTV clearly thinks it mattered, because when the accusation came out they denied it and said they'd already looked into it before they aired the story.

I already linked the comment from Brown's lawyer a couple of posts ago:
Quote
“What I also found somewhat disturbing, and I’m not sure the whole story is out yet, is the relationship that existed between the second accuser and one of the key reporters on this story from CTV,” Sandler said.

“CTV has said they’ve done some due diligence in this area,” Sandler said. “To be frank, I don’t see how they could have done any due diligence to leap to the conclusion that…the relationship wasn’t problematic.”

As I keep pointing out, media outlets normally disclose relationships that might cause viewers to question whether the coverage is biased. "Bell Media is a parent company of CTV News" for example.  Because the notion of integrity requires that they put their cards on the table. Why didn't they do so in this case?

Has he sued yet ?

He's announced the intention to sue, and his lawyers are apparently talking with CTV lawyers. I read somewhere that they have asked for an order to have all relevant emails and communications secured by a third party so that they don't get deleted.


 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 20, 2018, 02:23:41 am
They done **** up, Michael.

so... about those allegations lost in the flurry of amateurSleuthing! So... #notMeToo?

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 20, 2018, 03:58:00 am
The interesting part is that the man says he didn't even know she claimed he did until last week, when CTV called to fact-check the story.

Key excerpt:
In an article published on Wednesday Feb 14, "Tuesday" seems to indicate February 13.

Got that?  CTV called him to fact-check the witness's story 2 weeks after they put her story on the air.

Yet for the past few days we have had people claiming CTV knew before they posted the story that his account was different. I guess CTV is being judged based on conflicting evidence, what is good for one argument is used differently for another.

I would say that amateur sleuthing is happening far and wide.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 20, 2018, 09:24:10 am
so... about those allegations lost in the flurry of amateurSleuthing! So... #notMeToo?

At this point those allegations are now :

 1) that a 28 year old guy met a 19 year old girl in a bar, invited her home, and received a consensual blow-job. 

 2) that a man tried to initiate a sexual encounter with a woman who worked for him, was rejected, respected her wishes, and didn't inflict any retaliation on her.  She continued to work for him, I believe that she returned to work for him later, she continued to comment on his social media posts... this sounds like an awkward encounter that didn't cause lasting damage to either her employment or to their overall relationship.

The first, even if true, simply isn't news. 

The second, even if true, is inappropriate-- the kind of conduct that would probably earn anybody else a sit-down with an HR person, maybe an educational video and a stern wag of the finger.  This is not the kind of intimidation and abuse of power that #MeToo was originally about.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 20, 2018, 09:28:52 am
Yet for the past few days we have had people claiming CTV knew before they posted the story that his account was different. I guess CTV is being judged based on conflicting evidence, what is good for one argument is used differently for another.

I would say that amateur sleuthing is happening far and wide.

Not sure what to make of the conflicting account. Will look more into that.  Either way... the man's story would have been good to be in the original article. As would witnesses who were at the party.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 20, 2018, 12:00:11 pm
At this point those allegations are now :

 1) that a 28 year old guy met a 19 year old girl in a bar, invited her home, and received a consensual blow-job. 

 2) that a man tried to initiate a sexual encounter with a woman who worked for him, was rejected, respected her wishes, and didn't inflict any retaliation on her.  She continued to work for him, I believe that she returned to work for him later, she continued to comment on his social media posts... this sounds like an awkward encounter that didn't cause lasting damage to either her employment or to their overall relationship.

The first, even if true, simply isn't news. 

The second, even if true, is inappropriate-- the kind of conduct that would probably earn anybody else a sit-down with an HR person, maybe an educational video and a stern wag of the finger.  This is not the kind of intimidation and abuse of power that #MeToo was originally about.

interestingly, your summary of the allegations ala your investment in amateur sleuthing, doesn't quite align with what's presented in the original CTV article that references 2 reporters/journalists in the byline. I'm referring to the actual allegations and accuser comments/interpretations of actions taken, as stated, as reaffirmed by CTV in recent days (as quoted in an earlier post)... that is to say, CTV standing by its reporting & the accusers standing by their allegations. Your reference to HR has a coincidentally related comment from the related accuser:
Quote
"I didn’t think that there was any sort of recourse that I could take because I did think this is something that in maybe in another job, I would go to maybe HR about. But I didn’t feel, I didn’t even know who HR was in this context. Particularly being in a constituency office. I mean, I just didn’t know what to do."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations-from-two-women-resigns-as-ontario-pc-leader-1.3774686
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 20, 2018, 12:18:49 pm
At this point those allegations are now

