Harry Paton

[Joe MacCarthy]

13 hours ago, Shway said:

No it’s your continued way of just voiding everything else and waiting for the “gotcha moment” that’s has nothing to do with the point like @Obinna said….maybe it’s just the journalist in you 😬.

Mic drop

[El Hombre]

16 hours ago, RJB said:

There are many reasons. A settlement is over quickly, the details are confidential, it could be cheaper than a lawyer, maybe there are embarrassing details, it's a major distraction, your family gets pulled into it too. 

Settlement does not equal guilt. 

What is interesting is that everything you mention above could also be applied to a victim of abuse who also settles out of court.  While settlement does not equal guilt, it also does not equal innocence.

Edit: to extricate myself from any discussion between Obinna, Shway, RS et al.

Edited June 24, 2022 by El Hombre

[Obinna]

17 hours ago, Shway said:

Wait, what lol…I agree, but that’s not the point.

@El Hombre it was besides the point Shway was making. His point wasn't that settlements out of court prove innocence. His point was that money can tip the scales of justice.

In the post which RS responded to, Shway mentioned how settlements can "send a message", which is true, but RS took that to be a suggestion from Shway that Deshaun was innocent, hence the question he asked, but what I believe Shway was actually saying was simply that settlement may send a message to onlookers (which again is true). He wasn't saying that was right, wrong, or that he believed the settlement meant the women were lying in the Deshaun case. He was touching on a consequence of settlements, but RS latched on to it, maybe out of some hypervigilance that one does not defend this Deshaun guy, which Shway clearly wasn't doing, as he already clearly stated prior to. In fact, he said he wasn't defending anyone in the comment which RS quoted. Why then take it down that path when it was clear Shway was not defending him? 

There was no reason for RS to press Shway in that way. I get that misunderstandings happen, but it's a repeated pattern with him and other posters to ignore the point someone is making, so it just feels like an intentional effort to paint others in a bad light or an attempt to somehow trap and scold them for having an "unreasonable view".

 

[El Hombre]

5 minutes ago, Obinna said:

@El Hombre it was besides the point Shway was making. His point wasn't that settlements out of court prove innocence. His point was that money can tip the scales of justice.

In the post which RS responded to, Shway mentioned how settlements can "send a message", which is true, but RS took that to be a suggestion from Shway that Deshaun was innocent, hence the question he asked, but what I believe Shway was actually saying was simply that settlement may send a message to onlookers (which again is true). He wasn't saying that was right, wrong, or that he believed the settlement meant the women were lying in the Deshaun case. He was touching on a consequence of settlements, but RS latched on to it, maybe out of some hypervigilance that one does not defend this Deshaun guy, which Shway clearly wasn't doing, as he already clearly stated prior to. In fact, he said he wasn't defending anyone in the comment which RS quoted. Why then take it down that path when it was clear Shway was not defending him? 

There was no reason for RS to press Shway in that way. I get that misunderstandings happen, but it's a repeated pattern with him and other posters to ignore the point someone is making, so it just feels like an intentional effort to paint others in a bad light or an attempt to somehow trap and scold them for having an "unreasonable view".

 

I was responding to @RJB.

[Obinna]

Just now, El Hombre said:

I was responding to @RJB.

I know. Since you attempting to clarify what RS meant I took the opportunity to try to detangle the web of confusion in the last dozen posts of this thread, which included pointing out that Shway was not suggesting Deshaun's innocence, which is what RS seemed to think in the comment you were clarifying for RJB.

[El Hombre]

9 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I know. Since you attempting to clarify what RS meant I took the opportunity to try to detangle the web of confusion in the last dozen posts of this thread, which included pointing out that Shway was not suggesting Deshaun's innocence, which is what RS seemed to think in the comment you were clarifying for RJB.

I really don't think there is a web of confusion, but knock yourself out.

[SoCalTransport]

To get back to the soccer element of this story. I think the reason he didn’t re-sign is because after this traumatic experience, he just wants to leave town. I can see him popping up in the CPL after this is all done.

[Shway]

2 hours ago, El Hombre said:

I think what @RS was trying to say is that everything you mention above could also be applied to a victim of abuse who also settles out of court.  While settlement does not equal guilt, it also does not equal innocence.

.......

