UVic Women's Head Coach under investigation for abuse and harassment

[rowing]

Shove a MAGA hat up your barn doors, you partisan bellend. What a little polititard.

I don't support a cover up. I support THE truth.

You just support YOUR truth.

And that is why I smirk when bad things happen to you.

You deserve misery and unbearable suffering.

Worst ever, right?

As you wish.

[Andre]

Now that you've shown your true colors, I think we will leave it there...

[rowing]

As you wish.

[fullmetal]

Refusing to accept an outcome is so 2020.

Seems you don't actually have a response to salient points and are just trying denigrate the idea that institutions can be too vested in protecting their image at the expense of people's well-being.

In 1774, the British Parliament passed a series of acts referred to as the Intolerable Acts as a punitive response to the Boston Tea Party of 1773. The Boston Port Act closed the port of Boston until the value of the tea was reimbursed by the colonists and the king was satisfied that order had been restored. The Massachusetts Government Act replaced the colony's charter with direct British rule. The Administration of Justice Act allowed British royal officers to be tried in England if the royal governor felt a fair trial could not be held in Massachusetts. The Quartering Act allowed the royal governor to house troops within "other buildings if suitable quarters were not provided," potentially forcing soldiers to be quartered on private property, though ostensibly limited to unoccupied buildings.

The American Constitution was signed on Sept. 17th, 1787 and put into operation on March 4th, 1789. Since then, twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution have been proposed, ratified, and added to the Constitution. Notably, one of those amendments directly repeals a previous amendment.

I would say refusing to accept outcomes is a time-honored trait (for better or worse). It seems to be particularly common in cases of injustice, and not just for 2020.

[rowing]

Have fun stormin' the castle!

[limegreenspeed]

Defendents now have to prove their innocence, rather than authorities proving their guilt.

You shall not like living under the rules you create.

Nah that's not even close. UVic isn't the govt, and "proving guilt" isn't the standard that they're being held to. The question isn't whether he's guilty, the question is whether his behavior was substantiated and whether that contraindicates his fitness to be a good coach. If he has shown a pattern of abuse or behavior unbecoming an authority figure or if he is unsuited for the responsibility of coaching athletes, then that's all UVic needs to part ways and find a new coach.

This isn't "guilt" leading to state-enforced punishement. This is merely "we've lost confidence in your ability to be a good coach."

These are rules of decency and human behavior, and I think all of us except you, perhaps, are okay with living under those rules.

This is right. And it is odd that Howard Campbell and his wife were brought in to mentor Barney. Campbell has plenty of experiencing 'mentoring' Williams, the two spent a considerable amount of time together back in the early 2010s when Williams was the freshmen/novice coach for the UVic men. I don't understand the thinking behind this decision.

60 signatories to a letter asking for another investigation and an independent investigation of the handling of the case is significant, it's difficult to ignore that kind of pressure and will likely lead to fractured support of the program in the future.

[rowing]

All that will satisfy you is cancellation.

I look forward to the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the pendulum swings toward you and yours someday...for whatever noncompliance shall be defined.

[fullmetal]

I'll settle for complete transparency and accountability, but if you think that's the same thing as cancellation, well I'm not sure anyone can help you there.

[rowing]

Do you entertain an outcome where the coach is rehabilitated/reformed/redeemed and remains in place?

[rowingpun]

Do you entertain an outcome where the coach is rehabilitated/reformed/redeemed and remains in place?

No, if we want to keep this analogous of the justice system, reformation would take place away from coaching. Then he could return in a capacity where he is strictly observed until he is deemed suitable to coach again.

[rowing]

So, like.....a mentor?

You make it so f.cking easy. Why bother even waking up in the morning?

[KitD]

So, like.....a mentor?

You make it so f.cking easy. Why bother even waking up in the morning?

"away from coaching"

You do set yourself up for it.

[rowing]

I don't accept those terms as nonnegotiable.

You do.

Carry lube.

[rowing]

But for the record, cause I know that gives you a massive b.......the coach was placed on leave, and has now returned....with a mentor.

It's never enough, no matter what.

You will not enjoy living under the rules you have created.

[fullmetal]

Actually, I'm loving the rules. The rules pretty much ensure that we don't cause harm to others, and if we do, we will be forced to stop harming others.

I will therefore never put myself in a situation where I can harm others, if at all possible. Ironically, any situation in which I am still sanctioned for the appearance of harming others will be one where lack of transparency and accountability from a governing body is also absent.