That would be your perception of the allegations.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 21, 2018, 09:25:29 am
That would be your perception of the allegations.
...
interestingly, your summary of the allegations ala your investment in amateur sleuthing, doesn't quite align with what's presented in the original CTV article that references 2 reporters/journalists in the byline. I'm referring to the actual allegations and accuser comments/interpretations of actions taken, as stated, as reaffirmed by CTV in recent days (as quoted in an earlier post)... that is to say, CTV standing by its reporting & the accusers standing by their allegations.

Ok, either or both of you, please feel free to explain where my terse summary fails to match the claims in the CTV article.

I think the answer comes down to "...it sounded more sympathetic the way CTV wrote it."

Your reference to HR has a coincidentally related comment from the related accuser:
Quote
"I didn’t think that there was any sort of recourse that I could take because I did think this is something that in maybe in another job, I would go to maybe HR about. But I didn’t feel, I didn’t even know who HR was in this context. Particularly being in a constituency office. I mean, I just didn’t know what to do."
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-denies-sexual-misconduct-allegations-from-two-women-resigns-as-ontario-pc-leader-1.3774686

And I wrote much earlier in the thread that this is the one aspect of the story where I had some sympathy for the accuser. Lots of women are in a similar situation and have no resources to go to. Something like this could have been addressed quickly and easily.   That aspect of the story could have been the focus. 

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 21, 2018, 06:15:51 pm
Ok, either or both of you, please feel free to explain where my terse summary fails to match the claims in the CTV article.

"terse"... yes, you certainly did spare words - you know, like the actual words from the accusers; the words that speak to their perspective and interpretation of actions taken against them. That you would "tersely summarize" one of those accusers words/perspective/interpretation as "consensual", clearly speaks volumes on your amateur hours efforts to double-down on, "accusing the accusers".
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 21, 2018, 10:47:43 pm
"terse"... yes, you certainly did spare words - you know, like the actual words from the accusers; the words that speak to their perspective and interpretation of actions taken against them. That you would "tersely summarize" one of those accusers words/perspective/interpretation as "consensual",

In short: stripped of all the whiny verbiage, it boils down to, as I said earlier:

"...it sounded more sympathetic the way CTV wrote it."

clearly speaks volumes on your amateur hours efforts to double-down on, "accusing the accusers".

I'm not "accusing the accusers" of anything.  I'm pointing out that these "accusations" amount to nothing. There's no substance to either of them.  If this were a trial, the judge would dismiss it on the grounds that no crime has been alleged.


And it's **** sad that this is what "#MeToo" has turned into.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 21, 2018, 11:57:05 pm
In short: stripped of all the whiny verbiage, it boils down to, as I said earlier:

"...it sounded more sympathetic the way CTV wrote it."

no - that original cited CTV read includes the accusations from the perspective and interpretation of the accusers. Your want to claim that as a, as you say, "sympathetic write", should be prefaced by you highlighting the accused chose, apparently per legal direction, not to respond to a request for his perspective, for his interpretation.

I'm not "accusing the accusers" of anything.  I'm pointing out that these "accusations" amount to nothing. There's no substance to either of them.  If this were a trial, the judge would dismiss it on the grounds that no crime has been alleged.

And it's **** sad that this is what "#MeToo" has turned into.

sure you're making your own accusations against the accusers - you're claiming the accusations are unwarranted... and now frivolous. Effectively, you're accusing the accusers of fraud, perhaps bordering on malicious intent... although I'll wait for you to confirm the latter intent aspect.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 24, 2018, 09:46:00 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/brown-ontario-pc-libel-suit-1.4550333

Wow.  He's suing.  Isn't he ?   ???

Is a 'notice of libel' the same as filing a lawsuit or just a preceding step ?  Is this a commonly known thing that I just don't understand or did the article fail to inform the reader ?

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: guest4 on February 24, 2018, 10:23:05 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/brown-ontario-pc-libel-suit-1.4550333

Wow.  He's suing.  Isn't he ?   ???

