Jian Ghomeshi trial

[pErvinalia]

I assume the 'R' represents the Crown somehow. The Crown clearly handles the prosecution of non-civil cases. That doesn't make them the victim, ffs.

It does, because it makes it really tough to intimidate the victim in that case.

Can you stop making jokes long enough to go learn WHY this is the way justice is handled? It has to do with big questions like 'what is justice' and other important questions.

Of course, you don't have to take the intelligent approach. Even though you have admitted that you didn't know about this until now, you just go on insisting that your opinion is very important because you defend victims.

This is utterly nonsensical. Your main assertion was the ridiculousness of "victim services". Sure it's ridiculous if you consider "victim" to mean the Crown and not the actual fucking victim of the crime. Given it is utterly unrelated to providing services to the fucking crown, your point is retarded beyond belief. I mean, seriously, what is your overall point? You can't seriously be making the point that the crown shouldn't get "victim services", as no one in their right mind would suggest that the services go to the crown and not the actual victim in the crime. So what the hell is your point??

Good luck with that approach. I got a PM warning me about your tactics, by the way.

From Seth Good luck with that alliance. Although, it is cute that you've got two friends, both of whom will argue that black is white till the heat death of the universe. They suit you.

[pErvinalia]

Honestly, this is one of the strangest (and most comical) threads I have ever participated in. You make near enough to zero sense. Yet you've posted for 6 pages here (and a couple in the other thread). You've posted for 8 pages and haven't managed to get one coherent and relevant point across. It's fucking spectacular!

[pErvinalia]

The victim in any criminal case does not need any believing, protecting or other coddling. We have a decent justice system in that respect. The victim has broad enough shoulders that the lawyers can be as tough as they want, as tough as they HAVE to be to do a good job.

The trouble is that not everyone knows who the victim in a Canadian criminal case really is. I assure you, the real victim will NEVER need any crap like 'victims services'. It would be insulting, or worse, to the real victim to offer such.

This is your first nonsensical post in the thread. Who is the "real" victim? The Crown? Wow. The person who had a crime committed against them isn't a real victim? What a pile of steaming dog turd. And fucking offensive to actual victims of crime.

And then you state that to provide victim services to the "real" victim, i.e. the Crown, in your words, would be insulting to the Crown. That literally makes no sense. How the fuck can the Crown be insulted? And who the fuck would ever argue that the Crown should get victim services? :insane:

[Cunt]

The Crown doesn't need your vapid and clumsy help.

My point was that our justice system has removed the victim from criminal cases, placing the crown in their place. There are many good reasons for that. In fact, it is not at all MY point, it is ours. As a society, we have had our best legal experts on this for hundreds of years.

This is what they have decided. It is just. It is wise. Maybe not as just or wise as you, but it is the best that we have ever had.

Though I'm sure you are still right. Though long ago the justice system decided to place the crown in that role instead of an accuser, you must be right because you are smart.

You are so smart, rEv. Don't change anything. You are perfect just as you are.

[pErvinalia]

The Crown doesn't need your vapid and clumsy help.

Where have I offered the Crown any help? You are literally just posting random shit now.

My point was that our justice system has removed the victim from criminal cases, placing the crown in their place. There are many good reasons for that. In fact, it is not at all MY point, it is ours. As a society, we have had our best legal experts on this for hundreds of years.

Great. But what in the fuck does this have to do with your asinine bullshit about "victim services"? And what about the actual real victims of crime, not the victim as created by legal artifice?

This is what they have decided. It is just. It is wise. Maybe not as just or wise as you, but it is the best that we have ever had.

Who gives a shit? What does this have to do with the thread - the false accusation of someone - and what does it have to do with your idiotic nonsense about victim services applying to the Crown?

Though I'm sure you are still right. Though long ago the justice system decided to place the crown in that role instead of an accuser, you must be right because you are smart.

I'm undoubtedly right that no one has argued for victim services to be applied to the fucking Crown, and the fact that it has absolutely nothing to do with the services applied to the actual victims of crime.

You are so smart, rEv. Don't change anything. You are perfect just as you are.

You should put as much effort into thinking up a cogent point to add to a thread as you do in trolling. Seriously. You've just trolled and obfuscated and avoided for 8 pages now, only to reveal that all along you were talking about the nonsensical idea of victim services being applied to the crown!

[Cunt]

I think it IS nonsense that our courts have something called 'victims services'. It shows a startling lack of understanding of this basic principal.