33 minutes ago, El Hombre said:

I really don't think there is a web of confusion, but knock yourself out.

So if there was no web of confusion, why would you attempt to clarify?
@Obinna was just getting back to the point. Which was clearly lost, which clearly signifies "a web of confusion".

[Shway]

6 minutes ago, SoCalTransport said:

To get back to the soccer element of this story. I think the reason he didn’t re-sign is because after this traumatic experience, he just wants to leave town. I can see him popping up in the CPL after this is all done.

Naw man fuck that scum bag. He doesn't deserve a shot in our league, we need to steer clear of any dickheads, and cunts like him....

 

(this comment above is exactly how this whole conversation started....point was, don't talk about someone without knowing the full story/or hearing the court verdict. Regardless of what has been reported - any public slandering is premature, because in recent news we heard what is reported may not always be true. Done)

[Obinna]

15 minutes ago, SoCalTransport said:

To get back to the soccer element of this story. I think the reason he didn’t re-sign is because after this traumatic experience, he just wants to leave town. I can see him popping up in the CPL after this is all done.

I wonder how he'd fare in MLS. I have no doubt he'd start for any CPL team and be an upgrade, plus it may well be a good stepping stone to MLS or elsewhere in Europe that's not Scotland, but I do think he may have what it takes to go to MLS directly and play semi regularly. Maybe he wouldn't be a starter right away, but if Jay Chapman can earn spot minutes for Inter Miami, Harry Paton should be able to do that and more. Remember, Chapman went to Dundee and only managed two apperances in a year they got relegated. I know there's adjustments and all that, but Paton is/was a key player for Ross County that didn't get regulated. I think it projects to him faring better in MLS than Chapman. CPL may still be better though, because it's basically a guarentee of playing time.

Edited June 24, 2022 by Obinna

[jordan]

I guess it is all dependant on the outcome, but I don't think he'd come to CANPL yet, there is a lot of movement from SPFL to lower leagues in England. Hartlepool just put in a Scottish coach and signed a guy from Raith. He will have options.

Sorry for talking sawcer for a second, everyone back to the regularly scheduled arguing.

[SoCalTransport]

4 minutes ago, Shway said:

Naw man fuck that scum bag. He doesn't deserve a shot in our league, we need to steer clear of any dickheads, and cunts like him....

 

(this comment above is exactly how this whole conversation started....point was, don't talk about someone without knowing the full story/or hearing the court verdict. Regardless of what has been reported - any public slandering is premature, because in recent news we heard what is reported may not always be true. Done)

I didn’t realize there were so many white knights in Canadian soccer 😜 I don’t know if you’re married, but being married myself, no matter what the situation is, she is right, I am wrong. A woman scorned is the most dangerous obstacle for a young man.

 

5 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I wonder how he'd far in MLS. I have no doubt he'd start for any CPL team and be an upgrade, plus it may well be a good stepping stone to MLS or elsewhere in Europe that's not Scotland, but I do think he may have what it takes to go to MLS directly and play semi regularly. Maybe he wouldn't be a starter right away, but if Jay Chapman can earn spot minutes for Inter Miami, Harry Paton should be able to do that and more. Remember, Chapman went to Dundee and only managed two apperances in a year they got relegated. I know there's adjustments and all that, but Paton is/was a key player for Ross County that didn't get regulated. I think it projects to him faring better in MLS than Chapman. CPL may still be better though, because it's basically a guarentee of playing time.

I think he can probably crack an MLS lineup, especially TFC, but as you said it’s very hard to get playing time, and American teams normally sign American players, and rarely give Canadians a chance.

[Obinna]

1 minute ago, SoCalTransport said:

I didn’t realize there were so many white knights in Canadian soccer 😜 I don’t know if you’re married, but being married myself, no matter what the situation is, she is right, I am wrong. A woman scorned is the most dangerous obstacle for a young man.

 

I think he can probably crack an MLS lineup, especially TFC, but as you said it’s very hard to get playing time, and American teams normally sign American players, and rarely give Canadians a chance.

Being from Ontario TFC would be a home comimg of sorts. He'd be relatively cheap I think. Priso would be competition, as would Okello

...who by the way I haven't seen in a while. Is he injured or something?

