Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted August 8, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted August 8, 2021 13 minutes ago, Joe Blog said: What was Callis accused of? Never saw his name crop up last time but there was so much going on it isn't hard to miss one of the stories. Scarlett Bordeoux etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snitsky's back acne Posted August 8, 2021 Share Posted August 8, 2021 I think the fact that convicted paedophile Chasyn Rance is still a part of the business and his training school is used by some AEW and WWE wrestlers shows that Speaking Out needed to happen but also that, as much as we like to think things have changed, wrestling is still the same scummy business it always has been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamura Posted August 8, 2021 Share Posted August 8, 2021 The Don Callis situation is murky on the surface of it, but rather clear if you look at subsequent events. While it's true he was removed from his backstage role(s) he continued as on-screen talent until this... Since when do people fired as a result of sexual misconduct allegations get fired on TV with Tommy Dreamer cutting a promo on them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted August 8, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted August 8, 2021 (edited) Two things. There are plenty of legal cases, many of which are used as case studies for students of law, where the survivor was considered to have been coerced by non-physical means or threat of violence/death. Any attempt to obtain sexual consent by means from someone who would have withheld it otherwise is considered rape. Deception is a common one, as in the case of those undercover police. These cases may not be as frequently reported in the news, but there are many cases documented in legal libraries. Secondly, the law frequently changes to accept new definitions of what is considered a crime in the face of new understandings and discourses by society. Case in point: until comparatively recently, a man could not be convicted of raping his wife, because the law didn't recognise that possibility. Even if Allin's behaviour were not to be considered coercive in legal terms now (and there's no reason it wouldn't without examination), it doesn't necessarily follow that it actually isn't, and the law may be amended to reflect this. The basic legal principle is this: sex with someone without their consent is rape. Any consent that has been obtained under duress, through deception or fraud, or from someone not legally compos mentis (whether that person was never so or was considered to have been made so) is not consent in the eyes of the law. EDIT: Apparently the most recent developments in British law would tie into this (I don't know about the US), as there seem to have been a number of cases recently that have examined and set precedent for the concept of coercive control. Anyone determined as having been put under coercive control by another would be considered as being incapable of having giving consent to anything with that person. Edited August 8, 2021 by Carbomb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted August 8, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted August 8, 2021 God, can't you just have a legal discussion thread, I'm so tired of posts like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted August 8, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted August 8, 2021 1 hour ago, Tamura said: The Don Callis situation is murky on the surface of it, but rather clear if you look at subsequent events. While it's true he was removed from his backstage role(s) he continued as on-screen talent until this... Callis still is an on-screen talent on Impact, just not an Exec VP any more (both in storyline and real life). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Vegas Posted August 8, 2021 Share Posted August 8, 2021 8 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said: Every reasonable, well measured opinion ends with calling other people a prick and telling them to fuck off and die. Well done, you've proved beyond measure what a level headed and sound judge of character, situation and acceptable behaviour you are. As others have said lets draw a line under it so people can focus on the subject matter as opposed to you getting upset at people pointing out exactly what you were doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_3165 Posted August 8, 2021 Share Posted August 8, 2021 I have been reading the Jim Ross autobiography "Slobberknocker" and its been rather fun in places. That said, it really strikes me how certain wrestlers have - over the years - gotten away with some outrageous behaviour which looking back in hindsight were down-right disgusting. Have we really come so far in the past 30 years or was it always unacceptable and people just tolerated this stuff. For example, JR recalls an incident with Ric Flair who - having had little interest from two air stewardesses - pulled his cock out in front of them (erect) in the back of a limo. This seems to be without the slightest interest in either Flair or JR who was mortified by the whole affair. Flair's excuse - he wanted to increase JRs chances by 50%. I really struggle to see how wrestling - and society more widely - thought that was acceptable in the 80s. It is not that long ago, I was alive at the time! Is this some quirk of the wrestling/entertainment/Hollywood industry or was it wide spread back in that era? I knew Flair always had a reputation for being outrageous but I always assumed that the women he got with or approached were willing, consenting adults not harassment victims. All seems very sordid and messy to me, yet the business still treats people like Flair as though they are these icons. I can appreciate his work and his gimmick but I can't condone the shit he did in real life (if what JR and others have said is true). