|
Super No Vacancy posted:the thing about just making a list of names is you just get this onslaught of names and then there are people who are accused of being serial rapists next to people whose allegations appear to be like, inappropriate DM sliding with adults. and then just the quantity of people becomes overwhelming and people cant keep up with the degree of severity and it makes it easier for the really bad actors to minimize their behavior The other issue you have is that one of the lists being shared around is getting PM stories from people that they've been asked to keep anonymous (100% fair enough; no problems with that) and then adding their names to their list without any context as to why they are on there. Like Zack Sabre is on that list and when asked why (which is I think a fair question: just in case you've missed something) and the reply is "we received a DM" with no other details and when the list contains a whole scale of things from rapists and paedophiles (which is irredeemable) to people who based on what we know have slid into DMs in an inappropriate way (I think that's all the Tyler Bate stuff at this point?) and you have no idea where on the scale he fits. I'm not saying the guy is innocent (we cannot say and you believe victims) but I think that if you are grouping someone in a long list of people its only fair to give a little bit of context.
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
People will focus on the name in that Jetta story but the actual content is scary: it shows the harm that the toxic culture that's present can have on how the victims see the situation. CW for sexual assault; grooming stuff: She was asked as a child to go have sex with the foreign wrestler who'd said "I like her" as if it was her duty and her thought apparently was "oh I better not disappoint. That's loving messed up: and it shows the massive cultural issues there were, and still are, in British wresting. Brian Dixon was the main booker of women's wrestling from the 1970s until quite recently as well so there's potentially many, many victims there. This isn't one of those situations where there are a few bad eggs you sack: there are deep, cultural issues and unless those are addressed as well the next generation will be told that this stuff is all OK and it'll repeat itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
One thing that someone mentioned on twitter: when you look at the dudes who seem to be the most vocal about the Speaking Out stuff in terms of amplifying voices and trying to help people: its the next generation mostly. Dan Moloney, who's been the loudest voice, is only 23: Joe Nelson has been vocal as well and he's loving seventeen years old: still basically a child. I don't think his age is public but Michael Oku surely isn't that old either; and he's there taking on a management role in Progress now. Hell the main person leading the push overall is Sierra Luxton and she's only 21. This can be seen in two ways: hopefully its evidence that the next generation have a load of good eggs in it and that if they get into positions of power and responsibility things will get better: but also an indictment on the previous generation that with a few exceptions (Pete Dunne ought to be mentioned as one of them) they've been silent and almost forced them into these leadership positions rather than doing what veterans should do if they were clear in themselves that they were innocent.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 13:27
|
|
|
Gatoh Move did look Joji Otani but that's before his stuff came out and he's not worked since so possibly they didn't know about him being a nonce - hopefully that remains to be the case.STAC Goat posted:But in light of all this it seems like Ryan either lies to himself with all that public stuff or he's intentionally using it as cover for his private poo poo. And I personally feel a little lovely for buying in and advancing it. This is the thing with abusers: often they tend to be charismatic people that can convince others to overlook red flags or buy into fake versions of them. They don't just manipulate their victims: they also manipulate everyone else to not see the obvious and to make sure that if their victims do try to confide in others that people are less likely to believe them. I'm pretty sure the stuff he said about his act being progressive or whatever was a cover - wouldn't be the first time that someone tried to use issues like that to get public support. Also shows why we shouldn't entirely trust claims made by wrestlers about their own personal beliefs - same lesson we can learn from David Starr.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
The Cabana thing is 100% a situation where we need to hear his side of the story or for someone else to speak out before we can say anything about him - what precisely did he say about whoever it was (second hand story through Jetta; at least I don't think it was her); was it a thing he casually said without knowing someone's age which would be lovely in a scene where people under 18 were around but possibly a sign of ignorance or was it a more active thing - or hell did he say anything at all: in the story she'll told that by a promoter who was a predator himself so who knows if that actually was something said to him and not just some invention. Not something you can end someone's career over by any means. The Joey Ryan thing does reveal the inherent consent issues in spots like the stuff he used to do and personally I'm fine if they go in the bin forever. Like in a dream world you'd have a situation where before anyone was booked against someone like that they'd give their consent and if they didn't the match wouldn't happen or they'd not do that stuff but when you have power imbalances like you had there (Ryan being a somewhat major indy star) then its much harder for someone to have said no since that might have harmed their future bookings or even cost them a spot on that show if the only reason they were contacted was to wrestle Joey Ryan. There are probably ways you could do it correctly but like its such a tricky balance that I don't know I think anything should try.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 08:50
