Wrestling #MeToo #SpeakingOut

[Keith Houchen]

1 minute ago, Tommy! said:

As I see it it's just a rebuttal to people who claim the accuser of lying. As such it's a perfectly fine stance to take to try and make anyone who takes a "they are lying because I like X" type approach take a step back and assess their bias.

Is person X guilty, not until proven. Does that mean I can claim person Y is lying, no not until it's proven they are.

It's as perfectly simple concept as I see it, and generally thought it was understood the same by everyone before Perry Mason and Kavanagh QC joined the thread.

Exactly this! 

[SuperBacon]

27 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

@JohnnyKickpadz4lyf

I bet someone does actually have this username.

[PJ Power]

1 hour ago, Keith Houchen said:

You’re talking as if I’m using it in a legal setting, I’m using it when arseholes declare their hero as innocent until proven guilty while declaring the allegations are false. I’m saying the person they accuse of the false allegation is innocent of that until it’s proven they made it up. In other words, if you’re saying one person is IUPG, you have to say the other party is too. I’m saying BOTH are innocent until proven guilty. 
 

I’m genuinely struggling here, I thought I’d described the position as clearly as possible. I’ll have one last go

Johnny Kickpadz gets accused by Girlie Trainee of sexual misconduct. @JohnnyKickpadz4lyf jumps to his defence saying “Johnny is a gent, how can you all turn on him! Trial by Twitter! Innocent until proven guilty! Girlie Trainee is a slag who made it all up”

Now, using @JohnnyKickpadz4lyf‘s logic, Girlie Trainee is accused of making it all up so she is ALSO innocent until proven guilty. Either they both are or they aren’t. This ties in with what I posted about bias we have regarding our favourites. 
 

And finally, for both clarity and the benefit of everyone reading this bollocks, I am not saying Tarquin St Robes QC is using this defence at trial, I use it when people only apply IUPG to one person. It’s not a gotcha, or an attempt at one, it’s pointing out BOTH are innocent until proven guilty. And fanboys aren’t keen on that. 

You still don't get it, do you?

The implication of "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" applies to the accused, not the accuser. It does not apply to anyone other than the accused, including those that (other than the accused) accuse the original accuser. Since the accuser(s) is/are not on trial, they cannot in practice at some stage of it be deemed guilty, therefore "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" doesn't apply. To do so is a case of misplaced correctness or false equivalence, a fallacy to apply a legal term outside of its own sphere. Hence those that say that the accused is "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" are correct when they do so expressing it as a legal term. You cannot simply retort to that saying that the accuser is "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" except as a case of either intellectual dishonesty or misapplication. "I reject your reality and substitute my own" does not wash.

Also, you have supported the idea of the (original) accuser(s) automatically having their statement to be true. If that is the case, then you have extrajudicially made the accused guilty until proved/presumed innocent - therefore you can not claim in this scenario that both (or multiple) parties are "innocent until proven/presumed guilty" because it is another logical fallacy.

I only wish things like this was taught at school, it would save a lot of headaches.

 

Edited August 9, 2021 by PJ Power

[Keith Houchen]

Girly Trainee has been accused of something. She is innocent until proven guilty. Johnny Kickpadz had been accused of something.  He is also innocent until proven guilty  

I’m not fucking talking in legal technicality. I’m talking about fanboys automatically believing their hero wouldn’t do such a thing and declare them innocent until proven guilty. Then they say the other party is guilty until proven innocent. Jesus fucking Christ. 

[Tommy!]

12 minutes ago, PJ Power said:

You still don't get it, do you?

It's you who doesn't seem to be understanding a concept everyone else in the room does.

[PJ Power]

9 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said:

Girly Trainee has been accused of something. She is innocent until proven guilty. Johnny Kickpadz had been accused of something.  He is also innocent until proven guilty  

I’m not fucking talking in legal technicality. I’m talking about fanboys automatically believing their hero wouldn’t do such a thing and declare them innocent until proven guilty. Then they say the other party is guilty until proven innocent. Jesus fucking Christ. 

It's quite clear you still don't get it. Wilful ignorance is what I think they call it.

 

3 minutes ago, Tommy! said:

It's you who doesn't seem to be understanding a concept everyone else in the room does.

That's because the concept is a false equivalence - and for the record, the truth is not a popularity contest.

