She's just after them in her bank account...
#freekesha
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
She's just after them in her bank account...
M neither, have no idea who this woman is, probably on Towie or something as banal.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2006
- Posts
- 5,786
Stuff like this will eventually bring about the demise of western civilisation, not ISIS.
All bar one of those reasons rules out getting as much publicity as possible about it. The only reason that doesn't is massive police corruption (or an incorrect belief in that corruption).
Without any proof of wrongdoing (and we live in a system of innocent until proven guilty, as it should be) accusations alone are not a basis for undoing a contract to which she signed herself. Things would be different if there was concrete evidence - but there is none. These are all allegations. Is Kesha telling the truth because she is Kesha? Well, that's not how the law works, and the Judge's hands were tied.
Furthermore, Sony has given concessions to Kesha - she can work with another producer if she wants to. She rejects this because she has the assumption that SONY won't promote her music unless she works with Mr. Pete. If that is the case, she has the option of finishing up the remaining albums super quick (with minimal effort) and then getting on with her life, and it being a lesson to her to not sign contracts that put her in these kinds of positions. She's not being thrown right back into the Lion's den with this concession, which is another reason the judge voted in the way he did.
Unfortunately, evidence is the way the law works - no matter who you are, your word vs their word will not hold up, nor should it ever.
Furthermore, Sony has given concessions to Kesha - she can work with another producer if she wants to. She rejects this because she has the assumption that SONY won't promote her music unless she works with Mr. Pete. If that is the case, she has the option of finishing up the remaining albums super quick (with minimal effort) and then getting on with her life, and it being a lesson to her to not sign contracts that put her in these kinds of positions. She's not being thrown right back into the Lion's den with this concession, which is another reason the judge voted in the way he did.
Unfortunately, evidence is the way the law works - no matter who you are, your word vs their word will not hold up, nor should it ever.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,767
- Location
- Auckland
So, in short - Reddit/MRA is the best way to deal with people we don't like?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2002
- Posts
- 21,298
- Location
- North Yorkshire
STAND AND BANG!
Standard OcUK response to a thread about anybody remotely famous
John40, in the time it took you to post those two responses (firstly telling us you don't know who this is, secondly telling us you don't know who this is, just in case anybody mistakenly believed you know who it is?) you could have just Googled "Kesha" and found plenty of answers.
Haha!
Standard OcUK response to a thread about anybody remotely famous
John40, in the time it took you to post those two responses (firstly telling us you don't know who this is, secondly telling us you don't know who this is, just in case anybody mistakenly believed you know who it is?) you could have just Googled "Kesha" and found plenty of answers.
this is John40 though, he's clearly way too superior to know these common people. Or read newspapers. Or watch TV. Or not live under a rock. Or tell the truth and go "oh her", damaging this image that he's some kind of superior being from the upper echelons of society.
This is Kesha:
Last edited:
I read the article in the Guardian about this. Rape is a serious issue and especially problematic because it's very hard to prove. Especially because most rape isn't the "stranger in an alley" stereotype, but typically happens between people who know each other and may even be colleagues or casual friends. That said, you can't throw out presumption of innocence or start ruling on separate issues based on allegations.
The Guardian article stated that she should be excused from her contract with the company because of an allegation which didn't go anywhere and which she didn't support under oath. Sony already offered to provide someone else for her to work with which they are under no obligation to do but was a positive response from them.
I'm a feminist. That means opposing sexual discrimination. It doesn't mean protesting illogically against "white males". Unfortunately, which of the groups we belong to doesn't have people who just want to "get even" against everyone else? Males, females, religions, orientations, nationalities... Wherever groups get defined, someone appears to regard it as a side in a war creating division at every opportunity. What good does it do to hold up a sign complaining about "white males"? Are they implying Black males or Arabic males aren't equally capable of sexism (because I can tell you for a fact that in most Middle Eastern countries, sexism is normal and deeply unpleasant)? Are they implying that all white males are sexist? Because I can tell you for a fact that most of the white males I know are fine. So why make generic, wide-ranging attacks like that?
Sexism, racism, whatever. All the -isms come down to judging people by some arbitrary group rather than them as an individual. Making an attack on "white males" is just as sexist as making an attack on "white females" and just as wrong - and I am happy to say that as someone who has been a feminist for longer than any of the people in that photo have been.
Things like this bring out the worst from all sides. You get "feminists" going on the warpath against "white males", you get misogynists placing the blame on a woman's looks or using it as an excuse to attack feminists, and reasonable people (the majority) are left getting poor impressions of both "sides". Really what it comes down to is some people feeling they don't have power, attacking anyone they consider to be in power. Just a desire to "get even" at whoever they think is the ruling conspiracy of society. And they'll suborn any legitimate cause to do so.
The Guardian article stated that she should be excused from her contract with the company because of an allegation which didn't go anywhere and which she didn't support under oath. Sony already offered to provide someone else for her to work with which they are under no obligation to do but was a positive response from them.
I'm a feminist. That means opposing sexual discrimination. It doesn't mean protesting illogically against "white males". Unfortunately, which of the groups we belong to doesn't have people who just want to "get even" against everyone else? Males, females, religions, orientations, nationalities... Wherever groups get defined, someone appears to regard it as a side in a war creating division at every opportunity. What good does it do to hold up a sign complaining about "white males"? Are they implying Black males or Arabic males aren't equally capable of sexism (because I can tell you for a fact that in most Middle Eastern countries, sexism is normal and deeply unpleasant)? Are they implying that all white males are sexist? Because I can tell you for a fact that most of the white males I know are fine. So why make generic, wide-ranging attacks like that?
Sexism, racism, whatever. All the -isms come down to judging people by some arbitrary group rather than them as an individual. Making an attack on "white males" is just as sexist as making an attack on "white females" and just as wrong - and I am happy to say that as someone who has been a feminist for longer than any of the people in that photo have been.
Things like this bring out the worst from all sides. You get "feminists" going on the warpath against "white males", you get misogynists placing the blame on a woman's looks or using it as an excuse to attack feminists, and reasonable people (the majority) are left getting poor impressions of both "sides". Really what it comes down to is some people feeling they don't have power, attacking anyone they consider to be in power. Just a desire to "get even" at whoever they think is the ruling conspiracy of society. And they'll suborn any legitimate cause to do so.
Last edited:
to be fair she's hardly a superstar.