Vince McMahon may actually be done this time [Trigger warning: Sexual Assault]

[RedTwoster]

27 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

But Triple H is still the guy in charge of the company named in the lawsuit. He is still a member of Vince's family

I genuinely don’t understand why this keeps being used as a point against him. Even if you were to look at the allegations in the lightest possible way, he’s the son-in-law of a man who was cheating on his wife. A woman who he’s also son-in-law to. Why would he even want Triple H to know, with that in mind?

Vince essentially ousted him after AEW trounced NXT, so who bloody knows how close they even were towards the end.

49 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

He might not have been directly accused of any wrongdoing, but it's hard to see him as anything other than either wilfully negligent in his duties or almost supernaturally oblivious to events occurring around him.

But he’s not indirectly accused of anything either. I’d have to imagine if there was even the faintest suspicion that he’d been negligent, had failed to prevent this through inaction or was aware in the first place, he’d be named in the lawsuit. And he isn’t. He’s arguably the most powerful person in wrestling right now - there would be every reason to want to hold him to account.

I hate positioning myself as Triple H’s defender-in-chief, but I think it’s genuinely unhelpful (and defamatory) for discussion to descend into speculation every time there’s a new development in this case.

[Lion_of_the_Midlands]

If we are going to stop posting speculation then close the forum. How about everyone posts what they want and let the mods do the modding if it's required. That seems to work with every other thread. 

[Infinity Land]

Here's Paul Levesque after the internal investigation when he was on the WWE board following the multiple claims from the WSJ investigation. Rememeber it wasn't just Janel Grant getting the multi-million dollar pay-offs wrapped in an NDA. After he voted against Vince's return. After Stephanie went from in-ring cheerleader following Vince's retirement to quitting the company once Vince forced his way back in.

"Has he read the reports yet" Isn't about what he may or may not have known when Janel Grant was employed. Its about the way Paul has acted since things became public. Even then if he had given a Cody Rhodes type answer at the Rumble press conference it wouldn't follow him round. Instead it was haven't read it yet. We've had an amazing week let's focus on the positive not the negative. People saw a dismissive attitude when they were looking for compassion.

 

[RedTwoster]

6 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said:

If we are going to stop posting speculation then close the forum. How about everyone posts what they want and let the mods do the modding if it's required. That seems to work with every other thread. 

There’s a clear difference between speculating on trivial shit and serious legal matters. And here’s a guide to defamation law in England for your perusal, to explain why some people keep bringing this up. If anyone were to take legal action it would be highly unlikely to succeed, but as Lawrence Fox proved, that doesn’t mean you can’t try - either against an individual, or (more likely) whoever owns the forum on the hope that you can outspend them and punish them financially that way. It’s a small possibility in this case, but it exists nonetheless.

That’s my last post on the matter (and I’m sure plenty of people will be happy to read that), but I do think some of the logic here (not from you, Lion - and please don’t take my post personally - certainly not my intention) are quite staggering. 

[TheScarlettChad]

11 hours ago, Chris B said:

Take your tired trolling bullshit to another thread. 

How am I trolling? I'm simply asking a question. We don't know if Trips knew or not yet. We may in time, but we don't, yet.

[tiger_rick]

9 hours ago, RedTwoster said:

There’s a clear difference between speculating on trivial shit and serious legal matters. And here’s a guide to defamation law in England for your perusal, to explain why some people keep bringing this up. 

No one is bringing that up because they desperately want to protect people from Triple H's lawyers. Don't be ridiculous. Just more attempts to shut down valid debate about his role in this/that horrific environment. 

HHH isn't accused of anything illegal and no one has suggested otherwise. 

Everything else is fact. Triple H was a senior executive in the company who has access to all financial and legal information relating to the NDAs. Triple H is married to another former senior executive in the company who also had access to all the above and who was implicated in the Ashley Massaro allegations. Triple H was a trusted right hand man of Vince McMahon for two decades. Triple H is Vince McMahon's son-in-law. Triple H claimed he didn't even read the suit relating to the matter that took down the most important person in the history of his company, and his father-in-law.

