Mega Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 19 hours ago, Liahona said: Definitely not "vindicated" based on what I've read... I concur that this doesn't vindicate him at all. He lacked common sense on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Dixon Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 24 minutes ago, Mega said: I concur that this doesn't vindicate him at all. He lacked common sense on this one. actually he was vindicated completely in this instance. If you're aware of something that suggest otherwise you should call the law firm. Otherwise - accept the finding and let the man have a cleared name and reputation. Some people are innocent ya know. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAvery Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 1 hour ago, MusicManNJ said: The first post on the original topic in April has all the links to the articles. i tried to go back and find these, but most seem to be behind a firewall. I was hoping someone had a link to an article where Hopkins confirmed any of the accusation of sexual abuse. I did find an article accusing Hopkins of directing a YEA employee to stop doing the legally required background checks on employees. If true, this by itself would be justification for termination. Could this also be the justification for removal from the HOF.? Doubtful, unless something more severe occurred because of his order to stop the checks. As I have said, I do believe his removal from the HOF is premature. Just to recap, as far as I know there has been no confirmation by Hopkins of any sexual abuse, there has been no public release of any independent investigations, and there has been (so far) no legal proceedings. Has anyone actually seen the release stating Hopkins has been removed from the HOF? There is nothing on the YEA website. Was there any reason stated for removing him from the HOF? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Dixon Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 7 minutes ago, DAvery said: i tried to go back and find these, but most seem to be behind a firewall. I was hoping someone had a link to an article where Hopkins confirmed any of the accusation of sexual abuse. I did find an article accusing Hopkins of directing a YEA employee to stop doing the legally required background checks on employees. If true, this by itself would be justification for termination. Could this also be the justification for removal from the HOF.? Doubtful, unless something more severe occurred because of his order to stop the checks. As I have said, I do believe his removal from the HOF is premature. Just to recap, as far as I know there has been no confirmation by Hopkins of any sexual abuse, there has been no public release of any independent investigations, and there has been (so far) no legal proceedings. Has anyone actually seen the release stating Hopkins has been removed from the HOF? There is nothing on the YEA website. Was there any reason stated for removing him from the HOF? I’m pretty sure “being a pompous narcissist who has entirely disgraced the organization while driving off scores of valued and talented members and staff” fully justifies removal of a HOF member. Sadly Hopkins indiscretions went far beyond the alleged sexual and workplace harassment HOF is a privilege, not a right Falling to conduct required background checks is just yet another example of irresponsible leadership 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadetallero Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 Once again, George, spot on! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicManNJ Posted July 1, 2018 Author Share Posted July 1, 2018 2 hours ago, George Dixon said: HOF is a privilege, not a right As I have said before (quoting from the Crossmen notice of removing GH). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 6 hours ago, HockeyDad said: A minor cannot give consent. Next question? That's flat out incorrect. In New Jersey, the age of consent for sexual activities is 16. Other states vary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Eleran said: That's flat out incorrect. In New Jersey, the age of consent for sexual activities is 16. Other states vary. It wasn't consensual. What else you got, Hop defenders? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HockeyDad Posted July 1, 2018 Share Posted July 1, 2018 (edited) You want the thread to die and move on and yup sounds good. But can we please stop the hand wringing and faux regret that somehow maybe he's not guilty? Even though one of the very early posts on the topic demonstrated that, given the number of accusers, that's a near statistical impossibility? Anyway, yes, we all know he has a right to a rigorous defense etc. He hasn't had a trial. As far as I know he hasn't been charged with anything. All true. But we're talking about removing him from a hall of fame. None of this is a necessary prerequisite. He can be removed for any reason or no reason. Edited July 2, 2018 by HockeyDad 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted July 2, 2018 Share Posted July 2, 2018 2 hours ago, HockeyDad said: It wasn't consensual. What else you got, Hop defenders? Don't give me that ######## and call me a Hop defender. I made no comment whatsoever on the actual consent of the individuals involved.Y You made a statement about the law, and you were incorrect. If you can't handle being corrected when you are wrong, I'd suggest avoiding the internet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.