Ian Cole suspended pending investigation into sexual assault and grooming allegations

[The Fonz]

Do we actually know whether or not the burner twitter account interacted/DM’d the NHL?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Well I think you need to reread some of this thread then partner including a post you thanked that clearly refers to Cole as a rapist. So seeing how he has not been convicted of being a rapist would that not be an untrue factual statement?

As I’ve explained at least once, a conviction is not necessary to hold that opinion. And an acquittal doesn’t bar someone from having that opinion, because an acquittal doesn’t mean someone didn’t do it. OJ was acquitted of murder. Yet he would never sue someone for saying he was a murderer.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Perhaps, dissentowner, you can tell us all what the NHL did in their investigation.

I have no idea. That is why I said we should not be calling Cole names and piling on. That is why I said we need the whole story. Now you thanked a post that referred to Cole as a rapist. Perhaps Mr Lawyer you can tell us how you know that Mr. Cole is guilty of these accusations?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by The Fonz

Do we actually know whether or not the burner twitter account interacted/DM’d the NHL?

Apparently not, according to the articles about it. The NHL never spoke to the accuser.

The NHL has a union to deal with and they can’t suspend someone indefinitely. If they hit a dead end their hands were tied. But it really doesn’t mean much when it comes to whether he did it or not.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

As I’ve explained at least once, a conviction is not necessary to hold that opinion. And an acquittal doesn’t bar someone from having that opinion, because an acquittal doesn’t mean someone didn’t do it. OJ was acquitted of murder. Yet he would never sue someone for saying he was a murderer.

So you are saying there is no such thing as a defamation case then. Yet clearly there is. Which is it?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, I’m confused, you think it’s bad to “defame” a hockey player by repeating allegations that were “investigated and cleared” by a private employer who didn’t interview the alleged victim but it’s ok for you to repeatedly “defame” whoever you want just based on what you believe? Seems weird and, honestly, probably why nobody takes you seriously when you play victim.

Honest question, since you’re claiming to have an understanding of it: what’s your professional relation to the law? What do you do that has you better versed than a lawyer in legal matters? Genuinely curious.

Oh I am no lawyer. I understand some law things but I am in no way an expert. I do know that we should not be convicting people based on one social media accusation. Dammit, now I want a gold medal. If he is a lawyer I just learned a new thing, you can win gold in law.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I have no idea. That is why I said we should not be calling Cole names and piling on. That is why I said we need the whole story. Now you thanked a post that referred to Cole as a rapist. Perhaps Mr Lawyer you can tell us how you know that Mr. Cole is guilty of these accusations?

How do I “know”? I don’t. No one aside from the parties will ever “know”. I know the stats on false accusations, the stats on unreported rapes, and the sense I get looking at the particular accusation.

Tell me why Cole hasn’t sued anyone for defamation, including the accuser? And it’s not because he can’t find her.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

So you are saying there is no such thing as a defamation case then. Yet clearly there is. Which is it?

“Yet clearly there is”? Nope. Never said that, and there isn’t. For the many reasons I’ve given and don’t care to repeat.

Show me one successful defamation case off of a message board.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

How do I “know”? I don’t. No one aside from the parties will ever “know”. I know the stats on false accusations, the stats on unreported rapes, and the sense I get looking at the particular accusation.

Tell me why Cole hasn’t sued anyone for defamation, including the accuser? And it’s not because he can’t find her.

I have no idea. Why would Dillon Dube's representation say this about the World Juniors?

"Naming Dillon or attempting to associate him in any way with alleged criminal wrongdoing, or alleging that he was not co-operative with the London police or was unwilling to co-operate with Hockey Canada, will constitute materially false statements constituting defamation causing serious financial and reputational harm," David Cowan, agent for Dubé wrote to CBC

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I have no idea. Why would Dillon Dube's representation say this about the World Juniors?

To scare people, obviously. How many has he actually sued. He’s been named in a lot of reports.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

To scare people, obviously. How many has he actually sued. He’s been named in a lot of reports.