I like a Paton TFC move, except it may block Priso's development. Vancouver may be better in terms of not blocking the path of other Canadians. It's just really Baldisimo over there, not counting Teirbert of course since he's already developed and probably won't feature regularly for the national team, except for maybe an odd call up here or there.

Montreal has Kone and Choniere in the middle and Piette of course.

[El Hombre]

33 minutes ago, Shway said:

.......

So if there was no web of confusion, why would you attempt to clarify?
@Obinna was just getting back to the point. Which was clearly lost, which clearly signifies "a web of confusion".

Actually, I was just trying to point out that everything RJB said could also be applied to someone who is a victim of abuse as well as someone who is a victim of false accusations. 

Most likely I worded it incorrectly.  I will try to avoid that going forward.

Edit: I hope the edit above pleases the court.

Edited June 24, 2022 by El Hombre

[Obinna]

1 minute ago, El Hombre said:

Actually, I was just trying to point out that everything RJB said could also be applied to someone who is a victim of abuse as well as someone who is a victim of false accusations. 

Most likely I worded incorrectly.  I will try to avoid that going forward.

The wording you used was perfectly fine. You explained what RS was saying very well. However, what he said was completely missing and ignoring the point Shway was making. You are giving RJB clarification about a point that was moot to the discussion we were having. It was moot because Shway was never saying what RS thought he was saying in the first place.

[Obinna]

I blame @Pottsy3. This never would have happened if you never brought up Deshaun 😂

[Pottsy3]

5 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I blame @Pottsy3. This never would have happened if you never brought up Deshaun 😂

Most of the discourse over him hasn’t even been relevant to the initial point that I was trying to make, but alas I stopped concerning myself enough with arguing before things trailed off yesterday. 
 

I respect @Obinnaand @Shwayenough to know that although our perspectives on how these issues should be approached are different, we still want the same outcome of no scumbag shitheads near Canadian soccer.

[Unnamed Trialist]

It's been fascinating catching up with 3-4 pages of almost all guys talking about an abuse case, this is just what we all needed: a safe, anonymous all male forum where the guys who feel victimized because every time a woman denounces dog-shit behaviour can vent. I would have thought that there were other, better places for all that, but it is Harry Paton we're talking about. Although for a couple guys here, you somehow get the sense they are talking about themselves. 

In any case, if you think the court of public opinion needs to respect what the courts say, that all opinions should be reserved until the innocent are proven guilty, you are seriously devaluing what's good about the court of public opinion.

[Shway]

2 minutes ago, Pottsy3 said:

I respect @Obinnaand @Shwayenough to know that although our perspectives on how these issues should be approached are different, we still want the same outcome of no scumbag shitheads near Canadian soccer.

Agreed.

But I will definitely not call any man a name without hearing the mutual story or a court verdict. 

And THAT was how this whole debate started with my disdain to how  @InglewoodJack was describing him.  

[Obinna]

On 6/23/2022 at 10:42 AM, Pottsy3 said:

From experience, the dudes calling their exes crazy often tend to be the head cases themselves.

This last part is dangerously exaggerated. Truth is, the burden of proof required to convict an assailant in a sexual assault case is very difficult to achieve. Let’s not pretend the Deshaun Watson’s of this world are targets because there wasn’t enough to convict them in a criminal court. 
 

 

at the end of the day, we’ll see how this plays out but it’s pretty telling of wider issues when we presume innocence of the accused until the roles are reversed.

I guess your point in bringing up Deshaun was that it's difficult to achieve a conviction and that stories of lying are exagerrated? I believe we discussed the latter and I think we basically agreed to disagree on it (my position was that I don't know if they are exaggerated), which is all good.

Of course, none of us want bad apples in and around the national team, but it's too early to say Paton is a bad apple until the dust settles.

I do think bringing Deshaun into it brought the whole thing off the rails, because it sounds like a massive case people are emotionally charged about. And from what I learned about it in this thread, there are few similarities to the Paton case. 

[Obinna]

7 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It's been fascinating catching up with 3-4 pages of almost all guys talking about an abuse case, this is just what we all needed: a safe, anonymous all male forum where the guys who feel victimized because every time a woman denounces dog-shit behaviour can vent. I would have thought that there were other, better places for all that, but it is Harry Paton we're talking about. Although for a couple guys here, you somehow get the sense they are talking about themselves. 

