He got to fire the openning salvo which given his popularity was a PR coup so AT THIS POINT the firing/lawsuite is bigger news than why he would have been fired which I would assume will come very quickly … we must be patient

I'm not making any judgement on the specific allegations, however would like to disagree with your characterization that the women "came forward in a very public way". While the allegations are public, the alleged victims aren't. Quote from the star article: "The Star conducted detailed interviews with the women, talking to each woman several times. None of the women filed police complaints and none agreed to go on the record. The reasons given for not coming forward publicly include the fear that they would be sued or would be the object of Internet retaliation. "

To be honest, I don't know what the legal consequences of making an "off the record" statement to the press can be. Not sure what would happen if the Star gets sued for defamation. Would the Star have to divulge the names in court in order to substantiate their claims?

Various studies into sexual assault have shown that between 60 to 95% of sexual assaults go unreported. A study done about college women in the late 90s concluded 95% of rapes go unreported. Reasons mentioned for not reporting: "not wanting family or other people to know about the incident, lack of proof the incident happened, fear of reprisal by the assailant, fear of being treated with hostility by the police, and anticipation that the police would not believe the incident was serious enough and/or would not want to be bothered with the incident." (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf) (p.s. not saying that this situation is sexual assault, just making a comparison because I think victim issues and deterrents to reporting are similar)

When you look at this case in particular, assuming the allegations are true (for the sake of discussion), it would have all the hallmarks of a situation where victims would be afraid to come forward and file a police report:

1: the alleged aggressor is a public figure with a positive reputation ([HTML_REMOVED] a team of high priced lawyers)

2: the possible "proof" (physical signs of assault) might be pitted against suggestions of consent (electronic communications between victim and aggressor).

3: the situation involves BDSM which victims might not want to be associated with.

Being approached by a reporter to discuss the case "off the record" might be a relatively anonymous (safe) way for a victim to "get a sense of justice" since it lacks several of the typical deterrents to filing a police report. In addition, I assume the women would have been told that they aren't the only victim..

Just to be clear, based on the information available in the press at the moment, I personally don't think there's enough evidence to establish wether or not there was consent. Just wanted to point out that I don't believe the lack of police report and subsequent "off the record" discussion with a reporter is illogical or a valid argument to discredit the victim statements.

definitely valid comments….but the lack of willingness to speak to police, or file charges seems to smack of a bit of a drive-by attack against him solely to damage his name, reputation, and character…but not through the legal channels or means, which doesn't do much to lend as much validity to the claims, unfortunately. I mean, yes there might be nervousness that a suggestion about being interested in kinky sex might negate their complaints, but as you mentioned about consent, walking into a house and getting punched in the face and choked immediately is not the same as being interested in maybe exploring said 'kinky' stuff….regardless, totally effed up situation, and who knows where the truth lies at this point.

he's unionized, he cant sue CBC.

And yet, his lawyers made a Friday announcement that they would be filing suit today. Either his lawyers are incompetent and don't know this, or you're just plain wrong.

never even knew he was unionized. I read it here. To bad cause I love the CBC and really enjoyed the Q.

definitely valid comments….but the lack of willingness to speak to police, or file charges seems to smack of a bit of a drive-by attack against him solely to damage his name, reputation, and character…but not through the legal channels or means, which doesn't do much to lend as much validity to the claims, unfortunately.

We see this all the time so I don't see why it takes away from the validity? To file charges of abuse or rape against someone with money and clout could easily end up as a horrible experience where their reputations are destroyed and the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence and a top dollar defense team. Going through legal channels often does not end in justice served.

And yet, his lawyers made a Friday announcement that they would be filing suit today. Either his lawyers are incompetent and don't know this, or you're just plain wrong.

Haven't seen anything in the news so far about the suit actually being filed today. The threat of lawsuit could very well be part of PR strategy.

correction: info appeared online while i was typing that the lawsuit was in fact filed this afternoon.

This article in the Financial post seems to agree corroborate what Nick mentioned : http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/27/jian-ghomeshis-cbc-lawsuit-is-hopeless-even-if-hes-telling-the-truth/

We see this all the time so I don't see why it takes away from the validity? To file charges of abuse or rape against someone with money and clout could easily end up as a horrible experience where their reputations are destroyed and the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence and a top dollar defense team. Going through legal channels often does not end in justice served.

I'm not disagreeing, but the alternative is this? at this point these women's claims are no more or less valid than Jian's. He said, she said. There's no record of the incidents with the police so in the end we have some unnamed women making claims that can't, seemingly at this point, be verified without just taking it at face value. When it comes down to it it's all a big steaming pile of shit, lying to save face happens, as does the angry jilted lover thing after they get dumped, this whole mess appears to be a dirty mix of both at this point.

We see this all the time so I don't see why it takes away from the validity? To file charges of abuse or rape against someone with money and clout could easily end up as a horrible experience where their reputations are destroyed and the case is dismissed due to lack of evidence and a top dollar defense team. Going through legal channels often does not end in justice served.

http://theovercast.ca/real-take-away-message-news-jian-ghomeshi/

Regardless of the scandalous hearsay and accusations or heinous facts involved the one shining truth is that if you're a public figure and value your career then you should keep your dick in your pants. Strombo seems to have this figured out, maybe jian should have learned from his example.

I'm not disagreeing, but the alternative is this? at this point these women's claims are no more or less valid than Jian's. He said, she said. There's no record of the incidents with the police so in the end we have some unnamed women making claims that can't, seemingly at this point, be verified without just taking it at face value. When it comes down to it it's all a big steaming pile of shit, lying to save face happens, as does the angry jilted lover thing after they get dumped, this whole mess appears to be a dirty mix of both at this point.

True. At least with charges we may get answers, although it almost always ends up as he said she said, even in court.

I don't want to throw Jian under the bus without the facts but from what little we have to go off of he looks to be the creep they are making him out to be and I have a sneaking suspicion these women are going to start piling up. Just the one fact we do know (grabbing a co-worker's ass and saying he wants to hate fuck her) is enough to solidify his creep status.

I don't want to throw Jian under the short-bus without the facts but from what little we have to go off of he looks to be the creep they are making him out to be and I have a sneaking suspicion these women are going to start piling up. Just the one fact we do know (grabbing a co-worker's ass and saying he wants to hate fuck her) is enough to solidify his creep status.

FYP

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0367027/

http://contrarian.ca/2014/10/27/collateral-damage-sook-yin-lee-is-not-jian-ghomeshi/

I dated someone for a bit that claimed to have been a victim of his sleaziness previously.

/coolstorybro

I dated someone for a bit that claimed to have been a victim of his sleaziness previously.

So by virtue of you-fucked-everyone-she-fucked … you got smacked around and power topped by Jian!

/coolstorybro

I see you deleted your "bitches be crazy" comment on page one, and have followed it up with this lovely one. Women got you down, bro?

im not your bro