Ahhh, I see. How many of those reports accused him of sexual assault? Do you think if the Sun accused Dube of being part of the group he would sue?

[PepsiFree]

Regarding the “investigated and cleared” notion. The fact that it was a weightless NHL investigation aside, the fact that the investigated for a week, only interviewed Cole (twice) and a couple other NHL officials and didn’t speak to the alleged victim should give anyone pause.

For perspective, even the investigation into Evander Kane crossing the border during COVID took more time than that. The Hockey Canada and Evander Kane gambling/abuse investigations took or are taking many months for the NHL to complete.

Whatever your feelings on the situation, go wild, but can we stop pretending a private company interviewing the guy accused of serious offences and a couple of his coworkers comes remotely close to clearing someone’s name?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Regarding the “investigated and cleared” notion. The fact that it was a weightless NHL investigation aside, the fact that the investigated for a week, only interviewed Cole (twice) and a couple other NHL officials and didn’t speak to the alleged victim should give anyone pause.

For perspective, even the investigation into Evander Kane crossing the border during COVID took more time than that. The Hockey Canada and Evander Kane gambling/abuse investigations took or are taking many months for the NHL to complete.

Whatever your feelings on the situation, go wild, but can we stop pretending a private company interviewing the guy accused of serious offences and a couple of his coworkers comes remotely close to clearing someone’s name?

Fair enough, I agree to that. Can we agree that we shouldn't be referring to him as probably having done it or as a rapist until we know more if we ever know more? That is the battle I am fighting here. If he did it he should pay but can we not tar and feather everyone as soon as they are accused?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Ahhh, I see. How many of those reports accused him of sexual assault?

That’s not what his (non-lawyer) agent threatened. He said anyone naming him “in association” with the criminal activity would be sued. Dube’s been named several times like that. No one’s been sued.

You are relying on a commonplace scare tactic to prove some sort of definition of defamation. David Cowan isn’t a lawyer but even if he was, saying something constitutes defamation in a threatening press release doesn’t make it so.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

That’s not what his (non-lawyer) agent threatened. He said anyone naming him “in association” with the criminal activity would be sued. Dube’s been named several times like that. No one’s been sued.

You are relying on a commonplace scare tactic to prove some sort of definition of defamation. David Cowan isn’t a lawyer but even if he was, saying something constitutes defamation in a threatening press release doesn’t make it so.

Ok, I can see that. All this is mess is over people calling me horrible, a misogynist, a raper supporter all because I pointed out that maybe everyone should not have made the comments they made when this came out. That until we know the facts we can't say either way. I thought everyone was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Why on social media does that never seem to be the case?

[dissentowner]

And how in the hell did it get to be 4am here?

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

What an absolutely brutal take. Again, she felt she had to tell the world but you are twisting it to try and make me sound horrible? Why did she feel the need to make it public? Oh but she couldn't talk about it right? You are seriously demented man, you have some serious issues and your take is ABSOLUTELY part of the problem. Just fn terrible. You were the one who said maybe she put it out there to protect other victims and then you try to put that on me? I am not sure if you are trolling or if you have serious mental health issues. You can't have it both ways by posting what you originally posted and then try and make it seem to come from me. The fact anyone in their right mind would thank that piece of garbage you just wrote proves my point. You are also making the conclusion that she in fact was a rape victim. You can't know that, again jumping to conclusions when you don't know wtf you are even babbling about. You are part of the problem, the ignorant take you just made with no evidence at all to back up the trash you just wrote. And seeing how the Me Too Movement is about exposing the issue every person that thanked your post essentially just said they are against that movement, shall we label them misogynists? One of which is suppisedly a lawyer and follows the justice system. *Cough bull####*

Look I'm not going to respond anymore because you're clearly not reading posts and are looking to attack anyone who disagrees with your disgusting takes. Get your last word in like you need to while feeling like a victim.

But for clarity, I have made TWO posts tangentially talking about Ian Cole (another post about Kane, and another about police for a total of four posts in this thread).