Is a 'notice of libel' the same as filing a lawsuit or just a preceding step ?  Is this a commonly known thing that I just don't understand or did the article fail to inform the reader ?

Quote
If you are suing a newspaper, radio or television station, you must usually give them notice of your intention to sue within six weeks of learning of the incident, and start your lawsuit within three months

https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/defamation-libel-and-slander/

I am very interested in the result.  If he is successful and a heavy enough penalty is assessed against CTV, then presumably media outlets will be more careful and less sensational. 

Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 24, 2018, 12:27:37 pm
no - that original cited CTV read includes the accusations from the perspective and interpretation of the accusers. Your want to claim that as a, as you say, "sympathetic write", should be prefaced by you highlighting the accused chose, apparently per legal direction, not to respond to a request for his perspective, for his interpretation.

We didn't need Brown's side of the story to know that nothing of import has been alleged against him.

sure you're making your own accusations against the accusers - you're claiming the accusations are unwarranted... and now frivolous.

I am just pointing out that these "accusations" aren't actually accusing him of doing anything approaching the claim of "abuse" as CTV called it.

Effectively, you're accusing the accusers of fraud, perhaps bordering on malicious intent... although I'll wait for you to confirm the latter intent aspect.

That's retarded.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 24, 2018, 04:17:39 pm
We didn't need Brown's side of the story to know that nothing of import has been alleged against him.

I am just pointing out that these "accusations" aren't actually accusing him of doing anything approaching the claim of "abuse" as CTV called it.

ya, ya - you lost all credibility when you tagged one of the accusers claims as nothing more than "consensual relations"... when, for some reason, you opted to ply your amateur-hour sleuthing to focus on anything but the actual allegations and perspective/interpretation of the accusers.

but don't stop there! I gave you an opening to question/explain your interpretation of the motives of the accusers - for some reason you didn't bite yet... go figure!
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 26, 2018, 09:47:53 am
ya, ya - you lost all credibility when you tagged one of the accusers claims as nothing more than "consensual relations"...

Ok, show me in either of the accuser accounts where anything non-consensual happened. The part where he kissed girl #2 and she told him to stop, and he stopped?  The part where he took out his **** and girl #1 gave him a hummer?

when, for some reason, you opted to ply your amateur-hour sleuthing to focus on anything but the actual allegations and perspective/interpretation of the accusers.

This is bullshit.  Well before I started any "amateur-hour sleuthing", I was pointing out out that none of the allegations made against Brown amount to "abuse" or "misconduct".  I asked people to explain what they thought Brown was guilty of, and people responded with either "well, he's not guilty of anything, he's just a creep" or hung their hat on the one accuser being an "underage, highschool girl", which of course isn't illegal and also isn't even true anymore.

but don't stop there! I gave you an opening to question/explain your interpretation of the motives of the accusers - for some reason you didn't bite yet... go figure!

"You gave me an opening".   :D  You're so full of yourself.

Suggesting they have a "motive" at all suggests that they're part of a plot.  I think these are just two young women who have told their stories. Their stories may be true or at least partly true.  But so what?


 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 26, 2018, 10:04:36 am
Ok, show me in either of the accuser accounts where anything non-consensual happened.

So, you agree with me that Patrick Brown is another Bill Clinton.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 26, 2018, 10:08:04 am
So, you agree with me that Patrick Brown is another Bill Clinton.

I'm not interested in defending Brown's character.  I don't follow Ontario politics, I don't care about Ontario politics, I don't have a horse in that race.  It sounds like Brown is a bit of a cad who likes to try to score with younger women in bars.

And if that were a crime, our jails would be full.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 26, 2018, 10:14:24 am
I'm not interested in defending Brown's character.
...
And if that were a crime, our jails would be full.