[Chest Rockwell]

Alright that's enough. Shut up shut up shut up. No more discussion on this topic @PJ Power and @Keith Houchen. If for some reason either of you is actually getting something out of this then please feel free to just PM each other.

 

Edit: for future reference and for everyone posting in this thread: 

This thread is not for tedious meta discussion of legal process. If you want to do that do it somewhere else (in off Topic, or preferably not on this forum at all).

Edited August 9, 2021 by Chest Rockwell

[theringmaster]

Something which i have not seen mentioned...Speaking Out was aimed at abuse in the wrestling industry was it not? ie trainers to trainees, Wrestlers taking advantage of etc..... Taking away the 'Rape' debate and looking at him just being a shitty Boyfriend....why should this mean he gets black balled? I'm not trying to defend him but what i am saying is if being a shitty partner is an excuse to be blackballed then there are a hell of a lot of men and women in wrestling who shouldn't be there.

Maybe i'm reading this all wrong but nowhere does it imply he was able to do what he did because he was a famous wrestler, which was a common theme with all the others were accused in the speaking out

[Factotum]

1 minute ago, theringmaster said:

I'm not trying to defend him but what i am saying is if being a shitty partner is an excuse to be blackballed then there are a hell of a lot of men and women in wrestling who shouldn't be there

Not sure 'shitty' covers what she's accusing him of. I don't think he was just staying in the pub with the lads and not ringing her.

 

[Chris B]

2 hours ago, theringmaster said:

Something which i have not seen mentioned...Speaking Out was aimed at abuse in the wrestling industry was it not? ie trainers to trainees, Wrestlers taking advantage of etc..... Taking away the 'Rape' debate and looking at him just being a shitty Boyfriend....why should this mean he gets black balled? I'm not trying to defend him but what i am saying is if being a shitty partner is an excuse to be blackballed then there are a hell of a lot of men and women in wrestling who shouldn't be there.

First off, she's a wrestler, so it's within the industry. Also, there's a strong line between abuse and being a shitty boyfriend. That's why it should be looked into and should be taken seriously as an accusation. 

The difficulty is that her story could be seen as having ambiguities. Which makes the accusations difficult to substantiate, and I'm saying this trying to be fair to both parties. If the threats were more along the lines of immediate 'do this or I'm breaking up with you' style, then that's clearly abusive. But also, Darby is clearly into a bunch of lifestyle stuff (his ex-wife talked about them getting together at a fetish party they were traveling to as friends), so if it's more along the lines of "if you're not into this stuff, I don't see us working out' or 'if we don't have a regular sex life, then I'm out', that's potentially different. It doesn't change her story, but it's not necessarily a threat in everyone's eyes. 

Apparently, when it first came around, it was looked into and he showed a bunch of SMSs that led to him being back on TV almost immediately. Of course, it's also very possible that she has issues, is easy to portray as not being credible, and was also abused by Allin. It's also possible that the bar for investigations wasn't exactly high. Hopefully more attention to it means that more may come out.

[courageous]

I'm really bothered by the distraction into law talk - obviously a convicted rapist should not be hired by an entertainment business (even charged should at minimum be suspended on pay)

it kinda misses the point though, which is at which level do we determine somebody is a scumbag and what level of extra judicial punishment do they deserve?

"I heard him make a rape joke" = 1 month suspension

50 Women say he groped them, but no legal action = black balled

 

What right of reply do they have?

Where is the standard written down?

Who decides?

Can they be rehabilitated?

Where is the paperwork determining X person has Y punishment because of Z reason?

In what way should this be shared with the wider world?

Because without answering those questions, we can make up any black list we want to without ANY justification

 

It's horrible for the survivor, but there has to be more than just "I say XYZ", not proven beyond reasonable doubt... but something against a certain standard.

[Keith Houchen]

17 minutes ago, courageous said:

it kinda misses the point though, which is at which level do we determine somebody is a scumbag and what level of extra judicial punishment do they deserve?

Honestly, it’s down to the consumer and not the company. We know how awful the business is but the one thing we do have that matters is our money and where we choose to spend it. 
 

If a company books a person you find reprehensible, don’t buy a ticket. Look at WWE, the biggest company in wrestling that there will ever be. It’s been full of absolute scumbags so I can’t see anyone being blackballed for committing a crime. The only thing that gets you ostracised is doing something wrong to one of the boys. 
 