|
|
|
Dacap posted:Does Quack still train with WWE? Wasn’t he doing some stuff with Bliss at the PC? As far I'm aware those were only guest training deals rather than him being signed
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
My take on the training people under 18 thing is that in an ideal world training to be a pro wrestler isn't any worse than other sports which people that age play and so on that basis provided its done properly (more on this later) then it should be fine. We let 14 year olds play full contact Rugby which has high risk of injuries and also risk of concussions; in America kids play American Football which is a very bad sport for things like that - to go for a slightly different example kids do gymnastics from a very very young age and elite gymnasts are done by the time they are in their early 20s because gymnastics does such a toll to their body that by that age they are already physically declining; and a lot of gymnasts get some very serious injuries at very young ages because of the physical rigour of the sport. In order to ban pro wrestling training on safety grounds then you'd have to ban those things as well. The key thing though is in a dream world and clearly pro wrestling in the US and especially the UK has proven itself entirely unable to regulate itself in that way and so there the rule should be to ban it. The only way that kids should train is if they train with a place that meets basic standards and is something regulated to ensure that they continue to meet those standards. The head trainer and anyone who goes anywhere near someone under 18 should be disclosure checked and vetted in other ways to ensure safety, you should have a separate class for under 18s unless you are willing to do those checks on every student at your school (which would be very expensive), ideally you should also gender split as well but that isn't always practical and in a real sports context at low levels you will get co-ed coaching at times and provided that the rules are followed and its monitored closely its fine. Schools should have a safeguarding officer to ensure that these rules are followed and also should have some sort of way that students could complain (ideally anonymously) if things are going wrong with some sort of investigative process to check those complaints. Ideally you'd also have some sort of regulatory system as well - other sports do. Very unlikely that a lot of this (especially the latter) will happen though. However I think its a little dodgy when people use failings in those countries and assume that they are universal when we don't really know. Kids under 18 are regularly trained in Japan and Mexico and while there are 100% skeletons in the closet in those places as far as I'm aware no evidence has come out of any sort of substantial sexual abuse of minors within wrestling schools in those countries and so assuming that it exists by default isn't something I like. If abuse does exist and we learn about it I'll change my position but without it its not something I'm against - although very young kids wrestling is still very odd and honestly they're probably better off doing some shoot martial arts thing and transitioning into wrestling later on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheMadKurt/status/1301089413695451137?s=20 thank you PWI very cool
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2020 12:11
|
|
|
Some shitbag indie will book Ryan but no one prominent will: and I suspect that after its proven that he's not a draw those bookings might dry up. Starr I'm less sure of: he's legitimately vanished and that might be an attempt to just disappear from the public eye but he might also try to sneak back in a couple of years. Probably more risk of him getting back into more prominent spots than Ryan but I think its highly unlikely either way.Breitbart Is Rightbart posted:Between this and Sid Scala, how is it legal for these loving jack offs to sue their victims Its legal for them to do it for the same reason that its legal for someone that genuinely lost income through genuine defamation to sue the people that made whatever allegations caused it: the court case theoretically is the place where who's in the wrong would be decided and there's no real way to prevent bad people from suing people in this way that wouldn't also lock people out from suing people that have wronged them. Some states have anti-SLAPP laws that are designed to try and root out this sort of case where people are using the courts to intimidate and silence people by suing them for things that the plaintiff knows won't win in court but there aren't Federal versions of those and this is in Federal court - but those don't make this sort of thing illegal: it just speeds up the process and ensures that there's a basic standard that cases like this have to meet before they actually go into the system. I'd love it if there's a way where you could cut out the cases that are obvious attempts at harassment before they get anywhere but in order to do that you sort of need to have a fair hearing to consider things.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
