News   Jul 16, 2024
 433     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 520     0 
News   Jul 16, 2024
 644     2 

2018 Ontario Provincial Election Discussion

And, honestly, straight up, don't be a pig.
...so you're now equating Mikaela Patterson's assertion that "she didn't observe tension" between Brown and one of the victims with generally the accounts of victims of sexual assault?

1) You didn't read the sun article, because it's the sun.
2) You think brown is guilty anyway because he's PC. I have a problem with him clubbing with women 10 years younger. I also have an issue wih shoddy reporting. Things need to be airtight when making tough allegations like this.
3) Rumors say CBC news passed on this story because of lack of evidence, why did CTV run with it, holes that it had?
 
And, honestly, straight up, don't be a pig.
Because you can't or won't read? You exactly prove the point being made. You'll believe accusations from drunk people over those that reference the latest witness accounts.

I suggest you read the linked article, and stop calling people names.
[...]
The woman was 19 at the time, working as a summer student. In separate interviews with CTV News and CBC News last month, the woman said she was very drunk when Brown invited her up to his bedroom and began kissing her.

'She just kept following him around, like clinging to him.'- Mikhaela Patterson, ex-girlfriend
"I remember Patrick went upstairs at one point and I vaguely remember her following," said Patterson. "He almost immediately came back down and said he was driving her home."

Patterson said she observed no tension between the two. "There didn't seem to be anything wrong. She didn't seem upset, he didn't seem upset. It was just 'I'm going to take her home.'"



Patterson acknowledges she does not know what went on in the bedroom but said: "That's not the kind of person Patrick is. He's not forceful, he's not inappropriate."

CBC News contacted the woman who made the accusation on Wednesday afternoon and she is standing by her version of the events.

"I stand by the account of events I have previously given," she said.

Driver denies taking 1st accuser to Brown's house
Questions have also been raised about allegations made by the other woman who has accused the former PC leader.

She alleged Brown tried to force her to perform oral sex on him at his home in Barrie more than 10 years ago, after meeting him in a bar. On Tuesday, she changed a key element in her original complaint, saying that she was not in high school at the time of the alleged incident.

Now, a man who knows the accuser is disputing another key part of her story. She claimed he was the "mutual friend" who drove her to Brown's house the night of the incident. He denies he ever took her there.

'I do not recall a single incident where I took her to Patrick's. I didn't even know that they knew each other.'- Man who knows 1st accuser
"If I had seen her downtown at the bars, I would have said hello and that's it," said the man, now 29, a resident of Barrie, in an exclusive phone interview with CBC News.

"I do not recall a single incident where I took her to Patrick's. I didn't even know that they knew each other." He requested anonymity because he is concerned that being named will harm his professional reputation.

The man says he met the woman when they were in their mid-teens through a local church youth group, but they were not close friends. He has been close to Brown since meeting in 2004.

"I wouldn't have driven her to Patrick's house," he said. "I don't recall ever seeing them together."

The woman's lawyer, David Butt, did not deny the contradiction, but dismissed it as a "collateral matter" of "relative unimportance."

"My client stands by the truth of the core allegation about what she experienced with Mr. Brown," said Butt in an interview with CBC News.

The man says he only found out on Tuesday the woman was identifying him as the person who drove her to Brown's when CTV called him to fact-check her story.

In his Facebook post on Wednesday, Brown made reference to the man.

"CTV News did not disclose last night that their reporter, Glen McGregor, called an acquaintance of mine yesterday to ask him if he had driven my first accuser to my home - a claim that was made by her. He categorically told CTV that this was completely untrue." wrote Brown.

"Patrick Brown's allegations regarding our reporting are false, said Matthew Garrow, director of communications for CTV News, in a statement. "The two women have reiterated their allegations of sexual misconduct by Patrick Brown. His attacks on our journalistic practices are groundless and wrong."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/patrick-brown-allegations-1.4535373
 
1) You didn't read the sun article, because it's the sun.
2) You think brown is guilty anyway because he's PC. I have a problem with him clubbing with women 10 years younger. I also have an issue wih shoddy reporting. Things need to be airtight when making tough allegations like this.

Nope, o-for-2.

First, I read the Sun article and, as I always do when I read Sun articles, took its journalistic integrity with a fat grain of salt. As I responded to another commenter, I mostly took umbrage with your assertion that "the accusers should be embarrassed."

Second, I have no idea if Patrick Brown is guilty of a crime. I didn't force him to resign, and I haven't called for his arrest. But I do believe the accounts of the victims.
 
Because you can't or won't read? You exactly prove the point being made. You'll believe accusations from drunk people over those that reference the latest witness accounts.

I suggest you read the linked article, and stop calling people names.

I'm not sure why you still think I haven't read the article, and I certainly don't make a habit of dismissing the accounts of assault victims because they consumed alcohol on the evening of their assault.
 
Nope, o-for-2.

First, I read the Sun article and, as I always do when I read Sun articles, took its journalistic integrity with a fat grain of salt. As I responded to another commenter, I mostly took umbrage with your assertion that "the accusers should be embarrassed."
Well I posted CBC report now, so there is more then one source. And yes, they should be embarrased. It's one thing to do the Scott Baio dance, it's another when 2 other people are calling your story into question.

Second, I have no idea if Patrick Brown is guilty of a crime. I didn't force him to resign, and I haven't called for his arrest. But I do believe the accounts of the victims.
I don't. Especially when money gets involved. Then again he's guilty or he's not. If he's not, he'll file the defamation suit.
 
