Canadian Politics Today

. 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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.