Patrick Brown/CTV

[CaptainCrunch]

I didn't know where to put this, but, this is a big story

http://torontosun.com/news/provincia...ctv-now-admits

ORONTO — A key accusation which cost Patrick Brown the leadership of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party – that he plied an underage high school girl with booze – is not true, CTV News now acknowledges.

The stunning revelation concerns a woman who told CTV that when she was a student in a Barrie high school, the then federal Conservative MP took her home from a bar, gave her booze, took her to his room, and crudely asked for oral sex.

“She now says that she was of legal drinking age and out of high school,” the CTV News online article published late Tuesday says.

The CTV story that landed Jan. 24 was centred around allegations of sexual misconduct by two women.

In the first case, a woman said she was in high school and underage, and in the second alleged incident, a former PC staffer said he tried to kiss her and climbed on top of her when the two were in his bedroom.


Brown said the first incident never happened, and in the second, he was the one who got kissed, not the other way around.


Pollster John Wright tweeted Wednesday, “CTV now reports that accuser of Patrick Brown recounts key piece: she was not underage in bar and not in high school but she ‘stands by her core story’ and CTV stands by their original story. In a court of law this would shred a case. CTV credibility is on very, very thin ice.”

Now I want to be clear, I still think that Brown needs to be out, if the second story turns out to be false, then there's a discussion that can probably happen.

But the whole context of Brown taking an underaged woman back to his room and lying her with alcohol and asking for oral sex is different now.

This is the problem with due process by the media and the public, CBC and this story now have a credibility problem, either they knew she was lying and rushed to publish, or they didn't know and didn't do their due diligence.

[CaptainCrunch]

Maybe the mods can delete this or move it. I thought it was an important standalone topic, but maybe it does belong in the other thread.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe the mods can delete this or move it. I thought it was an important standalone topic, but maybe it does belong in the other thread.

Maybe, but it may also be the catalyst for the conversation of how mind boggling stupid it is to convict a guy in the court of public opinion based on allegations that absolutely no one has vetted, no proof exists on yet, and can destroy someones life regardless of guilt or innocence.

The twitterverse court so to speak.

It's an extremely dangerous and slippery slope that a civilized society should want no part of.

[burn_this_city]

He should sue the accuser and news agencies for libel.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The twitterverse court so to speak.

It's an extremely dangerous and slippery slope that a civilized society should want no part of.

I am inclined to agree.

We really need to ensure that people remain innocent until proven otherwise, even if they are an apparent scumbag ie: Harvey Weinstein.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

He should sue the accuser and news agencies for libel.

He should, but does it really matter.

I mean sure he would get money, lots and lots of money.

But he really can't go back into the political arena again, his career was pretty much destroyed.

Who knows what effect it did to his family.

Like I said, even if at the very least this changes his story from a creepy guy who tried to get an underaged girl drunk and then demanded a drink. To a guy that took a girl home, and plyed her with drinks and failed to score.

But in the court of public opinion, he'll always be suspected.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the second story. This was always kind of henky from the CTV standpoint, after these two stories emerged, CTV breathlessly talked about investigating other stories that never appeared.

[burn_this_city]

There needs to be a cost to slander, otherwise they will continue to publish nonsense accusations.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

There needs to be a cost to slander, otherwise they will continue to publish nonsense accusations.

I agree, but I remember reading a book about the media, and basically a un named executive stated that the media was above all the laws of slander and libel because they define the news, but they can also hide behind the, we did the fact check and our source lied.

The media, makes the story, creates the narrative, and forces policy, but are protected by being able to throw their source under the bus.

[troutman]

Patrick Brown accusers stand by allegations

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patr...ions-1.3802657

Full statement from lawyer David Butt
"These are the sorts of collateral details that inevitably fade over time. Equally importantly, collateral detail witnesses themselves often have the same frailties of faded memory and/or their own reasons for giving answers that distance themselves from controversy. 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."

I'm not so quick to conclude Brown is completely exonerated. There were earlier comments from the media that his bad behavior was an "open secret", and that what has been disclosed so far is the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.flare.com/news/patrick-brown/

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by troutman

Patrick Brown accusers stand by allegations

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patr...ions-1.3802657

I'm not so quick to conclude Brown is completely exonerated. There were earlier comments from the media that his bad behavior was an "open secret", and that what has been disclosed so far is the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.flare.com/news/patrick-brown/

Like I posted in the other thread:

"I stand absolutely by the truth of what I said to CTV. There is nothing in what Patrick Brown alleges that undermines the core truth of what I have experienced with him," said the woman who accused Brown of dropping his pants and telling her to perform oral sex in his home about 10 years ago, a claim he denies.

same article:

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.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

Patrick Brown accusers stand by allegations

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patr...ions-1.3802657

Full statement from lawyer David Butt
"These are the sorts of collateral details that inevitably fade over time. Equally importantly, collateral detail witnesses themselves often have the same frailties of faded memory and/or their own reasons for giving answers that distance themselves from controversy. 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."