I'm not sure why you still think I haven't read the article, and I certainly don't make a habit of dismissing the accounts of assault victims because they consumed alcohol on the evening of their assault.
But you'll believe them over those who aren't drunk? And *identify themselves in public!*

And two persons give you thumbs up?

You state far more than you could ever understand. J'Accuse!
 
But you'll believe them over those who aren't drunk? And two persons give you thumbs up?

You state far more than you could ever understand.

The victim provided a series of claims about things that happened between two people in a room that Mikaela Patterson was not in.

Mikaela Patterson is quoted in that CBC article as saying that the victim "didn't seem upset."

Sorry, where is your smoking gun in that scenario?
 
The victim provided a series of claims about things that happened between two people in a room that Mikaela Patterson was not in.

Mikaela Patterson is quoted in that CBC article as saying that the victim "didn't seem upset."

Sorry, where is your smoking gun in that scenario?
Patterson stated a hell of a lot more than that. I suggest you watch the National to see the interview. Your ability to read appears highly limited and/or selective. Not that you want to know anything that violates your safe space it seems.
Quoting tabloids to aid in the process of victim-blaming is fairly unbecoming.
Your "tabloid" claim is false, obviously, albeit you can feel free to deny it, lol...but how is quoting identified and sober witnesses "victim blaming"?

Anything anyone could possibly say on the record as a witness would be "victim blaming" to you. You acquit yourself brilliantly.
 
The victim provided a series of claims about things that happened between two people in a room that Mikaela Patterson was not in.

Mikaela Patterson is quoted in that CBC article as saying that the victim "didn't seem upset."

Sorry, where is your smoking gun in that scenario?

CTV said in a Tuesday story that “the first accuser maintains the incident happened during a visit to Brown’s home with a mutual friend,” adding “that friend told CTV News he has no recollection of the night.”

However, when contacted by Postmedia, the friend insisted he wasn’t with her that night or with her ever at Brown’s home.

“I have known (her) since I was 16,” said the friend, who didn’t want to be identified because of the virulent controversy surrounding the story.

“I was actually very good friends with her,” he said. “We met through church at a youth group there.”

The friend said he was contacted by CTV Tuesday afternoon, and told the woman claimed she had been “partying” with him and another friend on the night Brown pressed her for sex, an allegation he adamantly denied.

The mutual friend she was with said he was never at brown's house, so how would he be able to confirm anything that happened?
 
Well I posted CBC report now, so there is more then one source. And yes, they should be embarrased. It's one thing to do the Scott Baio dance, it's another when 2 other people are calling your story into question.

I'm not sure you have a sense of the chilling effect that the logical leaps you're making here have on future assault victims in terms of their willingness to come forward with their accounts.

Less abstractly, let me ask you specifically in the case of Mikaela Patterson's account: what part of it do you think calls the victim's story into question? Which part do you think means the victim should be embarrassed?

Is it her assertion that the victim "didn't seem upset"? If so, what is your standard for what a victim should look like or how she should appear or what her physical presentation or mental state should be after an assault?
 
Your ability to read appears highly limited and/or selective.

Which part of Mikaela Patterson's account in the CBC article leads you to incontrovertibly conclude that the victim is lying about what happened? Help me, please, with my reading comprehension skills.
 
I want to exercise the greatest of caution in making assertions about events and people with which I was not involved; and none of whom I know personally.

With the greatest of respect
@ADRM I am concerned you are not adhering to that standard in this instance.

At this point, the facts that are broadly agreed on is that the CTV published intitial headlines that were misleading, assuming you believed everything the complainants alleged.

However, its now a matter of record, conceded by one of the complainants and CTV that 2 material facts about her allegation, were wrong and ought reasonably to be inferred as lies, given they were reported as unconditional facts.

It further seem that an additional matter (the description of Mr. Brown's home) was not only wrong, but fabricated, as it described a room in a home he didn't own at the time.

***

Let's stop here, for the moment, this is really rather damning. I'm not a Brown supporter or a PC, never was; and am an unabashed feminist. I have deep concerns over at best, gross misrepresentations of the truth, and at worst, clear lies.

***

But wait...... I can't confirm this 100%, but it seems based on reports I'm seeing, one of the complainants was a long-time friend of Rachel Aiello, one of the two CTV journalists who broke the story.

That has conflict of interest written all over it, if one is charitable.
 
I'm not sure you have a sense of the chilling effect that the logical leaps you're making here have on future assault victims in terms of their willingness to come forward with their accounts.

Less abstractly, let me ask you specifically in the case of Mikaela Patterson's account: what part of it do you think calls the victim's story into question? Which part do you think means the victim should be embarrassed?

Is it her assertion that the victim "didn't seem upset"? If so, what is your standard for what a victim should look like or how she should appear or what her physical presentation or mental state should be after an assault?
I wasn't talking about mikela patterson, because I don't think that's a vaild defense of what brown is alleged to have done. I was asking you specifically about the anonymous friend who accuser one said she was at brown's house with. He said he wasn't there, nor does he drink. I also want know what you think about accuser 2 demanding raise because other people were being paid the same despite less tenure. Why would that ever pop up in an assault story? You can't say you have no idea if he did anything and say you believe the victims. I'm not trying to put you on the spot as usually I would agree 100 percent with you - but this story has too many holes in it.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top