The Jian Ghomeshi saga

[Barrister]

Which suggests that indeed Ghomeshi was not completely open and honest with Navigator.

Randi Rahamim @randiraha  ·  32m 32 minutes ago
Regrettably, circumstances have changed. Navigator confirms it does not advise Jian Ghomeshi. No further comment will be issued.

https://twitter.com/randiraha

[Malthus]

Which suggests that indeed Ghomeshi was not completely open and honest with Navigator.

Randi Rahamim @randiraha  ·  32m 32 minutes ago
Regrettably, circumstances have changed. Navigator confirms it does not advise Jian Ghomeshi. No further comment will be issued.

https://twitter.com/randiraha

Heh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is. 

[Jacob]

Heh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is. 

I assume the there is little in the way of client-PR firm privilege? If you admit criminal wrongdoing to your PR firm, there's nothing the prevents them from divulging it (other than protecting their own reputation, but that likely won't stand up in court)?

[Barrister]

Heh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is. 

I assume the there is little in the way of client-PR firm privilege? If you admit criminal wrongdoing to your PR firm, there's nothing the prevents them from divulging it (other than protecting their own reputation, but that likely won't stand up in court)?

Won't stand up in court, but the police have no ability to force someone to give a statement prior to a court date, and as a Crown I'm not going to call a witness on the hope they might have something useful to say.

Plus, when your company's livelihood is giving advice to people in difficult situations, your reputation is all you've got.

[crazy canuck]

Heh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is. 

I assume the there is little in the way of client-PR firm privilege? If you admit criminal wrongdoing to your PR firm, there's nothing the prevents them from divulging it (other than protecting their own reputation, but that likely won't stand up in court)?

That is why the smarter thing to do is tell your lawyer everything before you decide a PR strategy.  The lawyer can then retain experts to help with things incidental to the legal advice being given.  All of it is then priviledged if the expert is being retained in contemplation of litigation, which would seem a good argument to make in this case.

[Jacob]

That is why the smarter thing to do is tell your lawyer everything before you decide a PR strategy.  The lawyer can then retain experts to help with things incidental to the legal advice being given.  All of it is then priviledged if the expert is being retained in contemplation of litigation, which would seem a good argument to make in this case.

I'll keep that in mind should the need ever arise.

[Scipio]

Never go full dumbass.

[Josephus]

I don't think he lied to them....but who knows?

My feeling is he's such a meglomaniac (and that's slowly being revealed), that he wouldn't lie to them because he is CONVINCED he did nothing wrong, that the girls weren't coerced because after all he's Jian Ghomeshi and all girls dig him.

I think they dropped because they can't see a win-win situation for them now, publicity is turning against them and maybe they know he's a bit of a basket case...and maybe he did the facebook thing against their wishes and used that excuse to back out.

Anyway, thing is this is all about consent. He says yes, they say no, and this is never going to be determined in a court of public opinion or in the media (yes even my beloved newspaper industry can't fix this).

[Josephus]

Languish suspicions confirmed:

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/30/jian_ghomeshi_dumped_by_pr_firm_over_lies_sources_say.html

[nobody posted this one yet, right?]

[Malthus]

Heh, you were right - the obvious conclusion is that he out and out lied to them about the factual matrix, and they based their PR strategy on his lies. A strategy which is now in ruins as a result. So they parted ways. 

Enough to make Big Ears Teddy sad, it is. 

I assume the there is little in the way of client-PR firm privilege? If you admit criminal wrongdoing to your PR firm, there's nothing the prevents them from divulging it (other than protecting their own reputation, but that likely won't stand up in court)?

Usual way it goes in contentious cases is that the client doesn't hire the firm directly, but through his or her lawyers. I've hired PR firms in the past, for product recalls.

The one golden rule in such situations (particularly for product recalls, but applies in other situations as well I think): you never, ever want damaging news to come out in dribs and drabs. That keeps the story alive while at the same time feeding speculation - what else is to come? And the notion that the initial disclosure wasn't complete and honest.

So, the usual advice we give the clients is: be sure that you know (and tell your advisers) the full extent of the problem. Often, a client will say, yes there is a problem with one SKU, but it is contained - nothing else is affected. Nothing? Nothing. Then it turns out that they are only admitting to a problem with that one SKU because they had to - Health Canada found broken glass in the bottle or whatever; but they knew, or ought to have known, that 8 other SKUs were exposed to the same problem ... so 2 weeks later there's another recall. That makes the PR situation ten times worse than if the had only one recall of 9 SKUs. 

[crazy canuck]

That is why the smarter thing to do is tell your lawyer everything before you decide a PR strategy.  The lawyer can then retain experts to help with things incidental to the legal advice being given.  All of it is then priviledged if the expert is being retained in contemplation of litigation, which would seem a good argument to make in this case.

I'll keep that in mind should the need ever arise.

Given who Ghomeshi was dealing with I assume that is what he was told.   

[Josephus]

You gusy bored of this already?

Here's something new (hopefuly)

Apparently Ghomeshi showed The CBC video of him in action prior to getting fired in an effort to explain how consensual BDSM can still lead to bruising. It was after watching this video that CBC decided to let him go.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/31/jian_ghomeshi_showed_cbc_video_of_bondage_beating_sources.html

[crazy canuck]

This has become the train wreck people can't help but watch.

Your article ties in which what it being reported at the Globe.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation told its employees Friday afternoon that it fired host Jian Ghomeshi as a result of seeing graphic evidence last week that he had caused "physical injury to a woman."

[Jacob]

Okay...

... so showing your own sex videos to your employer?

I don't quite know what to think of that.

[Ed Anger]

This thread just got interesting