In any case, if you think the court of public opinion needs to respect what the courts say, that all opinions should be reserved until the innocent are proven guilty, you are seriously devaluing what's good about the court of public opinion.

Is this an all male forum?

On your point/veiled insinuation that guys feel victimized or are talking about themselves. Let me give you another context.

A man of color is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because of his apperance, he gets wrongfully arrested and charged. Shouldn't we presume innocence until he sees his day in court? What would the court of public opinion say in a society which views such men as typically being guilty?

[Shway]

9 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

In any case, if you think the court of public opinion needs to respect what the courts say, that all opinions should be reserved until the innocent are proven guilty, you are seriously devaluing what's good about the court of public opinion.

The court of public opinion is a jury no?
Who sometimes are given the power to pass a judgement/verdict based on victim and defendant accounts and evidence…no?

Or do you mean public opinion as in a community forum?

If so, that Public opinion got Emmett Till lynched and tortured for something he didn’t do.
 

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 minutes ago, Obinna said:

Is this an all male forum?

On your point/veiled insinuation that guys feel victimized or are talking about themselves. Let me give you another context.

A man of color is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Because of his apperance, he gets wrongfully arrested and charged. Shouldn't we presume innocence until he sees his day in court? What would the court of public opinion say in a society which views such men as typically being guilty?

The comparison would be that historically the courts have just assumed a woman was lying, such as when denouncing abuse. In rape cases it was assumed and even became legal precedent in many legal cultures, even today, that a women was guilty of provocation. In psychological analysis the case histories are full of women denouncing abuse and therapists explaining it away as fantasy. A woman was also assumed to be lying about specific physical ailments, many of which are still not recognised legally. 

The entire weight of the law, and the social system, is historically biased towards denying the validity of a woman's claims, whether of a legal, psychological or medical nature. 

So I think the parallel you are trying to draw doesn't work. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

2 minutes ago, Shway said:

The court of public opinion is a jury no?
Who sometimes are given the power to pass a judgement/verdict based on victim and defendant accounts and evidence…no?

Or do you mean public opinion as in a community forum?

If so, that Public opinion got Emmett Till lynched and tortured for something he didn’t do.

So you are saying, to make your point, that Harry Paton is 14-year old Emmett Till, and his former partner is the equivalent of Carolyn Bryant, the wife of the young store owner who felt offended when he commented on her beauty. 

Very creative stuff. 

Maybe you should just plain out state that Paton's former partner is the equivalent of Mayella Ewell in To Kill a Mockingbird, lying illiterate bitch, and worse: clearly raised to be racist towards Canadians.

[Pottsy3]

13 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It's been fascinating catching up with 3-4 pages of almost all guys talking about an abuse case, this is just what we all needed: a safe, anonymous all male forum where the guys who feel victimized because every time a woman denounces dog-shit behaviour can vent. I would have thought that there were other, better places for all that, but it is Harry Paton we're talking about. Although for a couple guys here, you somehow get the sense they are talking about themselves. 

In any case, if you think the court of public opinion needs to respect what the courts say, that all opinions should be reserved until the innocent are proven guilty, you are seriously devaluing what's good about the court of public opinion.

I don't always agree with you UT, but thank you. Fuck ya. Leaving it at this.

 

9 minutes ago, Obinna said:

I guess your point in bringing up Deshaun was that it's difficult to achieve a conviction and that stories of lying are exagerrated? I believe we discussed the latter and I think we basically agreed to disagree on it (my position was that I don't know if they are exaggerated), which is all good.

Of course, none of us want bad apples in and around the national team, but it's too early to say Paton is a bad apple until the dust settles.

I do think bringing Deshaun into it brought the whole thing off the rails, because it sounds like a massive case people are emotionally charged about. And from what I learned about it in this thread, there are few similarities to the Paton case. 

Conviction is hard, and that case was an example where there was no conviction but you'd be hard pressed to suggest that he isn't a POS. 

Forums like these and twitter tend to side with whoever they feel most convenient (oftentimes the male in SA cases, and especially when it's a public figure that they'd have bias towards). My reply was to an initial comment (from another user) in which he claimed "due process" yet was making suggestions about why a women could be to blame. I get not wanting to jump to conclusions, but only a small fraction of assaults are false accusations, and that fraction feels like nothing compared to the frequency at which victims are blamed in trials with a heavy public following.