I'm not so quick to conclude Brown is completely exonerated. There were earlier comments from the media that his bad behavior was an "open secret", and that what has been disclosed so far is the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.flare.com/news/patrick-brown/

The issue isn't whether or not Brown is a creep. The issue is whether specific allegations that can destroy someone's career and standing in society should be publicly aired without verification. The fact Brown may have done creepy things to other women at other times doesn't make it okay that this serious public allegation was false.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by troutman

Patrick Brown accusers stand by allegations

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/patr...ions-1.3802657

Full statement from lawyer David Butt
"These are the sorts of collateral details that inevitably fade over time. Equally importantly, collateral detail witnesses themselves often have the same frailties of faded memory and/or their own reasons for giving answers that distance themselves from controversy. 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."

I'm not so quick to conclude Brown is completely exonerated. There were earlier comments from the media that his bad behavior was an "open secret", and that what has been disclosed so far is the tip of the iceberg.

http://www.flare.com/news/patrick-brown/

Ok, I get what he's saying, but there's a difference between screwing up details like locations and some of the activities and going from being a underaged girl plyed with liquor and being asked to provide oral sex, and being a overaged girl. That's a pretty big thing to blame on things like survival fragmentation.

[Wormius]

That's interesting. Has there ever been a case where somebody is actually guilty of most of the bad things that they were accused of, but was able to sue for damages for the false claims made against them?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

The issue isn't whether or not Brown is a creep. The issue is whether specific allegations that can destroy someone's career and standing in society should be publicly aired without verification. The fact Brown may have done creepy things to other women at other times doesn't make it okay that this serious public allegation was false.

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.

[PepsiFree]

I doubt it would have mattered much had her age been different, the accusations of him being a creep stick.

How much sympathy are we supposed to have for those whose jobs depend solely on the public reputation they build for themselves?

Plenty of people, especially as we’ve seen, manufacture positive public images despite negative activities. Why should we care if the only consequences is that their career, built on a manufactured public image, may be disrupted?

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The issue is that it's not really clear to me if this should be considered a "negative activity", as you put it. I mean, is the story that he picked up a younger girl (who was nonetheless an adult with the capability to make her own decisions) at a bar, took her back to his place with her consent, and asked her for sex? If so, that seems like no one else's business. Maybe I'm just missing some detail here as a result of not caring that much about the sordid details of an Ontario politician's sex life.

I mean, if he had a whole public image based on being a puritan or something, and you could call him a hypocrite, that'd be one thing. This just seems like sniffing around in someone's underwear drawer.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by troutman

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

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

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I doubt it would have mattered much had her age been different, the accusations of him being a creep stick.

How much sympathy are we supposed to have for those whose jobs depend solely on the public reputation they build for themselves?

Plenty of people, especially as we’ve seen, manufacture positive public images despite negative activities. Why should we care if the only consequences is that their career, built on a manufactured public image, may be disrupted?

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

There's always going to be that line between under and over aged girls.

Having a story where a guy approaches a under age girl buys her liquor takes her home and continues to give her drinks and then drops his pants and demands a sexual favor is not only predatory in nature but also illegal.

A guy going to the bar and picking up a girl that's legal buying her drinks and see above isn't really the same thing, and not to defend Brown, but how can you believe the accusation at all. Did she go willingly to his house. Its different. Now we're into the realm of why she lied about her age, was it to sensationalize her story? To extract maximum vengeance on Brown.

To be honest, this is the thing that's going to throw the whole MeToo movement into the shadows again.

The execution of people by public opinion

People exaggerating or lying in their accusations for whatever reason become hijackers.

I can't even say right now how creepy Brown is, because now the second story is being thrown into doubt as he's claimed that she tried to kiss him and he pushed her away.

[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????

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

Presumably they could have somehow verified the date these events took place, her birthday and the year she graduated from high school. Like how are these not things they could have checked?

These are difficult questions, and an important discussion to be having.
Media is being swept away by social justice and outrage culture and didn't bother doing their due diligence, but they won't be held to account.

[CaptainCrunch]

Is this now just another bad date/bad pickup?