Patrick Brown/CTV

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by jayswin

Wouldn't the reasonable solution be that they can't report on he said/she said claims unless they can verify them?

That would require being logical.

There is no room for logic on this stuff any longer.

[burn_this_city]

29 year old guy picks up a legal girl at the bar, goes home with her, and asks for sex and is rebuffed. Is this really a controversial story now?

[GGG]

The first story was always likely not illegal provided the person wasn't too drunk to consent. Her being in a bar is sufficient proof of age for me. There was always the moral /ethics question of the age difference which still reamaims regardless if she was 18 or 19

He should sue for liable if he has been wronged. The remedy provided in our system for this type of incident is the liable laws. The media balances the public good/ratings of this information coming out against the risk of liable.

If Brown is a victim of a crime the court system is where he should seek remedy.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

He should sue for liable if he has been wronged. The remedy provided in our system for this type of incident is the liable laws. The media balances the public good/ratings of this information coming out against the risk of liable.

LIBEL! L-i-b-e-l. Not "liable". Liable is a state of being, and means that you have some liability - you have some responsibility, e.g. to pay for something. Libel is defamation in print.

It's also not a crime. It's a tort.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

The first story was always likely not illegal provided the person wasn't too drunk to consent. Her being in a bar is sufficient proof of age for me. There was always the moral /ethics question of the age difference which still reamaims regardless if she was 18 or 19

What she did in her lie was unleash the nuclear bomb of career and personal life destruction. She used the I was under aged at the time bomb.

At that point his life/career and everything was over, everything came to a screeching halt.

And she goes from being a survivor to being something worse, and the question has be be asked if this was something vindictive.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by troutman

The part that was false was her being underage? Couldn't the rest of it be true?

How can the media verify he said/she said claims?

These are difficult questions, and an important discussion to be having.

The problem as well becomes if you place an exceedingly high burden of proof on someone making an accusation, do you not run the inadvertent risk of silencing victims of sexual assault from being able to speak out. Now obviously there shouldn't be anyone lying to the media in order to promote a story, but how can the media be possibly expected to verify every aspect of a story like this?

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The problem as well becomes if you place an exceedingly high burden of proof on someone making an accusation, do you not run the inadvertent risk of silencing victims of sexual assault from being able to speak out. Now obviously there shouldn't be anyone lying to the media in order to promote a story, but how can the media be possibly expected to verify every aspect of a story like this?

Is her age at the time of the alleged assault REALLLY that hard to verify?

[Kjesse]

As soon as one realizes she lied about a core element of her story, in this case being underage, the rest of her credibility falls completely. She should not be believed at all in respect of the alleged incident. If she can't get that major piece right, she can't be relied upon to get any of it right, especially given the gravity of what she caused.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The problem as well becomes if you place an exceedingly high burden of proof on someone making an accusation, do you not run the inadvertent risk of silencing victims of sexual assault from being able to speak out. Now obviously there shouldn't be anyone lying to the media in order to promote a story, but how can the media be possibly expected to verify every aspect of a story like this?

Lets define high burden of proof though

I would expect that if someone stats that they were underaged and taken advantage of by an older man, that the minimum burden of proof would be that she was honest about the premise.

I hope that CTV can basically cancel the payment to her, because they're going to need it.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

The problem as well becomes if you place an exceedingly high burden of proof on someone making an accusation, do you not run the inadvertent risk of silencing victims of sexual assault from being able to speak out. Now obviously there shouldn't be anyone lying to the media in order to promote a story, but how can the media be possibly expected to verify every aspect of a story like this?

like was said. maybe not every aspect, but it would have been easy for them to verify her freaking age at the time.
but hey. what she said had truthiness, that's all that counted for the media in this case.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

The part that was false was her being underage? Couldn't the rest of it be true?
- and if it was true? Drunk girl goes home with man, he asks for oral, she initially obliges, then relents and leaves, he doesn't stop her...news at 11????

Where did she say initially obliged? That could be, I just haven't found it yet. One account I found:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...isconduct.html

Brown asked her for a sex act. “He pulled down his pants and I don’t know if he said ‘suck my dick’ or ‘put this in my mouth’ but something along those lines,” the woman said.