The Ashley Massaro incident was the final straw for a lot of people and they haven’t given WWE a penny since. WWE are still strong but it’s about your own personal stance and where you draw the line. 
 

If a local company books an abuser, can you in good faith give them your money and enable their excusing the incidents? I certainly couldn’t. It may not make a lick of difference to their balance sheet but it makes a difference to me. 

[BomberPat]

10 hours ago, courageous said:

Because without answering those questions, we can make up any black list we want to without ANY justification

We can't, though, because there's not really such a thing as a "blacklist" that would cover independent wrestling. Most promoters don't get on with each other, plenty would screw each other over given half the chance, and even those who wouldn't aren't going to think twice about running on the same date as another even if hurts that guy's business, to say the least.

The idea that they could all get together and unilaterally agree "okay, we're not booking this person any more" is pure fantasy. Like @Keith Houchen said, it's all going to fall on the consumer more than the company - partly because everyone's going to have different ideas of where the line should be drawn, so a promoter might not see a problem booking someone who's been a bit of a shit, whereas that might be too much for a punter, so that punter doesn't buy a ticket to that show. But also because most wrestlers and promoters aren't as terminally online as most wrestling fans - I've spoken to wrestlers and promoters who have all said the same thing; there were names being mentioned in Speaking Out that we've never heard of, there are names on lists people have put together (which is problematic in its own right) that we don't recall ever having heard a story about, and there are so many vague Tweets not naming the person involved that it's impossible for anyone to keep on top of all of this, and people will slip up and book someone purely because they weren't aware of any allegations, not because they don't care about them. 

The problem is, the nature of all of this is that people who make a few honest mistakes will get harangued - particularly if they have a sizeable online presence - while the likes of LDN can shut their Twitter account down and continue running and booking wrong'uns with impunity because there's nothing on Twitter for people to get angry about. 

 

In terms of where the line's drawn, what's acceptable, what's the burden of proof, to what extent to we allow people to defend themselves/be rehabilitated - we're acting as if this is some brand new world of problems unique to professional wrestling. Countless other jobs have to deal with this sort of thing, and do it without half as much hand-wringing and fretting about it.

[Carbomb]

1 hour ago, BomberPat said:

In terms of where the line's drawn, what's acceptable, what's the burden of proof, to what extent to we allow people to defend themselves/be rehabilitated - we're acting as if this is some brand new world of problems unique to professional wrestling. Countless other jobs have to deal with this sort of thing, and do it without half as much hand-wringing and fretting about it.

Obviously, it's not brand new, but I'd argue that dealing with it is trickier than in other industries, simply because of how it perennially flies under the radar. Hopefully the recent political scrutiny might make it a bit more accountable - with more and more people communicating and picking up information (and disinformation) via social media, it's going to be increasingly difficult for promoters to avoid coming under the spotlight in the way they did when traditional media thought it beneath them to report on it or even give it any kind of attention.

[BomberPat]

Absolutely agree, and that there are historical reasons why people were able to get away with it, but I think that's a different issue to what we do moving forward - in a lot of ways, independent wrestling in the UK is such a small, insular scene that it should be relatively easy to get the word out and whatnot.

I was more speaking for the questions of "where do you draw the line?" or "what constitutes abuse?", as if those same conversations haven't already happened elsewhere. I saw a promoter a while back suggesting that anyone running shows is irresponsible because "they can't have had time to write their safeguarding policies" - they've had over a year, and it's a full-time job for some of these people.  It's not like they have to write the entire policy from scratch and invent the entire concept of safeguarding, you just need to build on what's been written for other environments - and there's more than enough resources out there. There are bound to still be some difficult conversations, and people are bound to slip up, but anyone suggesting that safeguarding, or a greater degree of transparency, is prohibitively difficult is someone I wouldn't trust. 

As I said before, the problem is that those promotions that don't have much of an online presence will be the ones that fall through the cracks - holiday camp tours, family-friendly shows, anything that relies more on walk-ups and local sales than social media, which is a whole side of British wrestling that's largely invisible to most of the online fanbase. With all of this basically being opt-in and relying on customers to make informed decisions, it's going to be difficult if not impossible to police that side of things.