To suggest that a man in that position could not possibly be oblivious to what his father-in-law and other senior people were doing to people under his employ is not defamatory, it's beyond any other comprehension.

Lots of the above is true of Nick Khan too. It's also quite implausible that he wasn't aware either. And that's before the latest information has emerged that confirms they worked so closely together that they had interconnecting doors. 

I don't mind people pointing out personal bias - like that's some sort of win. This company has systematically enabled sexual predators like Mel Phillips and Vince McMahon, has buried allegations about senior executives like Pat Patterson, John Laurenitis and Stephanie McMahon, has chewed up and spit out victims like Rita Chatterton, Tom Cole, Ashley Massaro and Janel Grant and has allowed countless other women to be used, abused and paid off with an NDA.

How could anyone NOT be "biased" against them?

Edited February 2, 2025 by tiger_rick

[tiger_rick]

20 hours ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

What we do know is the place seems like it was an absolute cess pit, and it would probably be better if everyone in the leadership group at that time weren't involved now. Not because they're all guilty necessarily, but because a properly fresh start is probably the right thing to do.

This is a key point very well made. Ultimately there will always be a cloud over people who were in Vince's inner circle - whether you believe that made them culpable or not. A clean slate would put all of it in the past.

[wandshogun09]

1 hour ago, tiger_rick said:

Triple H was a senior executive in the company who has access to all financial and legal information relating to the NDAs. Triple H is married to another former senior executive in the company who also had access to all the above and who was implicated in the Ashley Massaro allegations. Triple H was a trusted right hand man of Vince McMahon for two decades. Triple H is Vince McMahon's son-in-law. Triple H claimed he didn't even read the suit relating to the matter that took down the most important person in the history of his company, and his father-in-law.

The bold bit gets me. Like you say, the most powerful man in the history of the industry, not just the company, had been taken down by what he’d been accused of in this suit. And he also happens to be your father-in-law. And you’re now in the unenviable position of inheriting the shitshow he’s left behind, running the company and trying to steer it in the right direction and improve its image. Why wouldn’t you read that suit?

It’s only my opinion but, to me, the only reason you wouldn’t read it is because you already knew what would be in there. Not saying he knew everything but, if you take his claims he never read it at face value, I can’t fathom how someone in his position wouldn’t read it. I do think he read it, by the way. But him thinking that publicly saying he hadn’t read it yet would be the best move baffles me. At best it looks like negligence, at worst like you don’t give a shit. 

[RedTwoster]

7 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

To suggest that a man in that position could not possibly be oblivious to what his father-in-law and other senior people were doing to people under his employ is not defamatory, it's beyond any other comprehension.

 

I said I wasn’t going to reply, but I will to this point - it absolutely is defamatory. For various reasons (I’ve not been sued, to be clear) I am very familiar with the law and I know what I’m talking about here. I know it sounds arrogant to word it like that, but this is an area I know well.

When it comes to defamation, the requirement is for the person making the allegation to prove it’s true, not on the opposing party to prove it’s false. Because of changes to the law, it’s a lot harder than it used to be to successfully claim defamation than it used to be - but that doesn’t mean you can’t try. That’s why you get SLAPP lawsuits.

But as I’ve said previously, it’s likely a very low risk in this situation. Low risk is not ‘no risk’, and it’s up to you what you want to do with that information.

7 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

No one is bringing that up because they desperately want to protect people from Triple H's lawyers. Don't be ridiculous. Just more attempts to shut down valid debate about his role in this/that horrific environment. 

I responded because I’m genuinely a bit insulted by this suggestion - are you trying to suggest I’m being tribal? You can think I’m talking shite if you want - I’m sure I often do - but I’m going to dispute any suggestions of tribalism or similar implications.

I’m going to do my best to respond to you without seeming heated, because I like you, and I’m genuinely not responding in anger. Personally, I don’t think it’s ’valid debate’ when there’s no way of proving anything. ‘Belief’ does not equate to evidence. It’s emotion-driven speculation and nothing more, and I think it’s perfectly fair to point that out. 

I do understand why you might be angry and why many people hate WWE. There are plenty of awful things we know for sure have happened. The association with Trump and Saudi Arabia is pretty awful too. I watch WWE, and while I don’t watch the Saudi shows, there’s probably a level of hypocrisy in me watching the company at all. And you’re perfectly entitled to hate the company and even the people in it.

This really is the last thing I’m posting about this. The discussion is getting a bit heated, so I think leaving it is sensible on my part. 

EDIT: And to be totally clear, I’m specifically referring to suggestions of who knew what, comments about ‘not reading the lawsuit’ etc are totally fair and valid. I’m not disputing any of that. 

Edited February 2, 2025 by RedTwoster

[Chico Torres]

10 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

No one is bringing that up because they desperately want to protect people from Triple H's lawyers. Don't be ridiculous. Just more attempts to shut down valid debate about his role in this/that horrific environment. 

HHH isn't accused of anything illegal and no one has suggested otherwise. 

Everything else is fact. Triple H was a senior executive in the company who has access to all financial and legal information relating to the NDAs. Triple H is married to another former senior executive in the company who also had access to all the above and who was implicated in the Ashley Massaro allegations. Triple H was a trusted right hand man of Vince McMahon for two decades. Triple H is Vince McMahon's son-in-law. Triple H claimed he didn't even read the suit relating to the matter that took down the most important person in the history of his company, and his father-in-law.

To suggest that a man in that position could not possibly be oblivious to what his father-in-law and other senior people were doing to people under his employ is not defamatory, it's beyond any other comprehension.

Lots of the above is true of Nick Khan too. It's also quite implausible that he wasn't aware either. And that's before the latest information has emerged that confirms they worked so closely together that they had interconnecting doors. 

I don't mind people pointing out personal bias - like that's some sort of win. This company has systematically enabled sexual predators like Mel Phillips and Vince McMahon, has buried allegations about senior executives like Pat Patterson, John Laurenitis and Stephanie McMahon, has chewed up and spit out victims like Rita Chatterton, Tom Cole, Ashley Massaro and Janel Grant and has allowed countless other women to be used, abused and paid off with an NDA.

How could anyone NOT be "biased" against them?

Just want to say this is an excellent post and very refreshing to read after the hoops people are jumping through to defend Dear Leader. 

[tiger_rick]

21 hours ago, RedTwoster said:

I responded because I’m genuinely a bit insulted by this suggestion - are you trying to suggest I’m being tribal? You can think I’m talking shite if you want - I’m sure I often do - but I’m going to dispute any suggestions of tribalism or similar implications.

I wouldn't go that far, I don't think we have those idiots on here who think they're on the team and actively wish the other company didn't exist because Vince and Co have spent the last 20 years telling them that wrestling wars are to be won and eliminating all competition is good. I do think you're being very defensive of WWE/Triple H though and attempting to stop people expressing a perfectly valid opinion, that it's implausible that he was oblivious to all of this happening while he was a senior executive running the company and a close family member, is part of a narrative of wanting people to shut up about it.

I won't, personally. I have tried not to post about it in other threads because people really, really want to just enjoy their wrestling and I get that. The fawning makes me sick but I walk on by!

For the record, I like you too. You're a very good poster and I enjoy reading and responding to your posts, even when I disagree. I don't want to fall out with anyone over it. I just cannot feel differently about these cunts.

Edited February 3, 2025 by tiger_rick
*enjoy

[RedTwoster]

1 minute ago, tiger_rick said:

For the record, I like you too. You're a very good poster and I enjoy reading and responding to your posts, even when I disagree. I don't want to fall out with anyone over it. I just cannot feel differently about these cunts.

Oh likewise, I love all of your posts, but I particularly enjoy reading posts I disagree with from you as they always make me think. The forum would be a poorer place without you!

[King Coconut]

7 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

these cunts

Also an excellent point. Even if Levesque knew fuck all about this particular subject* he's still an absolute cunt.

*LOL

[Hannibal Scorch]

Update on the Ring boy Scandal 

 

[Hannibal Scorch]

Another lawsuit ends with no consequences

https://bsky.app/profile/nodq.com/post/3lhybgsxexf2b