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 [we know now this is not true].

She said she was drunk at the time, and Brown offered her a tour of the house.

“He kind of shut the door on me and started making moves,” she told CTV. “I kind of came to, frantic, like ’kay, you need to let me out, I’m leaving.”

They were in the room for between five and 10 minutes, she said, describing the situation as “controlling.”

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Kjesse

As soon as one realizes she lied about a core element of her story, in this case being underage, the rest of her credibility falls completely. She should not be believed at all in respect of the alleged incident. If she can't get that major piece right, she can't be relied upon to get any of it right, especially given the gravity of what she caused.

This isn't really fair. Even courts may accept none, some or all of a witness' evidence. Complainants often make mistakes about details such as the time or date of an assault (particularly if it is historic). Courts still (sometimes) accept the core elements of their evidence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

What she did in her lie was unleash the nuclear bomb of career and personal life destruction. She used the I was under aged at the time bomb.

At that point his life/career and everything was over, everything came to a screeching halt.

And she goes from being a survivor to being something worse, and the question has be be asked if this was something vindictive.

PEople get victimized all of the time.

The remedy is our court and Justice system. If a drunk driver hits you it destroys your life the remedy is the courts.

[81MC]

The issue at this point isn’t even about credibility or what should be believed/not believed.
Two consenting adults met at a bar. They later went to one parties house, where sexual activity was wished by one and not the other. The unwilling party left.

Nothing about that is criminal. Nor immoral. Nor misconduct. Maybe he wasn’t the most charming of individuals, or his bed was dirty, or his dick smelt funny, none of which is anything beyond a poor date. The absurdity of this kind of accusation gaining enough traction to derail a mans entire career is obscene.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by troutman

Where did she say initially obliged? That could be, I just haven't found it yet. One account I found:

https://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...isconduct.html

Brown asked her for a sex act. “He pulled down his pants and I don’t know if he said ‘suck my dick’ or ‘put this in my mouth’ but something along those lines,” the woman said.

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 [we know now this is not true].

She said she was drunk at the time, and Brown offered her a tour of the house.

“He kind of shut the door on me and started making moves,” she told CTV. “I kind of came to, frantic, like ’kay, you need to let me out, I’m leaving.”

They were in the room for between five and 10 minutes, she said, describing the situation as “controlling.”

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.
The woman alleges that he then asked her to perform oral sex, which she did for a short time before stopping.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patr...ader-1.3774686

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

29 year old guy picks up a legal girl at the bar, goes home with her, and asks for sex and is rebuffed. Is this really a controversial story now?

Actually, that does seem to be the case. I'm seeing an emerging belief out there that significant age difference between sexual partners is inherently exploitive and gross*. It might be related to the new consensus that 22 year olds are still adolescents.

* Most recently, I read a review of Mindhunter, and the reviewer (a woman) wrote that it was unrealistic and gross that the 22 year old sociology masters student was hooking up with an FBI guy who was seven years older than her.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, that does seem to be the case. I'm seeing an emerging belief out there that significant age difference between sexual partners is inherently exploitive and gross*. It might be related to the new consensus that 22 year olds are still adolescents.

Anecdote: I recently had an interaction like this with a co-worker. Somehow it came up that I'd dated an 18 year old when I was 22. Apparently, this was exploitative, and suggested that I was a bad person, and that said co-worker thought less of me as a result. This from a professional with a graduate degree. As Andrew Sullivan wrote last week, we're all on campus now...

[Jacks]

Too much here to start quoting
http://canoe.com/news/provincial/wit...b-de7dbd506beb

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Anecdote: I recently had an interaction like this with a co-worker. Somehow it came up that I'd dated an 18 year old when I was 22. Apparently, this was exploitative, and suggested that I was a bad person, and that said co-worker thought less of me as a result. This from a professional with a graduate degree. As Andrew Sullivan wrote last week, we're all on campus now...

This is good for you.

Now you know you never have to commiserate with this person ever again unless work duties require. 1 less person to pretend to be friends with!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Too much here to start quoting
http://canoe.com/news/provincial/wit...b-de7dbd506beb

Wow. I wonder if Brown will sue CTV, or if he just wants this to all go away.