Ghomeshigate

DJM said:
CBC didn't terminate his employment because of the allegations of these 3 women. He was terminated for being an utter Prima Donna to other colleagues. Anyways, his dirty little secret is out, he's a sadistic prick.
Click to expand...

Yet, CBC kept him employed for how long.
He was likely a "prick" when they hired him.

What dirty secrets?
That he likes rough sex? ...uhm so did those 3 women according to their own letters. What about all the other women that had/have sex with him?
I give the guy credit for not dragging out the other women to demonstrate the type of sex he has.

Isn't there some sex show coming to town (BDSM) stuff.
What 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business.

* I don't know Ghomeshi, don't listen to him, can care less about what he does.
I do care about justice and just how easy ppl can lie (women lie) and nothing happens to them.
This is a mockery of the real victims that have to deal with life long tragedy.
 
An external investigation concluded that there had been complaints about Ghomeshi for years at the CBC and they were diluted by upper management because he was their "Star". When a women showed up to work with graphic evidence of being beaten that's when the CBC took action. Senior CBC managers were terminated for their failure to act on previous complaints.

Ghomeshi violated every respectful workplace policy the CBC had, that's why he was let go. There will be no lawsuit, there will be no reward.

Anyone that's works for a corporation should be very mindful of these policies. I've seen a few troglodytes who have refused to join this century walked out the door.
 
DJM said:
An external investigation concluded that there had been complaints about Ghomeshi for years at the CBC and they were diluted by upper management because he was their "Star". When a women showed up to work with graphic evidence of being beaten that's when the CBC took action. Senior CBC managers were terminated for their failure to act on previous complaints.

Ghomeshi violated every respectful workplace policy the CBC had, that's why he was let go. There will be no lawsuit, there will be no reward.

Anyone that's works for a corporation should be very mindful of these policies. I've seen a few troglodytes who have refused to join this century walked out the door.
Click to expand...


Then those women should sue CBC for covering up this alleged "abuser".
CBC covered it up and allowed him to run free then.
Why didn't those women that complained to the CBC come forward to the Crown and testify to demonstrate Ghomeshi's nature?
 
-D- said:
Then those women should sue CBC for covering up this alleged "abuser".
CBC covered it up and allowed him to run free then.
Why didn't those women that complained to the CBC come forward to the Crown and testify to demonstrate Ghomeshi's nature?
Click to expand...

No idea really. Let me know if you figure it out.
 
DJM said:
CBC didn't terminate his employment because of the allegations of these 3 women. He was terminated for being an utter Prima Donna to other colleagues. Anyways, his dirty little secret is out, he's a sadistic prick.
Click to expand...
I still don't get why he wasn't let go earlier, only when he was accused. Something tells me what he was accused of contributed to him being fired.

If these women consented to the sex I don't see a problem with that. These women called him back for more. It appears that these women could not bribe him with sex so they go after whatever they could get from him.
 
He's not done yet....He'll stand trial in June on a separate charge of sexual assault dating back to 2008 separate from the current one.
 
RockerGuy said:
I still don't get why he wasn't let go earlier, only when he was accused. Something tells me what he was accused of contributed to him being fired.

If these women consented to the sex I don't see a problem with that. These women called him back for more. It appears that these women could not bribe him with sex so they go after whatever they could get from him.
Click to expand...

I'm not 100% sure of the timeline between the allegations and CBC investigation. We had to endure a 2 day class on violence in the workplace and respectful workplace policy and procedures as a result of the Ghomeshi incidents. Times are changin', don't get caught on the outside looking in. If you work for a large enough company, best to get updated on this.

I'm not really interested in the trial, he had his day in court. It's all the behavior that led up to it.

I'm not a psychiatrist, I have no explanation for their behaviour but I'm reminded of the hot girls in high school and college that dated the biggest abusive a-holes around.
 
DJM said:
I'm not a psychiatrist, I have no explanation for their behaviour but I'm reminded of the hot girls in high school and college that dated the biggest abusive a-holes around.
Click to expand...

