dcikon2 Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 59 minutes ago, garfield said: The author's accusation that Cadets held off beginning an investigation until after they were removed from probation is spurious at least, and borders on leading to libelous defamation at worst. I was also thinking of defamation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppycock Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 I would love to know the back story of the family dynamics surrounding how the guardianship came into play in the first place. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 (edited) 56 minutes ago, cixelsyd said: Where does it say that? (I only see he was cut from Cadets, after which he then got offers from three other corps.) I said I'm through talking about this. It’s very disturbing. Edited July 10, 2019 by Terri Schehr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, Poppycock said: I would love to know the back story of the family dynamics surrounding how the guardianship came into play in the first place. Nothing about a Father. Single Mom? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, George Dixon said: Actually yes really. Your child who is a minor is sexually assaulted and you as parent feel the response is not adequate- you them allow the minor child to go BACK to this organization that you feel didn’t adequately respond? Uh, no. I agree that this seems like irresponsible parenting, but that doesn't mean the assault didn't happen or that Cadets responded as they should. (Although I'm inclined to believe Cadets behaved appropriately.) Sometime parents do the wrong thing, like putting their child in what they believe to be a dangerous situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 1 hour ago, garfield said: The author's accusation that Cadets held off beginning an investigation until after they were removed from probation is spurious at least, and borders on leading to libelous defamation at worst. Don't let one lucky bakery go to your head. 😋 Defamation is still pretty hard to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.E. Brigand Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 hours ago, IllianaLancerContra said: Seems that some part(s) of the code of conduct were violated. Same w/r/t sexual harassment policy. One thing to note - nowhere has there been any assertion that the unwanted sexual contact did not occur. Thus, there is an apparent violation of YEA's sexual harassment policy. And the alleged perp was allowed to perform several more times & attend the Corps banquet. So does YEA follow its policies or not? The alleged perpetrator denied it to the police. That said, it does appear that the police didn't believe his denial, since they apparently recommended that the local prosecutor file charges. Do we know what happened after that? Also, what part of the policy did Cadets violate? The sexual harassment policy says the following the "remedies" section: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Remedies for sexual harassment shall be designed to ensure that the harassment is effectively eliminated. Sanctions will be appropriate to the seriousness of the conduct and may include, but is not limited to: putting an immediate stop to any activity which qualifies as sexual harassment; limiting contact between the victim and the harasser; reprimand to the harasser; apologies from the harasser to the victim; requesting the harasser to leave the YEA! event; suspension of the harasser for a designated period of time; or terminating the harasser’s involvement or employment with YEA! permanently. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 5 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: Don't let one lucky bakery go to your head. 😋 Defamation is still pretty hard to prove. Maybe. But, in this case, actual tour fees NOT collected from potential MM's who go elsewhere because of the claim can be used as a basis of financial harm. "Lucky"? I wouldn't characterize Supreme Court decisions that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 2 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: The alleged perpetrator denied it to the police. That said, it does appear that the police didn't believe his denial, since they apparently recommended that the local prosecutor file charges. Do we know what happened after that? Also, what part of the policy did Cadets violate? The sexual harassment policy says the following the "remedies" section: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Remedies for sexual harassment shall be designed to ensure that the harassment is effectively eliminated. Sanctions will be appropriate to the seriousness of the conduct and may include, but is not limited to: putting an immediate stop to any activity which qualifies as sexual harassment; limiting contact between the victim and the harasser; reprimand to the harasser; apologies from the harasser to the victim; requesting the harasser to leave the YEA! event; suspension of the harasser for a designated period of time; or terminating the harasser’s involvement or employment with YEA! permanently. "limiting" contact is not the same as "preventing" contact. Makes me reconsider the shower incident, particularly because the alleged parties didn't speak per the alleged victim's depiction to the director. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimF-LowBari Posted July 10, 2019 Share Posted July 10, 2019 21 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said: I was struck by the point in the police report in which the police tell the guardian that they want to interview the alleged victim, and the guardian, who was apparently traveling to follow the corps (the whole summer? just for championships?), tells the police that tight scheduling will make that difficult. It wasn't the Cadets director who told the police that. Gee that doesn’t hurt a legal investigation at all does it (sarcasm). And from a past post the legal investigation wasn’t over until end of April. Is roughly 8 months normal for this type of investigation or did foot dragging slow it down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts