Zippity
Registered User
- Feb 3, 2013
- 2,075
- 2,029
I suspect the Hockey Canada CGL policy is paying out the settlement accordingly. (not coming out of the 'pockets' of Hockey Canada, instead their Insurer - which is the important part to the insurance equation).
At recent federal hearings, Hockey Canada chief executive officer Scott Smith said Hockey Canada did not use federal funds to settle a $3.55-million lawsuit stemming from the alleged 2018 sexual assault. Mr. Smith said the organization “liquidated a portion of our investments” to settle for an undisclosed amount.
Nowhere have I ever said gang rape was proven in this case.“Gang rape” is most certainly not proven in any way, shape, or form in this case.
There's a police department that investigated the matter and has *actual evidence* in its possession that the general public. - you and me included- is not privy to. Based on that evidence, they decided to lay no charges in the case.
The police department's opinion was based on the actual evidence. Yours is based on assumption and conjecture.
By your own logic, it’s *your* opinion that's not worthwhile sharing. There's no denying it.
To be fair, it is a common PR tactic. Also, the threat of a deadline does exist in the form of next Tuesday's Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage hearings. This will include someone from Henein Hutchison LLP, the firm that conducted the original investigation. There is every possibility that leads to further identifying information up to and including the names of those they interviewed. If none of the players who've released a statement by now don't do it ahead of those hearings, they're throwing away an opportunity to potentially help themselves.
lol let’s just keep burying our head into the sand and ignore the obvious problem in hockey.
Society****
I don't think the slush fund was shut down, it appears to me like they could just open another fund that could pay off these settlements in the future.Nowhere have I ever said gang rape was proven in this case.
I am not surprised a bullshit strawman argument was brought up, it's part and parcel with the list of dishonest debating techniques like projection and adhominem that I fully expect to see trotted out in a misbegotten defense of rape-enabling culture.
It's crystal clear that my opinion is based on the available evidence, and that the only conclusions I have reached are the same ones everyone else has reached - the hush money slush fund has to be shut down (it will be, already announced), and the character assassination investigation has to be re-opened (it will be, already announced).
Wait, there is one conclusion - based on the available evidence - that I reached that most everyone else is going to catch up to later: the execs at Hockey Canada are the last people who should be driving the change of the toxic hockey culture. The same people who employ the tactics of defending rape-enabling culture, who covered up serious allegations of gang rape, are clearly the last people who should be driving the change of the toxic hockey culture. My opinion is not based on assumptions or conjecture, it's based on the available evidence.
There's no denying it.
People are so far down this whole political rabbit hole culture war nonsense that they somehow think this is a political issue and people are just trying to "score points" or acting woke or something. This is not a political issue. Stop it. Vote however you want, I don't care, being "anti-rape" is not "woke", it's literally just common about as basic of human decency as one could hope for.
99.999999% of the population is against sexual aggression
Yet it happens to 25% of the population.
It’s an extremely complex subject that requires a lot of education, introspection and societal changes.
Mmmmkay.It's crystal clear that my opinion is based on the available evidence, and that the only conclusions I have reached are the same ones everyone else has reached - the hush money slush fund has to be shut down (it will be, already announced), and the character assassination investigation has to be re-opened (it will be, already announced).
.... My opinion is not based on assumptions or conjecture, it's based on the available evidence.
There's no denying it.
Because it happened at a hockey canada event attended by players playing for a hockey canada teamStill don’t know why hockey Canada would get involved in the situation, and the scariest thing is there might have been many situations like this… the OHL suspended Mailloux for a lot less yet these guy didn’t get anything…
They're probably trying to hang their hat on the ambiguity of the idiom. I think they are making a distinction between passively allowing it to remained conceal (just not cleaning up the spill) and actively trying to stop it from being revealed (sweeping the spill under the rug).I read the evidence from the below link.
It bothers me that HC can state they were not trying to sweep this under the rug
In order to have anyone know about it, thus it not being swept under the rug, they would have to tell some public party the accusations were made, and they were settling it.
They did not inform the people who paid for this settlement. They did not inform those who paid registration fees.
How exactly is that not sweeping it under the rug when they are not informing those who's money ultimately paid off the settlement, that there was even a settlement?
Evidence - CHPC (44-1) - No. 38 - House of Commons of Canada
Evidence - CHPC (44-1) - No. 38 - House of Commons of Canadawww.ourcommons.ca
"These guy" were investigated by local law enforcement who decided charges were not warranted.Still don’t know why hockey Canada would get involved in the situation, and the scariest thing is there might have been many situations like this… the OHL suspended Mailloux for a lot less yet these guy didn’t get anything…
Yet then if I were able to ask a question it would be, why did they not use the government supplied money to pay off the settlement?They're probably trying to hang their hat on the ambiguity of the idiom. I think they are making a distinction between passively allowing it to remained conceal (just not cleaning up the spill) and actively trying to stop it from being revealed (sweeping the spill under the rug).
And in that case, I think it's true. They weren't just passive, but they took active steps that would have made it more likely to become public (going to police, retaining a third party to investigate). Had they denied that their was an allegation or tried to hide the settlement by keeping it off the books or contacted the players and told them what to say if investigated or even proactively offered hush money instead of waiting to be sued and settling, those would be more actions that they believe would be "sweeping it under the rug."
I, of course, don't agree with their passive action and no doubt recognize that they would rather this have been kept secret and not known but I think I agree with them here, just some ambiguous wording.
It was a hockey Canada event but it had nothing to do with hockey… If a player struck a spectator with a puck while shooting and the spectator would sue the player I can see hockey Canada settling it, if a player get into a accident while drunk driving after a game I wouldn’t expect hockey Canada to settle the damages to cover it up. If I do something on my lunch break or overnight my work isn’t getting involved in covering it up… I could see providing help to get legal counsel but to actively pay out the victim to settle out of court is kind of mind blowing…Because it happened at a hockey canada event attended by players playing for a hockey canada team
Mmmmkay.
I appreciate that you have retracted your ridiculous "gang rape" allegations.
I'm sure that had HC *not* settled with the plaintiff quietly out-of-court, and instead dragged her into court to have lawyers challenge and cross-examine her version of events under penalty of perjury, you would not be complaining about the settlement. Right?
Right?
Yeah, they decided to lay no charges back when this story was under the radar. Back then, the police and Hockey Canada figured they could just sweep this under the rug conveniently.“Gang rape” is most certainly not proven in any way, shape, or form in this case.
There's a police department that investigated the matter and has *actual evidence* in its possession that the general public. - you and me included- is not privy to. Based on that evidence, they decided to lay no charges in the case.
Man you could have just saved us time by saying you have no idea what you’re talking about at top.
Hockey Canada settled because of the lawsuit the victim filed. Not the parents threatening them with one. I mean the victim was an adult so the parents have nothing to do with this at all other than trying to protect their daughter by going to the police.
People are so far down this whole political rabbit hole culture war nonsense that they somehow think this is a political issue and people are just trying to "score points" or acting woke or something. This is not a political issue. Stop it. Vote however you want, I don't care, being "anti-rape" is not "woke", it's literally just common about as basic of human decency as one could hope for.
I'm not up to date enough or financially savvy to understand the different funds and how they hide, but again I think they are just trying to argue they didn't do anything actively to stop this from going out. Which has probably been their plan since day 1, saving their own bacon. Do just enough to avoid being found of a cover up but not actually try to do anything to get this revealed or moved along. So I think I get the argument, I think I agree with it, but it still leaves them at a piece of crap organization with leaders devoid of ethics.Yet then if I were able to ask a question it would be, why did they not use the government supplied money to pay off the settlement?
Why use the registration fee revenue instead?
I mean if the idea was that this was not an attempt for this to be swept under the rug, what difference did it make where the fund to pay the settlement off originated from?
Like they could just say it was happenstance, yet really the only logical motive towards not using the government funds is clearly because the government has both the ability to stop funding and hold an investigation, while the registration fee funders have no power to do anything at all other than not pay again.