21542 replies to this topic

[zoomer]

Probably a bad idea to wade back in here - especially after dozens of comments throughout the day - does anyone even have a day job anymore?

My general opinion on life, we’re all hypocrites - but the ones I have the least time for are those who deny it. It’s nearly impossible to always be fair and consistent, yet it appears several VV posters are indicating they are. I most certainly am not, I’ll freely admit that, generalizations and broad statements are easy, especially on an internet forum.

I’m not sure any impartial observer would view the VV commentary as fair and balanced, especially on criminal matters. Most definitely they could not claim that there is always impartiality and waiting for all the facts to be known before jumping to broad generalizations - to say that is disingenuous at best.

Again why rush to Steve Wallace’s defence when there hasn’t been a single case where dozens of women’s allegations over 4 decades have been proven to be a conspiracy. Give the man due process, but does anyone seriously believe he is totally innocent? Do you believe he’s only guilty of sexual harassment or poor judgement? Yet he’s being or will be charged with sexual assault; what survivors have said equals sexual assault according to the legal definition (sure the allegations can be argued in court) and the police have stated they believe survivors.

How many of you have daughters? I just came back from picking up mine from the bus stop so she didn’t have to walk the final stretch in the dark. If Steve Wallace said to my daughter repeatedly that he loved her and ‘accidentally’ touched her thigh (in my opinion that is no accident) while giving her a driving lesson he should hope like hell he’d be under police protection in a jail cell. Yet many men (not saying anyone here) still seem to think ‘boys will be boys’, or ‘it’s no big deal’. A 72 year old man saying and doing these things to 16 year old girls doesn’t deserve the benefit of zoomer’s doubt, the court system’s yes. I’ll believe dozens of survivors not one Steve Wallace.

Edited by zoomer, 04 October 2021 - 08:46 PM.

[Mike K.]

Zoomer, the issue is the media made false claims, and their missteps may have not only derailed the case against Wallace, but also hampered Crown’s ability to lay charges.

If anything the witness/victim said today as quoted or referenced by CD is proven to be false or unreliable, what do you think that makes of her testimony? Do you think a defence attorney won’t exploit that?

If you want justice for these victims, you will not stand with CD’s tactics and rush to publishing misunderstood information.

[zoomer]

Capital Daily is a whole other tangent that has nothing to do with the original points being argued. And I haven’t had the time to fully read and analyze the several pages of comments since this morning about CD’s edited news stories. I have seen Victoria News reporting Steve Wallace was arrested, and various changing stories from different media outlets throughout the day.

https://www.saanichn...sexual-assault/

Why there is such confusion in media reporting I have no clue, but it is a valid question and a new offshoot for sure. Are they significant or irrelevant procedural points that won’t matter a few days from now - I guess we’ll wait and see, because I for one have no idea.

Edited by zoomer, 04 October 2021 - 09:13 PM.

[Mike K.]

This whole debate is about the media’s conduct. What do you think it’s about? Do you think people are defending Wallace???

Dude.

[zoomer]

In your eyes and comments, yes, that’s what the whole debate is about - fair enough you’ve been consistent and stuck to those talking points and that part of the discussion. The rest of the argument has been about the hypocrisy on VV (thus its been mentioned several times) the believability of the victim’s statements and whether or not the allegations amount to sexual assault.

[Mike K.]

If you’re going to engage, at least read the day’s posts before you cast judgement by only reading the last few.

M3m made an unfounded accusation at the butt-end of the day which was clarified by pointing to a press release confirming police charged a man with a crime that m3m believed the man had not been charged with. End of story.

The case against Wallace hinges on due process and is weighed down by the events that took place today. If you want justice to be served, you will not stand for the conduct we saw today.

[zoomer]

Not casting judgement, I’m merely commenting on another angle of the story - which is around general hypocrisy by all involved.

What M3m has to say about a random police involved incident which I know nothing about is not of any concern, to me at least. It does seem to be the renewed focus of your arguments today though. His general comments on hypocrisy are valid of course, and it appears that touched a nerve. To say that VV posters are always fair and balanced if of course ludicrous.

What happened with Capital Daily I haven’t had the time to figure out, and I’m not sure why you’re singling them out versus the other media outlets that have had similar reporting. But yes, all media outlets (including VV if VV is considered a media outlet through it’s various online channels?) should always strive to maintain the highest ethical and professional standards, but I’d suggest if you want to have that convo about CD specifically then move it to their thread. But kudos to you Mike for acknowledging potential media failings could negatively impact the rights and outcome for the survivors (alleged victims in the eyes of the court at this point). Others have only commented on the impact to Steve Wallace which speaks volumes.

Anyways, good night Mike, I’m off to bed - good chatting with you as always.

[Mike K.]

‘Night zoomer, you as well.

[spanky123]

Zoomer, the issue is the media made false claims, and their missteps may have not only derailed the case against Wallace, but also hampered Crown’s ability to lay charges.

If anything the witness/victim said today as quoted or referenced by CD is proven to be false or unreliable, what do you think that makes of her testimony? Do you think a defence attorney won’t exploit that?

If you want justice for these victims, you will not stand with CD’s tactics and rush to publishing misunderstood information.

 

That was my first thought Mike. Now that the CD has named it's source and it's source's source they make Wallace's defense a lot simpler. Defense asks Cst Volk whether he told Ms. Oye that Wallace had been arrested or charged. If he says yes then presumably Wallace has another set of deep pockets to add to his defamation suit. If he says no then not only must you question other aspects of Ms. Oye's statements, but since she coordinated the entire case against Wallace, that of the other witnesses as well. I would have to think that the crown has just been handed a major poop sandwich. 

 

As an aside, thanks to the publishing of the undertaking, the indication of the dates of the alleged crimes, and the fact that complaints were first posted online, it should be fairly trivial to figure out who the complainants are which should have been protected. Great job everyone.

[spanky123]

What happened with Capital Daily I haven’t had the time to figure out, and I’m not sure why you’re singling them out versus the other media outlets that have had similar reporting. 

 

Sorry but that isn't the case. Other media outlets were very careful in what they reported and I am sure sought legal opinions before they did. I noticed that CTV VI published and tweeted a story and then immediately deleted and replaced it as an example.

 

This next part is my opinion based on what I have read and observed. Going by what the CD admitted, they ran a story based on at best second hand information (comments about arrest and release) and that was not verified (they state they tried to verify but were not successful). When they were informed that their article was incorrect they changed it but then still implied that Wallace was going to be charged it had just not happened yet. After several other changes they then named their source and their source's source claiming that they were just repeating what they were told (regarding arrest and release). Never in my life have I seen such a pathetic example of 'journalism'. If this is the future of local media then lord help us all.

 

I noticed in this morning's CD email there is a mea culpa from the editor 

 

Yesterday I clicked "send" on the kind of email that keeps editors awake at night: a correction of a major part of our latest story about Steve Wallace. The error we made was that, looking at a police document, we misunderstood where in the investigative process VicPD has arrived. Police are recommending charges, have put conditions on Wallace, and he must appear in court, but there are no sworn charges at this point. That’s a big difference. We fell short of the standard of verification to which we hold ourselves, and I want to take this opportunity to apologize. There’s an update to that story—and it is well verified—below

 

The update he refers to is in small print after the main articles. In the yet edited again version they no longer claim he was arrested.  

 

ICBC permanently cancels Steve Wallace’s driver instructor licence following its own investigation into sexual harassment complaints

Edited by spanky123, 05 October 2021 - 06:23 AM.

[spanky123]

The case against Wallace hinges on due process and is weighed down by the events that took place today. If you want justice to be served, you will not stand for the conduct we saw today.

 

I think the other key point here is that Zoomer and M3M's response is likely very typical of the 50K people who were sent the email stating that Wallace had been arrested and charged. "Financially ruin the predator" was what I recall reading here. Most people don't dig into the details as we do, they go by the headlines.

 

I wonder how many lawyers have contacted Steve to handle his case. Wouldn't that be ironic, charges never get laid and he is the one that winds up with a windfall.

Edited by spanky123, 05 October 2021 - 06:38 AM.

[Barrrister]

It has been suggested that Wallace is "rich". Since I know nothing about the man does anyone actually know if he is wealthy. I am asking since the owners of a small business such as driver training are usually not wealthy.

 

I know that rich is a rather elastic term 

Edited by Barrrister, 05 October 2021 - 06:32 AM.

[pontcanna]

he is the one that winds up with a windfall.

[spanky123]

It has been suggested that Wallace is "rich". Since I know nothing about the man does anyone actually know if he is wealthy. I am asking since the owners of a small business such as driver training are usually not wealthy.

 

I know that rich is a rather elastic term 

 

That is a relative question of course and something I have warned about. 'Rich' started off as referring to billionaires, then it became multi-millionaires, then it became owning a house and then it was anyone who owned a business.  I think now it is generally anyone who is white or has a private sector job paying them more than a living wage.

Edited by spanky123, 05 October 2021 - 06:36 AM.

[Mike K.]

This is why every word a media outlet that considers itself accredited media or is pursuing accreditation ought to be double or triple verified, because they single-handedly wield so much influence over due process. CD has no idea what they were parsing, and took misunderstood information to level 10 without (presumably) having their counsel walk them through the document, and the allegations, and how to navigate what they had. Something as simple as adding :source to their initial title stating an arrest had occurred should have been advised for them to do, to attribute the statement to a source in the know and not as a matter-of-fact.

For all we know there may have also been a publication ban associated with this case due to the ages of the victims (one we know is just 18), and now that’s been completely undermined.

There are so many moving parts to a case like this, and one media organization just quadrupled crown’s workload by having to sift through days (and potentially a week’s) worth of online dialogue to assess whether pertinent information was leaked or publicly aired, VicPD has to assess what Cst. Volk said or didn’t say, and lawyers for all involved are having a field day with the added complexity (for Crown) of a case that was to have been relatively straight forward.

[spanky123]

^ I am not suggesting for a second that VicPD would have been anything less than completely professional in the handling of these complaints and the case. The fact is however that with the exposure and number of complaints this is a massive hot potato and the opportunity to punt it over to the Crown you would think would have been very welcome.  The Crown may now have an ample excuse to punt it right back.

[Banksy]

Can this process happen without arrest or can you surrender to police and not be arrested.

[Victoria Watcher]

This is why every word a media outlet that considers itself accredited media or is pursuing accreditation ought to be double or triple verified, because they single-handedly wield so much influence over due process. CD has no idea what they were parsing, and took misunderstood information to level 10 without (presumably) having their counsel walk them through the document, and the allegations, and how to navigate what they had. Something as simple as adding :source to their initial title stating an arrest had occurred should have been advised for them to do, to attribute the statement to a source in the know and not as a matter-of-fact.

 

who do you want to "accredit" the media?  the government?

[Mike K.]

It's probably time we sorted out what makes a journalist a journalist, by definition, if we want to pick apart what constitutes or should constitute accreditation.

[Victoria Watcher]

It's probably time we sorted out what makes a journalist a journalist, by definition, if we want to pick apart what constitutes or should constitute accreditation.

 

well one thing that might make a journalist a journalist is that they do not work for an organization that takes government money. 

 

but most of our media dropped that when the gravy train rolled in with cash.