I don't think anyone ever made the claim what he did was illegal, it is a matter of character that this is all about. Many men are fired from their jobs because they have made improper advances to women (especially junior women and/or subordinates) at work.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2018, 01:14:19 pm
I think these are just two young women who have told their stories. Their stories may be true or at least partly true.  But so what?

keep digging! You've chosen to pit your amateur-hour googly sleuthing prowess against the perspective and interpretation of the accusers and their sexual misconduct allegations - you completely discount it/them.

instead of offering your interpretive response to why the respective accusers, as individuals, came forward you deflected by applying that request collectively and dismissing it with a curt suggestion that simply asking for "the why" aligned with a conspiratorial plot.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 26, 2018, 01:37:00 pm
Brown has served notice of Libel to CTV

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/geno-smith-i-may-be-with-kyrie-irving-on-this-whole-flat-earth-vs-globe-thing/

The most salacious part of the story turned out to be false.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2018, 11:30:16 pm
Patrick Brown directed top Tories to ‘get me the result I want’ in nomination now being probed by police --- https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/26/patrick-brown-directed-top-tories-to-get-me-the-result-i-want-in-nomination-now-being-probed-by-police.html

Quote
Brown personally directed his top party officials to “get me the result I want” in Tory nomination now the subject of a police investigation into alleged fraud and forgery, the Star has learned.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2018, 11:36:13 pm
New twist in PC civil war as Hillier accuses Patrick Brown of ‘crooked’ politics, calls for investigation --- https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/02/20/pc-civil-war-takes-new-twist-as-hillier-calls-for-investigation-of-patrick-brown.html

Quote
The civil war in Ontario’s Progressive Conservative party has taken a dramatic turn as Tory MPP Randy Hillier called for an investigation of ousted leader — and new leadership candidate — Patrick Brown.

Hillier filed a complaint with Ontario’s Integrity Commissioner Tuesday, citing “deeply troubling” questions about Brown’s personal finances as detailed in the annual public filing all MPPs must make.

Watchdog overseeing MPP finances demands more information on Patrick Brown's house and mortgage arrangements
--- https://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2018/02/22/watchdog-overseeing-mpp-finances-demands-more-information-on-patrick-browns-house-and-mortgage-arrangements.html

Quote
Integrity Commissioner J. David Wake has asked for details about rental income Brown receives from his five-bedroom house on Lake Simcoe’s Shanty Bay.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 26, 2018, 11:50:10 pm
is there fire... where there's lots and lots and lots of smoke... and... pending due process?

Patrick Brown out of Ontario PC leadership race --- https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patrick-brown-out-of-ontario-pc-leadership-race-1.3819495

Quote
Since his resignation in the wake of sexual misconduct allegations levelled against him by two women, as reported by CTV News on Jan. 24, Brown, 39, has been facing other allegations, including financial mismanagement and questions over inflated party membership numbers.

And on Monday, the Toronto Star published a report that Brown told Ontario PC officials to “get me the result I want” in a candidate nomination contest now under police investigation.
.
.
Brown alleged Monday that his political foes were collaborating with the media “through an endless supply of rumours and innuendo” and said his friends have been “subjected to attacks” while family members are suffering “anxiety and panic attacks requiring medical intervention.”
.
.
Brown’s withdrawal also comes on the day the provincial integrity commissioner confirmed he was investigating allegations about Brown, brought by PC MPP Randy Hillier, and days before a leadership debate in Ottawa.
.
.
Brown formally served a notice of libel against CTV News on Feb. 26, alleging its Jan. 24 report was "false, malicious, irresponsible and defamatory."

CTV News stands by its reporting and will actively defend its journalism in court.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 27, 2018, 07:14:45 am
Be careful what you wish for.  Brown is gone and I doubt that it will put a dent in the PC's chances, especially if they get a strong centrist woman in place.

Three WOMEN running for the premier !?!?  WHAT A PROVINCE !
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: Boges on February 27, 2018, 07:47:36 am
They REALLY!!! didn't want him as leader.

Oh well. As I said, it seems a Colobus Monkey could win this election if they don't say anything stupid.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: MH on February 27, 2018, 07:57:45 am
C-Monkey in 2018.  For change.
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 27, 2018, 09:59:06 am
Brown being out of the race again looks like a good thing for the PC party.  The only way I can see it ending badly for them is if Mulroney and Elliot split the "normal people" vote while the "****" vote all consolidates around Doug Ford.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 27, 2018, 11:57:59 pm
keep digging! You've chosen to pit your amateur-hour googly sleuthing prowess against the perspective and interpretation of the accusers and their sexual misconduct allegations - you completely discount it/them.