If you're ever interested in looking into this further there is a ton of information online. A lot of it is counterintuitive. So just a fair warning, you may be shocked. Also it could change your view of female nature overall and forever ruin your life as a consequence. Not liking to read, I have spent many months viewing youtube videos on all things female. I am presently in recovery mode.
 
Your virginity is not our concern. #No judging.
 
RockerGuy said:
So the guy is innocent of all charges. The law has spoken with all the evidence & witnesses. I wonder if that guy gets his life & job back?
Shame on you CBC!
Click to expand...

No, he has not necessarily been found "innocent" of all charges. He has merely not been proven guilty of them.

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

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

[142] I find Mr. Ghomeshi not guilty on all of these charges and they will be noted as dismissed.
 
Wife number one. Nice guy I was, became a door mat.


Second relationship after some crappy rebounds.

I'm a total caveman. And apparently she's into it?

I totally don't deserve her and she is way better than me.

Now, I wouldn't go smack her up side the head or choke her unless she uses a safe word. Like "No" or "don't".

Kidding of course.

Well, kinda.

Edit: this ghomeshi kid might be on to something?

Kidding. For reals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
DJM said:
CBC didn't terminate his employment because of the allegations of these 3 women. He was terminated for being an utter Prima Donna to other colleagues. Anyways, his dirty little secret is out, he's a sadistic prick.
Click to expand...

The fourth act (and complainant) for which Ghomeshi faces trial pertains to an incident that apparently happened in his workplace.
 
griff2 said:
No, he has not necessarily been found "innocent" of all charges. He has merely not been proven guilty of them.
Click to expand...

This is laughable. In our legal justice system you are presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial. If at trial you are not proven guilty you do not retain your presumption of innocence? Of course I have always argued that we you are, in reality, guilty until you prove your innocence but I have been assured by some GTAM heavyweights that, no, you are innocent until proven guilty.
 
inreb said:
This is laughable. In our legal justice system you are presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial. If at trial you are not proven guilty you do not retain your presumption of innocence? Of course I have always argued that we you are, in reality, guilty until you prove your innocence but I have been assured by some GTAM heavyweights that, no, you are innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with factual innocence. It has to do with where the burden of proof sits, which is on the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before the system is permitted to impose punishment in the name of society.
 
griff2 said:
The presumption of innocence has nothing to do with factual innocence. It has to do with where the burden of proof sits, which is on the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before the system is permitted to impose punishment in the name of society.
Click to expand...

So this basically says nobody is sure of anything one way or the other so by dint of being charged you may be automatically viewed as guilty or not innocent by society despite being accused by a proven liar. Ya, I get it, Gomeshi leaves a bad flavour and it needs pointing out that he's probably guilty or at least not innocent. Did I mention that the charges were instigated by proven liars?

edit: ah, who am I kidding he's probably guilty. Or at the very least not innocent. I'll be honest. I listened to his radio program from time to time and he had me somewhat charmed. This is hard to admit, being charmed by a smarmy d-bag and woman beater in a sexual context. I'm probably guilty by association. Or at least not factually innocent.
 
Last edited:
inreb said:
So this basically says nobody is sure of anything one way or the other so by dint of being charged you may be automatically viewed as guilty or not innocent by society despite being accused by a proven liar. Ya, I get it, Gomeshi leaves a bad flavour and it needs pointing out that he's probably guilty or at least not innocent. Did I mention that the charges were instigated by proven liars?

edit: ah, who am I kidding he's probably guilty. Or at the very least not innocent. I'll be honest. I listened to his radio program from time to time and he had me somewhat charmed. This is hard to admit, being charmed by a smarmy d-bag and woman beater in a sexual context. I'm probably guilty by association. Or at least not factually innocent.
Click to expand...
He's pretty much arguing semantics which is why I didn't bother replying before to that excessively long post on a motorcycle forum about the epistemology of innocence in the context of Canadian courts.

And then when you're convicted you're not technically 'guilty' you're only guilty in the court of law blah blah blah. What's the point of law when we don't refer to not guilty people as innocent and guilty people with the fine print of ***MIGHT ACTUALLY BE NOT GUILTY***

The mantra and logic behind it is
1) Innocent until proven guilty
2) He's not proven guilty
3) Therefore he's innocent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom