The Law MeToo Movement

Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Just labelling it 'cancel culture' is merely a way of dismissing it without actually dealing with the substance of the issue.
Huh? This makes no sense.

The question is not what constitutes "cancel culture" - although I'd be happy to outline it. That's not the point.

The question is whether a mere allegation is sufficient for Twitter activists (and the decision-makers who listen to them) to demand someone be sacked.
 
Huh? This makes no sense.

The question is not what constitutes "cancel culture" - although I'd be happy to outline it. That's not the point.

The question is whether a mere allegation is sufficient for Twitter activists (and the decision-makers who listen to them) to demand someone be sacked.
Maybe, who knows? Funny how you put 'decision makers' in brackets when they're the only ones who matter, whoever they are. They may very well end up making a decision on information we're not privy to. Is that being 'cancelled'? Who knows.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
Maybe, who knows?
Well, why not? If we're being consistent.

Funny how you put 'decision makers' in brackets when they're the only ones who matter, whoever they are.
Why is that funny?

Cancel culture doesn't start and end with studio bosses.

They may very well end up making a decision on information we're not privy to. Is that being 'cancelled'? Who knows.
Is being driven out of your career "being cancelled"? Yeah. Is that disputable?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you actually have an argument?

Make take a moment to compose yourself and connect some of these dots instead of just responding with a series of tangents.
 
Well, why not? If we're being consistent.

Why is that funny?

Cancel culture doesn't start and end with studio bosses.

Is being driven out of your career "being cancelled"? Yeah. Is that disputable?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Do you actually have an argument?

Make take a moment to compose yourself and connect some of these dots instead of just responding with a series of tangents.
That's my point, the whole thing is nothing more than a series of tangents. People lose their high-profile jobs all the time for all sorts of reason, it's just now we have the 'cancel' term so the waters can be muddied and we can avoid actually talking about the issues involved. It's boring and tedious.
 
Dec 20, 2014
26,333
21,512
Hong Kong
AFL Club
West Coast
That's my point, the whole thing is nothing more than a series of tangents.
That's not a point. It's a nonsensical non-argument that doesn't connect to anything I said previously.

People lose their high-profile jobs all the time for all sorts of reason, it's just now we have the 'cancel' term so the waters can be muddied and we can avoid actually talking about the issues involved. It's boring and tedious.
See above.

Who is "we" in the sentence above? There's no shortage of discussion of "the issues involved".
 

Pessimistic

Cancelled
30k Posts 10k Posts HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts TheBrownDog
Sep 13, 2000
86,852
42,951
Melbourne cricket ground. Australia
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Horks
Ch 7 not doing Craig McLaughlin any favours.

they just portray him in a way to make you think ‘wow he ‘looks’ like he could be violent’ when it’s probably not the case
 

Freshwater

Premiership Player
Oct 30, 2014
4,123
8,069
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I thought he came across well. He has been to hell and back. And was accused and got off but had his life and reputation ruined during it. The ABC acted appalling, accusing him and sacking him before trial and producers who wanted him out putting words in interviewees mouths! Disgusting.
 
Apr 17, 2006
27,232
16,553
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
Ch 7 not doing Craig McLaughlin any favours.

they just portray him in a way to make you think ‘wow he ‘looks’ like he could be violent’ when it’s probably not the case
Didn't think that. It showed how dirty the ABC are, and how a false allegation can destroy someone.

It's the first time on TV we have had actual push ack's against the metoo movement without interference
 
I thought he came across well. He has been to hell and back. And was accused and got off but had his life and reputation ruined during it. The ABC acted appalling, accusing him and sacking him before trial and producers who wanted him out putting words in interviewees mouths! Disgusting.


Didn't the judge call his behaviour 'lewd and inappropriate"? If those allegations were completely false then I guess we'll find out in his defamation case. He may have avoided jail but I really don't think the ABC acted "appalling" in getting rid of someone who acted in a 'lewd and inappropriate' manner.
 

Freshwater

Premiership Player
Oct 30, 2014
4,123
8,069
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Didn't the judge call his behaviour 'lewd and inappropriate"? If those allegations were completely false then I guess we'll find out in his defamation case. He may have avoided jail but I really don't think the ABC acted "appalling" in getting rid of someone who acted in a 'lewd and inappropriate' manner.
The Rocky horror show itself is lewd, all their shenanigans in the dressing sounds as if it was too. But all were participating. Then a disgruntled employee missed a role she wanted, and destroyed someone’s life. And the ABC complies, disgusting. Who has not told an ‘inappropriate’ joke or story? Some are so accusational.
 
The Rocky horror show itself is lewd, all their shenanigans in the dressing sounds as if it was too. But all were participating. Then a disgruntled employee missed a role she wanted, and destroyed someone’s life. And the ABC complies, disgusting. Who has not told an ‘inappropriate’ joke or story? Some are so accusational.
Again, we'll just have to wait and see if McLachlin is able to successfully sue the ABC for defamation. In fact, your statement about the witness is hypocritical, as it is demonstrably wrong with nothing to back it up, unlike the accusations against McLaughlin which you take issue with. Luckily, attitudes like yours are being left in the dust, relics of a bygone age.
 
Last edited:

Freshwater

Premiership Player
Oct 30, 2014
4,123
8,069
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Again, we'll just have to wait and see if McLaughlin is able to successfully sue the ABC for defamation. In fact, your statement about the witness is hypocritical, as it is demonstrably wrong with nothing to back it up, unlike the accusations against McLaughlin which you take issue with. Luckily, attitudes like yours are being left in the dust, relics of a bygone age.
Attitudes like ‘innocent before proven guilty’ and ‘he who is without sin casts the first stone’ and ‘rule of law’ and basic common decency will never go out of fashion. This age of mob rule, cancel culture and witch hunts are not the uptopian future you or I want.
 
Attitudes like ‘innocent before proven guilty’ and ‘he who is without sin casts the first stone’ and ‘rule of law’ and basic common decency will never go out of fashion. This age of mob rule, cancel culture and witch hunts are not the uptopian future you or I want.

A man lost his job over his lewd and inappropriate actions toward women. 'Cancel culture' is a completely meaningless term designed to mislead and obfuscate the reality of someone being held accountable for their own actions.
 
Apr 17, 2006
27,232
16,553
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
A man lost his job over his lewd and inappropriate actions toward women. 'Cancel culture' is a completely meaningless term designed to mislead and obfuscate the reality of someone being held accountable for their own actions.
Actions during an audition based on the script for the play they were doing.
Can't wait till the rehearsals for the Weinstein play....
 

Broar

Club Legend
Mar 25, 2014
1,932
1,648
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Attitudes like ‘innocent before proven guilty’ and ‘he who is without sin casts the first stone’ and ‘rule of law’ and basic common decency will never go out of fashion. This age of mob rule, cancel culture and witch hunts are not the uptopian future you or I want.
I want to preface this and say I understand the need to protect victims of potential sexual assault and I don't know what the answer is but the idea that people can hide behind anonymity and make claims against someone that basically ruins their life, just seems wrong to me. If you looked on twitter last night I'd say 95% of the comments were about how Mclaughlin was such a monster even though he was found not guilty. His life will never be the same. It doesn't matter if he did it or not in the eyes of the public.

Maybe its as simple as in cases like these Mclaughlins identity would be suppressed until a potential guilty verdict is made as well because the idea that someone with an axe to grind after missing out on a role, hides behind anonymity, gets spoonfed by the abc on how to manipulate the story and ruin someones life just seems so wrong to me.
 
Didn't the judge call his behaviour 'lewd and inappropriate"? If those allegations were completely false then I guess we'll find out in his defamation case. He may have avoided jail but I really don't think the ABC acted "appalling" in getting rid of someone who acted in a 'lewd and inappropriate' manner.
from the verdict in his criminal trial

The magistrate said Mr McLachlan likely touched the women while they were performing, but might have believed they were consenting due to his "egotistical, self-entitled sense of humour". However, she was not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt he knew they were not consenting, which is an element of the charge.

