Details on Hedley singer sexual misconduct allegations

You understood correctly, but based on those facts, whether rightly or wrongly what he did is illegal in Canada.

A woman can say no 20 seconds before ejaculation and if you don't pull out you're committing sexual assault. As much as there is room for debate, that's how our laws currently work.

Cas77 wrote: ↑ You understood correctly, but based on those facts, whether rightly or wrongly what he did is illegal in Canada.

A woman can say no 20 seconds before ejaculation and if you don't pull out you're committing sexual assault. As much as there is room for debate, that's how our laws currently work.

Agreed. But actions must follow words. Let's assume everything this unidentified complainant said, is true. After her first encounter with him in the first room, why didn't she storm out? It's details like this that create friction in our judicial system. Unless there's a reasonable explanation (i.e. she was being held against her will), then the average lay person will have a difficult time, believing her.

Its going to come to this very soon. There will be documents that will need to be signed by both parties first. But even then, will that matter. As someone will say, he forced me to sign them.

How is he supposed to defend himself when the person wants to stay hidden?

Cas77 wrote: ↑ You understood correctly, but based on those facts, whether rightly or wrongly what he did is illegal in Canada.

A woman can say no 20 seconds before ejaculation and if you don't pull out you're committing sexual assault. As much as there is room for debate, that's how our laws currently work.

And how they should remain to work! If you are uncomfortable and say no the person you are with should respect that.

lebronjames1 wrote: ↑ And how they should remain to work! If you are uncomfortable and say no the person you are with should respect that.

To an extent. If you are uncomfortable with a person, do you literally wait before he's about to have sex with you, or, out of an abundance of caution, take evasive procedure at earliest conjuncture? I would think the answer is the latter.

This is not difficult. It really isn't. If you don't want to have sexual relations with a person, don't agree to meet with them at a hotel room or continue staying if they're initially aggressive towards you, but then settle down (as was reported by this complainant). Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

lebronjames1 wrote: ↑ And how they should remain to work! If you are uncomfortable and say no the person you are with should respect that.

I think all of us would accept no means no at any time. The issue is this: how does she prove that she said no, considering every action leading up (and there are many) said yes, and how does she prove he heard her say no? Do we just take her at her word?

And to the matter point, if she did say no and he didn't hear,is he responsible?

Micelli_Illuminatti wrote: ↑ To an extent. If you are uncomfortable with a person, do you literally wait before he's about to have sex with you, or, out of an abundance of caution, take evasive procedure at earliest conjuncture? I would think the answer is the latter.

This is not difficult. It really isn't. If you don't want to have sexual relations with a person, don't agree to meet with them at a hotel room or continue staying if they're initially aggressive towards you, but then settle down (as was reported by this complainant). Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

Exactly.
Just don't show up.
What was she thinking? Maybe to have a cup of coffee and talk?

gontori wrote: ↑ Exactly.
Just don't show up.
What was she thinking? Maybe to have a cup of coffee and talk?

Well, no, in this case, she knew she was going to have sex with him. That's why she went. Which makes her story even more incredulous. Ah well.

Micelli_Illuminatti wrote: ↑ Well, no, in this case, she knew she was going to have sex with him. That's why she went. Which makes her story even more incredulous. Ah well.

I was being sarcastic. Of course she knew she was going to have sex with the guy.
I guess the complaint was not due to the act itself but to the roughess of it.

Micelli_Illuminatti wrote: ↑ To an extent. If you are uncomfortable with a person, do you literally wait before he's about to have sex with you, or, out of an abundance of caution, take evasive procedure at earliest conjuncture? I would think the answer is the latter.

This is not difficult. It really isn't. If you don't want to have sexual relations with a person, don't agree to meet with them at a hotel room or continue staying if they're initially aggressive towards you, but then settle down (as was reported by this complainant). Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

Everyone will agree (even herself) that she did show up for sex so your point is moot;

She alleges he slapped her, spat on her and forced her to have anal sex — something she says she had never done before. She says he didn't wear a condom and that he ignored her when she cried "stop" through tears.
...
"He was choking me, and my face went so red."

I think there's a pretty thick line between a sexual encounter and the above. Furthermore you are likely a male, so you need to put yourself in the shoes of a 'petite female'.

I think some of you need to read the actual article. She acknowledges she was going there for sex. But forced anal sex without a condom?

Picture your daughter telling you this story, and see how you feel...

C

I've always had my reservations about this band judging by some of their videos but if what's quoted is true re slap/spit/anal/etc, man that's crazy. Guy deserves to get punished.

Btw, what the heck is w these Lame-o barely famous only in Canada bands having this kinda pull?

Also, I get what OP's getting at but an analogy is a woman going down an alley, she gets raped the first time, and insists to keep using the alley subsequently. Yes, she's really stupid but surely there's no 'get out of jail' card for the rapist.

After reading some paragraphs in the article, she could have done more, like going to the hospital right away after the encounter, but she waited 6 days. If she could have gone in that moment, she could have filed a police report for raping.

She deleted all text messages between her and Hoggard. She could have used that information to corroborate her litigation, if she chooses that route.

WikkiWikki wrote: ↑ Its going to come to this very soon. There will be documents that will need to be signed by both parties first. But even then, will that matter. As someone will say, he forced me to sign them.

How is he supposed to defend himself when the person wants to stay hidden?

Cas77 wrote: ↑ I think there's a pretty thick line between a sexual encounter and the above. Furthermore you are likely a male, so you need to put yourself in the shoes of a 'petite female'.

Agreed. However, isn't that part of the risk involved when having one-night stands (i.e. that one of the partners might take it too far)? His behavior is inexcusable, if true. But the complainant is equally at fault, when you consider this part of the quoted article, when they were in the first room:

As soon as she stepped into his room, she says, he pushed her against a wall and started kissing her. She says she pushed him off and remembers him accusing her of "being all talky, talky." After the alleged initial forced kissing, Hoggard appeared to settle down over the next hour ...

This is before she agreed to follow him to the second room. Shouldn't that have been a huge red flag that she better get out of there, fast?

My point is that this not really cut and dry, as some of the media outlets try to make it. I find women, in general, to be reasonable, articulate and sensible, yet when it comes to these types of scenarios, the media transforms them into helpless "petite" victims who are unable to fend or think for themselves. Maybe it's just me, given my male gender...

Micelli_Illuminatti wrote: ↑ Maybe it's just me, given my male gender...

Ya, it's just you and don't lump the rest of us w your laxed views. It is srs and like I said, just cuz she made poor decisions doesn't give the man free rein to do whatever he wants. What's so hard to understand?

tranquility922 wrote: ↑ Ya, it's just you and don't lump the rest of us w your laxed views. It is srs and like I said, just cuz she made poor decisions doesn't give the man free rein to do whatever he wants. What's so hard to understand?

In capitalist societies, some get very wealthy off the poor decisions of others. What you're suggesting is not feasible: actions without consequences. Please.

Micelli_Illuminatti wrote: ↑ In capitalist societies, some get very wealthy off the poor decisions of others. What you're suggesting is not feasible: actions without consequences. Please.

Tell that to the judge lol. Please.

You really think that he (should) get(s) off scott-free here then?

What the heck does this have to do w/ capitalism or money? If anything, it's abuse of power, yet another strike against singer boy.

EDIT: btw, aren't you that guy who supposedly pulled out of a voluntary career mentoring prg for students due to fear of the #metoo movement? Ya, w/ your attitude, you better take your own advice as I'm pretty sure you'd have a great chance of getting into these sticky situations w/ your mindset lmao.

tranquility922 wrote: ↑ You really think that he (should) get(s) off scott-free here then?

What the heck does this have to do w/ capitalism or money? If anything, it's abuse of power, yet another strike against singer boy.

EDIT: btw, aren't you that guy who supposedly pulled out of a voluntary career mentoring prg for students due to fear of the #metoo movement? Ya, w/ your attitude, you better take your own advice as I'm pretty sure you'd have a great chance of getting into these sticky situations w/ your mindset lmao.

There's good chance he will get away, with it. He's denied her allegations and she has not (yet) filed a police report. It's a he-said-she-said scenario. Since she went to the media before going to the police says an awful lot.

You are truly naive if you think this has nothing to do with capitalism/money. I'm not repeating my prior posts; there were sufficient red flags for her to back out, immediately. She did not. People are naturally attracted to money/power. That does not automatically mean that those who yield it abuse it.

And yes, I'm "that guy" who has currently removed himself from the career mentoring program. I have had the benefit of various training, to assist me avoid certain situations. I am grateful that I was fortunate to miss those potentially catastrophic career ending situations. But that does not mean I am not emphatic to those who lost it all because of "alleged" misconduct.