MUS
Active topics
  1. Enjoy listening to arcade fire with a clear conscious. Who cares about some women that were potentially sexually abused by their lead singer, that’s your stance right? And great to be here.
  2. Originally posted by celts84:[..]
    Enjoy listening to arcade fire with a clear conscious. Who cares about some women that were potentially sexually abused by their lead singer, that’s your stance right? And great to be here.
    Holy shit
  3. Originally posted by celts84:[..]
    Enjoy listening to arcade fire with a clear conscious. Who cares about some women that were potentially sexually abused by their lead singer, that’s your stance right? And great to be here.
    I say this with the knowledge coming off of at least ten solid years of high profile men been socially disgraced because of accusations that have not been proven in court.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    In Western democracies we have courts and procedures for these matters and judicial principles. If we don't have that, we have a tribal societies. Nobody like what has happened in the last week but I lets not rush to judgment.
  4. So if someone worked in a school and was accused of being inappropriate towards children they should be allowed to continue to work at that school until court proceedings have taken place? Yes we should all wait to hear the facts before the name calling starts and before putting labels on people but it’s also possible to take a step back and not actually support someone accused as it’s really taking a stance indirectly or otherwise against the people making the accusations. The support people are giving this guy just now can’t be taken back if he is to be found guilty so why not just step back and wait for an outcome? Not attend shows, not praise his work publicly etc, I think that would be a more than reasonable stance and then if he is found innocent go back to enjoying his stuff.
  5. Hmmm. I dunno if allowing an accused teacher to continue working in a classroom with children is quite the same as a rock start who is up on stage, separated by about 20 metres from the attendees.
  6. Originally posted by RUMMY:Hmmm. I dunno if allowing an accused teacher to continue working in a classroom with children is quite the same as a rock start who is up on stage, separated by about 20 metres from the attendees.
    Of course it’s not the same thing. Not even close
  7. People referring to ‘guilt’ in some kind of legal sense, but I haven’t seen any suggestion or confirmation that there have been any criminal charges brought against Arcade fire guy, let alone a prosecution. Sexual misconduct is not a crime, at least in the Irish Statute book. There will unlikely be any charges brought on foot of these allegations, none that would be prosecuted in a court of law. Now the court of public opinion, that’s a different matter, I’m afraid his goose is cooked there, judgment has been passed. He’s been found out for his shitty creepy behaviour. The whole thing leaves a bad smell hanging around his band now, regardless of whether any crimes have been committed or prosecutions follow never mind legal guilt. So all talk of innocent til proven guilty is irrelevant.
  8. Originally posted by RUMMY:Hmmm. I dunno if allowing an accused teacher to continue working in a classroom with children is quite the same as a rock start who is up on stage, separated by about 20 metres from the attendees.
    Of course it’s the same principle as innocent until proven guilty. If a teacher hasn’t been proven guilty then in the minds of people who use that saying (a few on here at least) then the teacher is innocent and therefore why shouldn’t an innocent accused teacher be allowed to teach kids? I don’t think he should but if we’re really going with the innocent until proven guilty example like people are using to defend still listening to arcade fire.
  10. There is a clear difference when working with vulnerable people, particularly when the alleged offence is against someone of that vulnerability. There are safeguarding measures for a reason.

    Almost as if Dean has returned with these bizarre arguments.
  11. Originally posted by iTim:There is a clear difference when working with vulnerable people, particularly when the alleged offence is against someone of that vulnerability. There are safeguarding measures for a reason.

    Almost as if Dean has returned with these bizarre arguments.
    Exactly. It’s not the same thing. Not even the same ballpark.
  12. Originally posted by celts84:[..]
    Of course it’s the same principle as innocent until proven guilty. If a teacher hasn’t been proven guilty then in the minds of people who use that saying (a few on here at least) then the teacher is innocent and therefore why shouldn’t an innocent accused teacher be allowed to teach kids? I don’t think he should but if we’re really going with the innocent until proven guilty example like people are using to defend still listening to arcade fire.
    Many parents would start pulling their kids from class. The whole “vulnerable” thing definitely rings true here.

    Edit: The accused teacher might be given some out of classroom job/task (and get paid… unions!) while the investigation occurs.