If you think victims services is a good idea, tell me then, since the only 'victim' (in your usage of the word) is Ghomeshi, how do you think they can provide him services? Should the office have offered services to his alleged victims first?

[pErvinalia]

I think it IS nonsense that our courts have something called 'victims services'. It shows a startling lack of understanding of this basic principal.

You're doubling down? Really?

If you think victims services is a good idea, tell me then, since the only 'victim' (in your usage of the word) is Ghomeshi,

Fail. Try again. I was taking a stab at what your secret view was. That wasn't my view. Although, it's fair to say that in some cases where it's clearly a false accusation, the alleged perp winds up as a victim. I don't know anything significant about this case, so I couldn't comment on whether this is the case here.

how do you think they can provide him services? Should the office have offered services to his alleged victims first?

Before we move on to what actual victim services do, you need to fess up to your idiotic notion that victim services are somehow being applied, or are argued to be applied, to the Crown. You seem to have doubled down above, so until you clear this howler up there's no point moving past that.

[Cunt]

What I am saying is that the services provided to victims could have stopped with placing the crown in their place. Adding victims services is a real minefield, because of the points you avoided.

Ghomeshi was found not guilty. Obviously you don't think that makes him a victim of anything, ok.

What about a false accusation? Should victims services be offered to any accuser? Should the help be redirected to a falsely accused party? Or is someone only a 'victim' in your eyes if they make an accusation?

[Cunt]

and rEv, please don't PM me. I don't want to join the whisper club, and sending me a PM is kind of creepy.

[pErvinalia]

What I am saying is that the services provided to victims could have stopped with placing the crown in their place. Adding victims services is a real minefield, because of the points you avoided.

What points? You've only made one point, and it's fucking nonsensical.

Why is providing services to victims a minefield? And what does "placing the crown in their place" mean in relation to victim services?

Ghomeshi was found not guilty. Obviously you don't think that makes him a victim of anything, ok.

Obviously you have trouble reading. I just clearly stated that I don't know enough about this case to say whether he was a victim. If it was a genuine case of false accusation, then yes, he is a victim of that. That sort of accusation, could socially tar him for life.

What about a false accusation? Should victims services be offered to any accuser?

Well as I said earlier, there's no point throwing the baby out with the bath water. If you remove victim services due to the small number of false accusations, then you take that valuable service away from the majority of victims who could do with it. That's counter-productive. It's also moralistic bullshit.

Should the help be redirected to a falsely accused party?

If the accusation is consider beyond enough doubt to be false, then absolutely. I"m not sure of the situation in this particular case and the like, but usually the prosecuting party has to pay the costs of the defence if the case is dismissed. So that's at least a starting point for cases that aren't considered false accusation. And it should go up from there. I'd expect it must be possible to sue someone who clearly falsely accuses you of something. In that case, then you can recoup even more support in the form of money and public vindication.

Or is someone only a 'victim' in your eyes if they make an accusation?

I clearly stated that someone could be a victim if they are falsely accused. Try reading for comprehension.

[pErvinalia]

and rEv, please don't PM me. I don't want to join the whisper club, and sending me a PM is kind of creepy.

But I want to have sex with you.

[Cunt]

and rEv, please don't PM me. I don't want to join the whisper club, and sending me a PM is kind of creepy.

But I want to have sex with you.

I don't care about that, but since I have asked you to not PM me, the one festering in my inbox is unwelcome harassment.

Fuck off. I'm not reading your private messages. If you can't say it out here, you can't say it to me.

[pErvinalia]

I'm happy to talk about your mental health here on the open forum if that's what you want. But I thought you might prefer discussions to stay private.

(By the way, I know you read it, as it is no longer in my outbox. You should have learnt how the pm system works before telling porkies.. )

[Cunt]

I'm happy to talk about your mental health here on the open forum if that's what you want. But I thought you might prefer discussions to stay private.

(By the way, I know you read it, as it is no longer in my outbox. You should have learnt how the pm system works before telling porkies.. )

Oh, I read the first one, then ignored the second one. I am waiting to find out if you will keep up with the personal attacks, or if you will just go away.

[pErvinalia]

No, you didn't ignore the second one. You seem to still be in the dark how the pm system works. Any PM you send will stay in your outbox until the person has clicked on it (and usually, therefore, read it). So I know that you have opened it (and presumably read it; who would open a message but not read it?). Try again.