Of course you are 100% correct concerning  the role the CBC played in this.  In a recent unpleasantness I had with a former employer (which happily, I won) I was taken aback by my lawyer's use of the phrase "or should have known".  That put an onus I would never have suspected on my former employer. To extrapolate, I guess the CBC can't say, in effect, "How was I supposed to know?".   According to what I have read, and I've read a lot (Schadenfreude, anyone?), Ghomeshi had a reputation that even someone with the remotest connection to the hipster scene knew. Coast to coast, for frick's sake!   The CBC bloody well should have known! 

 I hope that someone launches an independant suit specifially aimed at the CBC, naming names. 

As for my Harper comment... well, sometimes hyperbole doesn't work.

   

 

You know, Irvine, it seems to me we're at this point:  Ghomeshi is done. Forever.  If it's only  because of the internet lynch mob doesn't really matter at this point. He'll never work in this business again.  In fact, I think he will find it hard to ever earn a living anywhere.  Is it fair?  No. Not until he ALSO does some jail time. I know, I know.  The  jury is still  out. Heck,  it hasn't even been convened yet.  But I'm a big subscriber to the "if it walks like a duck" school.  In my opinion the (granted) circumstantial evidence is too overwhelming; the trial will be a rubber stamp -- a necessary rubber stamp, but a mere formality all the same.  

( BTW some idiot columnist  is calling this "Ghomeshigate", alluding of course to an AMERICAN event of 40, count 'em, 40 years ago.  Thank God this person doesn't review movies.  They'd recommend seeing Brad Pitt's new movie because the acting is good, the story is good and it's a "talkie"! Are we that devoid of original thought in this country? Don't answer that.  Meanwhile I'm just waiting for the latest on Magnottagate.)

Now... the CBC    We are agreed they have a LOT to answer for.  I expect the "casting couch" mentality to exist in private broadcasting.  I expect it, but I NEVER in my many years in private broadcasting saw evidence of it. Nor did I hear whisperings of it.  And you know how gossipy people in the business are.  I don't however expect  it in the CBC where there are highly paid executives specifically assigned to police workplace environments.  One of the titles, if I remember correctly is Vice President of People fer crissakes!   Probably at $175,000, a corner office and 2 admin-assistants. If I were CBC boss Hubert Lacroix, my first question to this guy on Monday morning  would have been, "How did you get us into this mess? You're fired!"  And he would be only the first.  The Q brand is so tarnished the show can't continue. It should have been blown up the moment Ghomeshi was fired if the CBC had any decency.  It was cringe-inducing to hear poor Brent Bamberry reading that weasly script last Monday.    And when it finally meets its demise everyone with any authority (anyone with the word "producer" in their title)  should be fired with cause for ading and abetting. 

From all accounts, rumours about Ghomeshi have been circulating for 20 years.  There was a jungle telegraph among women even then.  The point is when  CBC was considering him as a host for "Play", not one person said, "Well, he comes with a lot of baggage. Do we want to take a chance on that?"   Damn straight they did!   And it morphed into one of the primo gigs in the world.  Talk about malice, aforethought!

There should be an immediate probe into the CBC's handling of this since the days of "Play".  It should not involve anyone connected to the CBC in any way. None of the usual suspects etiher. That means you Ralston Saul, et al.