The Jian Ghomeshi saga

[Barrister]

Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Lots of the timing is perfectly clear.

CBC fired Ghomeshi (A).  Later that day, Ghomeshi posts on Facebook (B).

Then today the Star posts its story (C).

It seems clear that A caused B, which caused C.

WHat's missing of course is what caused A, and whether or not there are any other shoes to drop. 

[garbon]

The sex drive has been constrained by legal means since before written history. What makes you think it can't be done?

Because it has generally failed to be effective?

Well it's never 100% effective. But it was sure effective at the suppression of things like homosexuality. I don't want to drive sex into the black market any more than it already is.

It may have kept homosexuality more out of sight but I'm struggling to think on how it was effective at suppressing it.

[garbon]

60 Minutes had a piece last night on genetic engineering and the future ability to map out pathways for eliminating potential genetic dispositions to birth defects, etc.;  the scientist even said that we'd eventually arrive at procreation without intercourse, as having sex would simply be too dangerous.

Too dangerous for what?

To risk the potential in birth defects.  Everybody is a carrier of bad genetic material for something;  it's when two people who carry the same bad genetic material procreate that bad shit can happen.  It's all X and Y stuff.

That doesn't mean sex is too dangerous - just "too dangerous" for procreative purposes.

[derspiess]

I guess it has something to do with the pain/pleasure receptors. I mean unless someone is loosey goosey, there's always some discomfort and/or pain with penetrative sex

I think we have different perspectives on that.  I can't think of any pain or discomfort and I'm always extra careful not to cause any (I'd definitely hear about it otherwise).

Well I suppose penis size does play a role.

Again, different perspectives...

[Martinus]

Knowing BB, he was probably bullied by some submissive woman into being dominant in bed, and hated it.

From experience (and that is quite counterintuitive to most people who do not engage in BDSM), I know that sexual submissives can be some of the most demanding, "my way or highway" people when it comes to relationships and arranging sexual encounters.

[crazy canuck]

Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

The thing that mystifies me is what damage he could possibly claim against the CBC other then contractual damages which won't amount to much and may be zero assuming the CBC simply paid out his severance.   So why the public threat of a law suit for 50M?  The CBC didnt say anything to anyone.  The only reason we know about the lurid details is because he made them public.

And it sure seems that has backfired on him in a big way.

[garbon]

From experience (and that is quite counterintuitive to most people who do not engage in BDSM), I know that sexual submissives can be some of the most demanding, "my way or highway" people when it comes to relationships and arranging sexual encounters.

That doesn't strike me as counter intuitive. Sounds like they know what they want which may include being more passive in the sheets.

[Martinus]

Plus control freaks and perfectionists tend to be submissive in the sack because that way they can give up control (and responsibility) to the dominant party, thus making the experience kathartic. That is why the comedic trope of a bossy CEO visiting a domina to lead him on a leash once in a while is not far from truth.

[Josephus]

Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Lots of the timing is perfectly clear.

CBC fired Ghomeshi (A).  Later that day, Ghomeshi posts on Facebook (B).

Then today the Star posts its story (C).

It seems clear that A caused B, which caused C.

WHat's missing of course is what caused A, and whether or not there are any other shoes to drop.

Yeah, figured all that. By timing I specifcally meant why did CBC fire him NOW and cause the chain? They wouldn't have done so unless they knew the story was going to come out.

[crazy canuck]

Toronto Star says that they investigated the story, declined to publicize it due to lack of corroboration, but changed their mind after Ghomeshi's "extraordinary statement on Facebook".

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/10/26/why_the_star_chose_to_publish_jian_ghomeshi_allegations.html

Again - I'm no PR professional but his decision to "get in front of this story" still seems very questionable.

Yes. The timing seems strange. There's some things we obviously don't know.
Why did CBC fire him this weekend? The Star's been working on the story for months, and CBC knew about it.
Why did Ghomeshi release his version of the story? ie. Why confess the lurid details and why now?

Seems to me he knew something was coming out and wanted to nip it in the bud. Or he new that the story would come out in any legal action he took, and wanted to come out first with a "see I got nothing to hide.'

Lots of the timing is perfectly clear.

CBC fired Ghomeshi (A).  Later that day, Ghomeshi posts on Facebook (B).

Then today the Star posts its story (C).

It seems clear that A caused B, which caused C.

WHat's missing of course is what caused A, and whether or not there are any other shoes to drop.

Yeah, figured all that. By timing I specifcally meant why did CBC fire him NOW and cause the chain? They wouldn't have done so unless they knew the story was going to come out.

The timing is an interesting question but it could be for reasons other than the story coming out.  Off the top of my head the possibilities (all of which are purely speculative), in no particular order are:

1) The CBC had concluded its internal investigation of the complaint made by the employee and determined it had sufficent merit to terminate;
2) Ghomeshi was going to return after his leave and the CBC needed to make a decision; or
3) The CBC learned more information not included in the Ghomeshi disclosure which merited termination.

Given that the Star has been on this story since May I think the explanation that the CBC decision was in response to the story going public is the least likely.  The only reason this became public is because of the termination.  It is clear the Star was not going to publish unless they could get more substantive sources who were willing to on record.

[Josephus]

Wow the Star acting responsibly....someone on this forum said they did...can't remember who.

[crazy canuck]

Wow the Star acting responsibly....someone on this forum said they did...can't remember who.

You were right.  There I said it.

[Josephus]

 

[Jacob]

I was about to comment on this, but I'm glad you guys had your moment 

It wasn't your story, was it Josephus?

[Josephus]

My story? God, no.....

...I wish though