Ms Wallington found he "probably" did use his tongue to kiss his co-star on stage, but could not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. She also accepted the kisses and hug backstage and the face push on stage all happened, but was not convinced they constituted an indecent assault or common assault.

After delivering her verdicts, the magistrate praised the four women, criticised the way defence lawyers questioned the women and indicated her verdicts might have been different had she applied the current law regarding an accused's belief about a complainant's consent. Because the allegations were from 2014, she had to apply the way the law stood then.
"Were the current law applicable it is possible the result may have been different," she said.
Ms Wallington said the women's accounts were credible and there was no evidence of collusion and no motive behind their decisions to contact police.

"The four complainants were brave and honest witnesses," she said.
 
I want to preface this and say I understand the need to protect victims of potential sexual assault and I don't know what the answer is but the idea that people can hide behind anonymity and make claims against someone that basically ruins their life, just seems wrong to me. If you looked on twitter last night I'd say 95% of the comments were about how Mclaughlin was such a monster even though he was found not guilty. His life will never be the same. It doesn't matter if he did it or not in the eyes of the public.

Maybe its as simple as in cases like these Mclaughlins identity would be suppressed until a potential guilty verdict is made as well because the idea that someone with an axe to grind after missing out on a role, hides behind anonymity, gets spoonfed by the abc on how to manipulate the story and ruin someones life just seems so wrong to me.

Let's see how his defamation case pans out then. I mean, it might even turn out that none of what you said in your last sentence even happened.
 

Broar

Club Legend
Mar 25, 2014
1,932
1,648
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Let's see how his defamation case pans out then. I mean, it might even turn out that none of what you said in your last sentence even happened.
Yea that's a fair call. But lets say that Mclaughlins side of the story is true (for arguments sake), do you believe that the system has worked? It just seems so wrong to me, you are right we will find out a little more after the defamation case but I'm certain there have been cases in the past and there will be more in the future where someone has used this system to destroy someones life.
 
Yea that's a fair call. But lets say that Mclaughlins side of the story is true (for arguments sake), do you believe that the system has worked? It just seems so wrong to me, you are right we will find out a little more after the defamation case but I'm certain there have been cases in the past and there will be more in the future where someone has used this system to destroy someones life.
In this case it looks far more likely that McLachlin has got away with harassment rather than someone has maliciously invented claims against him for petty reasons.

The magistrate said Mr McLachlan likely touched the women while they were performing, but might have believed they were consenting due to his "egotistical, self-entitled sense of humour". However, she was not persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt he knew they were not consenting, which is an element of the charge.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/ver...n-indecent-assault-trial-20201215-p56nj2.html
 
Apr 17, 2006
27,232
16,553
???
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Miami Dolphins(NFL)
In this case it looks far more likely that McLachlin has got away with harassment rather than someone has maliciously invented claims against him for petty reasons.



https://www.smh.com.au/national/ver...n-indecent-assault-trial-20201215-p56nj2.html
The magistrate should not have said what she said.
If they were credible, it would have been a guilty verdict.
It's obvious that she was exonerating herself from the backlash, "I though he was guilty, it wasn't me, leave me alone"

You may believe he's guilty, but you must have a few doubts when actual evidence of abc "integrity" has surfaced
 
The magistrate should not have said what she said.
If they were credible, it would have been a guilty verdict.
It's obvious that she was exonerating herself from the backlash, "I though he was guilty, it wasn't me, leave me alone"

You may believe he's guilty, but you must have a few doubts when actual evidence of abc "integrity" has surfaced
The credibility of the witnesses was not the reason for the not guilty verdict.

After delivering her verdicts, the magistrate praised the four women, criticised the way defence lawyers questioned the women and indicated her verdicts might have been different had she applied the current law regarding an accused's belief about a complainant's consent. Because the allegations were from 2014, she had to apply the way the law stood then.

"Were the current law applicable it is possible the result may have been different," she said.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/ver...n-indecent-assault-trial-20201215-p56nj2.html
 
Back