The word "female" used like that always makes me feel weird since its not wrong but generally only used by a certain type of person in my experience. But yeah that's a perfectly fair point: and I think that its always good to be a bit sceptical of companies that use their ownership rather than their actions as a defence of things like that - or indeed companies that are very outspoken on social justice issues since that isn't a guarantee that they have their own house in order or that they believe those things. While there is a need in wrestling for more women in positions of power (promoters/bookers, things like that) just because you have a woman in a senior leadership position it doesn't mean that things are automatically going to be any better or that they are inherently better than any man would be. Look at the Speaking out stories around Saraya Knight for an example of that as well: she wasn't exactly very nice to a lot of people.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2020 12:37
|
|
|
There are a few but there are always a few - but a lot of it is not liking people talking about the accusations or stating their opinion of Will Ospreay as a person. The tweet that got the Stardom English social media person going on about social media abuse of Bea was a tweet that was incredibly obviously a tweet about Bea Priestley, heel wrestler and not Bea Priestley the person (and really sad since they've had two wrestlers retire over getting abuse on social media from Japanese fans and the support they seemed to get from the company to address it seemed to be incredibly limited yet they'll apparently try to stop people tweeting storyline negativity about Bea) and I think there's also a bit of that as well: and will be in the future now that he's also a heel.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2020 02:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 04:48 |
|
|
Red is Dead posted:So the U.K. parliament has rendered a decision, following an enquiry after the “metro allegations. It included some pro wrestlers on the committee, providing real world examples. Its worth clarifying what exactly this is: since its not really "parliament rendering a decision" and while its an important development I've seen its importance be exaggerated. There was an all-party parliamentary group for Pro Wrestling formed a couple of years ago now: an APPG is an informal group featuring MPs from across parliament that have a common area of interest: there are All-Party groups representing Christianity or Humanism or Homelessness or a litany of areas. They don't have a formal legislative purpose: their role is to commission research on areas where Parliament could legislate on a certain area and to advocate for the interests of that community - a few years ago there was a scandal involving people involved with an APPG taking money from companies in that area and concern about the groups potentially being used to subvert lobbying rules and while that doesn't seem to be the case for the Pro Wrestling group it is worth keeping in mind that one of the main purposes of this group is to lobby in favour of the industry within Parliament. The report makes some very sensible policy suggestions: there's one where they mention bringing the Health and Safety Executive in to set minimum standards when it comes to safety of things like rings and other core parts of wrestling which are very logical, as would having a standard construction listed in the BSI that promoters had to follow. The stuff about shows being considered entertainment while training is sport is important because the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (which is mostly terrible and shouldn't pass) extends the duty of care provision when it comes to consent and sex to sports coaches and that would be the easiest way to protect young people from abuse - often these weird things that sound contradictory have legal purpose behind them. Also if it was designed as a sport they'd probably have to have some sort of licensing body like boxing and MMA have and, well look at my first point: that'd be expensive to promoters and this is a group designed to represent their interests. They also mention that the scene is incredibly divided and that you realistically need unity in order to get real change but, well, good luck with that one unless a lot of people go out of business. There are some negative parts to this: it doesn't really go into Speaking Out in any real detail (and in fact certain people with allegations against them are mentioned in a positive light in this thing); WWE weren't involved and I suspect they'd fight being subject to any additional restrictions and I don't know how viable a lot of the recommendations are. The next step relies on either the Government or Parliament to act - and realistically it has to be the former since Private Members Bills (legislation not initiated by the government but instead by a backbench MP) have an incredibly low chance of passing even if they are on something that's very popular since some arsehole Tory MP would probably filibuster them. I could see the government providing support on some of the technical changes that they suggest: things that would already be possible under current laws such as the HSE/BSI stuff on rings mentioned above: that's as simple as getting some civil servants to put together a standard probably with consultation from people in the industry. The fundamental issue though is that is as far as I think they'd go: anything that requires actual legislation would need the support of Government and I don't know how likely they are to legislate on stuff designed to protect an industry that's, well, not that went regarded in the general public. The Minister for Sport put out a "we welcome the report and want a strong wrestling industry" statement that they put out for everything but until I see actions I would suspect that this is as far as things are going. The other fundamental issue is the WWE thing: they would oppose anything that restricts them and would lobby against it and I suspect that lobbying would be incredibly successful at stopping any major change. Tl;dr: the report is important but I don't think you can take it as being a sign of there being any real change and other than the change currently going through Parliament I suspect you'll not see any new legislation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 20:05
|
|