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_3165 Posted August 8, 2021 Share Posted August 8, 2021 (edited) I'm not getting into the legal debate which I initially posted. What astounds me is how the likes of Joey Ryan was allowed to get away with things for so long. I mean, he was hardly Kurt Angle or Brock Lesnar - did he actually draw any money? I am not saying that drawing would be a reason not to bin someone, but I can see why promotors may be more reluctant to sack someone who is bringing in mega money. He is hardly some massive name in the industry. Maybe I am naïve and think that the world should be a better place! I am really torn between the need to validate a person's experience with the need for people to be treated fairly. It is a very fine balance. I don't want a society where men (and women) get sacked and/or slandered based on allegations that aren't founded and at the same time I don't want survivors of horrific abuse to be told they are making it all up. Having worked with many survivors of assaults I can see the level of distress they feel when a case doesn't go to trial. They feel completely powerless, let down and screwed over by society who should be looking out for them. I have also worked with one guy who were falsely accused (demonstrably, he had CCTV evidence and a train ticket to prove he was not even in the county at the time of the alleged offense) and it ruined his life as he was fired, shunned etc. Whilst he could have done his employer for unfair dismissal, who would want to go back to an employer that does that to you? I am extremely non-emotive about this subject partly because I am a tad de-sensitised to it (I've been sexually harassed in the past as I've mentioned in previous posts and I am somewhat - probably unhealthily - dissociated from the whole thing) and partly because I am generally a rather critical, facts based person too. I also have a tendency to understand that good people do shitty things and shitty people have some elements of goodness even if its hard to see. I have worked alongside murderers, rapists, molesters, arsonists, drug addicts and dealers and it has certainly given me another perspective, particularly as I have also worked with the victims of sexual abuse, attempted murder and horrific traumas. Edited August 8, 2021 by Michael_3165 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PJ Power Posted August 8, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted August 8, 2021 23 hours ago, Keith Houchen said: My standard reply to this is always along the lines of “You’re absolutely right, the woman who made the allegation is totally innocent until proven guilty that she made it up” Quite often, they tend to not mention it again. I don't think you actually know what "innocent until proven guilty" means or how it's applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted August 8, 2021 Author Share Posted August 8, 2021 1 minute ago, PJ Power said: I don't think you actually know what "innocent until proven guilty" means or how it's applied. Are you saying one of the two people accused aren’t innocent until proven guilty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wordsfromlee Posted August 8, 2021 Share Posted August 8, 2021 10 hours ago, andrew "the ref" coyne said: I get it. You like to come online and be justifiably angry. Everyone else is a bad guy but you. It makes you feel warm and fuzzy. Good for you. But clearly, regardless of what I say, you've already decided I'm a rape apologist. Which I'm not. So why don't you, with all due respect, go fuck off and die. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_3165 Posted August 8, 2021 Share Posted August 8, 2021 38 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Are you saying one of the two people accused aren’t innocent until proven guilty? I think he means that the accuser isn't the accused. Only the accused is in the frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Nick James Posted August 8, 2021 Paid Members Share Posted August 8, 2021 I don't get how Keith's words are being misinterpreted? Surely he means the accuser should always be believed until proven otherwise? Rather than told they are lying without evidence to say so? Victim blaming is the main reason victims don't come forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted August 8, 2021 Author Share Posted August 8, 2021 7 minutes ago, Michael_3165 said: I think he means that the accuser isn't the accused. Only the accused is in the frame. The people who are first to trot out the innocent until proven guilty line when one of their favourites has been accused of something are the first to say the complainant is making it up. I’m saying that the complainant is also innocent until proven guilty as they get accused of making it up by fans. They can’t have it both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.