No "googly sleuthing prowess" is required. We have the accusers' stories in their own words  And as I keep saying, nothing in their stories approaches this threshold of "abuse" that people keep saying.

instead of offering your interpretive response to why the respective accusers, as individuals, came forward you deflected by applying that request collectively and dismissing it with a curt suggestion that simply asking for "the why" aligned with a conspiratorial plot.

What in the fizzityuck does that pile of word salad even mean?  I know all of those words, but they are meaningless in the order in which you have combined them.  It looks like something a not-very-bright AI algorithm would spit out.  If you rephrase your comment/question/whatever the **** it is, into something intelligible, I'll respond to it.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: waldo on February 28, 2018, 02:25:20 am
No "googly sleuthing prowess" is required. We have the accusers' stories in their own words  And as I keep saying, nothing in their stories approaches this threshold of "abuse" that people keep saying.

c'mon, your googly was burnin' up! Clearly, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes the labeled 'sexual misconduct'. Nor do you have standing to completely ignore, negate and trivialize the perspective and interpretation of the women accusers, particularly in the face of the accused offering no personal event particulars/details and no comment other than to simply deny the allegations.

What in the fizzityuck does that pile of word salad even mean?  I know all of those words, but they are meaningless in the order in which you have combined them.  It looks like something a not-very-bright AI algorithm would spit out.  If you rephrase your comment/question/whatever the **** it is, into something intelligible, I'll respond to it.

that's quite the deflection; now your second. It's really a simple question that was put to you... that you keep ignoring and deflecting from. C'mon you spent a lotta cycles in your amateur hour sleuthing to pass judgement on the accusers and discount their understanding of the events - to trivialize their accusations. With your latest statement that, "Their stories may be true or at least partly true", you're clearly adamantly and repeatedly holding up your personal interpretation of sexual misconduct over the veracity of the accusers accusations. I'm quite surprised the accused and his legal team didn't have your awareness and insight - why did they bother denying the allegations when they could have just taken your position that the allegations don't even rise to the level of sexual misconduct?
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 28, 2018, 09:18:55 am
c'mon, your googly was burnin' up! Clearly, you are not the arbiter of what constitutes the labeled 'sexual misconduct'. Nor do you have standing to completely ignore, negate and trivialize the perspective and interpretation of the women accusers, particularly in the face of the accused offering no personal event particulars/details and no comment other than to simply deny the allegations.

We all have access to the accusers' stories in their own words.   We all have every right to form our own opinion about their stories. We're not required to meekly accept that these womens' stories are "deeply disturbing" and so on. We get to decide that for ourselves. And as I said repeatedly, right from day one:  even if their stories are completely true, these stories simply aren't a big deal.  This is Aziz Ansari stuff, not Harvey Weinstein stuff. And trying to ride the coat-tails of #MeToo to turn these unimportant accusations into a media bombshell will only serve to undermine the movement as a whole.

that's quite the deflection; now your second. It's really a simple question that was put to you... that you keep ignoring and deflecting from. C'mon you spent a lotta cycles in your amateur hour sleuthing to pass judgement on the accusers and discount their understanding of the events - to trivialize their accusations. With your latest statement that, "Their stories may be true or at least partly true", you're clearly adamantly and repeatedly holding up your personal interpretation of sexual misconduct over the veracity of the accusers accusations.

With all the waldoing removed, you're basically trying to argue that people must accept without question that these allegations are of great significance.  That's clearly retarded.

I'm quite surprised the accused and his legal team didn't have your awareness and insight - why did they bother denying the allegations when they could have just taken your position that the allegations don't even rise to the level of sexual misconduct?

I'm not on Patrick Brown's legal or communications strategy team. I can only assume they decided that saying "yeah, so what?" would not be well-received.

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: kimmy on February 28, 2018, 09:24:48 am
As I've said more than once, I don't care about Patrick Brown or his political fortunes.   What I do care about is the overall integrity of the #MeToo movement. It will be extremely unfortunate if the legitimate goals of the movement get dragged down in the way that OccupyWallstreet and Black Lives Matter were dragged down, by people piling on until the whole movement becomes a bunch of meaningless griping.

Ashleigh Banfield speaks on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4bAULTwAJU

 -k
Title: Re: Patrick Brown #MeToo
Post by: ?Impact on February 28, 2018, 11:51:56 am
We all have every right to form our own opinion about their stories.

I agree, as does the PCO caucus, party, and the people of Ontario.