[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

While he may never work in Toronto again, I suspect compensation is coming his way.

Compensation for what and from whom?

[andyt]

Couldn't really think what that behavior would be, certainly not, ahem, public drunkenness.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

While he may never work in Toronto again, I suspect compensation is coming his way.

Compensation for what and from whom?

Perhaps some civil proceedings against the women or the CBC....I wouldn't rule anything out.

If he is found innocent in this case and the next one, I would suspect him and his lawyer will come out guns-blazing.

[peck420]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Perhaps some civil proceedings against the women or the CBC....I wouldn't rule anything out.

If he is found innocent in this case and the next one, I would suspect him and his lawyer will come out guns-blazing.

With how quickly Ghomeshi's legal team dropped the suit against CBC, I doubt he has much of a legal leg to stand on against the CBC.

Also, I don't think he can legally pursue the complainants. They didn't levy any charges against Ghomeshi, they came forward per the request of Toronto PD, after the Crown levied the charges.

I have no comment in regards to the only individual that has levied charges against Ghomeshi, as that trial hasn't started yet.

[OnTheIce]

peck420 peck420:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Perhaps some civil proceedings against the women or the CBC....I wouldn't rule anything out.

If he is found innocent in this case and the next one, I would suspect him and his lawyer will come out guns-blazing.

With how quickly Ghomeshi's legal team dropped the suit against CBC, I doubt he has much of a legal leg to stand on against the CBC.

Also, I don't think he can legally pursue the complainants. They didn't levy any charges against Ghomeshi, they came forward per the request of Toronto PD, after the Crown levied the charges.

I have no comment in regards to the only individual that has levied charges against Ghomeshi, as that trial hasn't started yet.

The suit was without merit. More of a 'fuck you' from Jian.

He does have recourse via his union and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

If the CBC did indeed fire Jian because they didn't like that he liked to have "rough sex" that's going to be a problem for them.

[peck420]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The suit was without merit. More of a 'fuck you' from Jian.

Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that the only people even at potential fault are the complainants, which I do believe are protected from recourse by law. Everyone else appears to have done their tasks to the best of their ability, based on the information they had at the time (prosecution, Toronto PD, etc.).

$1:

He does have recourse via his union and the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

If the CBC did indeed fire Jian because they didn't like that he liked to have "rough sex" that's going to be a problem for them.

This has yet to be determined. There is still the outstanding trial.

[OnTheIce]

peck420 peck420:

This has yet to be determined. There is still the outstanding trial.

The trial is irrelevant with respect to the termination of his employment.

If he was terminated because he liked rough sex, I think he has a case. At the time of his dismissal, there were no charges and no complaints made to police.

[BRAH]

Drops the mic.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Perhaps some civil proceedings against the women or the CBC....I wouldn't rule anything out.

But for what? No one has defamed him. He was not wrongly dismissed. So what possible damages could he claim? On the other hand, all the evidence used against him in this trial, plus all the evidence that was ruled inadmissible would be introduced in a civil case.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If he is found innocent in this case and the next one, I would suspect him and his lawyer will come out guns-blazing.

He wasn't found innocent. The judge even said that in his decision. He was found not guilty. No, he will listen to his lawyer when she tells him to take this as a victory and walk away. He would never be stupid enough to allow evidence that was ruled inadmissible in the criminal trial to be used against him in a civil trial. No one is that stupid. He walked only because of "reasonable doubt" and that plays no part in a civil case.

[Lemmy]

peck420 peck420:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Perhaps some civil proceedings against the women or the CBC....I wouldn't rule anything out.

If he is found innocent in this case and the next one, I would suspect him and his lawyer will come out guns-blazing.

With how quickly Ghomeshi's legal team dropped the suit against CBC, I doubt he has much of a legal leg to stand on against the CBC.

Also, I don't think he can legally pursue the complainants. They didn't levy any charges against Ghomeshi, they came forward per the request of Toronto PD, after the Crown levied the charges.

I have no comment in regards to the only individual that has levied charges against Ghomeshi, as that trial hasn't started yet.

Get your quotations correct, peck. I didn't say what you're quoting me as having said.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

But for what? No one has defamed him. He was not wrongly dismissed. So what possible damages could he claim? On the other hand, all the evidence used against him in this trial, plus all the evidence that was ruled inadmissible would be introduced in a civil case.

We don't know if he was wrongly dismissed. We don't know what the exact reason was for his dismissal. As mentioned above.

Lemmy Lemmy:

He wasn't found innocent. The judge even said that in his decision. He was found not guilty. No, he will listen to his lawyer when she tells him to take this as a victory and walk away. He would never be stupid enough to allow evidence that was ruled inadmissible in the criminal trial to be used against him in a civil trial. No one is that stupid. He walked only because of "reasonable doubt" and that plays no part in a civil case.

In the eyes of the law, he's innocent.

He hasn't been proven guilty of any crimes or offences.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Get your quotations correct, peck. I didn't say what you're quoting me as having said.

It's an anonymous forum, professor. Don't get your panties in a bunch because a quote tag was in the wrong location.

[Lemmy]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

We don't know if he was wrongly dismissed. We don't know what the exact reason was for his dismissal. As mentioned above.

Sure we do.

$1:

The CBC fired Jian Ghomeshi after seeing “graphic evidence” for the first time last Thursday that Ghomeshi had “caused physical injury to a woman." After seeing this evidence, the public broadcaster took “immediate steps to remove Jian from the workplace and terminated his employment on October 26.”
“After viewing this graphic evidence we determined that Jian’s conduct was a fundamental breach of CBC’s standard of acceptable conduct for any employee,” the memo states. His conduct “was likely to bring the reputation of his fellow employees and CBC into disrepute and could not be defended by the CBC.”

OTI OTI:

In the eyes of the law, he's innocent.

Wrong. In the eyes of the criminal justice system, he's not guilty.

OTI OTI:

He hasn't been proven guilty of any crimes or offences.

So? That doesn't mean he has suffered any damages that he can sue for. People are found not-guilty in criminal trials all the time. That doesn't empower them to sue the Crown or the Police or the witnesses against them. That's not the way the system works.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Get your quotations correct, peck. I didn't say what you're quoting me as having said.

It's an anonymous forum, professor. Don't get your panties in a bunch because a quote tag was in the wrong location.

I don't have my panties in a bunch. I just don't like having an idiotic statement attributed to me when it was actually written by someone else, in this case, you.

[peck420]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Get your quotations correct, peck. I didn't say what you're quoting me as having said.

My apologies, quote is corrected.

[OnTheIce]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Sure we do.

He showed them a sex video he had on his phone.

If your boss finds out you have kinky sex at home, you're ok with being terminated because of it?

Lemmy Lemmy:

Wrong. In the eyes of the criminal justice system, he's not guilty.

Which makes him innocent. You need to look up the definition of innocent.

Lemmy Lemmy:

I don't have my panties in a bunch. I just don't like having an idiotic statement attributed to me when it was actually written by someone else, in this case, you.

You have enough idiotic statements you've written all by yourself. Perhaps you should be more worried about those than a misquote.