Perhaps you have me confused with another poster because not once said that she was definitely raped. I used "alleged" every single time while bringing up the possibility that it was a troll, something I haven't ruled out despite your false claims (I should hire a defamation lawyer lol).

I have simply tried to provide you rationale as to why, if she was raped, that she might still not go to the police or want to remain anonymous. I gave you links from a law firm to read.

The only time I spoke definitively was when you used the wording "If it happened then she owes it to herself and possible other victims to cooperate." It was a stipulation that you created; IF it happened she OWES this. I said it's gross telling any rape victim that she owes anyone anything using your own caveat that "IF" it happened.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Look I'm not going to respond anymore because you're clearly not reading posts and are looking to attack anyone who disagrees with your disgusting takes. Get your last word in like you need to while feeling like a victim.

But for clarity, I have made TWO posts tangentially talking about Ian Cole (another post about Kane, and another about police for a total of four posts in this thread).

Perhaps you have me confused with another poster because not once said that she was definitely raped. I used "alleged" every single time while bringing up the possibility that it was a troll, something I haven't ruled out despite your false claims (I should hire a defamation lawyer lol).

I have simply tried to provide you rationale as to why, if she was raped, that she might still not go to the police or want to remain anonymous. I gave you links from a law firm to read.

The only time I spoke definitively was when you used the wording "If it happened then she owes it to herself and possible other victims to cooperate." It was a stipulation that you created; IF it happened she OWES this. I said it's gross telling any rape victim that she owes anyone anything using your own caveat that "IF" it happened.

Good, we will agree not to respond to eachother. I never attacked you, you attacked me. It was you who said when I asked why she would be comfortable telling the entire world about it that brought up protecting other victims by doing so. Then you about faced and tried to say she should not have to say anything...except she already did. The problem with your take is you are looking at it from a he is guilty point of view regardless of what you say. If she was comfortable enough to announce to the world what happened then she would be comfortable enough to follow through with any investigation imo. When sexual abuse victims are traumatized by the events they endured and can't talk about it they don't go screaming it to the world so your argument is invalid in this case. What is really "grosse" is that there are people like you that always believe the alleged victim. Perhaps even more "grosse" is that you think a woman that was sexually assaulted and felt comfortable enough to shout it out to the world should not follow through to perhaps prevent someone else from going through the same traumatic experiences. So in the end it adds up that you would rather see sexual predators protected so they can reoffend over a victim working their way toward being able to come out with their story. Can't say I remotely agree with that but for you and those that thanked your post, you do you. Disturbing.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

f she was comfortable enough to announce to the world what happened then she would be comfortable enough to follow through with any investigation imo.
....
When sexual abuse victims are traumatized by the events they endured and can't talk about it they don't go screaming it to the world so your argument is invalid in this case.

Sorry, simply for clarity, you're aware she spoke out anonymously right? She isn't "screaming it to the world." She made a single post on twitter, then quietly disappeared, at least to us as the public. I'm not sure anyone would use your idiom that way to describe this situation. Like it's almost the exact opposite where, if she was raped, she is too quiet to even make a peep except an anonymous post that she said took years to find the courage for.

Perhaps she decided to speak out anonymously because sadly she felt that this was the only way she could be fully transparent without receiving harassment and retaliation.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Sorry, simply for clarity, you're aware she spoke out anonymously right? She isn't "screaming it to the world." She made a single post on twitter, then quietly disappeared, at least to us as the public. I'm not sure anyone would use your idiom that way to describe this situation. Like it's almost the exact opposite where, if she was raped, she is too quiet to even make a peep except an anonymous post that she said took years to find the courage for.

Perhaps she decided to speak out anonymously because sadly she felt that this was the only way she could be fully transparent without receiving harassment and retaliation.

Fair enough. We agree to disagree about certain things. I think we both want to see him shut down and pay the price if he is guilty right? I think this has dragged on long enough. Things get heated in tough discussions and personal. I get where you are coming from. Let's just let it go.