Now we know you’re just trolling. You’re trying to say that no amateur coach could ever exploit an underage athlete because the money is inconsequential. Luckily, the courts disagree with you, and there’s a trail of minor hockey coaches and scout leaders who have done time to prove just how idiotic your claim is.
Thou doth protest too much. Starting to wonder what’s rattling around your closet.
No the courts agree with me, well actually lets not get ahead of ourselves, the police agree with me as they have not charged DST. Graham James is a different case he was charged and found guilty and served time. These are not the same, not remotely the same in the eyes of the law.
Poor Jimmy, still stupid, still not doing homework. He wasn’t convicted - he plead guilty. And there are MANY more cases that prove our point on sexual exploitation. You have nothing to spew but nonsense in order to justify your tiny DST erection
jimmyx wrote:
No the courts agree with me, well actually lets not get ahead of ourselves, the police agree with me as they have not charged DST. Graham James is a different case he was charged and found guilty and served time. These are not the same, not remotely the same in the eyes of the law.
There are 2 issues to the DST case. 1. legality - maybe everything he did was legal, but thats not going to let DST ever coach again. He won't go to prison if as you argue this is the case. Neither did Donald Trump or Richard Nixon.
2. morality -DST loses big time here. Your inability to analyze issue 2 is why everyone disagrees with you. You have to understand that legality and morality are not the same issue.
jimmyx wrote:
Shame. I thought for sure you were some sort of Welsh computer truck that liked peanut butter cups ;)
I won't bring it up again if you keep my name out of your mouth.
What does this even mean Jimbo?
Can you link the court case where "the courts agree" with you? If you can successfully do this I will stop making you look like a fool.
Jimmyx: The police don't agree with you. They aren't pressing charges because the victim has decided not to press charges.
Fred: You're supporting a repeat offender. There was another incident within the last 12 months with many witnesses, which cost him his job. It's time for you to leave...
So let me get this straight - from this thread you actually think there is MB and someone else - there simply isnt. Trolls and people spewing vitriol towards Guelph and DST are insane. MB is on record and as far as I can tell saying she is trying to move on, then maybe all of us should to. Last time I read, she is the only person that knows the situation and she has told her version of events - everything else is just bullshit and everyone here knows it. Put your popcorn away and go beat another dead horse!!
So you think s.153 of the criminal code is wrong? Talk to your MP then.
As for the James case, totally relevant. Tell me how a Jr. hockey coach having sex with two 17 year old athletes is different from DST (coach) having sex with his 17 year old athlete?
They dated for 2-3 years, she thought he would leave his wife, he did not...she still has rage about this today and is out getting vengeance...that is what has happened.
Graham James case is completely different.
Was DST acting with high morals. NO...that was never the issue here, nor is anyone arguing that. I have said countless times I do not like DST, never have. I have also said hes not a criminal for this act, nor is he the only one in this situation that acted immoral.
no comparison wrote:
So let me get this straight - from this thread you actually think there is MB and someone else - there simply isnt. Trolls and people spewing vitriol towards Guelph and DST are insane. MB is on record and as far as I can tell saying she is trying to move on, then maybe all of us should to. Last time I read, she is the only person that knows the situation and she has told her version of events - everything else is just bullshit and everyone here knows it. Put your popcorn away and go beat another dead horse!!
there is most definitely someone else.
the reason DST was placed on leave originally was because another athlete made a complaint about him.
jimmyx wrote:
They dated for 2-3 years, she thought he would leave his wife, he did not...
Provide proof you slime ball.
Tunt wrote:
jimmyx wrote:
They dated for 2-3 years, she thought he would leave his wife, he did not...
Provide proof you slime ball.
I don't doubt they had some sort of relationship for that period of time.
It really all depends on the power dynamic within the relationship and how you define "dated". ...bearing in mind that she was groomed for this as a vulnerable teenager by her 40 something year old athletics coach.
jimmyx wrote:
They dated for 2-3 years, she thought he would leave his wife, he did not...she still has rage about this today and is out getting vengeance...that is what has happened.
Graham James case is completely different.
Was DST acting with high morals. NO...that was never the issue here, nor is anyone arguing that. I have said countless times I do not like DST, never have. I have also said hes not a criminal for this act, nor is he the only one in this situation that acted immoral.
What he did is now considered illegal. You can victim blame all you want, but the courts agree that coaches have a position of power and a 17yr old can’t consent. If you disagree, go and get the law changed.
go away wrote:
You can victim blame all you want, but the courts agree that coaches have a position of power and a 17yr old can’t consent.
I agree.
A coach has access to a student when the parents are away at work. The coach is in a position of authority, gets paid a salary from tax money or tuition, and can buy alcohol.
A 17-year-old is naive and may never have had a job before. That means she has never paid income tax and depends on an allowance from her parents. She's not fully independent yet. Boys at her school may not have paid much attention to her before.
It's ethically wrong for a coach go on a hunt for underage girls. They may get pregnant or receive an STD.
Man Overboard wrote:
Focus on the facts at hand and tell us why a 17/18 year old who was intelligent enough to go to university wouldn't understand that getting romantically involved with a married man was morally wrong.
Generally we do not legislate morality.
The important distinction here is that are rules and laws prohibiting certain behavior from a coach that does not exist for the athlete.
MB didn't break any rules or laws.
DST did by failing to meet the burdens and obligations and responsibilities required and expected of a coach in charge of children. No amount of victim blaming can cure that failing.
The University also failed in 2006.
facts and reason wrote:
I agree.
A coach has access to a student when the parents are away at work. The coach is in a position of authority, gets paid a salary from tax money or tuition, and can buy alcohol.
A 17-year-old is naive and may never have had a job before. That means she has never paid income tax and depends on an allowance from her parents. She's not fully independent yet. Boys at her school may not have paid much attention to her before.
It's ethically wrong for a coach go on a hunt for underage girls. They may get pregnant or receive an STD.
What on earth are you talking about??? Doesn’t matter if/how the coach is paid. It has nothing to do with an athlete paying taxes or having any previous attention from boys (the same would apply to 17yr old boys). It’s ethically, and more importantly, legally wrong for an adult in a position of power to have a relationship with a 17yr old.
If the athlete is 18+ it is only ethically wrong according to coaching standards and the coach would be potentially banned from coaching.
Tunt wrote:
fred wrote:
Tunt, doesn't answer the questions. Uses fascist verbiage when it has no answers.
What are the psychological dynamics of her writing love letters to him? Hypnotic trance?
3. Are you having a stroke? "Uses fascist verbiage when it has no answers." doesn't
The " it " was you.
Kvothe wrote:
jimmyx wrote:
No the courts agree with me, well actually lets not get ahead of ourselves, the police agree with me as they have not charged DST. Graham James is a different case he was charged and found guilty and served time. These are not the same, not remotely the same in the eyes of the law.
2. morality -DST loses big time here. Your inability to analyze issue 2 is why everyone disagrees with you. You have to understand that legality and morality are not the same issue.
I already posted on the relativity of morality. Do you have a PhD in philosophy? If you grew up in a foreign culture and moved to Canada, you could be expected to have a different set of moral values. The only thing that matters is your adherence to the law.
riverrunsthroughit wrote:
Jimmyx: The police don't agree with you. They aren't pressing charges because the victim has decided not to press charges.
Fred: You're supporting a repeat offender. There was another incident within the last 12 months with many witnesses, which cost him his job. It's time for you to leave...
Many witnesses? Can you link to a writeup on that? What did they see?
Yeah an athlete made a complaint and that it was not a sexual allegation/harassment issue. Also looks like that investigation led to nothing. So there is most definitely NOT more "victims"